27
   

Is This Cartoon Racist?

 
 
maporsche
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 Feb, 2009 04:40 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
I don't KNOW if the artist did or not. I have no proof that he did. Neither do you or anyone else.

Is is possible? Sure.

But people aren't saying "It's possible that the cartoon is racist." They are saying that it's a fact that the cartoon is racist. A "fact" that has no supporting evidence/
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 23 Feb, 2009 04:43 pm
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:
Of course, you've never seen me, so you aren't in a position to say. I did see the image you posted of yourself early one morning, before you reverted to the goofy avatar you use now--there couldn't be a greater contrast. One wonders if you wish you didn't look as you do, and would prefer to look like the clown whose picture you use.

Oh, but I have seen pictures of you, Set ... and since you apparently want to discuss photos, I can confirm that you are or were a sloppy, fat ass. You are certainly in no great position to cast slurs concerning one's physical appearance.

You are so stupid as to think the photo you believe to be of me -- which I posted as my avatar one morning -- was in fact of me. It was not. I don't recall with whom I was A2K'ing that morning, but in the middle of that exchange I posted that photo having found it via a google search for "ticomaya." I can find it no longer, otherwise I'd post it right now. I didn't leave it up very long, but you have gloried ever since in thinking you saw the "real" Ticomaya -- some pony-tail wearing, dope-smoking party boy. I also posted an image of Nicholas Cage as my avatar for less than a day several years back. Do you suppose I'm actually Nick Cage?

Quote:
As for your descent in to deeper name calling, that doesn't surprise me, since you don't seem interested in discussing your dishonesty.

My descent into "deeper" name calling? You're the king of that. And I've noticed you don't seem interested in discussing the fact that you're a dumbass.
Ticomaya
 
  0  
Reply Mon 23 Feb, 2009 04:43 pm
@Linkat,
Linkat wrote:
And anyone with intelligence would be able to reason this out.

Yes ... anyone with intelligence ought to be able to reason this out.
0 Replies
 
maporsche
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 Feb, 2009 04:45 pm
@snood,
Well snood, you don't post here all that often anymore (at least on political subjects) and when you do choose to post, they are usually on racially charged topics, so yes, I'd say this does support my hypothesis.

I don't know if you abstained at all. This could have been the first time you read this topic for all I know. I can only go off of what you choose to post, and quite a few of your posts are on racially related issues (at least quite a few of your political posts).

I have noticed that you are always of the opinion that something racist is in fact happening. I've never seen (from what I recall) you not see racism in any of these topics. Some are overtly racist so, of course, I don't expect you to defend those (nor do I), but on these issues where there is some room for interpretation, you always seem to see the racism side.
0 Replies
 
maporsche
 
  0  
Reply Mon 23 Feb, 2009 04:46 pm
@Linkat,
So, I'm dishonest (per Set's post) and of little intelligence (per yours).

Got it.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  0  
Reply Mon 23 Feb, 2009 05:12 pm
@Linkat,
Suppose that I concede that the cartoonist should have been aware. The question remains whether he should have tailored his cartoon in light of that awareness or he should have treated the situation exactly as he would have treated it if Barack Obama was blond and blue eyed.

Question #1: Earlier today I posted a sampling of cartoons of George Bush portrayed as a chimp. What do you think the cartoonists intended with those portrayals? GWB is an African American? He's as "monkey-like as a black person?"....IF....we go with the theory that anybody with political savvy would know what a cartoon chimpanzee means. . . .or were they suggesting that GWB has the mentality or persona of a chimpanzee?

Question #2: Asking again:
So what is more racist do you think? To be aware of and avoid anything that even might remotely be construed as racist or racially tinged or racially implicated when discussing anything the President is involved in? Or to treat the President exactly as you (rhetorical 'you') would treat anybody in his position?

Question #3: The following is a political cartoon. Is it racist?
http://www.everydaycartoon.com/images/panel_042805.jpg

Quote:
BEST OF THE WEB TODAY
FEBRUARY 20, 2009, 3:10 P.M. ET
White Cower
If Eric Holder is serious, he'll say a word in defense of the New York Post.
By JAMES TARANTO

Attorney General Eric Holder ruffled some few feathers Wednesday, when he gave a Black History Month speech in which he described America as "a nation of cowards" when it comes to "things racial":

Though race related issues continue to occupy a significant portion of our political discussion, and though there remain many unresolved racial issues in this nation, we, average Americans, simply do not talk enough with each other about race. It is an issue we have never been at ease with and given our nation's history this is in some ways understandable. And yet, if we are to make progress in this area we must feel comfortable enough with one another, and tolerant enough of each other, to have frank conversations about the racial matters that continue to divide us.

We are inclined to disagree with Holder's suggestion that everyday life is impoverished by an insufficiency of "frank conversations" about racial subjects. Often it is just plain sensible to put aside "matters that continue to divide us" and focus on common purposes or interests. What Holder desires sounds nightmarish to us: a cross between "No Exit" and "All in the Family," with none of the latter's wit.

Still, there is a grain of truth to Holder's infelicitous description of America as "a nation of cowards." The subject of race does make people uneasy, and for reasons that go beyond common sense and courtesy. An incident on the same day as Holder's speech illustrates the problem.

On Wednesday the New York Post published a cartoon by Sean Delonas depicting a pair of policemen and a the bullet-riddled body of a chimpanzee. As one of the cops holds a smoking gun, the other says, "They'll have to find someone else to write the next stimulus bill."

Reuters describes what happened next:

Hundreds of demonstrators rallied to boycott the New York Post on Thursday, branding the newspaper as racist for publishing a cartoon that appeared to compare President to a chimpanzee.

Demonstrators led by civil rights activist Al Sharpton chanted "End racism now!" outside the parent company's skyscraper in midtown Manhattan and called for the jailing of Rupert Murdoch, whose international media conglomerate News Corp owns the Post. . . .

Because Obama promoted the $787 billion economic stimulus that he signed into law on Tuesday, critics of the cartoon interpreted the dead chimp as a reference to Obama, who became the first black U.S. president on January 20. . . .

"You would have to be in a time warp or in a whole other world not to know what that means," said demonstrator Charles Ashley, 25, a model who did not believe the cartoon was an innocent political joke.

Others said it made light of assassinating Obama, a possibility they said that worries many African-Americans.

Here we should note that News Corp. also owns The Wall Street Journal and this Web site. The Post is standing its ground, declaring in an editorial today:

To those who were offended by the image, we apologize.

However, there are some in the media and in public life who have had differences with The Post in the past--and they see the incident as an opportunity for payback.

To them, no apology is due.

The claim that the cartoon was a racist caricature of President Obama is awfully far-fetched. It played off a news item involving an actual chimp (a story with which we are thoroughly bored, so click here if you want to learn more about it). The president did not write the stimulus bill; indeed, he has been widely criticized for giving congressional Democrats too free a hand in crafting it. And anyone who is familiar with Delonas's surrealistic oeuvre knows that he is an equal-opportunity offender. His work is in the spirit of "South Park," not Stepin Fetchit.

All that notwithstanding, some will say that Delonas should have known better. We see their point, and we remember thinking a couple of years ago, upon seeing the umpteenth simian caricature of George W. Bush, that nobody had better do that if Sen. Obama becomes president. We were aware that that would constitute an invidious stereotype, in a way that it did not when the president was a person of pallor.

But what if someone is unaware of this? Suppose that a columnist or cartoonist is so innocent of racial prejudice that he has never even thought to make a connection between black people and lower primates? Such a person would be a racial kerfuffle waiting to happen. The moment he inadvertently employed an idea or image that carried offensive connotations, he would be pilloried as "insensitive."

Consider the paradox: Racial "sensitivity" requires not eradicating racial stereotypes but keeping them alive--and not only keeping them alive but remaining acutely conscious of them at all times. Delonas and his editors are under attack for seeing "chimp" and failing to think "black guy." Perhaps this is an editorial failing, but it is certainly not a moral one.

Which brings us back to Eric Holder. If Americans are shy about discussing race, a big reason is the culture of intimidation promoted by people like Al Sharpton in the name of racial sensitivity. "Frank discussion" requires a willingness to trust that one's interlocutor is acting
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123514880910734301.html#printMode


Linkat
 
  2  
Reply Mon 23 Feb, 2009 05:26 pm
@Foxfyre,
"The question remains whether he should have tailored his cartoon in light of that awareness or he should have treated the situation exactly as he would have treated it if Barack Obama was blond and blue eyed"

That is not for me to answer - I am not saying what is right or wrong here/I'm not making a moral opinion. I'm just saying this cartoonist isn't stupid - he knew what he was doing and meant to raise racial noise. Whether it was to cause good debate or to be racist I don't know. My opinion was pure greedy money and make his name known.

I do doubt though he would have used the monkey situation if Obama was blond and blue eyed. Maybe he would have, but he sure knows that with Obama being black he got more bang for the buck.
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 Feb, 2009 05:32 pm
@Linkat,
Well as somebody....I think it was Tico....pointed out, it isn't exactly a promotional bell ringer to intentionally bring the wrath of the PC police down on you even if you do work for the NY Post.

To me it is just as wrong to accuse somebody of racism without evidence of racist intent as it is to be racist. The way I see it, and as Taranto pointed out, the more we nurse such unsubstantiated racial 'sensitivity' instead of just allowing people to be people because they're people, the longer racism will be in everybody's mind and the longer it will take for us to get past it culturally. But that's just me.
kickycan
 
  3  
Reply Mon 23 Feb, 2009 05:47 pm
@Foxfyre,
Foxfyre wrote:

Well as somebody....I think it was Tico....pointed out, it isn't exactly a promotional bell ringer to intentionally bring the wrath of the PC police down on you even if you do work for the NY Post.

To me it is just as wrong to accuse somebody of racism without evidence of racist intent as it is to be racist.


Yes, I saw your wonderful ethics about this kind of situation on full display when you were bitching for three days about Obama's lipstick on a pig comment during the campaign. I remember him saying that he was talking about McCain's policies, but you were convinced that he was calling Sarah Palin a pig. I guess that's different though. Funny how you didn't give him the benefit of the doubt, but when it's a right wing rag, you run to their defense.

I wonder why that is...
0 Replies
 
Linkat
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 Feb, 2009 05:50 pm
@Foxfyre,
The one thing I agree on though is that sometimes things are a bit oversensitive. To me I don't think this warrants the PC police, but I do think it is racist or at the very least has racist implications .

But the initial question asked is this racist? And my first reaction - of course it is.

I try not to make moral judgements on others (not always successful of course). So I am not saying they should not be allowed to post this cartoon - I don't like it, but then I don't like the NYPost anyway and wouldn't read it so I wouldn't have known this without this post here any way.
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 Feb, 2009 05:53 pm
@Foxfyre,
Foxfyre wrote:

Quote:
BEST OF THE WEB TODAY
FEBRUARY 20, 2009, 3:10 P.M. ET

By JAMES TARANTO
Delonas and his editors are under attack for seeing "chimp" and failing to think "black guy."




that's a bit disingenuous.

More people (posting here and elsewhere) seem to be of the opinion that Delonas and his editors saw chimp/thought black guy and are being dishonest by not admitting it. IMNSHO, neither Delonas nor his editors are as stupid as Taranto is suggesting.

Foxfyre
 
  0  
Reply Mon 23 Feb, 2009 05:57 pm
@ehBeth,
How do you KNOW he's being disingenuous? Because YOU think 'black guy' when you see a chimp? I didn't think 'black guy' or Obama when I first saw that cartoon, so Taranto's take on it is entirely plausible to me.
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 Feb, 2009 06:22 pm
@Ticomaya,
This is typical of you . . . god help anyone who retains you as a lawyer. In fact, i cast no slurs on you based on your appearance. And, as it happens, there have been no photos of me posted here which would warrant a description of me being "beady eyed," if for no other reason than that none posted here had sufficient resolution.

You show your true rhetorical skill when you make the comments about me that you've posted here. You really have no argument, so you fling vitriol. It's part and parcel with what passes for your character here, and it's part and parcel of the low brow behavior we can expect from the right.

Once again, you sink deeper into name calling--and, as i pointed out, i made no slurs against you based on appearance. I just noted that you don't match your avatar picture (i'm not buying your song and dance). Of course, you may so avidly wish to look like the Governator that you consider it an insult to be told that you don't.
Cycloptichorn
 
  2  
Reply Mon 23 Feb, 2009 06:31 pm
Imagine a comic where a bunch of ghosts in white sheets were chasing a bunch of monkeys around, with an ironic comment about some topical news piece.

When people pointed out the inevitable racial symbolism, would you bunch be oh so shocked that anyone could possibly see anything offensive in it?

There are figures and pictures which are unfortunately associated with racial politics in our country. To pretend that these figures and pictures do not is ridiculous. To pretend that a political artist and a newspaper editor wouldn't take one look at this picture and say, 'gee, do you think people might think this is racist?' Idiocy. Of course, that's exactly what they thought.

They just knew there was a plausible excuse. They knew that they could rely on people like you guys to defend them. It's how the modern quasi-racist operates: put out some racially tinged material, get people to react, and then attack them for reacting, accusing them of racism for noticing what the artist and paper were originally intending to do - rile people up with race baiting.

Each one of you who is defending this guy and this paper should be ******* ashamed of yourselves. Quit playing dumb and act like grownups, jeez.

Cycloptichorn
kickycan
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 Feb, 2009 06:37 pm
@Foxfyre,
Foxfyre wrote:

How do you KNOW he's being disingenuous?


I don't know, how did you KNOW that Obama was being disingenuous when he explained what he meant when he made the lipstick/pig comment during the campain?
0 Replies
 
maporsche
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 Feb, 2009 06:59 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Take your moral igdination and shove it up your ass Cyclops. Foxy posted something and highlighted it in red a few posts ago. I'd be curious to know your thoughts on that.
0 Replies
 
kickycan
 
  3  
Reply Mon 23 Feb, 2009 07:18 pm
while defending Sarah Palin's honor back on the campaign trail, Foxfyre wrote:

You say
Quote:
Watching the video it is impossible to think the phrase was directed at Palin in such a way that he was calling Palin a pig.


Not impossible at all since the same video very clearly shows that the audience absolutely took it as a shot at Palin. And they liked it. Obama could not have missed that and he should have corrected the misperception on the spot in no uncertain terms. He didn't. He allowed them to cheer and whoop and holler at the implication and while they were still doing that he finished the thought with the eight-year old stinky fish. And that makes him guilty despite no evidence of original intent.


Ah, I see...Obama's guilty of calling Palin a pig, but the innocent cartoonist and editors at the NY Post are beyond reproach and are actually the victims in this case. The words "TWO-FACED HYPOCRITE" come jumping to my mind for some reason.
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 Feb, 2009 07:35 pm
Kicky obviously thinks these are similar scenarios. They aren't. But he won't post the many times that I have defended Barack Obama or Bill Clinton when they have been quoted out of context or accused of saying something that they have not. Ah well. I suppose you can't expect honesty or fairness from everybody.
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 Feb, 2009 07:39 pm
@kickycan,
I really like it when people post similar scenarios. Well done.
maporsche
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 Feb, 2009 07:42 pm
@old europe,
OE, wouldn't it be a similar situation both ways?

I mean if Obama wasn't calling Palin a pig like the democrats had said, then isn't it possible that the cartoon didn't refer to Obama?

Personally, I didn't care about the Palin pig comment, and I don't care about the Chimp/Stimulus bill comment. I see hypocrisy though on both sides.
 

Related Topics

2016 moving to #1 spot - Discussion by gungasnake
Black Lives Matter - Discussion by TheCobbler
Racism? - Question by The UPS Man
Is 'colored people' offensive? - Question by SMickey
Obama’s Black Skin Privilege - Discussion by coldjoint
Obama, a Joke - Discussion by coldjoint
The Day Ferguson Cops Were Caught in a Bloody Lie - Discussion by bobsal u1553115
The ECHR and muslims - Discussion by Arend
Atlanta Race Riot 1906 - Discussion by kobereal24
Quote of the Day - Discussion by Tabludama
 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 01/26/2022 at 05:38:47