For the record, I’ll have no comment until others, if they so chose, weigh in.
Those distinctions are really inkblot test to me. I know you think there are specific things which make one ‘racist’ and not another: I’m not seeing it. As separate from the fact that the first is in a depiction criticizing Williams. The last one seems to celebrate her. The second is more neutral. That’s as much to be reflected upon IMO in inspiring different reactions as specifics of hair, position of legs, etc.
In general if it requires careful explanation why a particular caricature is racist, the obvious practical answer is don’t combine criticismof black public figures and caricatures in cartoons. I’m pretty unconvinced that people on your side of the argument in general would find any critical depiction in such a case not ‘racist’.
The depiction of the other player is irrelevant. The incident wasn’t anything Williams did to Osaka, in fact arguably Williams should be credited for treating Osaka graciously, at least later on. But the cartoon isn’t about defending Williams but criticizing her. For the purpose of the cartoon the other player depicted need not be Naomi Osaka. It could be ‘generic top women’s pro tennis player opponent’, who are mostly Europeans.
I think a possibly important distinction is between whether the cartoonist should be faulted for racism vs. the easier question to answer: whether it is a cringey cartoon due to the delicate subject of race. The answer to the latter is quite obviously “yes”, regardless of intent. Which is why I have called for an end to the social acceptance of caricature. But if that’s a bridge too far, at a bare minimum a cartoonist should show any caricature of a Jewish or nonwhite person to a LOT of people to make sure it doesn’t look cringey to any of them before publishing it.
That or they can be smart and competent and informed enough to realize for themselves what the likely reaction will be - contrary to the suggestions of some, there actually are some historical trends that can be studied here. Obviously for some the “not be crappy at your job*” part might be tough to manage on their own.
*Note: I am still entirely unconvinced that the creator of the work in question didn’t consider “being a racist shitbag” to be a part of his job.
All I’ll say to that is thank the stars above that Al Hirschfeld didn’t hear that idea and follow it.
Or they can simply not draw racist caricatures, and if people erroneously interpret them as such, pretty much say “fuck 'em” and move along.
Given that you’re presenting this as an explicit alternative to actually knowing what a racist caricature is and avoiding it, I see no other way to read this but as an endorsement of making explicitly racist caricatures, deliberately or through deliberate ‘ignorance’, and then telling your critics “fuck 'em” and going on to draw more of the same.
Here you go. This cartoon makes the identical point to the one in the OP, but it is not racist.
It’s not as bad, though the fatness is questionable. But the two Corry El quoted you just above claiming were just fine? Those look really problematic to me.
Okay, so taking this entirely at face value, and granting that Crumb achieved his goal as “criticism of the racist stereotype” (which I’m not going to really grant, and holy shit that aged poorly), that’s an extremely specific context that makes a difference. Without that context, Angelfood McSpade is basically indistinguishable from the typical works of people like A. Wyatt Mann (warning: NSFL), other than being drawn slightly more flatteringly. And this cartoon definitely doesn’t have that context.
I’d say it looks a lot like cartoons about John McEnroe back in the day. (He was a famous white crybaby tennis player in the 80s, honey. --love, Mom)
Saying someone is black isn’t racist. Acknowledging Serena’s hair and lips amounts to saying she’s black.
Saying someone’s acting like a crybaby (note the pacifier) isn’t racist.
Even saying a black person is acting like a crybaby isn’t racist.
If you believe black people are crybabies, then it’s racist.
Without any comment, I want everyone to take a look at this, as this is what I was talking about when I mentioned the history of racism in comics and cartoons: Racist Cartoons - Anti-black Imagery - Jim Crow Museum
You will of course, make your own decision. But if someone is offended, they are offended, and it’s not within your power after that to declare it inoffensive.
But something can only be judged offensive by each individual. Something does not have an empirical quotient of offence in the way that it has dimensions and mass and volume etc.
If I can present to you people that that do *not *find an image or a statement offensive…what then? By your reasoning it should not be in your power either to declare it offensive by fiat. Where does that leave the discussion?
I’m deeply offended to the core of my being on a regular basis by opinions and speech and acts that I think are harmful to humanity but that many others think utterly irrelevant and banal or even praiseworthy…so what? Would you automatically assume that my offence carries weight?
Outside of direct threats to me or incitement to do me harm I have to accept that the rights of free expression I claim for myself to criticise such things are the same rights I have to extend to others to express them.
With that comes the risk that some things will be created and expressed with malicious and benign intent and some will be misinterpreted either by ignorance or by design and though it is a hellish job to try and unpick them on a case-by-case basis and understand how/if we should react to them I’d rather have that burden and those risks than have free expression restricted by the voice of the offended.
Since you see no other way to read it, and you’re not even close with your utterly ridiculous attempt, let me give you the correct one: A cartoonist/caricaturist who is not racist (or is racist, for that matter) can choose to draw whatever he pleases, however he pleases, and let people decide for themselves how to characterize it, and if they get it wrong, as I said, pretty much say “fuck 'em.” If he chooses to run his work by others before printing it, fine, but it is not and should not be required of him.
Thanks for taking it at face value. A few others in this thread seem uncapable of the same with some of my comments.
The post was simply to point out R. Crumb as the creator, nothing more. Being a fan, I thought he deserved credit.
The problem is any can be offended by anything. If said I was offended by people wearing white t-shirts, nobody would take me seriously and they certainly wouldn’t cease to wear the offending-article, even if my offence was sincere. If something causes offence, you have to ask yourself was it deliberate, was it ignorant or callous to social norms? Even then offence that was caused deliberately or ignorantly is not always a bad thing. The point I’m trying to make is, as much as some would like to frame this as a black and white issue (no pun intended), the issue can be very subjective with lots of shades of gray.
My own opinion is that the cartoonists intention was to make SW appear baby-like and grotesque, to reflect her childish and repugnant behaviour in the incident in question. However there are certain similarities between the caricature and standard racist cartoon depictions of black people. In other words this in the area in gray and a less polarized response is probably the best.
I, too, have changed my mind and agree that this cartoon is racist. I have accepted that racism now includes any unflattering or offensive portrayal of a black person by a white person.
This sounds like a great way to get fired, presuming you’re not working for a publication run by racists.
Let’s think about the four cases here.
-
The person is unaware of what constituted a racist drawing and is not a racist. They accidentally draw a racist drawing, and are criticized for it. They take steps to avoid doing it again, because they’re not racists.
-
The person is unaware of what constituted a racist drawing and is a racist. They accidentally draw a racist drawing, and are criticized for it. They say “fuck 'em”, because they aren’t even slightly sorry and don’t consider offending people a bad thing.
-
The person is aware of what constituted a racist drawing and is not a racist. They… don’t do racist drawings. The end.
-
The person is aware of what constituted a racist drawing and is a racist. They intentionally draw a racist drawing, and are criticized for it. They say “fuck 'em”, because they aren’t even slightly sorry and don’t consider offending people a bad thing.
It’s not really about people interpreting the art “wrong” - it’s about not being a racist fuckhead. Persons who are not racists are unlikely, in my estimation, to see much value in your approach. Especially if they’re not working for publications run by racists.
I’m sure you’ve seen “Crumb”, for my money one of the best documentaries ever made (and really, among the all-time great works of cinema, period)?
All your four cases here make the (unwarranted) assumption that there is a universal definition of “racist” that can be relied upon to judge both people and things accurately.
At no point do you allow for the fact that the person draws a non-racist drawing that is interpreted by some as being racist