Two fried chicken restaurants in New York, one in Harlem, one in Brownsville, Brooklyn, renamed their stores recently after the newly elected 44th president. And, as you might expect, there was immediate backlash against both Obama Fried Chickens. The reason, of course, relates the old stereotype that African-Americans unreasonably over-enjoy fried chicken, and eat it more than any other ethnic group. By naming their eateries after the first black president, protesters believe that these restaurants are making an unfair and racist connection, and are calling the owners of the stores, the employees, and the chicken racists and perpetrators of racial insensitivity. The owners of both restaurants decided to change the name, then decided to stick with the President’s surname, and decided to change it again, and then to keep it, and so on.
Unfortunately, what I see these protests, not the names themselves, accomplishing is bringing that particular racial stereotype to light. What I mean by that is that if it weren’t for the public outcry, the media attention, etc, these restaurants could go on being fried chicken restaurants named after a so far beloved US President.
To further explain, this naming and it’s subsequent controversy parallels the US Governments covering of Pablo Picasso’s Guernica in 2003. When Colon Powell appeared before the UN in 2003 to deliver a speech about why America must go to war with Iraq, government officials covered the tapestry reproduction of Picasso’s famous painting witch hangs in the UN’s main hall with a blue sheet. “Guernica is a mural, 11 feet 6 inches high and 25 feet 8 inches wide, which commemorates the aerial bombardment—and obliteration—of the ancient Basque town of 5,000 inhabitants by German and Italian squadrons on April 26, 1937,” and is a general anti-war statement.
The veiling of the painting was done so as not to remind the members of the UN of the travesties and horrors of war. What it did instead, as Slavoj Zizek explains in his book How to Read Lacan, was the opposite. By covering the tapestry, which always hangs in that spot, the newly created lack actually brought attention to what was under the sheet. Of course, we can’t know if those present wouldn’t have looked up above Powell, seen the screaming black and white horse, and thought, “my god, we can’t go to war,” but what we can know is that by hiding it, the new blankness did call attention to what was normally behind the curtain, reminding everyone that yes, Guernica is there, and yes, it shows women dying from falling bombs. From this action, a presence is created from the void; something from nothing (which I could go on and on about, as some of you know). Afterward, anti-war demonstrators used Picasso’s image in demonstrations against the Iraq war. Do you think they would have used it if the image hadn’t been covered up? I don’t.
Do we see a similar situation in the protests against the Obama’s Chicken Shack? It’s more of a stretch, for sure, but I think the reasoning still applies. Through the protests and news reports all that’s accomplished is a metaphorical waving of a banner reading “Black People Love Fried Chicken!” If you didn’t know this was a stereotype, you do now. So, while we’re at it let’s rename Brownsville, Brooklyn, home of Obama Fried Chicken. That’s probably a racist name too, right? Does writing this make me a racist? Probably.
(totally random side note: Spell check wants to change Guernica to Copernican)
