Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
prove im a teabagger you dumb fucking Stroonge... i can prove your a Stroonge.....yea they sure look like your typical Indian family......
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.
You don't understand the phrase "what if?" do you, you ignorant brain dead teabagger!
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.
prove im a teabagger you dumb fucking Stroonge... i can prove your a Stroonge.....yea they sure look like your typical Indian family......
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.
You don't understand the phrase "what if?" do you, you ignorant brain dead teabagger!
Drivel, 80,000 is a few Indians.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.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.
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.
Drivel, 80,000 is a few Indians.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.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.
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.
Read and educate yourself and try not to make stupid presumptive comments .America s deportation machine The great expulsion The EconomistDrivel, 80,000 is a few Indians.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.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.
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.
The population of Uganda is 36 million, so that is a few in terms of the population. Furthermore, the only evidence we have that it caused any economic problem is your say-so. You want to blame Uganda's economic problems on that because it suits your no-borders agenda. That's the only basis for your claim.
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.
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.
Pogo said: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.
Pogo said: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.
pogo said: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.
pogo said: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.
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 I read back where you said you did look closer at the subtle difference in skin tone.
I'm glad you are not the type of person who sees this immediately.
What I'm saying is the cartoon had the people in mind who do see that color immediately.
And yes the Cartoonist tried to play it down and not play it up, another sign of KNOWING how it would be taken.
Pogo said: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.
I see it the other way: that he knew it would be taken that way and so reduced it and did not play it up.
But Failed to change it to black and white people coming through the window also, only used brownish color.
and Failed to change the people inside to black or yellow or brown / mixed, and only showed white/pink skinned.
if he was TRYING to point to class he could have done more to show it was people of all colors
divided by class.
Pogo said: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.
the point is he KNEW people would most commonly or most immediately associate those brown skinned people
as Mexican. Anyone aware of the immigration debates know that people hyperfocus on Mexican, regardless if this
is NOT a race and NOT the only people. Of course Mexico enforces its borders, and its desperate people coming through Mexico from other countries to get to the US. But everyone KNOWS that people associate the immigration issue with Mexico.
The cartoonist had to know this, too.
pogo said: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.
Hmmm, Pogo. Maybe we need to rethink this. First you tell me the people inside could be of any ethnicity and don't have to be white. Now you say the people coming through the window have to be poor and can't be middle class?
Day laborers can be middle class, and still come through the window.
Maybe I was wrong, and this cartoon says nothing about class either!
Thanks for a good point I didn't expect.
The day laborers and kids could be middle class freeloaders and don't have to be poor.
pogo said: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.
Dear Pogo: I guess you proved that both you and I are classists, by seeing that as class division when
the cartoon didn't come out and say that. There are middle class freeloaders also.
If you are going to complain about people making racist issues out of this,
lump you and me in there also as making class assumptions when those people could be anyone!
Hugs, Pogo
You are wonderful and I'm glad you think the way you do!
thanks for sharing!
Stop pointing out the obvious to bigrebnc who obviously wishes to ignore the cartoon itself. (-:the cartoonistWho implied that other than you?tell that to Romney.We're talking about illegals regardless of nationality. But you on the left including dumb ass obama it's all about Mexicans.He should've just called them wetbacks. Since he's engaging in completely stereotyping all hispanic people why not?
Yes its racist as it implies one race's superiority over another.
I disagree with you over whether the cartoon itself was bigoted, as imo it was. And, I haven't voted for Obama in an general election yet, and won't in the future (-:, but your post is interesting in that the nativists were also the Knownothings, and there's an uncomfortable parallel to them and the worst in today's GOPPOGO 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.
And that paranoia ^^ is the exact same fearmongerer's tool that has always been applied by Nativism, whether the immigrants were Irish, Italians Slavs, Jews, Chinese, etc. Same shitstorm, different day. Same paranoia, different source-nation. The more things change, the more they stay the same, and those who ignore their own history, well you know the rest.
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 I read back where you said you did look closer at the subtle difference in skin tone.
I'm glad you are not the type of person who sees this immediately.
What I'm saying is the cartoon had the people in mind who do see that color immediately.
And yes the Cartoonist tried to play it down and not play it up, another sign of KNOWING how it would be taken.
Pogo said: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.
I see it the other way: that he knew it would be taken that way and so reduced it and did not play it up.
But Failed to change it to black and white people coming through the window also, only used brownish color.
and Failed to change the people inside to black or yellow or brown / mixed, and only showed white/pink skinned.
if he was TRYING to point to class he could have done more to show it was people of all colors
divided by class.
Pogo said: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.
the point is he KNEW people would most commonly or most immediately associate those brown skinned people
as Mexican. Anyone aware of the immigration debates know that people hyperfocus on Mexican, regardless if this
is NOT a race and NOT the only people. Of course Mexico enforces its borders, and its desperate people coming through Mexico from other countries to get to the US. But everyone KNOWS that people associate the immigration issue with Mexico.
The cartoonist had to know this, too.
pogo said: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.
Hmmm, Pogo. Maybe we need to rethink this. First you tell me the people inside could be of any ethnicity and don't have to be white. Now you say the people coming through the window have to be poor and can't be middle class?
Day laborers can be middle class, and still come through the window.
Maybe I was wrong, and this cartoon says nothing about class either!
Thanks for a good point I didn't expect.
The day laborers and kids could be middle class freeloaders and don't have to be poor.
pogo said: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.
Dear Pogo: I guess you proved that both you and I are classists, by seeing that as class division when
the cartoon didn't come out and say that. There are middle class freeloaders also.
If you are going to complain about people making racist issues out of this,
lump you and me in there also as making class assumptions when those people could be anyone!
Hugs, Pogo
You are wonderful and I'm glad you think the way you do!
thanks for sharing!
OK first things first:
I'm not "complaining about making racist issues" -- I'm simply analyzing the question in the OP, which is whether or not it's "racist". I don't believe it qualifies as such.
I'm not sure where you're going with the idea of middle class people coming in the window -- if they're MC they're not impoverished, so what's their incentive? Why would they risk what they already have in a venture the results of which are vastly unknown and potentially dangerous?
Seems to me busting a border is an act of desperation driven by need, which is why it's about class -- simple deduction. Why would the non-needy do it?
The class comparison I drew is simply a litmus test for race versus class:
(A) If the impoverished, regardless of their race, comprise the infiltrating group(s), then they do have class in common.
(B) If the members of that "race", regardless of their socioeconomic class, do not necessarily comprise the infiltrating groups, then they do not have "race" in common.
Conclusion: we are left with one parameter that works and one that doesn't.
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 I read back where you said you did look closer at the subtle difference in skin tone.
I'm glad you are not the type of person who sees this immediately.
What I'm saying is the cartoon had the people in mind who do see that color immediately.
And yes the Cartoonist tried to play it down and not play it up, another sign of KNOWING how it would be taken.
Pogo said: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.
I see it the other way: that he knew it would be taken that way and so reduced it and did not play it up.
But Failed to change it to black and white people coming through the window also, only used brownish color.
and Failed to change the people inside to black or yellow or brown / mixed, and only showed white/pink skinned.
if he was TRYING to point to class he could have done more to show it was people of all colors
divided by class.
Pogo said: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.
the point is he KNEW people would most commonly or most immediately associate those brown skinned people
as Mexican. Anyone aware of the immigration debates know that people hyperfocus on Mexican, regardless if this
is NOT a race and NOT the only people. Of course Mexico enforces its borders, and its desperate people coming through Mexico from other countries to get to the US. But everyone KNOWS that people associate the immigration issue with Mexico.
The cartoonist had to know this, too.
pogo said: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.
Hmmm, Pogo. Maybe we need to rethink this. First you tell me the people inside could be of any ethnicity and don't have to be white. Now you say the people coming through the window have to be poor and can't be middle class?
Day laborers can be middle class, and still come through the window.
Maybe I was wrong, and this cartoon says nothing about class either!
Thanks for a good point I didn't expect.
The day laborers and kids could be middle class freeloaders and don't have to be poor.
pogo said: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.
Dear Pogo: I guess you proved that both you and I are classists, by seeing that as class division when
the cartoon didn't come out and say that. There are middle class freeloaders also.
If you are going to complain about people making racist issues out of this,
lump you and me in there also as making class assumptions when those people could be anyone!
Hugs, Pogo
You are wonderful and I'm glad you think the way you do!
thanks for sharing!
OK first things first:
I'm not "complaining about making racist issues" -- I'm simply analyzing the question in the OP, which is whether or not it's "racist". I don't believe it qualifies as such.
I'm not sure where you're going with the idea of middle class people coming in the window -- if they're MC they're not impoverished, so what's their incentive? Why would they risk what they already have in a venture the results of which are vastly unknown and potentially dangerous?
Seems to me busting a border is an act of desperation driven by need, which is why it's about class -- simple deduction. Why would the non-needy do it?
The class comparison I drew is simply a litmus test for race versus class:
(A) If the impoverished, regardless of their race, comprise the infiltrating group(s), then they do have class in common.
(B) If the members of that "race", regardless of their socioeconomic class, do not necessarily comprise the infiltrating groups, then they do not have "race" in common.
Conclusion: we are left with one parameter that works and one that doesn't.
Using your same logic, nothing in that cartoon said the people coming through the window were not middle class.
So you and I are classist for assuming this, IF you are going to be consistent with how you said race
was not stated in that cartoon either.
Heck, if rich corporate crooks hoard millions at taxpayers' expense
certainly middle class people can take advantage and try to take shortcuts and freeload also.
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 I read back where you said you did look closer at the subtle difference in skin tone.
I'm glad you are not the type of person who sees this immediately.
What I'm saying is the cartoon had the people in mind who do see that color immediately.
And yes the Cartoonist tried to play it down and not play it up, another sign of KNOWING how it would be taken.
Pogo said: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.
I see it the other way: that he knew it would be taken that way and so reduced it and did not play it up.
But Failed to change it to black and white people coming through the window also, only used brownish color.
and Failed to change the people inside to black or yellow or brown / mixed, and only showed white/pink skinned.
if he was TRYING to point to class he could have done more to show it was people of all colors
divided by class.
Pogo said: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.
the point is he KNEW people would most commonly or most immediately associate those brown skinned people
as Mexican. Anyone aware of the immigration debates know that people hyperfocus on Mexican, regardless if this
is NOT a race and NOT the only people. Of course Mexico enforces its borders, and its desperate people coming through Mexico from other countries to get to the US. But everyone KNOWS that people associate the immigration issue with Mexico.
The cartoonist had to know this, too.
pogo said: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.
Hmmm, Pogo. Maybe we need to rethink this. First you tell me the people inside could be of any ethnicity and don't have to be white. Now you say the people coming through the window have to be poor and can't be middle class?
Day laborers can be middle class, and still come through the window.
Maybe I was wrong, and this cartoon says nothing about class either!
Thanks for a good point I didn't expect.
The day laborers and kids could be middle class freeloaders and don't have to be poor.
pogo said: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.
Dear Pogo: I guess you proved that both you and I are classists, by seeing that as class division when
the cartoon didn't come out and say that. There are middle class freeloaders also.
If you are going to complain about people making racist issues out of this,
lump you and me in there also as making class assumptions when those people could be anyone!
Hugs, Pogo
You are wonderful and I'm glad you think the way you do!
thanks for sharing!
OK first things first:
I'm not "complaining about making racist issues" -- I'm simply analyzing the question in the OP, which is whether or not it's "racist". I don't believe it qualifies as such.
I'm not sure where you're going with the idea of middle class people coming in the window -- if they're MC they're not impoverished, so what's their incentive? Why would they risk what they already have in a venture the results of which are vastly unknown and potentially dangerous?
Seems to me busting a border is an act of desperation driven by need, which is why it's about class -- simple deduction. Why would the non-needy do it?
The class comparison I drew is simply a litmus test for race versus class:
(A) If the impoverished, regardless of their race, comprise the infiltrating group(s), then they do have class in common.
(B) If the members of that "race", regardless of their socioeconomic class, do not necessarily comprise the infiltrating groups, then they do not have "race" in common.
Conclusion: we are left with one parameter that works and one that doesn't.
Using your same logic, nothing in that cartoon said the people coming through the window were not middle class.
So you and I are classist for assuming this, IF you are going to be consistent with how you said race
was not stated in that cartoon either.
Heck, if rich corporate crooks hoard millions at taxpayers' expense
certainly middle class people can take advantage and try to take shortcuts and freeload also.
Aha. Very clever.
It depends on what you mean by "classist" though. As a cognate to "racist" it would have to mean viewing a particular class as inferior to another (the antithesis of "all men are created equal").
But I don't think simple recognition of what makes up a class (or race) is in itself a value judgment. If I said "that guy is black" it's not a racist statement -- if I said "that guy is stupid because he's black", then it is.
Aha. Very clever.
It depends on what you mean by "classist" though. As a cognate to "racist" it would have to mean viewing a particular class as inferior to another (the antithesis of "all men are created equal").
But I don't think simple recognition of what makes up a class (or race) is in itself a value judgment. If I said "that guy is black" it's not a racist statement -- if I said "that guy is stupid because he's black", then it is.
I'm not trying to append a value judgment on the lower (or middle or upper) class -- I'm simply saying that by definition the lower (and impoverished) class is the only one that has the incentive to fit the profile.
Any comparison to ATT's commercial with the nerdy Indian (or something) expert and making communications faster?
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 I read back where you said you did look closer at the subtle difference in skin tone.
I'm glad you are not the type of person who sees this immediately.
What I'm saying is the cartoon had the people in mind who do see that color immediately.
And yes the Cartoonist tried to play it down and not play it up, another sign of KNOWING how it would be taken.
Pogo said: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.
I see it the other way: that he knew it would be taken that way and so reduced it and did not play it up.
But Failed to change it to black and white people coming through the window also, only used brownish color.
and Failed to change the people inside to black or yellow or brown / mixed, and only showed white/pink skinned.
if he was TRYING to point to class he could have done more to show it was people of all colors
divided by class.
Pogo said: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.
the point is he KNEW people would most commonly or most immediately associate those brown skinned people
as Mexican. Anyone aware of the immigration debates know that people hyperfocus on Mexican, regardless if this
is NOT a race and NOT the only people. Of course Mexico enforces its borders, and its desperate people coming through Mexico from other countries to get to the US. But everyone KNOWS that people associate the immigration issue with Mexico.
The cartoonist had to know this, too.
pogo said: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.
Hmmm, Pogo. Maybe we need to rethink this. First you tell me the people inside could be of any ethnicity and don't have to be white. Now you say the people coming through the window have to be poor and can't be middle class?
Day laborers can be middle class, and still come through the window.
Maybe I was wrong, and this cartoon says nothing about class either!
Thanks for a good point I didn't expect.
The day laborers and kids could be middle class freeloaders and don't have to be poor.
pogo said: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.
Dear Pogo: I guess you proved that both you and I are classists, by seeing that as class division when
the cartoon didn't come out and say that. There are middle class freeloaders also.
If you are going to complain about people making racist issues out of this,
lump you and me in there also as making class assumptions when those people could be anyone!
Hugs, Pogo
You are wonderful and I'm glad you think the way you do!
thanks for sharing!
OK first things first:
I'm not "complaining about making racist issues" -- I'm simply analyzing the question in the OP, which is whether or not it's "racist". I don't believe it qualifies as such.
I'm not sure where you're going with the idea of middle class people coming in the window -- if they're MC they're not impoverished, so what's their incentive? Why would they risk what they already have in a venture the results of which are vastly unknown and potentially dangerous?
Seems to me busting a border is an act of desperation driven by need, which is why it's about class -- simple deduction. Why would the non-needy do it?
The class comparison I drew is simply a litmus test for race versus class:
(A) If the impoverished, regardless of their race, comprise the infiltrating group(s), then they do have class in common.
(B) If the members of that "race", regardless of their socioeconomic class, do not necessarily comprise the infiltrating groups, then they do not have "race" in common.
Conclusion: we are left with one parameter that works and one that doesn't.
Using your same logic, nothing in that cartoon said the people coming through the window were not middle class.
So you and I are classist for assuming this, IF you are going to be consistent with how you said race
was not stated in that cartoon either.
Heck, if rich corporate crooks hoard millions at taxpayers' expense
certainly middle class people can take advantage and try to take shortcuts and freeload also.
Aha. Very clever.
It depends on what you mean by "classist" though. As a cognate to "racist" it would have to mean viewing a particular class as inferior to another (the antithesis of "all men are created equal").
But I don't think simple recognition of what makes up a class (or race) is in itself a value judgment. If I said "that guy is black" it's not a racist statement -- if I said "that guy is stupid because he's black", then it is.
I find the issue is whether you are saying something positive or negative.
If I say that you are more likely to have sickle cell issues because you are black,
and say that to be derogatory as proof that you have something wrong with you,
that's negative.
If I say that since science shows this, and this designation is to provide you extra screening since you are at higher risk statistically, that's positive.
Both are technically race based.
What people are against is if you are assuming or saying something negative.
I agree that is the problem, though you focus on more specific "inferiority" terms and I don't.
Someone can assume I'm bigoted because I sound conservative, "I sound like one of THEM"
and that is not race related, but it is negative and people reject when it's done to them.
Pogo the way this was explained best in general terms,
the Zen outreach and workshop speaker Bernie Glassman
said that ANY division in our minds that results in them vs. us, me vs. you,
instead of WE is going to cause conflicts and the effort is not universal or sustainable.
Only perfectly universal and complete inclusion as WE has the power
to effect change on the level that lasts and is replicable. The others eventually fall apart.
So as long as you and I do not group ourselves with the same people we criticize,
that is not a perfect WE approach and we are leaving something out.
So I do think it is best that we put ourselves in the same situation
and show that we do the same thing as the people we criticize.
Any comparison to ATT's commercial with the nerdy Indian (or something) expert and making communications faster?
No because that's cute and funny, so nobody complains.
Ever see any retarded Asian people in movies?
Is that racist that we never see that?
What about how the Asian shooters at Virginia and California campuses
are written off as mentally ill, and nobody yells and protest to Congress
about gun control or getting Asian thugs off the street with those cases.
Is that racist?
OK I read back where you said you did look closer at the subtle difference in skin tone.
I'm glad you are not the type of person who sees this immediately.
What I'm saying is the cartoon had the people in mind who do see that color immediately.
And yes the Cartoonist tried to play it down and not play it up, another sign of KNOWING how it would be taken.
I see it the other way: that he knew it would be taken that way and so reduced it and did not play it up.
But Failed to change it to black and white people coming through the window also, only used brownish color.
and Failed to change the people inside to black or yellow or brown / mixed, and only showed white/pink skinned.
if he was TRYING to point to class he could have done more to show it was people of all colors
divided by class.
the point is he KNEW people would most commonly or most immediately associate those brown skinned people
as Mexican. Anyone aware of the immigration debates know that people hyperfocus on Mexican, regardless if this
is NOT a race and NOT the only people. Of course Mexico enforces its borders, and its desperate people coming through Mexico from other countries to get to the US. But everyone KNOWS that people associate the immigration issue with Mexico.
The cartoonist had to know this, too.
Hmmm, Pogo. Maybe we need to rethink this. First you tell me the people inside could be of any ethnicity and don't have to be white. Now you say the people coming through the window have to be poor and can't be middle class?
Day laborers can be middle class, and still come through the window.
Maybe I was wrong, and this cartoon says nothing about class either!
Thanks for a good point I didn't expect.
The day laborers and kids could be middle class freeloaders and don't have to be poor.
Dear Pogo: I guess you proved that both you and I are classists, by seeing that as class division when
the cartoon didn't come out and say that. There are middle class freeloaders also.
If you are going to complain about people making racist issues out of this,
lump you and me in there also as making class assumptions when those people could be anyone!
Hugs, Pogo
You are wonderful and I'm glad you think the way you do!
thanks for sharing!
OK first things first:
I'm not "complaining about making racist issues" -- I'm simply analyzing the question in the OP, which is whether or not it's "racist". I don't believe it qualifies as such.
I'm not sure where you're going with the idea of middle class people coming in the window -- if they're MC they're not impoverished, so what's their incentive? Why would they risk what they already have in a venture the results of which are vastly unknown and potentially dangerous?
Seems to me busting a border is an act of desperation driven by need, which is why it's about class -- simple deduction. Why would the non-needy do it?
The class comparison I drew is simply a litmus test for race versus class:
(A) If the impoverished, regardless of their race, comprise the infiltrating group(s), then they do have class in common.
(B) If the members of that "race", regardless of their socioeconomic class, do not necessarily comprise the infiltrating groups, then they do not have "race" in common.
Conclusion: we are left with one parameter that works and one that doesn't.
Using your same logic, nothing in that cartoon said the people coming through the window were not middle class.
So you and I are classist for assuming this, IF you are going to be consistent with how you said race
was not stated in that cartoon either.
Heck, if rich corporate crooks hoard millions at taxpayers' expense
certainly middle class people can take advantage and try to take shortcuts and freeload also.
Aha. Very clever.
It depends on what you mean by "classist" though. As a cognate to "racist" it would have to mean viewing a particular class as inferior to another (the antithesis of "all men are created equal").
But I don't think simple recognition of what makes up a class (or race) is in itself a value judgment. If I said "that guy is black" it's not a racist statement -- if I said "that guy is stupid because he's black", then it is.
I find the issue is whether you are saying something positive or negative.
If I say that you are more likely to have sickle cell issues because you are black,
and say that to be derogatory as proof that you have something wrong with you,
that's negative.
If I say that since science shows this, and this designation is to provide you extra screening since you are at higher risk statistically, that's positive.
Both are technically race based.
What people are against is if you are assuming or saying something negative.
I agree that is the problem, though you focus on more specific "inferiority" terms and I don't.
Someone can assume I'm bigoted because I sound conservative, "I sound like one of THEM"
and that is not race related, but it is negative and people reject when it's done to them.
Pogo the way this was explained best in general terms,
the Zen outreach and workshop speaker Bernie Glassman
said that ANY division in our minds that results in them vs. us, me vs. you,
instead of WE is going to cause conflicts and the effort is not universal or sustainable.
Only perfectly universal and complete inclusion as WE has the power
to effect change on the level that lasts and is replicable. The others eventually fall apart.
So as long as you and I do not group ourselves with the same people we criticize,
that is not a perfect WE approach and we are leaving something out.
So I do think it is best that we put ourselves in the same situation
and show that we do the same thing as the people we criticize.
I think you're still assuming value judgments where none exist. To take it to that extreme we could never differentiate anything at all -- we could not choose the blue or green clothes because choosing the blue pits blue "against" green. We couldn't make a decision which way to turn at the intersection.
It's not necessary to append a hierarchy to a simple discrimination of differences. That's why I use the value judgment of "inferior" to distinguish whether racism exists. The terms "black, white, brown, red, yellow" do not in an of themselves suggest a hierarchy, any more than "blond, brown, red" hair or "blue, brown, hazel" eyes. There has to be a cold, unemotional, no-baggage capacity to distinguish one from another.
As your example suggests, medical research does this all the time -- what disease or malady is more or less likely in this or that ethnic group. That again makes no judgment; on the contrary it's a helpful tool in prediction and accurate diagnoses.
So to suggest an impoverished class is the only one to have the incentive to seek economic alternatives isn't a value judgment as to how they got there or whether they "belong" in that class. It's simple analysis of how socioeconomic incentives work for mammalian entities who need to eat.
