I consider that assumption to be a reasonable counterpoint to your thesis that there is no such thing as racism, just unjustified accusations thereof.
Plus, we’re dealing with reactions here. In all four scenarios the level of (shall we say) perceived racism is significant enough to prompt vocal criticism. Non-sociopaths are at least somewhat responsive to the opinions of society around them. (And even sociopaths notice it the people in question happen to be a non-racist publication employing them.)
When you’re an infant your brain strongly imprints a number of faces among the people around you. From then on, the brain recognizes new people based on how discrete, individual features of their faces differ from those primitive “base templates”. Kids raised among people from diverse ethnic backgrounds are much better at IDing people from those backgrounds, whereas most people raised in more homogeneous environments tend to think people of other ethnic backgrounds all look the same because their brain essentially goes “*all *of their features are weird, man, I don’t even know where to begin here”.
Interestingly enough, that cognitive bias also extends to interpreting emotional body language and feeling empathy.
Your thesis is that art cannot be determined to be racist by an objective observer based on the properties of the art itself. Well, art includes words. And performance art, which is to say actions. And everything. I could claim that that burning cross I put on my neighbor’s lawn is an artistic display. Nobody can judge me; anybody who wants to, fuck 'em! That slur-filled tirade I made in range of a live mike? It was a free verse artistic poem! Don’t judge me! You don’t know me!
Okay, yes, your position allows that a person can be racist, but not that they can act racist or in any way be identified as a racist by any observer. That, or you think that art (or at least caricatures) are magically incapable of conveying meaning or intent, because it’s not possible for a racist to convey racism via them, because for them to do that it must be possible for observers to identify their racism from the art alone.
And seriously I gotta say, it’s hard to swallow any thesis that maintains that it’s impossible to convey a political opinion with political cartoons.
Oh come the fuck on. It’s clearly trying to make her look as aboriginal as possible. Probably wanted to stick a bone through her nose but couldn’t get away with it so just sort of hinted at it with the edged cheekbones, mouth and lips that are over half the fucking face, and a bush of steel-wool hair.
Yes it’s racist, on purpose and obvious but not so obvious that people can’t go “well is it REALLY racist?” People made billions of cartoons of Obama for eight years in every newspaper in the world and you people are still somehow missing when a sketch is blackface and when it’s a caricature of things besides race?
Look at the way he drew the lips and hair and nose and shit. It’s not because a white person drew a black one. When cartoonists drew Obama they made his EARS disproportionate ya know. They didn’t give him 400% larger lips
You seem like the kind who would enjoy the Watchmaker’s Analogy. You just know it’s racist, kinda like they just know there’s a creator. No actual reasoning required, right? Point to anything and Q.E.D!
Honestly the strawman arguing gets very tied, all that has been asserted is that there is an element of subjectivness to racism. Sure there are certain things that will almost universally be agreed to be racist, but there others which might be the subject of serious disagreement, which is relevant here as the example is in the latter category.
This is just my pet peeve, people wanting to ignore the complexities/nuances of an issue to reduce it to something simple. Sure this is sometimes possible, but not always.
I honestly believe Novelty Bobble -and others- would disagree with you. There’s a repeated theme in here of people saying something along the lines of “I now accept that some cartoons about blacks can be recognized as racist - they’re any cartoon that criticizes a black man!” Novelty Bobble’s repeatedly stated position is that nobody has the right or capability to definitively identify racism in a cartoon based on the cartoon itself. (Or at least I think that “fuck em” is a rejection of the idea that judgement is valid.)
They’re not talking about a “bit of subjectivity”. They’re arguing that there’s literally no way to tell if a work of art is racist based on its details, styling, or any other inherent property.
The goal here, it seems to me, is to utterly invalidate the idea of calling any modern artwork racist based on its inherent attributes. Now, as a creator and (very bad) artist myself, I can kind of see a reasonable desire that could underly this - I would hate to constantly live in fear of being accused of racism merely because I happen to constantly draw overtly racist caricatures completely by accident. Being told that you have an obligation to know what the hell you’re doing is hard and stuff, so it’s easier to just try to eliminate the very concept of racism in art. Which is what’s being argued here. There are posters here who are not making the argument that the art in question lacks attributes of classic racist caricatures; they are instead arguing that it doesn’t matter if it does, it’s still not fair to call it racist.
(I look forward to Novelty Bobble telling me I’m utterly mischaracterizing him.)
no, I agree with it completely but it was shorter and clearer than my ramblings.
no, everyone is able to decide that for themselves but just because they do does not necessarily make them objectively “correct”
Which is not a statement I made now is it? bit naughty of you to try and make it seem like I did.
I think that taking the totality of a work into account (including what I think is the most important factor, intent) I would be able to come to conclusion on whether I think a work is racist or not. I also think it is possible for my opinion to be bulllshit and open to challenge.
Not to invalidate but to challenge.
And many people would disagree with the interpretation that the cartoon in question is “overtly racist” you can read it that way if you so choose but there is absolutely no objective factor by which you can make that judgement and so it remains an opinion. One that you are free to hold but it is far from inarguable.
that’s not what I’m saying. There is racism in art, there are racist works and racists out there.
My opinion is that having some attributes of classic racist caricatures is not enough in and of itself. The discussion is, and should be, more complicated than that.
not utterly but certainly Asympotically fat had no trouble understanding my points whereas it seems you have had more trouble. You’ve taken moderate and considered points that I’ve made and stretched them to extreme positions that I don’t hold.
I’d like to formally apologise for conflating Novelty Bobble with Fiddle Peghead. For some reason my brain sees a lot of similarities between the two usernames.
Fiddle Peghead is very firmly arguing that there is no way to objectively discern racism in art. “Fuck em” is their verbiage. I dispute this position quite aggressively, because I believe it invalidates the very idea that racism can be opposed - if you can’t identify it, you can’t oppose it.
It is of course the case that there is a large historical backlog of racist caricatures about blacks and there are a number of conventions and tropes that that the backlog shows to be objectively associated with racist caricature. There isn’t such a backlog of conventions and tropes about whites (at least not whites in general), so it is indeed harder to draw a non-racist caricature of a black person, because there’s more you have to watch out for. If you’re going to be attempting such things, it is incumbent upon you to take steps to avoid looking like a racist, specifically because there’s not a hard line which divides obviously racist drawings (like the one in the OP :p) from non-offensive drawings, so it’s possible to accidentally come off looking like a racist.
Or, alternatively, you can just say ‘fuck em’. A person could argue that the dismissive artist is just one that cares strongly about freedom of expression, even in the face of numerous critiques - but in my heart of hearts I never feel daring betting racist.
Very silly names each with a seven letter word with four consonants and three vowels and a six-letter word that goes consanant-vowel-double consonant-L-E!
I see the crybaby lost in the quarterfinals at the Australian. Did anyone see the whole match? Did the crybaby blow up at any point? I suppose not, or else there probably would have been another non-racist, yet hilarious cartoon depicting another meltdown.
My god, dude, give it a rest. We get it - you’re going to hold this athlete to a higher standard (for whatever reason) and hold a stupid grudge about it.
Actually, she twisted her ankle badly at match point. She played the remainder of the match in obvious pain and was essentially unable to run. After the match she congratulated he opponent, said she played a great match and didn’t blame the loss on her injury.
No meltdown, just stating facts. And I see we have another major disagreement on something visual. Serena was in no way unable to run after the “rolled ankle”. :rolleyes:
