Indeed.
It brings to mind Jill Stein’s eloquence in denouncing corporate comedians.
No, both are artistic works, the editor didn’t hold the pen for him.
The great masters of the renaissance worked under commissions too. The boys with deep pockets were the Catholic Church, were their works “corporate speech” as well?
I have an idea: Let’s allow White Americans to determine whether anything is racist or not.
And if he didn’t publish it, we wouldn’t be having this conversation. Editorial cartoons are speech by the whole newspaper, not just the artist.
It’s not about who pays for it, it’s about how it’s disseminated. But yes, the religious paintings, hung in churches and basilicas, by TGM *were *corporate speech. The private commissions, like Mona Lisa, weren’t.
So - no change, then? 
She has her hair pulled back in both cartoons, has big lips in both cartoons, and she is stomping on a racket in the cartoon in the OP. 'Fraid I don’t see it - can you be more specific?
Regards,
Shodan
“Piss Christ” won a competition sponsored in part by the National Endowment for the Arts, so you could call it “government speech”. :dubious:
it is an interpretation, by an artist, of a subject. End of story.
explain that one to me.
OK, so if that’s the line you are taking, the Sistine Chapel by little Micky Paintbrush should be held as less worthy than the Mona Lisa?
Exactly. Not to mention in the “non-racist” cartoon her nostrils are exaggerated to the size of her eyes 3x larger than normal. If that isn’t playing to black stereotypes, I don’t know what is, and flies in the face of anyone who claims her nose isn’t her “defining feature,” while still claiming this cartoon isn’t racist.
Someone else complained about her being depicted for wearing earrings. Not only does Serena regularly wear earrings, Serena is known to regularly wear LARGE earrings:
http://www.tennisgrandstand.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/serena-williams-aussie09ear.jpg
Sure.
Non-racist cartoon: Her lips are normal-sized. Yes, her lower lip is jutting out in concentration or a sneer, and thus appears larger, but you can see that for three-quarters of their length, her lips are average-size compared to her face. You can see her teeth, which give her a very human expression.
Racist cartoon: Her lips are uniformly thickened all the way around her mouth, which is opened to form a round shape. There are no teeth, and the overall impression is like a monkey (a historical racist image).
Non-racist cartoon: Her frizzy hair is pulled back, but you can clearly see that she has slicked back hair on her head that extends down to her ears. It’s a normal hairstyle for a woman.
Racist cartoon: She has no hair at all except for a top knot and some wispy bangs. The area above her ears is extended so that you can see clearly that there is no hair for a good area above them, giving her head an ugly bald appearance.
Non-racist cartoon: She has strong muscular legs that can be clearly seen in a pose that is easily recognizable as that of a tennis player.
Racist cartoon: Her knees are pulled up almost to her shoulders in a foreshortened squatting pose which is again very reminiscent of a monkey.
To anyone who is at all familiar with American racist imagery intended to connect images of black people with monkeys, it is clear that the racist cartoon is racist.
You’re really seeing monkey there. Where I don’t. At all. Not to mention your post comes off as phrenology parody. Strange. Do monkeys have long hair but none on the rest of their body?
That punch up not down meme is stupid. Sorry if that’s punching down but you nor anyone has the authority to dictate what is wrong or right with regards to satire. The whole concept of groups that cannot be criticized, satirized, or even negatively commented upon is nothing more than a method to disingenuously deflect.
“Punch up, not down” is not literally a decree or “dictate” about what you can or can’t say. It’s an explanation of why you get different reactions from saying certain sorts of things.
No matter how much you may resent it, there are genuine historical and cultural reasons why, in our society, white people making fun of black people is widely perceived as uglier, meaner and less funny than black people making fun of white people. Same for men making fun of women or rich people making fun of poor people: the mockery is funnier in the other direction.
That’s not to say that there aren’t still lots of people who just love to hear white people mocking black people or men mocking women or rich people mocking poor people, nor that that kind of “punching down” mockery should be officially forbidden in any way. It’s just a diagnosis of why “punching up” is generally considered funnier.
I’m not seeing monkey - I’m seeing racist elements that are intended to be reminiscent of monkeys. I debated when I should stop discussing this, because at some point, describing what is intended to invoke racist thoughts inevitably will begin to sound racist. I have done my best to answer questions in good faith, and to explain the evidence as clearly as possible.
The bottom line is what I said in my very first post in this thread:
Sure I’ll concede that making fun of blackness, being a woman, or poverty can be hard to do well especially if one is from a more so-called privileged group. But making fun of someone who happens to be black or happens to be a woman is not the same concept. At all. Conflating the two is disingenuous. I’m not saying you are doing this but in this thread and elsewhere the difference seems to be deliberately ignored.
I like a good “Cracka assed-cracker” joke as much as the next guy, but I don’t think it’s necessarily funnier than a white comedian talking about race. The joke and delivery really is key. Now, I could see it making you more uncomfortable than a black on white joke, and therefore by extension, less funny, but that’s personal, not “general”.
“Officially forbidden?” Yikes. What’s your litmus test on “mocking”? Literally none? Should Bert Williams, who has a new special on Netflix, be “officially forbidden”? Maybe you’re not familiar with his comedy, but I was a bit shocked at some of his material. The idea that he should be “officially forbidden” though is honestly scary to me though.
I thought he was saying that it should NOT be officially forbidden.
Oh, yeah, I misread that. Thanks.
Anyway, I see this as kind of a Rorschach test. One could see her pose as “reminicent of a monkey” or one could see it like “cartoonish stomping”.
Good caricaturists exaggerate only the features that distinguish that person from everyone else, NOT just from everyone who isn’t Black. Suppose you hadn’t seen or read anything about the match but, like most humans, you know who Serena Williams is. Now suppose you saw only the caricature of SW in the OP cartoon and not Osaka, the official, the racquet, etc. You’d have no idea WHO that’s supposed to be.
I can only conclude that those who think Blacks can’t be caricatured without massively exaggerated lips, nostrils, and hair, etc. have some kind of face blindness, not only because they apparently see all Blacks as having (relatively) thick lips, wide nostrils, etc., but because these viewers apparently see no other distinguishing features.
A kind of face blindness concerning other races is a well documented phenomenon.