racist cartoon? or not?

[bripat9643]

I would portray an American like this,would this be racist
View attachment 34482

Americans are all Orthodox Jews?

 

[Pogo]

It would be poignantly spot-on accurate. But it still wouldn't be making a case that either party was acting out of their race as a causation. That's why it can't be described as racist.

racism, to distinguish one race as inferior or superior to another race. Which race was portrayed with the hole in the shoe and why?

Are you serious? You're actually suggesting that if one has a hole in one's shoe it's a product of their race?? Do various races have different levels of shoes?

Call me crazy but far as I know a hole in the shoe means you've done more walking than shoe-buying. I can't see how that's related to race. I can see how it might be related to class, but that's not the question here.

It is there to demean the person, to show that in your country he is valueless. So the artist is claiming the superiority of the indigenous race.

Again, while the shoe-hole does designate a social class, there's no equation there to race --- even if "Mexican" were a race, which it isn't.

Is it not possible for a white, black, brown, yellow or red person to have a hole in his shoe, given a low social class? Of course it is. Shoe holes are in no way specific to race, color creed, gender or national origin. You don't have a hole in your shoe because you're brown. If that were the case there could be no rich brown people.

Does anyone, even in the stereotype, imagine that rich Mexicans are lining up to break the border? Of course not. Now apply that to any stereotype of the past: did Ellis Island see a stream immigrants because they were rich in Italy or Ireland or Poland? Did the West take in rich Chinese? Clearly race is not the commonality here; class is.

So yes the cartoon device of the shoe-hole is there to designate the "valueless" person. But nowhere does it claim that that is a result of his race.

Dear Pogo: I didn't even see whatever this hole in the shoe business is.
I saw the hat which is going to be associated with workers and day laborers.

Maybe it's because I live in Houston, and this issue of how to protect workers even though some are of illegal
status is prominent, and the City policy is to leave the federal laws to the Feds and not have the local police go there.
Houston is criticized as a sanctuary city for illegal labor and also drug and human trafficking, so I hear all the complaints.

Sure, if other people live in a region where it's the image of Middle Eastern terrorists in their minds first,
they might see that coming through the window.

Most people I know would ASSOCIATE the depiction of the people outside
with day laborers and Mexican workers, because that IS the ongoing stereotype, the most predominant issue people discuss.

So the Cartoon WAS drawn KNOWING it would trigger THAT association.
And the family inside is GOING to be associated with "White Middle Class"

That is going to be the first and strongest association because that is where the debate is focused in people's minds and the media. The cartoonist being experienced in politics KNEW how this would be taken, or should have known better, and deliberately drew it that way.

If the stereotypes weren't intended, they were certainly played upon, KNOWING that's what would be associated first with those images.
=============================================================
Pogo, when we were back in the day of Clinton, Lewinsky, and the whole scandal,
I saw a cartoon contest to come up with a caption for two men: one with grey hair who "could resemble" Bill Clinton, sitting across from someone who "looked like Fidel Castro" holding up a cigar. Nothing in that cartoon said Castro or Clinton,
but everyone knows that cigars are Associated with Cuba. It didn't say Cuba but the uniform on the man and the hat LOOKED like Castro's. Of Course people are going to make the leap and say it is picking on Clinton and the infamous cigar.

You can blame that on the audience for thinking that, but Clearly the cartoonist KNEW those associations were going to be made, even though NOTHING was stated at all, and the figures could be anyone. it was left to the viewers to come up with the caption.

Are you going to blame it on the viewers for interpreting that as Clinton and Castro? Just because nothing was stated?
clearly the intent of the cartoonist was to make those insinuations.

Maybe this cartoonist should have left it multiple choice, and let people pick which caption they wanted to read!
That way it would be their fault if they chose the stereotypical ones instead of the analytical alternatives you offer!

(incidentally the caption I posted for the cigar cartoon was "Look at what I bought on ebay. Signed by Lewinsky!"
Again, the two people could be anyone, and not necessarily Clinton and Castro, but it is funnier to think it was them.)

Emily -- implications are one thing, and they may be entirely clear without being overtly stated.

But that wasn't the question here. The question was whether the cartoon is "racist".
For racism to exist, there must be the belief/statement that one race is inferior to another. That is not in the cartoon's message, ergo the answer is "no". Even if "Mexican" were a race, no such statement is made here. It would have to in some way make the case that these people are barging into a Thanksgiving dinner specifically because they are of this "Mexican race" -- which is not suggested.

I too did not notice the hole in the shoe until some poster brought it up. That's why I answered the post -- the idea is absurd.

 

[Pogo]

Yeah, because you are stupid enough to think that the Amerindian tribes had immigration laws and policies.

Dear Jim: I see what you're saying. And who knows if the people inside the house are part Native American, Black or whatever.

but HONESTLY the cartoon is drawn for people to interpret by the most common associations.

Anyone can look at that and tell it is going to be interpreted as Latino's coming through the window
while the family inside is going to be interpreted as White.

What the cartoonist could have shown is the people, perhaps a church dinner of mixed company,
fighting over who is standing or skipping in line to get turkey dinner while the guests look dejected.
And in the background, gangs and traffickers with guns
are robbing the cash box and stealing all the money behind their backs while they're distracted.

So this would make a distinction between the problems with breaking the rules by nonviolent offenders,
which is still a problem and unfair to people who do things legally, like wait in line and don't overstay visas,
vs.
the violent dangerous offenders who are taking advantage of the backlog and the lack of consistent enforcement.

It is just a fucking cartoon, not a doctoral dissertation.

The left is crying 'racism!' at every turn. The NFL is racist, Charlie Brown is racist. JFK was racist. etc.

IT is all ideology based bull shit.

I think I would be more alarmed at the racial implication about white middle class.
To me, what stands out the most is to paint the stereotype of middle-class whites thinking that way!

That's true but there's no causal connection stated, i.e. there's no statement that "they think/act this way specifically because they are white". And that's why it's a cultural stereotype rather than racism.

OK you can call it a stereotype, that's close enough.
My point is the cartoonist knew the average audience is going to SEE that as White/Brown.
So it does play on RACIAL stereotypes, knowing that's going to be the reaction.

"Stereotyping" versus "racism" is an important distinction.

I don't know that there's any "white" or "brown" implied here. How do we know the ethnicity of any cartoon character, unless it's overtly drawn? What's the ethnicity of the family at dinner? How do we know they too are not "brown"?

Again, if such cartoon intends that the intruders be Mexican, fine, but I'm not aware that all Mexicans are the same color, let alone a race. I'm also not aware of an influx, whether real or imagined, of Mexican immigrants who are not of a lower socioeconomic class, whatever their color. And therein lies the real deal, because that's what they DO have in common. Not only with each other but with the vast majority of immigrants over the centuries.

Seems to me there are quite a few among us who confuse "racism" with what would properly be called "classism".

 

[emilynghiem]

racism, to distinguish one race as inferior or superior to another race. Which race was portrayed with the hole in the shoe and why?

Are you serious? You're actually suggesting that if one has a hole in one's shoe it's a product of their race?? Do various races have different levels of shoes?

Call me crazy but far as I know a hole in the shoe means you've done more walking than shoe-buying. I can't see how that's related to race. I can see how it might be related to class, but that's not the question here.

It is there to demean the person, to show that in your country he is valueless. So the artist is claiming the superiority of the indigenous race.

Again, while the shoe-hole does designate a social class, there's no equation there to race --- even if "Mexican" were a race, which it isn't.

Is it not possible for a white, black, brown, yellow or red person to have a hole in his shoe, given a low social class? Of course it is. Shoe holes are in no way specific to race, color creed, gender or national origin. You don't have a hole in your shoe because you're brown. If that were the case there could be no rich brown people.

Does anyone, even in the stereotype, imagine that rich Mexicans are lining up to break the border? Of course not. Now apply that to any stereotype of the past: did Ellis Island see a stream immigrants because they were rich in Italy or Ireland or Poland? Did the West take in rich Chinese? Clearly race is not the commonality here; class is.

So yes the cartoon device of the shoe-hole is there to designate the "valueless" person. But nowhere does it claim that that is a result of his race.

Dear Pogo: I didn't even see whatever this hole in the shoe business is.
I saw the hat which is going to be associated with workers and day laborers.

Maybe it's because I live in Houston, and this issue of how to protect workers even though some are of illegal
status is prominent, and the City policy is to leave the federal laws to the Feds and not have the local police go there.
Houston is criticized as a sanctuary city for illegal labor and also drug and human trafficking, so I hear all the complaints.

Sure, if other people live in a region where it's the image of Middle Eastern terrorists in their minds first,
they might see that coming through the window.

Most people I know would ASSOCIATE the depiction of the people outside
with day laborers and Mexican workers, because that IS the ongoing stereotype, the most predominant issue people discuss.

So the Cartoon WAS drawn KNOWING it would trigger THAT association.
And the family inside is GOING to be associated with "White Middle Class"

That is going to be the first and strongest association because that is where the debate is focused in people's minds and the media. The cartoonist being experienced in politics KNEW how this would be taken, or should have known better, and deliberately drew it that way.

If the stereotypes weren't intended, they were certainly played upon, KNOWING that's what would be associated first with those images.
=============================================================
Pogo, when we were back in the day of Clinton, Lewinsky, and the whole scandal,
I saw a cartoon contest to come up with a caption for two men: one with grey hair who "could resemble" Bill Clinton, sitting across from someone who "looked like Fidel Castro" holding up a cigar. Nothing in that cartoon said Castro or Clinton,
but everyone knows that cigars are Associated with Cuba. It didn't say Cuba but the uniform on the man and the hat LOOKED like Castro's. Of Course people are going to make the leap and say it is picking on Clinton and the infamous cigar.

You can blame that on the audience for thinking that, but Clearly the cartoonist KNEW those associations were going to be made, even though NOTHING was stated at all, and the figures could be anyone. it was left to the viewers to come up with the caption.

Are you going to blame it on the viewers for interpreting that as Clinton and Castro? Just because nothing was stated?
clearly the intent of the cartoonist was to make those insinuations.

Maybe this cartoonist should have left it multiple choice, and let people pick which caption they wanted to read!
That way it would be their fault if they chose the stereotypical ones instead of the analytical alternatives you offer!

(incidentally the caption I posted for the cigar cartoon was "Look at what I bought on ebay. Signed by Lewinsky!"
Again, the two people could be anyone, and not necessarily Clinton and Castro, but it is funnier to think it was them.)

Emily -- implications are one thing, and they may be entirely clear without being overtly stated.

But that wasn't the question here. The question was whether the cartoon is "racist".
For racism to exist, there must be the belief/statement that one race is inferior to another. That is not in the cartoon's message, ergo the answer is "no". Even if "Mexican" were a race, no such statement is made here. It would have to in some way make the case that these people are barging into a Thanksgiving dinner specifically because they are of this "Mexican race" -- which is not suggested.

I too did not notice the hole in the shoe until some poster brought it up. That's why I answered the post -- the idea is absurd.

Hi Pogo Thanks for explaining.
Your understanding of racism is different from mine.
From what I understand,
it doesn't have to be ONLY "one race superior over the other".

All it takes is a Negative Association based on RACE
that cause people to "divide and reject" by seeing
one person or one event as "Representing" a general group or concept.

Here is how the Center for Healing of Racism states it in the guidelines for sharing that
dialogue participants agree to follow in order to stay focused without conflicts.
And they acknowledge the problems are caused by fear that SEPARATES people:
Refrain from singling out any individual as "representing" his or her group or issue.

When this is associated by Race, that is what I consider a Racial Bias.

I understand you are trying to be more specific, while I look at the broader variations on racial biases,
not just superiority but anything that causes people to separate and divide by class or groups
and to see members of that group as "representing" a general rule, mindset, or stereotype.

Thanks Pogo
I don't disagree with you, and appreciate what you are saying!

 

[emilynghiem]

Dear Jim: I see what you're saying. And who knows if the people inside the house are part Native American, Black or whatever.

but HONESTLY the cartoon is drawn for people to interpret by the most common associations.

Anyone can look at that and tell it is going to be interpreted as Latino's coming through the window
while the family inside is going to be interpreted as White.

What the cartoonist could have shown is the people, perhaps a church dinner of mixed company,
fighting over who is standing or skipping in line to get turkey dinner while the guests look dejected.
And in the background, gangs and traffickers with guns
are robbing the cash box and stealing all the money behind their backs while they're distracted.

So this would make a distinction between the problems with breaking the rules by nonviolent offenders,
which is still a problem and unfair to people who do things legally, like wait in line and don't overstay visas,
vs.
the violent dangerous offenders who are taking advantage of the backlog and the lack of consistent enforcement.

It is just a fucking cartoon, not a doctoral dissertation.

The left is crying 'racism!' at every turn. The NFL is racist, Charlie Brown is racist. JFK was racist. etc.

IT is all ideology based bull shit.

I think I would be more alarmed at the racial implication about white middle class.
To me, what stands out the most is to paint the stereotype of middle-class whites thinking that way!

That's true but there's no causal connection stated, i.e. there's no statement that "they think/act this way specifically because they are white". And that's why it's a cultural stereotype rather than racism.

OK you can call it a stereotype, that's close enough.
My point is the cartoonist knew the average audience is going to SEE that as White/Brown.
So it does play on RACIAL stereotypes, knowing that's going to be the reaction.

"Stereotyping" versus "racism" is an important distinction.

I don't know that there's any "white" or "brown" implied here. How do we know the ethnicity of any cartoon character, unless it's overtly drawn? What's the ethnicity of the family at dinner? How do we know they too are not "brown"?

Again, if such cartoon intends that the intruders be Mexican, fine, but I'm not aware that all Mexicans are the same color, let alone a race. I'm also not aware of an influx, whether real or imagined, of Mexican immigrants who are not of a lower socioeconomic class, whatever their color. And therein lies the real deal, because that's what they DO have in common. Not only with each other but with the vast majority of immigrants over the centuries.

Seems to me there are quite a few among us who confuse "racism" with what would properly be called "classism".

Yes, I agree, Pogo it is more an issue of class.

With the immigration issues, I recognize that people attach
the image in their minds of Mexicans crossing the border,
and this cartoon didn't help by using the brown skin and the cap that looked
like day laborers. That was not an accident, coincidence or neutral.

That was GOING to be associated with Mexican and manual labor workers.
That was NOT going to be associated with middle eastern or nigerian terrorists sneaking into America...

I think it is better to understand the class implications,
and wish we would focus on rule of law, without the race issues
stirring emotions and personal insults back and forth.

but given the rhetoric we ALL know is going on,
that cartoon clearly invoked those common images of
White Americans vs. Brown skinned Latinos.
There is no way the cartoonist did that accidentally,
maybe by not thinking through it fully, but could not have meant it to be neutral.

 

[Pogo]

It is just a fucking cartoon, not a doctoral dissertation.

The left is crying 'racism!' at every turn. The NFL is racist, Charlie Brown is racist. JFK was racist. etc.

IT is all ideology based bull shit.

I think I would be more alarmed at the racial implication about white middle class.
To me, what stands out the most is to paint the stereotype of middle-class whites thinking that way!

That's true but there's no causal connection stated, i.e. there's no statement that "they think/act this way specifically because they are white". And that's why it's a cultural stereotype rather than racism.

OK you can call it a stereotype, that's close enough.
My point is the cartoonist knew the average audience is going to SEE that as White/Brown.
So it does play on RACIAL stereotypes, knowing that's going to be the reaction.

"Stereotyping" versus "racism" is an important distinction.

I don't know that there's any "white" or "brown" implied here. How do we know the ethnicity of any cartoon character, unless it's overtly drawn? What's the ethnicity of the family at dinner? How do we know they too are not "brown"?

Again, if such cartoon intends that the intruders be Mexican, fine, but I'm not aware that all Mexicans are the same color, let alone a race. I'm also not aware of an influx, whether real or imagined, of Mexican immigrants who are not of a lower socioeconomic class, whatever their color. And therein lies the real deal, because that's what they DO have in common. Not only with each other but with the vast majority of immigrants over the centuries.

Seems to me there are quite a few among us who confuse "racism" with what would properly be called "classism".

Yes, I agree, Pogo it is more an issue of class.

With the immigration issues, I recognize that people attach
the image in their minds of Mexicans crossing the border,
and this cartoon didn't help by using the brown skin and the cap that looked
like day laborers. That was not an accident, coincidence or neutral.

That was GOING to be associated with Mexican and manual labor workers.
That was NOT going to be associated with middle eastern or nigerian terrorists sneaking into America...

I think it is better to understand the class implications,
and wish we would focus on rule of law, without the race issues
stirring emotions and personal insults back and forth.

but given the rhetoric we ALL know is going on,
that cartoon clearly invoked those common images of
White Americans vs. Brown skinned Latinos.
There is no way the cartoonist did that accidentally,
maybe by not thinking through it fully, but could not have meant it to be neutral.

Sure, I agree that was the cartoonist's intent (to evoke "Mexican manual labor workers").
But I don't see where he goes out of his way to make their color a point. I don't even see where he makes them "brown". I think his point is the presence of immigrants and by extension their effect of their presence on the economy, institutional benefits, etc. I don't think his point is "be scared of these people because they're brown". If it is his point, he failed to convey it.

 

[DigitalDrifter]

I've got a quick question.............................

Why is it that the only cartoons about illegal immigration that we see any more are those of whom are from Hispanic descent?

I mean....................this country used to print comics about the scourge of the immigrants who were Irish or Italian, and demonized them just the same.

Does this mean that we have to be bigoted against a different race every 10 years or so?

If that's the case, Mexicans have been demonized a lot longer than they should have been.

Baloney !!
They are the ones who continue to sneak into our country, disrespecting our sovereignty and our laws.

No other country's citizens on the face of this earth come to America illegally at the rate that Mexicans do !
No one else comes anywhere close !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[JimBowie1958]

"racist cartoon? or not?"

It's not 'racist,' it is ignorant, wrong, and fear-mongering.

Why would anyone want over supposed five million new workers when we have so many Americans not working?

They aren't new workers. They currently have jobs. That is why they came in the first place.

And that job would be held by an American if Obama would enforce the fucking laws, dimwit.

No it wouldn't. Your outlook on life is so simple it borders on being precious.

Yes it would you stupid shit.

What do you think would happen; farmers would hire space aliens instead? All crops used to be harvested by legal labor, dumbass, and every other industry in this country from meat packers to construction was at one time done by legal citizens, not black market labor.

IF the government would hit these companies with serious fines they would stop hiring them you cock sucking liar.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Yeah, because you are stupid enough to think that the Amerindian tribes had immigration laws and policies.

Dear Jim: I see what you're saying. And who knows if the people inside the house are part Native American, Black or whatever.

but HONESTLY the cartoon is drawn for people to interpret by the most common associations.

Anyone can look at that and tell it is going to be interpreted as Latino's coming through the window
while the family inside is going to be interpreted as White.

What the cartoonist could have shown is the people, perhaps a church dinner of mixed company,
fighting over who is standing or skipping in line to get turkey dinner while the guests look dejected.
And in the background, gangs and traffickers with guns
are robbing the cash box and stealing all the money behind their backs while they're distracted.

So this would make a distinction between the problems with breaking the rules by nonviolent offenders,
which is still a problem and unfair to people who do things legally, like wait in line and don't overstay visas,
vs.
the violent dangerous offenders who are taking advantage of the backlog and the lack of consistent enforcement.

It is just a fucking cartoon, not a doctoral dissertation.

The left is crying 'racism!' at every turn. The NFL is racist, Charlie Brown is racist. JFK was racist. etc.

IT is all ideology based bull shit.

I think I would be more alarmed at the racial implication about white middle class.
To me, what stands out the most is to paint the stereotype of middle-class whites thinking that way!

That's true but there's no causal connection stated, i.e. there's no statement that "they think/act this way specifically because they are white". And that's why it's a cultural stereotype rather than racism.

OK you can call it a stereotype, that's close enough.
My point is the cartoonist knew the average audience is going to SEE that as White/Brown.
So it does play on RACIAL stereotypes, knowing that's going to be the reaction.

No, just because ignoramuses choose to use a racial interpretation of art, doe snot make the art itself racist necessarily.

 

[MaryL]

He should've just called them wetbacks. Since he's engaging in completely stereotyping all hispanic people why not?

Hmm, If the shoe fits. Please, who is stereotyping who here?

 

[MaryL]

I once drew a picture relating to illegal immigration, a skinny Mexican wiping his feet on the American flag whilst flipping the bird stepping over a barbed wire fence. A most disrespectful image, I can tell you. Better than the real illegal aliens, let alone liberals or the President that seem to be living in a vacuum.

 

[TheOldSchool]

He should've just called them wetbacks. Since he's engaging in completely stereotyping all hispanic people why not?

Hmm, If the shoe fits. Please, who is stereotyping who here?

Have you ever been stereotyped before?

 

[MaryL]

Right now it seems

He should've just called them wetbacks. Since he's engaging in completely stereotyping all hispanic people why not?

Hmm, If the shoe fits. Please, who is stereotyping who here?

Have you ever been stereotyped before?

Right now I have, so it seems.

 

[TheOldSchool]

Right now it seems

He should've just called them wetbacks. Since he's engaging in completely stereotyping all hispanic people why not?

Hmm, If the shoe fits. Please, who is stereotyping who here?

Have you ever been stereotyped before?

Right now I have, so it seems.

 

[MaryL]

We vote republican now.

 

[TheOldSchool]

We vote republican now.

How unfortunate for you

 

[MaryL]

We vote republican now.

How unfortunate for you

How unfortunate you don't understand WHY. PEACE.

 

[I.P.Freely]

I would portray an American like this,would this be racist
View attachment 34482

Americans are all Orthodox Jews?

now that is what I call stereotyping with racist intent. The picture is of Amish people.

 

[I.P.Freely]

"racist cartoon? or not?"

It's not 'racist,' it is ignorant, wrong, and fear-mongering.

Why would anyone want over supposed five million new workers when we have so many Americans not working?

They aren't new workers. They currently have jobs. That is why they came in the first place.

And that job would be held by an American if Obama would enforce the fucking laws, dimwit.

No it wouldn't. Your outlook on life is so simple it borders on being precious.

Yes it would you stupid shit.

What do you think would happen; farmers would hire space aliens instead? All crops used to be harvested by legal labor, dumbass, and every other industry in this country from meat packers to construction was at one time done by legal citizens, not black market labor.

IF the government would hit these companies with serious fines they would stop hiring them you cock sucking liar.

you should read about what happened in Uganda when Amin expelled the Indian's. The Ugandans could not or would not do the Indians jobs. Uganda turned from the fruit bowl of Africa to its dust bowl.
A capitalist economy needs the illegals to keep wages down and maximize profit. In South Africa under Apartheid the black South Africans were treated in the same way as your illegals, making it then one of the most prosperous nations in the world.
I would say also you do appear to be a complete mutton head.

 

[emilynghiem]

My point is the cartoonist knew the average audience is going to SEE that as White/Brown.
So it does play on RACIAL stereotypes, knowing that's going to be the reaction.

Boy...you're a real smarties, aintcha? That's the job of a cartoonist. Relay a message (in this case a racist one) to his core readership.

duh

Yes, Howey. Cartoonists used to be able to get away with showing things like
tribal figures where the natives looked like savages. The bones through the noses, beating on drums,
and threatening to kidnap people to roast them over a fire for lunch, etc.

And then the politically correctness took over, and it wasn't okay anymore to present images like that.
Of Aunt Jemima's and Black Sambo's. But if you look at old Popeye cartoons, that stuff isn't cool now.

Comedians onstage can still make racist and sexist jokes because that's expected to be offensive.
When they go too far, they get protested also.

If enough people think it's funny, maybe they won't protest.
but in a world where even the names of teams are protested for making references
to Braves or Redskins, well there you go. What does it take to work these things out?