Cartoonist Slammed As 'Racist' For Serena Williams Cartoon

[Gilligan]

No.

They sure look rayciss to me....

 

[Toxick]

They sure look rayciss to me....

You should write the syndicates where those racist monstrosities came from and tell them, in detail, how you feel about it.

 

[black dog]

No.




IF I walk into a restaurant, and take a big stinking #### in the middle of the floor and then say - "HEY! I'm just going to the bathroom, it's perfectly natural!" - That doesn't make the patrons of that restaurant a bunch of stuck-up floofy-floofs because they interpret my behavior to be barbaric and disgusting. It makes my behavior barbaric and disgusting regardless of intent.




Even if it wasn't my intent to make everyone throw up and leave.

Are you a black woman living in Calvert?

 

[Toxick]

Are you a black woman living in Calvert?

Charles.

 

[Gilligan]

You should write the syndicates where those racist monstrosities came from and tell them, in detail, how you feel about it.

I think I will!


Right after I finish this crossword puzzle...and have a couple beers...and...

 

[Gilligan]

I said good day, sir!





jk.





OK - I initially parsed that as That is to say that to interpret it as racist makes the interpreter racist
Having read it a second time I parsed it as "No offense", before or after saying something really offensive.


Not that I'm offended. I've been called a lot worse, for much less call. But I hope you get the concept of what I mean.





I guess I just don't see the point. I already knew your perspective, and I know mine. And as I stated, I couldn't see a path to an honest resolution. You're going to double down on dictionary definitions and pedantry, and I just look at the image in question to have a mind to dismiss all of that out of hand.


And my primary argument: "Look at the goddam thing - just look at it" is not real fodder for intellectual discussion. And in my mind, I don't need to read a dictionary to know that when I look at that picture, it conjures up images that I find inherently and undeniably racist. Or at the very least ignorant as ####.

Was it her hair?

 

[This_person]

I said good day, sir!





jk.

OK - I initially parsed that as That is to say that to interpret it as racist makes the interpreter racist
Having read it a second time I parsed it as "No offense", before or after saying something really offensive.


Not that I'm offended. I've been called a lot worse, for much less call. But I hope you get the concept of what I mean.

It wasn't just "no offense", it was "I really don't think you're racist for seeing the drawing as such, just that you've been conditioned to find a racial component where there is none." Not that you believe in the superiority of one race over another. You've been brainwashed to believe that any potential of racist intent is actual proof of racist intent. My justification for this is that you said, yourself, you don't believe the artist was meaning anything racist. Again, racism REQUIRES that intent. Thus, it's down to "how do you see it, Bob" as opposed to being what it is.

We can certainly agree that if it was the 1950s, and was not about a person in particular in the 21st century, it would be very derogatory. I choose to go past that, though. I wish you did as well.

I guess I just don't see the point. I already knew your perspective, and I know mine. And as I stated, I couldn't see a path to an honest resolution. You're going to double down on dictionary definitions and pedantry, and I just look at the image in question to have a mind to dismiss all of that out of hand.


And my primary argument: "Look at the goddam thing - just look at it" is not real fodder for intellectual discussion. And in my mind, I don't need to read a dictionary to know that when I look at that picture, it conjures up images that I find inherently and undeniably racist. Or at the very least ignorant as ####.

I'll agree to go with ignorant, but I don't find definitions to be pedantic.

Here's why I'll agree with ignorant: more people are of the mind you are than the mind I am, and therefore it is reasonable to expect people to find problems even though none exist. "Ignorant" is one way to look at that if, as a capitalist society you want to make more money, and you do that by NOT offending people. I would also go with "progressive" in that it may help bridge the gap between "70 years ago drawings like that were based on racist ideas" and "it is not racist to caricature someone with actual exaggerations of their physical characteristics even if that means it looks like what people did 70 years ago."

Me, I'd rather start bridging that gap.



Take it to a different topic with the same problem. Is it sexist to expect your daughter's husband to support her financially, but not have the exact same expectation of your daughter to your son-in-law?

Yeah, that's sexist. There can be no argument.

But, I'm in my 50's and if my current or future (one daughter married, one not) SIL do not work but stay at home, I'm going to suggest my daughter reconsider her choice. Why, when I know it is sexist?

Because, that's how I'm conditioned.



Taking that back to the drawing, I think the drawing is damned ignorant, and borderline offensive. But, I know things have to change, and my point is very valid that it is not 70 years ago and your point that the artist likely was not using a racist mindset is also very valid. So, we need to not look at it for what people would have 70 years ago, but 70 years from now. Hopefully, in the future, we can make fun of a black woman's looks just like every other ethnicity and divisive category without there being charges of racism in it when there's no racism in it.

 

[Toxick]

just that you've been conditioned to find a racial component where there is none."

…

You've been brainwashed to believe that any potential of racist intent is actual proof of racist intent.

Have you ever read anything I've ever written before this thread?

I haven't been conditioned nor brainwashed of anything - and I'm a bit irritated by that accusation. I pride myself on my independent thinking and basing my opinions on reality, rather than following the trends and mantrae of either rightwing or leftwing shills and talking heads. I am usually on the side of, "That's not racist, you're overreacting and victimizing yourself, so shaddap". In this case, I think the accusation had merit.

Not because I looked up racism in the dictionary, but because when I looked at the picture, I said, "Whoa! How did that make it from the easel to the newspaper?"

I'll agree to go with ignorant, but I don't find definitions to be pedantic.

It depends on the situation. If something is clearly skirting a line, or even crossing one - and you have to break out the dictionary to defend your position, that's pedantry*.

Maybe it'll stand up in court where the verbiage, not the spirit is considered - But we're not in court, we out on here on the porch**. As such, I'm not interested in technicalities like that to win an argument.

Taking that back to the drawing, I think the drawing is damned ignorant, and borderline offensive.

Dear bleeding Christ.

But, I know things have to change, and my point is very valid that it is not 70 years ago and your point that the artist likely was not using a racist mindset is also very valid. So, we need to not look at it for what people would have 70 years ago, but 70 years from now. Hopefully, in the future, we can make fun of a black woman's looks just like every other ethnicity and divisive category without there being charges of racism in it when there's no racism in it.

I've seen caricatures of Maxine Waters, and …. I forget her name - that idiot with the ridiculous hats - And Oprah, and many others without thinking they're racist. I've even seen caricatures of Elizabeth Warren that were not offensive to Native Americans.




But in this particular case ... Epic Fail.






* Disclaimer: It's not the actual dictionary definition of pedantry.

**on a wooden porch swing and sundry patio furniture, drinking sweet ice-teas and keeping it real.***

*** Porch concept stolen from Stephen King, Tommyknockers 1988.

 

[Gilligan]

I've even seen caricatures of Elizabeth Warren that were not offensive to Native Americans.

iswydt

 

[Toxick]

iswydt

I giggled as I typed that.

 

[This_person]

Have you ever read anything I've ever written before this thread?

I haven't been conditioned nor brainwashed of anything - and I'm a bit irritated by that accusation. I pride myself on my independent thinking and basing my opinions on reality, rather than following the trends and mantrae of either rightwing or leftwing shills and talking heads. I am usually on the side of, "That's not racist, you're overreacting and victimizing yourself, so shaddap". In this case, I think the accusation had merit.

Not because I looked up racism in the dictionary, but because when I looked at the picture, I said, "Whoa! How did that make it from the easel to the newspaper?"

Well, I don't know what to say....I don't think that it is just YOU that's been brainwashed, I think it is our society. And, since it's not the 1950's, I really can't see any other reason for your response.

I agree, from what I have read of you I find you a very independent thinker, and you almost always find a humorous and refreshing look at things. But, in this case, it does not feel that there's any other reason to find this racist than, "that used to be racist when they did it before, so it must be racist now."

It depends on the situation. If something is clearly skirting a line, or even crossing one - and you have to break out the dictionary to defend your position, that's pedantry*.

Maybe it'll stand up in court where the verbiage, not the spirit is considered - But we're not in court, we out on here on the porch**. As such, I'm not interested in technicalities like that to win an argument.

Fair enough (BTW, I prefer lemonade, but I'll drink the tea you offered because you're so nice about it).

I really am not trying to resort to the dictionary. I really just think - well, it's not racist. It's ignorant from the point of view of knowing people will find it racist (even if it isn't), but that doesn't make it racist or wrong from any other standpoint.

I'm not really interested in the technicalities, but I do know racism when I see it, too.

We fully agree it looks like what was racist back when the reason someone drew like that was because they were racist. I see that the way you do.

But, how can we ever treat people the same if we can't treat people the same because they weren't treated the same before? That's a real question. She is masculine, so the masculine portions of the drawing are exaggerations of the truth. The nose is an exaggeration of her nose. The jumping up and down on the racket is an exaggeration of what she actually did.

Just because it looks old-school doesn't mean it IS old school. That's all I'm saying.

I've seen caricatures of Maxine Waters, and …. I forget her name - that idiot with the ridiculous hats - And Oprah, and many others without thinking they're racist. I've even seen caricatures of Elizabeth Warren that were not offensive to Native Americans.

Ok, that was funny.

So, what SPECIFICALLY makes this one an epic fail? I ask because I see nothing that is not a caricature of actual features of the person. What am I seeing inaccurately? What is not an exaggeration of real Williams?

 

[Toxick]

We fully agree it looks like what was racist back when the reason someone drew like that was because they were racist. I see that the way you do.

No, I don't think you do.


Back in the day, things like that were NOT considered "racist" in the same way we would today. It was just some harmless fun.
Y'know like blackface.

If some ####### did that today, he would be rightly considered wildly racist. I see this cartoon very much like a blackfaced idiot talking about his maaammy. Maybe acceptable in the 1930's, but not in 2018.

But, how can we ever treat people the same if we can't treat people the same because they weren't treated the same before?

What the hell did you just say to me?

So, what SPECIFICALLY makes this one an epic fail? I ask because I see nothing that is not a caricature of actual features of the person. What am I seeing inaccurately? What is not an exaggeration of real Williams?

Given that you expressed recognition that the picture is ignorant and offensive a few posts back, I think you are quite cognizant of what I specifically find wrong with the picture.



However you are loathe to use the term "racist" to describe it.

I am not.









PS: Just to put a fine point on it: That picture is one bone-through-the-nose away from a complete 1940's stereotype.

 

[Clem72]

What the hell did you just say to me?

He said

Not being able to speak is not the same as not speaking. You seem as if you like to talk. I like to let people talk who like to talk. It makes it easier to find out how full of #### they are.

 

[Hijinx]

I must be racist, I thought it was funny.

Now I won't be able to sleep tonight because someone thinks I am racist.
It's a terrible burden to bear.

I probably won't vote for Ben Jealous either.
But I can't wait for Eric Holder to run for President.
Gosh: The investigations into that should be great fun.
Fast and furious, Contempt of Congress. et. al. Can't wait.

 

[Smokey1]

However you are loathe to use the term "racist" to describe it.

I am not.

Just out of curiosity how do you define "racism"?

 

[This_person]

No, I don't think you do.


Back in the day, things like that were NOT considered "racist" in the same way we would today. It was just some harmless fun.
Y'know like blackface.

If some ####### did that today, he would be rightly considered wildly racist. I see this cartoon very much like a blackfaced idiot talking about his maaammy. Maybe acceptable in the 1930's, but not in 2018.

It was acceptable fun back then because it was acceptable to consider the mere fact of being a different skin tone something to make fun of. It would be like today, if we made fun of Ebonics-speak, or pants so far down you can't run from the police, or having names with multiple apostrophes and/or funny spellings like AirWrecka instead of Erica.

Wait, we make those jokes now. As I recall, Eddie Murphy made fun in a movie of weird kid names when he said his kids were named Mo'nique and Eu-nique.

But, I digress.

The point is, back then it was BASED ON racial differences. There needed to be absolutely no other differentiating factor than race to make fun.

So, I'll ask again - what about this drawing is based solely on a racial difference and NOT on actual identifying factors of the person involved?

What the hell did you just say to me?

1. We need to be able to make fun of anyone and everyone, regardless of race. That is treating people the same.
2. If we assume making fun of someone's ACTUAL characteristics is making fun of them based on race, we cannot make fun of some people.

This leads to the question, how do we get rid of (2) so we can do (1)?

Given that you expressed recognition that the picture is ignorant and offensive a few posts back, I think you are quite cognizant of what I specifically find wrong with the picture.



However you are loathe to use the term "racist" to describe it.

I am not.

But, what you ARE loathe to do is tell me WHY it is racist. What about it is NOT based on the person, but rather based on the race of the person?

PS: Just to put a fine point on it: That picture is one bone-through-the-nose away from a complete 1940's stereotype.

Yet, based completely on the actual features of the person and does NOT have that bone through the nose.

A distinction with a difference.

 

[Toxick]

But, what you ARE loathe to do is tell me WHY it is racist.

I see what you want from me, and I'm not going to give it to you.


First of all, you acknowledged yesterday that you can see why the damned thing is ignorant and offensive. But you don't want to use the word racist. So try this: whatever it is YOU think makes it "ignorant and offensive" is what I think makes it "racist".


Also, I've seen you argue and debate and I know how you operate - and I can see that at this point, you are now simply trying to win an argument. When you read my words you're not trying to understand the points I made nor are you intending to understand the spirit of where I'm coming from - you are analyzing my words to find out where the weaknesses are and how you can exploit them. You are trying to railroad me into saying something like, "It's the hair", or "It's the ears" or some ####, so you can say "AHA! The hair is just hair - it looks like her hair - so it's not racist", "AHA! The ears are just ears! They look like her ears, so it's not racist".

Completely ignoring the fact that the whole is more than the just sum of the parts. That is the kind of pedantic nonsense I told you from the get-go that I'm not interested in engaging.


It is not individual parts of the image that I find to be wrong. It is THE Image.

I cannot point to individual pieces and say - "There.... right there. That part. That is what makes it a racially insensitive drawing". And as I told you, yesterday, simply telling someone: "Look at this piece of garbage. Just look at it" doesn't make for stimulating intellectual discourse when both parties have already made up their minds.




Anyway, I've said my piece on the subject.

You think I'm looking for reasons to be offended.
I think you're in denial about something as plain as the nose on your face.

There's no point in going around in more circles, and I honestly don't see this conversation doing anything else besides that.

 

[This_person]

I see what you want from me, and I'm not going to give it to you.


First of all, you acknowledged yesterday that you can see why the damned thing is ignorant and offensive. But you don't want to use the word racist. So try this: whatever it is YOU think makes it "ignorant and offensive" is what I think makes it "racist".


Also, I've seen you argue and debate and I know how you operate - and I can see that at this point, you are now simply trying to win an argument. When you read my words you're not trying to understand the points I made nor are you intending to understand the spirit of where I'm coming from - you are analyzing my words to find out where the weaknesses are and how you can exploit them. You are trying to railroad me into saying something like, "It's the hair", or "It's the ears" or some ####, so you can say "AHA! The hair is just hair - it looks like her hair - so it's not racist", "AHA! The ears are just ears! They look like her ears, so it's not racist".

Completely ignoring the fact that the whole is more than the just sum of the parts. That is the kind of pedantic nonsense I told you from the get-go that I'm not interested in engaging.


It is not individual parts of the image that I find to be wrong. It is THE Image.

I cannot point to individual pieces and say - "There.... right there. That part. That is what makes it a racially insensitive drawing". And as I told you, yesterday, simply telling someone: "Look at this piece of garbage. Just look at it" doesn't make for stimulating intellectual discourse when both parties have already made up their minds.




Anyway, I've said my piece on the subject.

You think I'm looking for reasons to be offended.
I think you're in denial about something as plain as the nose on your face.

There's no point in going around in more circles, and I honestly don't see this conversation doing anything else besides that.

Well, as I told you, what I find ignorant is from the point of view of being a capitalist - you don't attack those in your audience that can't tell the difference between actually offensive and appearance of offensive. That, my friend, is NOT racist by definition or in the broader context you mean it in.

I want to point out to you that the "AHA, THAT'S not racist" is the list over every single thing about the drawing. It IS very possible for the sum to be greater than the parts, but, in this case it simply isn't EXCEPT as interpreted by the beholder. It's just not there in the drawing, thank you for agreeing with that.

I do not think you are looking for reasons to be offended - that's just stupid of someone to do, and you are NOT stupid in my estimation at all.

I am not in denial, I am looking at what is there instead of adding to the sum of those parts and finding something that's admitted NOT there. It is ONLY in the eye of the beholder. That does NOT mean you are racist, that means you've been programmed and conditioned.

Read to understand, not to respond. YOU said it's not there, except in the interpretation beyond the sum of the parts. YOU are the one admitting what I am saying is accurate - YOU are the one in denial, sir.

 

[vraiblonde]

Well, as I told you, what I find ignorant is from the point of view of being a capitalist - you don't attack those in your audience that can't tell the difference between actually offensive and appearance of offensive.

And yet corporations - as well as small Mom and Pops - do it all the time.

 

[Toxick]

It's just not there in the drawing, thank you for agreeing with that.

Just for the record. I'm not agreeing with any such a ####ing thing. Do not put words into my mouth unless it is your intent to piss me off.

that means you've been programmed and conditioned.

Bite me.

Read to understand, not to respond.

You should take your own advice.






And, literally everything else you said in this post is a misrepresentation of what I said and I do not feel compelled to acknowledge nor respond to it.