I really don’t want to research the context of the drill and syringe, etc, but after a quick look at a photo of Luis Suarez, based on that, no. Hiliarious, but not racist.
I would be a lot happier about this cartoon if some cartoonist, somewhere, had caricatured some of the earlier bad behavior. Say John Isner as an angry giraffe crying that the computerized line caller–THE COMPUTERIZED LINE CALLER–was wrong when two different challenges didn’t go his way. The pacifier on the court would have been a nice touch there.*
On the other hand, you don’t see Isner in Chase commercials, either. Serena is just a bigger name and a bigger product mover.
And also, a realistic lifelike drawing of Serena would still look like an R. Crumb woman. It almost looks like he designed her US Open outfit.
*This may have happened at an earlier tournament not the US Open. I may watch too much tennis. There was no actual pacifier. But he needed one.
She’s not depicted as fat, but muscular. She had frizzy hair at the Open. Aunt Jemima lips from my era are thinner than Serena’s, btw. She was ANGRY at the Open. Why is depicting her like this “stereotypical”? Do black women NOT get angry?
Yes, it most certainly is caricature. She’s drawn to look like a little kid, mocking her temper tantrum. She is also made deliberately ugly in her face. Her physical attributes are altered to mock her. That’s caricature.
What it doesn’t do is use any of the stuff that was typically used in racist caricature. The OP’s comic, on the other hand, only seems to caricature her race.
Serena is athletic but otherwise thin. The woman in that comic is either fat or a hulked out monster, resembling a mammy type. Serena has normal looking curly hair, turned down in a weave. The comic woman has wiry, unkempt hair. Serena has normal lips, maybe slightly bigger. The woman in the comic has lips straight from witch doctor caricatures.
Someone asked how to caricature a black woman without being racist. An example of the same woman was provided. So you claim it isn’t caricature. Is your porridge sweet enough?
This cartoon is one of those things that, even if I don’t think it’s racist, I have a feeling someone else will.
Not racist at all - it was clearly aimed at one person’s behavior. So, not racist - unless you count spoiled-rotten divas as a race? 
By the way, someone should tell these guys about Suarez. He’d make a fine addition to their show! 
Here’s an easy way to know if something is racist. I call it the “Tyron Woodley Test” (For those who don’t know, Tyron Woodley is a UFC fighter and welterweight champion. He is also black and interestingly enough for these purposes, from Ferguson, MO.) The “Tyron Woodley Test” is a very simple test. Think of the thing that you want to say or do (or in this case advocate for.) Then think… Hmmm… if I were in a ring with Tyron Woodley, would I show this to him and say how it’s not racist, knowing full well that this very muscular and skilled black man could punch my face into hamburger? If your answer is “No, I would not,” then it’s a pretty good bet that it’s racist. If your answer is, “I’m just not sure.” then imagine that your face is a bloody pile of hamburger and ask the question again, chances are it’s racist.
So then, applying the Tyron Woodley test to this cartoon. Imagine yourself in a ring and Tyron Woodley is standing there in a fighting stance and you have this cartoon in your pocket and you pull it out and show it to Mr. Woodley. Do you then say, “This cartoon isn’t racist at all. People need to relax.” or do you say “This cartoon is freaking racist. Guy should be ashamed.” You make the decision, but I’m pretty sure which one I’d pick.
In an effort to make this decision easier, I direct you to the following, especially the 43 second mark and 1:45: - YouTube
No, I did nothing of the kind. Caricature is subjective, and I still say unequivocally, that is NOT caricature. I did not alter my definition of what I think caricature is so I can “win” an argument. But thanks for making that assumption about me, whom you’ve never met and know nothing about. :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
Is this satire? Because otherwise, it’s ridiculous and pointless. I’d say anything Woodley wanted to hear in that situation. Do I really have to point this out?
I suspect a slightly better example would be Martin Luther King. Suppose you and the good Dr. King are sitting in a library, discussing racial issues. What do you suppose Dr King would say about the cartoon, assuming he knew all the relevant details? I suspect you’d get a much more reasonable answer from Dr King than you would from Mr Woodley.
Besides, I don’t like wrestling.
I was wondering if there were any cartoon of John McEnroe. Yeah there were.
Like this about half way down.
Or this.
That’s a stupid test and why would you imply that a black man can’t control his violent tendencies because of a cartoon? :dubious:
You don’t know him, so you don’t know what he wants to hear. You have to guess solely based on his race. That’s why it’s an effective test. If you think that the article is going to offend him based solely on the fact that he’s black, then pretty good bet that it’s racist. The imaginary scenario of you getting your head beat in if you’re wrong helps you err on the side of caution which is generally a good idea when discussing racism.
This is a caricature of Serena Williams that was posted earlier in the thread both by me and by Buck Godot. It is not racist. The caricature posted in the OP is racist. There is no reason that the non-racist version could not be depicted crying, screaming and jumping up and down to make the point of the original cartoon without being racist.
Is there a part of this position that you do not agree with?
No implication. The scenario places you in a ring with him where there is no need to control any violent tendencies he may or may not have. It’s not at a city park feeding the birds where such an outburst is inappropriate.
I have to say that the other, supposedly “positive” caricatures of Serena mentioned in this thread are not in any meaningful way different from the one getting all the heat apart from one thing, they are showing her in a positive light.
I very much suspect that no-one would be complaining in the slightest about that cartoon if exactly the same exaggerated features were used in a positive setting. In fact that seems to be the case. In the other ones all the same features are exaggerated, hair, physique, lips but no complaints.
I look online for caricatures of other famous black people and the same things are there, no huge fuss. Look at Gerald Scarfe’s pretty scathing drawings for examples of the high-end of caricatures.
Now in this case she behaved in a shitty way so she gets depicted in a negative light. That’s exactly what should happen.
Caricatures should be mean and vicious when the recipient deserves it and she deserves it in this case.
Now if you want to make case that it is only “allowable” to draw a positive caricature of a black case then go ahead and try to make that case. I don’t agree.
Yeah there is. Just because you are standing in a venue where combat sports takes place doesn’t mean violence is legally sanctioned. Think harder next time you pose a test because this test makes no sense.
I do not see any racist stereotypes that I am aware of in that comic.
However, I must admit that, even having read up on the biting incident, I don’t actually understand the comic, so it’s possible I’m missing something. Or there may be a racist stereotype that I am unaware of since I don’t live in the regions involved.
Furthermore, if I read in news articles that it did play on racist stereotypes, I would not think that I could dismiss them. But all I find are accusations that Suarez himself may be racist.
Sure. There are tons of caricatures of Obama, for instance, that exaggerate his individual features, such as jug ears, big smile, pointy chin, without giving him an exaggerated minstrel-style “blackface” appearance.
Huge blubber lips in a caricature of a black person, on the other hand, pretty much always look racist.