Here's a question. No political agenda. Just curiosity about what people think.
What if an artist did a "take" on this iconic image represented here by Norman Rockwell but instead of the flanked and chaperoned child walking into school, it was a flanked and chaperoned Hillary walking into the White House with the word "bitch" written on the wall behind her, the wall of the White House in her case?
It seems to me that according to a key narrative in the political environment, it would be an apt comparison. Someone entering an environment of power/empowerment she has no right to occupy by virtue of who and what she is (black and/or female). When these boundaries break, it is always with violence or its threat (note slur on wall), and requires the force of the state to implement.
Or, would such a depiction be considered disrespectful to this civil rights achievement and the iconic image that represents it because these two things are not analogous? Is the racism that kept people of color from an education something "more real" or weighty than the sexism that wants to keep Clinton from the Presidency?
Is one real and one a narrative? Are both real but one a greater crime of bias and prejudice and 'ism-ness than the other? Would the images represent the same crime practiced in two environments on a different "people" and are moral equivalents?