Burning questions, indeed.
On Tuesday, a portrait of Louisiana Republican Gov. Bobby Jindal got passed around like lightning fire as it made him look white as opposed to a mocha hue that comes with being the son of Indian immigrants.
At issue — eventually — was whether the picture was Jindal’s “official portrait” or not.
When a Louisiana blogger, Lamar White, reported that it was Jindal’s “official portrait,” the governor’s chief of staff Kyle Plotkin came unglued and accused him of race baiting. The picture of Jindal as a white man was apparently on loan to the governor from a constituent.
I asked Plotkin (who emailed me Tuesday night to tell me Mediaite had gotten it wrong, that the picture wasn’t his boss’s “official portrait”) a few questions: 1. Does this constituent know that Gov. Jindal’s parents are from India? 2. Why does he look white in that picture?
Plotkin never replied.
Excuse me, but shouldn’t the artist, constituent or not, be scolded for altering the hue of the governor’s skin? Or shouldn’t they simply refuse to hang a painting that doesn’t remotely resemble the governor? Go back to art class. There’s no room for codependence in a situation like this.
And how about that real “official portrait?”
Newsflash Plotkin: That one doesn’t look like the governor, either. In fact, some observers wondered why it makes Jindal look rather pink.
White’s original tweet that caused the uproar:
Delightfully, White was pretty flippant about the whole thing. As he should be, considering this wasn’t “race-baiting” at all. He questioned Plotkin’s weak claim on Twitter, noting, “Truth is: the ‘official’ portrait is whatever Jindal wants it to be. The one I posted hangs in Capitol.”
And this:
