“How could it be otherwise”? Well, your cartoonists could have the barest awareness of the history of their own medium, and perhaps exercise the barest modicum of effort to avoid stomping on clearly marked beartraps, for a start.
This is sort of like saying “how can a reasonable person avoid being accused of impersonating a police officer? If I happen to be wearing a blue uniform, a badge, and a gunbelt, it could just be coincidence!”
Of course I *asserted *it. It’s what I think, wasn’t that the question?
No. The volume itself is context.
Yes, I have. Volume, and size of audience, and location. All of these are context.
Is it possible you don’t know what context actually means?
Like I said right at the start - equivocation. I specified 3 things about each example. A sincere debater would assume I did so intentionally. An intentional equivocator would look for the loopholes that let him out of acknowledging the obvious differences.
That’s rich. I was asking a question for clarification.
Did you assume all this time I thought the artist was honest when he said he had no racist intent in the OP’s linked article? All my posts saying I think this cartoon is racist are clearly also me calling the artist a liar. I didn’t think it needed spelling out.
Obviously, I was mistaken. I apologize for thinking you’d see the obvious.
I would think the “Ha Ha Ha. No” was already an obvious statement. I wasn’t clarifying, I was asking for clarification, as I don’t understand what you reference by “your previous comments”
Was that what I said? No, I believe, if you follow the chain, you’ll see that I’m saying it’s specifically using exaggerated ethnic features in your caricature that would automatically lead to the assumption one is racist. So no, not any caricaturist. Just the shitty racist ones.
Again, caricatures rely on exaggerated physical characteristics. By definition of the word “caricature”. That the art form was used for absolutely racist purposes in the past does not mean that all exaggerated physical characteristics moving forward have racist purposes. So, it’s not sort of like saying that at all.
Any of the cited examples of “non-racist” caricatures of Serena Williams if put into a negative context would all of a sudden become racist by these definitions, thus making her uncaricaturable. That’s probably not a word though.
Actually, your conclusion is nothing but an opinion. The reason the ridiculous caricatures of the past and some of the present were or are racist is because the person responsible for the drawing is intending the art to be racist. Just like using language can be racist depending upon intent, some aspects of the same racist language can be used completely non racistly.
If you were to do a caricature of someone who happened to be black and had large lips, like Biggie, you’d be doing a disservice to the form to draw tiny little lips so as to not offend. Richmond Illustration Inc.
The above is a link to a caricature of Biggie and a brief essay. It would help many to read it. Of course, those who think all negative or satirical treatment of the perpetually oppressed is off limits may disagree.
I think the answer is by necessity a subjective answer. Think about it for a minute, can a series of lines, dots, slashes, shadings, etc. be racist? Eventually we begin to get into some really abstract territory and also how the human brain functions and mirror neurons and all kinds of shit. You’d also have to see into the mind of the cartoonist both consciously and subconsciously, which is pretty much impossible. In my opinion it isn’t racist but it’s impossible to prove either positively or negatively unless we have an honest dialogue with the illustrator and maybe not even then.
You must have missed the multiple tweets by current male tennis stars like Djokovic that say they’ve said worse things to Ramos and not gotten a warning or penalty (including Ramos going so far as to say “stop, or I’ll have to give you a penalty”).
The bright red lips are what sealed the caricature as racist. That’s Aunt Jemima-level bullshit right there.
But this illustrates precisely why caricature is inherently problematic and should be avoided.
I have often heard variations of the phrase “Just because you experience racism all the time doesn’t mean everything is racism”. My interpretation of this is that it takes two components for racism, or any -ism for that matter, to exist in a society. Namely a belief held, subconscious or otherwise, by members of a society’s dominant race, in the inferiority of a group of people based on the color of their skin and member(s) of that targeted race experiencing a combination of unique and unreasonable hurdles as a result of those beliefs of the dominant race.
What it also means is that the individual perception of racism, on it’s own, is not always sufficient for a charge of racism to be genuine and true. As well as just because the person(s) being accused of racism believes, honestly, that they are not being or perpetuating racism does not in any way mean they are correct. I think it’s a stumbling block, on both sides, in the war on racism.
Yes.
You cite dominant race twice here… as if minorities can’t be racist. That’s repugnant. This is a woefully ineffective definition of racism, and I reject it handily.
Prejudicial or preferential treatment in contexts where it is inappropriate (there’s a long list for what constitutes “inappropriate”, but it excludes sexual preference and includes business, for instance), based upon race. It doesn’t matter which race is dominant, and to argue otherwise is giving inappropriately prejudicial or preferential treatment based on race.
He didn’t say minorities couldn’t be racist. They can be. Is it as systemic, horrible and life debilitating? Maybe not.
His definition specifically excludes minorities from being racist. They are not the “dominant race” and therefore, under that definition, cannot be racist.
It’s a sentiment I hear a lot, and it’s aggravating because it’s both wrong and extremely hypocritical.
Let me use my disability as an analogy as an attempt to explain. I belong to a minority group that is disabled people, specifically wheelchair users. Marginalization is something that I am familiar with and can recognize in other minority groups as well. It is this marginalization that affects the second component of what constitutes racism. And that is it’s unique and unreasonable hurdles experienced by members of the race on the receiving end of these beliefs of inferiority held by members of the dominant race. While anyone and everyone can believe other people or races are inferior based on skin color, only the dominant group/race actually wields significant power to negatively impact the lives of those they believe to be inferior.
If the minorities are in a position (in any place and time) to negatively affect you due to your race, then they are in a dominant position (for that time and place).
Perfect. Very succint.
{side bar}
Taking notes (re: the other thread)
{/side bar}
??
ETA: the thread talking about autism?
That anyone could defend the OP ‘cartoon’ as ‘not racist’ is baffling.
Maybe. But not surprising.