As a black woman, I find the cartoon residing firmly on the lame end of the humor spectrum, but I do not find it racist. Not even after dwelling on it for a few hours. People have been saying Rice is nothing but Bush’s echo for quite a while now. Just because that sentiment has now been put down on paper in the form of a Condi-parrot, we’re supposed to be all aghast?
Please!
If we were to take out all the cartoon’s political commentary, would our esteemed Bricker be as apt to cry racism? Doubt it seriously. People who find racism in this kind of depiction are usually told to shut their PC pie holes, especially by conservatives. That is until the racism card serves some partisan purpose. That’s when many on the Right seem all too eager to defend the honor of the victimized black folk, all in the attempt to appear like Lincoln’s party. This is nothing new.
Trent Lott’s comments at Strom’s lil party? “Oh, he didn’t mean anything by it. T’was only blowing air up the old guy’s skirt.”
But what about Affirmative Action? “That plays into the hands of the Soft Bigotry of Low Expectations! We can’t have that!”
Sadly, it looks like Bricker is carrying the torch for his party in this regard. “Let’s exploit race when it suits us, and dismiss it flippantly when it does not! Yay!” That is not to say that the Dems don’t do the same thing. It’s highly likely that they do. It just doesn’t seem as blatant and pervasive. The thread title says it all, really. Bricker is clearly bothered that the “tolerant and diverse” label goes to the liberals, but instead of trying to prove why conservatives are actually more “tolerant and diverse”–which is the more upstanding thing to do-- he is taking the more Jan Brady-I’m-jealous-of-you approach by trying to make the liberals out to be hypocrites.
Yeah, you admitted that the cartoon is not racist, after a bunch of people explained why. Bravo!
That doesn’t clear you of trying to attack liberals, though. Read the title of the thread and then try to tell me that all of this is one big misunderstanding.
If that’s the case, I hope you’ll forgive those of us who are Democratically-inclined for our failure to have previously recognized Mr. Oliphant as a spokesman for the party.
Big lips, akin to the racist caricatures of Robert Crumb. I see it. And its even probably something that Democrats could get away with that Republicans couldn’t (I mean, can yuo imagine the uproar if a similar cartoon was made of Clinton and an African American yes-man in his administration?). I can just hear the liberal professor droning on about the insight that it gives into latent conservative racism.
Again, considering convention among caricature, her being depicted with big lips might not necessarily be racist.
Because her outstanding features are supposedly in the same set of the black stereotype, you could argue that it is portraying a stereotype in a racist manner, but you must acknowledge the coincidence in some sense; simply saying it’s racism doesn’t make it so.
Look, I’m no prince charming myself, but she’s not the most attractive woman in the world. I would expect a satirist drawing me would exaggerate my less desirable features as well. In this case, it happens to be Rice’s mouth, scowling eyes, and forehead.
At most, this is the Outrage of the Week.
Fact is, even if this were racist, does anyone - should anyone - care about that particular message? Personally, I’d write him off if that were the case - even if it meant missing his commentary, earth-shattering though it may be.
That’s right! Even if this was a blatantly racist cartoon, it deserves little more than a “what an asshole” comment, a quick mental note not to pay much mind to the artist, and to move on.
If the cartoonist had portrayed Dr. Rice with stereotypical African-American features that she does not actually have, then that would be cause for speaking up.
I would certainly hope that people would decry racism when they see it, but not as Democrats or Republicans or Mugwumps or the Last of the Redhot Redeconstructionists. I hope they do it as decent human beings who want what’s fair for everybody.
Some of the things that Manny described sound as if they are over my line anyway.
Bricker, I hope that you can cite examples of the Democratic leadership making excuses for racist comments. If there has been anything recent, I will share what is left of my mind.
Of course! Since the Legion of the Opressed are almost all Democratic, they will pounce on a Republican for the same things that a Democrat gets a pass on. See: Lott, Trent and Byrd, Robert.
Bwana, use of the Putz smilie as a personal insult is NOT allowed in Great Debates. You and Zagadka can take your enlightened discussion of political parties’ characteristics to the Pit.
Pat Oliphant has been characterizing Ms. Rice as a parrot for a pretty long time now (she’s usually perched on the Bush’s throne, the better to whisper in his chimp-size ears). This is the first reference I’ve ever seen to it being seen as racially demeaning.
Well, maybe. From my own perspective, Trent Lott was done in by his own. His comments were kinda dumb, but I didn’t think them any big deal, nor did anyone I know on the conservative wing of the extreme left. We already knew Trent was a dickhead, as for Strom Thurmond…words fail. If the White House and the Republican leadership had fallen in behind Trent Lott as they have fallen in behind Tom DeLay (R-Undead), he would still be happily esconced. They backstabbed him because they wanted to bring Bill Frist along crisply. Better hair.
As for Senator Byrd, it entirely true he was a racist from a racist heritage, who did not question his error till considerably late in life. But he did, and that’s what counts. We expect people to change, that is the very essence of a progressive agenda, to encourage change and evolve a better society.
If it were easy to be good, more of us would do it.
Note that Byrd immediately (the very same day) apologized for his idiotic remark, whereas Lott took forever to apologize for his ode to Strom Thurmond circa 1948. Note further that Byrd has been roundly condemned by any number of Democrats, including myself (and I’ll find the posts if you want 'em) for his past dalliance with the Klan and his latter-day racial idiocies. Note still further that West Virginia is a solidly red state on culture issues, so you’re welcome to him.
Sorry, should have clarified–the interview was taped on a Friday but broadcast on Tony Snow’s Sunday morning show, and Byrd apologized the same day it was broadcast.
Given that you took me to task for taking comments from the Board and ascribing them to the Democratic Party, I will say: (a) I acknowledge and appreciate your personal willingness to condemn Byrd for his contemporary remarks, but (b) I’m not really aware of prominent Democrats in the real world doing so. I’d appreciate the opportunity to be educated to the contrary, of course.
Note that I’m not talking about his age-old Klan association. The past should be the past. I’m talking about more recent things, such as the “white niggers” comment.
Trent Lott was forced out of the Senate leadership by his own party. His comments about Strom Thurmond initially went unnoticed by the mainstream media and the story only picked up steam after it became a topic of discussion on the internet. Once it did become a story Lott was pilloried vociferously by conservatives both in the media and in Congress…and by George W. Bush, by the way.
I’m no fan of Byrd but I’m not aware that he has made any racist remarks recently (within the past couple of decades) except for a dumbass comment about “white niggers” which was covered and condemned by the mainstream press. Byrd was not the Senate Majority Leader, though, so he was not in a position where his comments carried the same significance and PR consequences for his own party as Lott’s did for his. Bush and Rove had more to do with Lott getting the boot than liberals or the meda.
I remember that I actually opposed on this board the booting of Lott from the SML position and I’m pretty sure I’ve said that I think Byrd is an asswipe.
I’m also positive that I never tried to blame all Republicans responsible for Lott’s statements about Thurmond (btw, my take on that was that Lott had a belly full of single malt, that he was trying to say something nice to the old guy and that he just didn’t think about what he was saying), I never said that every conservative on this board had an obligation to condemn him for it and I never said that Lott was in anyway representative of the party.
instead of the :wally .