racist cartoon? or not?

[Pogo]

Just to single this out:

But if other people SEE it as race
and the Cartoonist KNEW it would be seen as "Mexican" because that's the main focus
of most immigration debates, right or wrong that's what's all over the media,
then it plays on RACE perceptions and is going to be SEEN as RACIST

That's how it is going to be SEEN
and the Cartoonist knew this and kept it that way anyway
with the people inside "looking WHITE and going to be Interpreted as WHITE"
and the people outside as BROWN and going to be interpreted
as Mexican by the majority of people who see that cartoon.

You and I can understand class all we want.

And that Cartoon was still drawn and colored KNOWING
that MOST people are GOING to see it as White Americans vs. Brown Mexicans.

Sorry but the Cartoonist is not that stupid to think
most people would think of class before Race or Mexican or whatever associations with BROWN you CALL it.

Whether a number of people make a false assumption -- even if that number is 99% --- doesn't make it any less false. I think "true" and "false", where such can be logically proven, are absolutes and not subject to a majority "vote". We could all "vote" unanimously that the sky is green, but it doesn't change the colour of the sky.

 

[emilynghiem]

Whether a number of people make a false assumption -- even if that number is 99% --- doesn't make it any less false. I think "true" and "false", where such can be logically proven, are absolutes and not subject to a majority "vote". We could all "vote" unanimously that the sky is green, but it doesn't change the colour of the sky.

Are you DENYING the Cartoonist set it up that way
for people to interpret as "false" as you call it.

Really?

What would you call a person who drives by a Ferguson protest of black people chanting against police brutality
waving a Dixie/Confederate flag "claiming it could be interpreted as
solidarity and rising up against federal govt that is criminalizing citizens"

What do you THINK THAT AUDIENCE is going to see that Dixie flag as representing?

Are you going to blame them for interpreting it as KKK?

When the person "could have meant"
it represents the independent citizens rising up against federal govt gone mad.

 

[Pogo]

Whether a number of people make a false assumption -- even if that number is 99% --- doesn't make it any less false. I think "true" and "false", where such can be logically proven, are absolutes and not subject to a majority "vote". We could all "vote" unanimously that the sky is green, but it doesn't change the colour of the sky.

Are you DENYING the Cartoonist set it up that way
for people to interpret as "false" as you call it.

Really?

It has nothing to do with my point, and I don't know what the cartoonist intended. I can't read his mind. I can only read his cartoon and see what is there, and what is not.

What would you call a person who drives by a Ferguson protest of black people chanting against police brutality waving a Dixie/Confederate flag "claiming it could be interpreted as solidarity and rising up against federal govt that is criminalizing citizens"

What do you THINK THAT AUDIENCE is going to see that Dixie flag as representing?

Are you going to blame them for interpreting it as KKK?

If they do so, yes of course. Because given the circumstances they have no bridge to that conclusion. They would be making an assumption. Which is what I've been pointing out here in this cartoon about the "racist" question.

 

[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......

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

prove im a teabagger you dumb fucking Stroonge... i can prove your a Stroonge.....

Oh don't get your panties in a wad, teabagger.

i dont wear "panties".....thats for guys like you.....i wear Mens underwear.....

......

 

[Vigilante]

I believe this is racist......

 

[Vigilante]

I also believe this is racist.....

 

[Vigilante]

I think THIS is racist....

 

[Vigilante]

This must also be racist....

 

[Vigilante]

Anything like THIS MUST be racist.....

 

[Vigilante]

A LATINO saying this is definitely racist....

 

[Vigilante]

MORE racism....

 

[emilynghiem]

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.

Dear Pogo and also Blacksand:
Generally I do not see ANY of these things as "value judgments"
So I'm sorry I gave you the wrong impression.

But you gave me an idea:

1. Maybe the problem is you drop the value judgments BEFORE you apply the term, so you don't use racist which implies all this negative stuff. I let people use whatever terms they use, even racist, but prefer to say "racial bias" or "racially charged" to blame the language and not the people, and drop the judgments even IF something is racially biased or charged, because i don't agree with the negativity attached.

You and I both agree to drop and stop with the value judgments.

But I do so REGARDLESS what terms people use, and you object to the terms themselves while I am okay with talking about racial biases openly and not placing judgment.

2. here is the interpretation of the cartoon you and I might agree on:

I would AGREE with the interpretation that the cartoonist is just depicting
the stereotypical division in the media and debates about immigration that exist.

Whether the cartoonist agrees or disagrees, with this that or the other being assumed or projected or whatever, this division is being DEPICTED.

Are you okay with that?

3. Here is a poem I wrote that I called
RACIST RAP and ADMIT it is OPENLY racist.

The whole point is to bring those out and admit these stereotypes exist
and to make fun of the fear of racism and all the hatred, to spoof it all:

It is a spoof on "What is Pink?" by Christina Rosetti
========================================
"Racist Rap: What is White"

What is Black? A Brother's Black
Shoot 'im in the back and say you were attacked.
What is Brown? Latino's are Brown
Working underground to keep the price of labor down.

What is Red? An Injun is Red
Trade homesteads for prison beds
(Tell them Feds me scalp their heads) * (political reference to Leonard Peltier)
What is Green? Martians are Green
Our future can be seen in their funky time machine

What is Yellow? A Jap is Yellow
Suicidal fellow with a bid on Monticello (spoken in a bad Asian accent)
What is White? Why a White
Wush is White!
==========================================

So given this poem PLAYS on Racist Stereotypes
YES I would say it is RACIST or Racially Biased.

The only difference is it makes fun of ALL the spectrum,
so it shows how people do this to each other and everyone.
It's still racist, but points it out all over the place.

I don't attach judgments when I say that.
But I still understand the same labels of RACIST
that "other people use" to charge and blame each other
with very negative judgments attached.

So given where I am coming from Pogo,
can you see why I would say that
Cartoon "plays on racial images or stereotypes"

It directly references white vs brown skin
so it knowingly is going to invoke those interpretations
and I'm not going to blame it on the audience
for "seeing it that way" because the lighter vs. browner
skin color was used to depict what people would SEE as RACE or whatever.

It PLAYS on perceptions of RACE,
so that's why people are calling it RACIST.

You call it incendiary because of "other things"

I will not deny that cartoon deliberately
PLAYS on racial bias and stereotypes.

Just like my poem that deliberately uses RACIST terms, it is making a statement
using those labels "Associated with Race"

I guess you just don't call things Racist that other people do.

[as for superiority, I am not going to change the minds of ALL people who believe Christianity is superior, or American Constitutionalism, or Capitalism, or White or Black being superior.Some of those people will not change. What I can do is agree to work with all people, even these with superority complexes over others, and still work with them on common goals. So if the KKK wants to save historic sites like Jefferson's home and memorials, or the Blacks want to build their own Federal Reserve program just for Black reparations, I'm all for it. If they think they are superior, and it helps them focus to save American history or economy, that's fine, that's a good use of those beliefs in White power or Black power or whatever motivates them.

What is destructive is when people divide over conflicts they won't forgive, but fear and blame other people or groups. We can have civil separation, such as by religion or party, and not get divided and fight. So I even will tolerate this "inferior/superior attitude" as long as people can forgive each other's beliefs and still get work done we all agree is helpful and productive.

 

[Vigilante]

And this has to be racism, as it depicts the mulatto maniac in full bloom!

 

[mudwhistle]

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

I prefer "Beaners".....

 

[bendog]

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?

Well, I think the nerd engineer of Indian (or something) heritage is cute too. But it IS a stereotype. Not all, or even most, folks of Indian descent are science genius nerds. But, we laugh, and stereotypes have to have some basis in fact. Asians are seen as uber overachievers, and CalPoly and MIT have high representations. I suspect the ad is at least mildly offensive to non-uber overachiever science nerds of Asian descent.

I think the cartoon used people of "darker" than Caucasian skin as illegal immigrants to make the connection to illegal immigrants. Not all, or even most, latinos in the US are illegal immigrants. And, I suspect the cartoon is offensive to them.

To me the distinction is that there's no suggestion the Asians broke the law, nor is there the dehumanizing of calling people "illegal" as a noun or ignoring the fact that our laws have encouraged illegal immigration for the economic benefit of us.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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.

tell that to Romney.
Yes its racist as it implies one race's superiority over another.

Who implied that other than you?

the cartoonist

Stop pointing out the obvious to bigrebnc who obviously wishes to ignore the cartoon itself. (-:

Only a stupid fuck would see it as racist.

 

[bendog]

Well I think you're a result of a stupid fuck, or a fuck by stupid people with predictable results.

 

[bendog]

Well I think you're a result of a stupid fuck, or a fuck by stupid people with a predictable result.

 

[hipeter924]

Nowhere near as bad as the cartoons down under, which set the bar for really racist cartoons:

 

[emilynghiem]

Only a stupid fuck would see it as racist.

Hi bigrebnc1775
Maybe you can explain to me what Pogo and I can't seem to agree on either.

The reason I see the cartoon as playing on racial stereotypes
is that the cartoonist knows that MOST people are going to interpret
the people outside the window with brown skin as Mexican or Latino/Hispanic considered a "Race"
and MOST people are going to interpret the people inside the house as WHITE Americans.

So that's what I mean by this cartoon depicting RACE and racially charged
stereotypes in the Immigration debate, where MOST people are arguing about Mexicans.
So that is the predominant association, and this Cartoonist knows this.

Now where I think we're going wrong:
I'm not saying the Cartoonist is a racist.
the Cartoonist can be just PRESENTING the issue in the media that
EVERYONE knows is being debated and dividing people.

We ALL know that the most common perception is
"White Americans divided over Mexicans coming here illegally"
as the predominant image of the Immigration debate.
[Even though there are Latino's against illegal immigration
and there are many Whites who support amnesty and help for immigrants to continue.]

So I'm perfectly okay with saying the Cartoon
portrays the racist division, WITHOUT saying the Cartoonist is racist and WITHOUT
denying the skin color references or saying the the people interpreting it to be race
are making an issue where there isn't one. The cartoon deliberately depicted this.

The depiction of Mexicans, Latino's and race is ALREADY exploited
in the Immigration debate, and the cartoon clearly depicts that to me
by making the people inside the house white or light skinned
and making the people outside the window brown or darker skinned.

This is designed to portray those racial stereotypes already out
there and in people's heads, regardless what the intent of the Cartoonist is to invoke those racial references,
the Cartoon CLEARLY plays on them, using white/brown skin tone to make that distinction!