racist cartoon? or not?

[emilynghiem]

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.

Dear Pogo
Let's imagine this then, and then go back adn compare the two
A. what if the people inside were also brown skinned, so the issue was clearly class
the people inside are African or Latino (or other, like Middle Eastern or could be Asian) but working class citizens
and the people outside are brown skinned of the same shade, so either African or Latino or whatever

B. now look at the cartoon where the people inside are all white skinned
they could have been brown skinned and still by sitting inside at the table having dinner at home
could imply middle class working families

But since they were white
doesn't that play on the stereotype in people's mind of
separating white families from darker skinned workers

can you see how this reinforces the idea of racial division
between two race-associated groups, using the color to further distinguish the two as in opposition

 

[bripat9643]

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.

So what if they are Amish? the obviously aren't typical Americans.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

Idi Amin did a lot more to screw up the economy than expel a few Indians. Blaming it on that is pure dishonesty.

 

[Pogo]

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.

Dear Pogo
Let's imagine this then, and then go back adn compare the two
A. what if the people inside were also brown skinned, so the issue was clearly class
the people inside are African or Latino (or other, like Middle Eastern or could be Asian) but working class citizens
and the people outside are brown skinned of the same shade, so either African or Latino or whatever

B. now look at the cartoon where the people inside are all white skinned
they could have been brown skinned and still by sitting inside at the table having dinner at home
could imply middle class working families

But since they were white
doesn't that play on the stereotype in people's mind of
separating white families from darker skinned workers

can you see how this reinforces the idea of racial division
between two race-associated groups, using the color to further distinguish the two as in opposition

No. There's no "race" depicted in the cartoon. You're plugging that part in. And you don't need to.
If anything it could be argued the cartoonist deliberately avoided the whole aspect of race by not "shading" anybody. If he didn't do it, there's no reason for us to do it.

In other words, we don't have enough information to assess whether the characters in the cartoon are "white" or "brown" --- versus whether they are merely "colorless". It's not there until we plug it in.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Yo..........Britpat......................wanna explain what a "typical" American is?

And................if the Amish aren't "typical" Americans, should they be treated differently?

 

[emilynghiem]

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.

Dear Pogo
Let's imagine this then, and then go back adn compare the two
A. what if the people inside were also brown skinned, so the issue was clearly class
the people inside are African or Latino (or other, like Middle Eastern or could be Asian) but working class citizens
and the people outside are brown skinned of the same shade, so either African or Latino or whatever

B. now look at the cartoon where the people inside are all white skinned
they could have been brown skinned and still by sitting inside at the table having dinner at home
could imply middle class working families

But since they were white
doesn't that play on the stereotype in people's mind of
separating white families from darker skinned workers

can you see how this reinforces the idea of racial division
between two race-associated groups, using the color to further distinguish the two as in opposition

No. There's no "race" depicted in the cartoon. You're plugging that part in. And you don't need to.
If anything it could be argued the cartoonist deliberately avoided the whole aspect of race by not "shading" anybody. If he didn't do it, there's no reason for us to do it.

In other words, we don't have enough information to assess whether the characters in the cartoon are "white" or "brown" --- versus whether they are merely "colorless". It's not there until we plug it in.

Dear Pogo:
1. As stated, I understand what you are saying, that those people COULD be any race, and the issue is really class.
That we cannot debate the people inside have a house and dinner and the people outside are coming in as uninvited guests.
inside vs. outside
have vs. have nots
2. however, where we seem to disagree
is that even though the cartoonist deliberately
used LIGHT/WHITE skin vs. TANNER/BROWN skin
KNOWING this would be interpreted
Middle Class White America
vs.
Mexican Day Laborers as the most immediate association

You want to say "any racism is in the mind of the audience and not the cartoon"
BECAUSE you limit racism to mean ONLY superiority of one race over the other
While I focus on RACIAL BIAS which is broader.

We don't agree on the extent of what racism means.
I focus on RACIAL BIAS so I look at the level where
ALL people have biases, which I think is what Howie's post pointed out.

That we ALL have these, and cartoonists ALWAYS use stereotypes
and associations to make their point using images.

3. Pogo I think where you and I are really concerned
is not about racism/racial bias
but whether to place blame or criticism
and if so where to place it

A. I believe in either sharing responsibility equally for resolving the
conflict or not blaming anyone for the conflict.

I try to avoid the blame game because when people don't agree it starts
endless fights and debates.

Either blame no one and just fix the damn problem
or share the responsiblity for what went wrong, including misunderstandings
or mistakes that may or may not be intended. forgive it all in order to fix it.

B. If you want to blame the audience only, that's your prerogative.
but I've found that doesn't work, to blame one side more than the other.

Everyone has biases and if we quit pushing blame or shame over
that, and just realize we all have them, we can do better to clean up the messes
that these make.

We don't need to blame anyone, and then we wouldn't get so defensive
trying to deflect blame if we didn't push it to one side to begin with.

C. So Pogo if you want to resolve this peaceably
I agree NOT to blame either side, so you don't have to keep defending
the cartoon or cartoonist.

Otherwise I can't imagine why you can't see the color
of the skin is deliberately white vs. brown, knowing that's going to
be associated with white vs. latino as race. walking right into that.

If I were the cartoonist, even if I didn't mean anything by it,
I would apologize simply by how easily that is taken to poke at race.

It may be totally unintentional and i would still apologize
for causing upset if that's not what I meant at all.

 

[Pogo]

"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.

Dear Pogo
Let's imagine this then, and then go back adn compare the two
A. what if the people inside were also brown skinned, so the issue was clearly class
the people inside are African or Latino (or other, like Middle Eastern or could be Asian) but working class citizens
and the people outside are brown skinned of the same shade, so either African or Latino or whatever

B. now look at the cartoon where the people inside are all white skinned
they could have been brown skinned and still by sitting inside at the table having dinner at home
could imply middle class working families

But since they were white
doesn't that play on the stereotype in people's mind of
separating white families from darker skinned workers

can you see how this reinforces the idea of racial division
between two race-associated groups, using the color to further distinguish the two as in opposition

No. There's no "race" depicted in the cartoon. You're plugging that part in. And you don't need to.
If anything it could be argued the cartoonist deliberately avoided the whole aspect of race by not "shading" anybody. If he didn't do it, there's no reason for us to do it.

In other words, we don't have enough information to assess whether the characters in the cartoon are "white" or "brown" --- versus whether they are merely "colorless". It's not there until we plug it in.

Dear Pogo:
1. As stated, I understand what you are saying, that those people COULD be any race, and the issue is really class.
That we cannot debate the people inside have a house and dinner and the people outside are coming in as uninvited guests.
inside vs. outside
have vs. have nots
2. however, where we seem to disagree
is that even though the cartoonist deliberately
used LIGHT/WHITE skin vs. TANNER/BROWN skin
KNOWING this would be interpreted
Middle Class White America
vs.
Mexican Day Laborers as the most immediate association

"White" is not a given there -- you're plugging it in.
Where does the cartoonist limit his representation of the family in the house to "white people"? To me there's no difference among the faces. If he intended to render specifically "brown people" he could have shaded them as such. He didn't.

You want to say "any racism is in the mind of the audience and not the cartoon"
BECAUSE you limit racism to mean ONLY superiority of one race over the other
While I focus on RACIAL BIAS which is broader.

Well no, the question posed in the OP was whether the artist is depicting or suggesting racism. And as the cartoon contains no racial suggestions, I say he isn't. That's really all there is to it. It's a completely separate question from what else the cartoonist might be saying, but you can't use one analytical aspect to pollute another.

As an extreme example, you can say Adolf Hitler was a monster, murderer, despot, genocidist, etc etc, but you can't say he didn't like dogs, simply on the basis that he invaded Poland or killed Jews.

We don't agree on the extent of what racism means.
I focus on RACIAL BIAS so I look at the level where
ALL people have biases, which I think is what Howie's post pointed out.

That we ALL have these, and cartoonists ALWAYS use stereotypes
and associations to make their point using images.

Yes they do. But this one didn't use race. Nobody's race is indicated. Most of the information comes from the speech bubble, which tells us what the topic is and suggests why what is happening in the window is happening. What it doesn't do is mention or imply what anyone's race is.

Look, a cartoon may use stereotypes, may even use them ignorantly or destructively. That's not the question here -- the question is whether it's racist. And that is specific.

Try this experiment: is the cartoon "sexist"? Is it "ageist"? Is it "homophobic"? Of course not, because none of these are indicated. Same thing.

3. Pogo I think where you and I are really concerned
is not about racism/racial bias
but whether to place blame or criticism
and if so where to place it

A. I believe in either sharing responsibility equally for resolving the
conflict or not blaming anyone for the conflict.

I try to avoid the blame game because when people don't agree it starts
endless fights and debates.



Either blame no one and just fix the damn problem
or share the responsiblity for what went wrong, including misunderstandings
or mistakes that may or may not be intended. forgive it all in order to fix it.

B. If you want to blame the audience only, that's your prerogative.
but I've found that doesn't work, to blame one side more than the other.

Everyone has biases and if we quit pushing blame or shame over
that, and just realize we all have them, we can do better to clean up the messes
that these make.

We don't need to blame anyone, and then we wouldn't get so defensive
trying to deflect blame if we didn't push it to one side to begin with.

C. So Pogo if you want to resolve this peaceably
I agree NOT to blame either side, so you don't have to keep defending
the cartoon or cartoonist.

There's no "blame" or "conflict" or "defense" present here; it's a simple, cold, disinterested analysis -- does the cartoon use stereotypes (yes) --- does the cartoon use race (no) -- etc. A rhetorical device either "is" or "is not" present. Racism is not.

Otherwise I can't imagine why you can't see the color of the skin is deliberately white vs. brown, knowing that's going to
be associated with white vs. latino as race. walking right into that.

Probably because I know there are white Mexicans, brown Mexicans and black Mexicans (and yellow and red too for that matter). If the cartoonist meant to specify one or more of these races, I don't see where he's doing that.

If I were the cartoonist, even if I didn't mean anything by it, I would apologize simply by how easily that is taken to poke at race.

It may be totally unintentional and i would still apologize
for causing upset if that's not what I meant at all.

"Latino" isn't a race; it's a reference to language, which is not racial. But even if it were a race, there's still no indication that he's saying these people are doing what they're doing because they're Latino i.e. that climbing in windows (and all it represents) is an aspect of "being Latino". That's crucial; the case obviously cannot be made. If that case could be made, then it would mean all Latinos would be likely climbing in windows, regardless of their own social class. But that is absurd, and it's not what the cartoon is saying.

The cartoonist may have grounds to apologize for a class stereotype but I don't see where he's got any reason to apologize for a racial aspect he didn't put there. I don't believe one is "responsible" for what some third party plugs in (infers) that was never depicted -- and by all appearances, was deliberately not depicted. And I say deliberately because a cartoonist always has the option to shade faces if he wishes to specify a skin color. This one did not. He either deliberately avoided doing that (presumably so as not to overheat the message) or it simply was not relevant to the message and therefore wasn't needed.

 

[emilynghiem]

1.

"White" is not a given there -- you're plugging it in.
Where does the cartoonist limit his representation of the family in the house to "white people"?

1. Hi Pogo: All I mean is that the 6 people inside the house
are clearly WHITE in skin color. That's all I mean.

I am using racial representation very loosely, and no, I don't need it to mean "limiting" it to white people.
Sure those people could be any ethnic or nationality, but that is
NOT what is going to be associated!

What I am talking about is physically the cartoon uses LIGHT skin PINK skin
and it is NOT black or brown. None of those people "look Asian"

* Pogo do you want to take a poll?
* And ask if anyone associates those 6 people with other than White?
* Do you want to ask the Cartoonist what was intended?

I don't place blame, I just point out those people are shown as White on the outside, their light skin.
What they are on the inside who knows, so yes I agree they could have any nationality.

But that does not change the fact the immediate association is going to be White
and the Cartoonist used White skin and appearance for those 6 people.

2.

To me there's no difference among the faces. If he intended to render specifically "brown people" he could have shaded them as such. He didn't.

Are we looking at the same cartoon?
The people outside have darker/brown faces.

Do we need to take a poll on this? To ASK the Cartoonist if the cartoon were drawn for the 1% who see it like you, or the 99% who will see it as distinction by Race?

That's fine, maybe others don't see it as white/brown, wonderful!
Great! I'm so glad if you are so unconditional your mind doesn't make these distinctions.
Good for you!

But most people aren't you.

Pogo: if you drew the cartoon would you draw it the same way.*
or wouldn't you have made the people inside and outside
clearly all different shades of brown and black so they are all diversified?

Would you have drawn or colored it differently knowing that other people have stereotypes your mind doesn't have?

That's great that your mind doesn't see color. No wonder you don't get why other peole are so upset!

3. RE: "Latino" isn't a race; it's a reference to language, which is not racial.

Dear Pogo: again I use this loosely.

The four groups that the Bone Marrow registry targets to try to match donors by nationality
(since Caucasian tend to have 80-90% chances of matching each other, but minorities only 10%)
are
* African / African American
* Asian, not sure if they specify Pacific Islander etc.
* Latino/Hispanic
* Native American

This matter of matching people by nationality and race is a matter of life and death.
They first try to match by family or nationality which has the greatest chances of finding a match.
Then it is more likely to find a match within a similar pool, ie other Asians or other Latino or other African.

So culturally, you are right, there is Vietnamese which is different from Chinese and other Asian.
Chilean and Mexican are different, and not all the same Latino.

but when it comes to genetics and matching HLA to save lives,
the Latino groups are closer to each other, the Asians, the Africans.

That is just scientific. There is no shame in this, in fact, saving lives
depend on people realizing that race and nationality is important and canvassing minorities to register as donors.

 

[emilynghiem]

Dear Pogo:
Can we settle this issue this way:
If you were going to draw or publish this cartoon in your paper,
what changes if any would you make?

Would you post an explanation with it so it isn't misconstrued?
Would you change any of the coloring or depictions?

Knowing how OTHER people are going to interpret it,
would you keep as is, would you change it, or would you have explained it to prevent misconstruing anything?

 

[Pogo]

Dear Pogo:
Can we settle this issue this way:
If you were going to draw or publish this cartoon in your paper,
what changes if any would you make?

Would you post an explanation with it so it isn't misconstrued?
Would you change any of the coloring or depictions?

Knowing how OTHER people are going to interpret it,
would you keep as is, would you change it, or would you have explained it to prevent misconstruing anything?

If it was my paper it wouldn't run. It wouldn't run because it's ignorant, incendiary, makes no valid point and is not funny.

But none of that has anything to do with race or color.

 

[emilynghiem]

W

Dear Pogo:
Can we settle this issue this way:
If you were going to draw or publish this cartoon in your paper,
what changes if any would you make?

Would you post an explanation with it so it isn't misconstrued?
Would you change any of the coloring or depictions?

Knowing how OTHER people are going to interpret it,
would you keep as is, would you change it, or would you have explained it to prevent misconstruing anything?

If it was my paper it wouldn't run. It wouldn't run because it's ignorant, incendiary, makes no valid point and is not funny.

But none of that has anything to do with race or color.

Why is it incendiary if it is neutral.

 

[Harry Dresden]

cartoon JIMROMENESKO.COM

I would say no although I was wondering what if that was native Americans sitting down to a meal and illegal European immigrants crawling through the window.

yea they sure look like your typical Indian family......

 

[ninja007]

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

We're talking about illegals regardless of nationality. But you on the left including dumb ass obama it's all about Mexicans.

That cartoon is all about Mexicans. Hell it would've been less racist if the Mexican dad had been wearing a sombrero. And the kids smiling behind him?

Despicable.

and I bet you were upset with cartoons of bush and palin too, right?

 

[Howey]

cartoon JIMROMENESKO.COM

I would say no although I was wondering what if that was native Americans sitting down to a meal and illegal European immigrants crawling through the window.

yea they sure look like your typical Indian family......

You don't understand the phrase "what if?" do you, you ignorant brain dead teabagger!

 

[Pogo]

W

Dear Pogo:
Can we settle this issue this way:
If you were going to draw or publish this cartoon in your paper,
what changes if any would you make?

Would you post an explanation with it so it isn't misconstrued?
Would you change any of the coloring or depictions?

Knowing how OTHER people are going to interpret it,
would you keep as is, would you change it, or would you have explained it to prevent misconstruing anything?

If it was my paper it wouldn't run. It wouldn't run because it's ignorant, incendiary, makes no valid point and is not funny.

But none of that has anything to do with race or color.

Why is it incendiary if it is neutral.

I didn't say it's "neutral"; I said it's not racist. That is, one element out of many is not present. It's incendiary because it plays on and exploits stereotypes of contemporary (nativist) fearmongering mythology. But it doesn't play on race to do that.

The nativist mythology declares "fear these people because they're coming to take your jobs, to mooch, etc.". I'm not aware of a part of that mythology that says "and because they're brown". Not that that racist myth doesn't also exist among us -- surely it does. But I don't see where this cartoon is tapping that.

A truly racist cartoon would take perceived racial features or stereotypes and not only depict them but overemphasize them -- as was done a hundred years ago to blacks (and I don't think I need to illustrate). Here we have none of that.

Looking at the cartoon again I do see very slight subtle variations in skin tone if I press my nose almost to the screen and use a lot of imagination, so I stand corrected on that. I didn't notice it before just as I didn't notice the hole in the shoe. Neither one strikes me as anything significant at all. For me the entire point is in the speech bubble, for what it's worth, and that ain't much. I think the cartoonist is making a feeble attempt to make an emotional connection with the nativist fearmongers, and did a piss-poor job at even that. Mostly, if I were the editor I would nix the cartoon because it makes no point, and serves only to cheerlead the fearmongering. Nobody learns anything from that.

 

[Ravi]

Jesus tap dancing Christ.

White people good.

Mexicans criminals.

That is the gist of the cartoon.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Jesus tap dancing Christ.

White people good.

Mexicans criminals.

That is the gist of the cartoon.

Wrong, America good Mexicans good illegals criminal.

 

[emilynghiem]

W

Dear Pogo:
Can we settle this issue this way:
If you were going to draw or publish this cartoon in your paper,
what changes if any would you make?

Would you post an explanation with it so it isn't misconstrued?
Would you change any of the coloring or depictions?

Knowing how OTHER people are going to interpret it,
would you keep as is, would you change it, or would you have explained it to prevent misconstruing anything?

If it was my paper it wouldn't run. It wouldn't run because it's ignorant, incendiary, makes no valid point and is not funny.

But none of that has anything to do with race or color.

Why is it incendiary if it is neutral.

I didn't say it's "neutral"; I said it's not racist. That is, one element out of many is not present. It's incendiary because it plays on and exploits stereotypes of contemporary (nativist) fearmongering mythology. But it doesn't play on race to do that.

The nativist mythology declares "fear these people because they're coming to take your jobs, to mooch, etc.". I'm not aware of a part of that mythology that says "and because they're brown". Not that that racist myth doesn't also exist among us -- surely it does. But I don't see where this cartoon is tapping that.

A truly racist cartoon would take perceived racial features or stereotypes and not only depict them but overemphasize them -- as was done a hundred years ago to blacks (and I don't think I need to illustrate). Here we have none of that.

Looking at the cartoon again I do see very slight subtle variations in skin tone if I press my nose almost to the screen and use a lot of imagination, so I stand corrected on that. I didn't notice it before just as I didn't notice the hole in the shoe. Neither one strikes me as anything significant at all. For me the entire point is in the speech bubble, for what it's worth, and that ain't much. I think the cartoonist is making a feeble attempt to make an emotional connection with the nativist fearmongers, and did a piss-poor job at even that. Mostly, if I were the editor I would nix the cartoon because it makes no point, and serves only to cheerlead the fearmongering. Nobody learns anything from that.

Ok so we AGREE the division is over class.

As for the cartoon
You see it as representing class.

Do you agree the cartoonist was
Playing to the audience that sees skin color first or was honestly expecting to represent class.

What do you think the cartoonist wascfocused on.

And lets ask the cartoonist what the choices were regarding the depiction.

Was it class or was it deliberately skin color depicted.

Is that fair

 

[Pogo]

W

Dear Pogo:
Can we settle this issue this way:
If you were going to draw or publish this cartoon in your paper,
what changes if any would you make?

Would you post an explanation with it so it isn't misconstrued?
Would you change any of the coloring or depictions?

Knowing how OTHER people are going to interpret it,
would you keep as is, would you change it, or would you have explained it to prevent misconstruing anything?

If it was my paper it wouldn't run. It wouldn't run because it's ignorant, incendiary, makes no valid point and is not funny.

But none of that has anything to do with race or color.

Why is it incendiary if it is neutral.

I didn't say it's "neutral"; I said it's not racist. That is, one element out of many is not present. It's incendiary because it plays on and exploits stereotypes of contemporary (nativist) fearmongering mythology. But it doesn't play on race to do that.

The nativist mythology declares "fear these people because they're coming to take your jobs, to mooch, etc.". I'm not aware of a part of that mythology that says "and because they're brown". Not that that racist myth doesn't also exist among us -- surely it does. But I don't see where this cartoon is tapping that.

A truly racist cartoon would take perceived racial features or stereotypes and not only depict them but overemphasize them -- as was done a hundred years ago to blacks (and I don't think I need to illustrate). Here we have none of that.

Looking at the cartoon again I do see very slight subtle variations in skin tone if I press my nose almost to the screen and use a lot of imagination, so I stand corrected on that. I didn't notice it before just as I didn't notice the hole in the shoe. Neither one strikes me as anything significant at all. For me the entire point is in the speech bubble, for what it's worth, and that ain't much. I think the cartoonist is making a feeble attempt to make an emotional connection with the nativist fearmongers, and did a piss-poor job at even that. Mostly, if I were the editor I would nix the cartoon because it makes no point, and serves only to cheerlead the fearmongering. Nobody learns anything from that.

Ok so we AGREE the division is over class.

As for the cartoon
You see it as representing class.

Do you agree the cartoonist was
Playing to the audience that sees skin color first or was honestly expecting to represent class.

What do you think the cartoonist wascfocused on.

And lets ask the cartoonist what the choices were regarding the depiction.

Was it class or was it deliberately skin color depicted.

Is that fair

Sure, that's a fair question and it's easy. It's about a socioeconomic class and the stereotypes attributed to that class, and that's what the focus is. And no, it's not about race. That's what I said in my first post in this thread and I stand by it.

If he was playing to an audience that sees skin color first he would have taken steps to make it obvious that that was his point, by making colors obvious. But he didn't. And I just said this.

And I'll reiterate yet again, the target group (Mexican immigrants) are not the only Mexicans of their color and physical features. If it were about color, the attempted point would be that ALL Mexicans -- including middle and upper class Mexicans (or more correctly all Mestizos regardless of national origin) --- were climbing in the window. Even the rich. After all they too are "brown". Does anyone seriously expect that that was his point? I don't think so. Clearly what the target group has in common is that they're lower class.

That's why the equally "brown" Mexican middle class isn't climbing in the widow. They don't fit the profile. Ultimately the despised group isn't despised because it's brown; it's despised because it's poor.

Racism is real, still very much alive, morally destructive and deserving of eradication. But let's not go crazy trying to apply one-size-fits-all to literally everything. We would do well to jettison the endless "this is racist, that is racist" auto-meme when it's not warranted and think occasionally about why we go to such lengths to stratify an economic caste system, why we so obviously worship the rich and despise the poor in a land that claims to be based on "all men are created equal".

There are racists among us, and there are also classists. Let's not lump them together, lest we ignore one and let it off the hook.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

POGO SAID:

'I didn't say it's "neutral"; I said it's not racist. That is, one element out of many is not present. It's incendiary because it plays on and exploits stereotypes of contemporary (nativist) fearmongering mythology. But it doesn't play on race to do that.'

Correct.

It seeks to propagate the lie that the president's EO will compel citizens to somehow 'accommodate' those undocumented, that America will be 'overrun' by undocumented immigrants, and that the order will 'disadvantage' citizens in some manner – which of course is ridiculous and unfounded.