That picture of Naomi doesn’t look anything like the blonde, northern European depicted in the cartoon. NOTHING like her at all. Naomi looks like the Japanese/Haitian woman that she is. A “Jap”, however, isn’t too much better than an “N”, so the author needed something Aryan as contrast in order to emphasize the horrible, Black, ugly woman that he obviously believes Serena to be.
The blonde Northern European woman who has the same skin tone as Serena in the cartoon.
Yeah right… :rolleyes:
As people used to say, this.
On another note, thanks for turning me on to the drawings of Gerald Scarfe. This one of the Stones is fucking fantastic and I hope I can find a print of it somewhere. 
Yes, there is. If it hasn’t been clear from what I’ve posted, I apologize, but I don’t think the OP drawing is racist. I think it’s a rather scathing caricature, nothing more.
I concur. I have to call it racist because otherwise someone might punch me in the face? That does not strike as a useful standard.
Is it still racist if I am Batman, and prepared?
Regards,
Shodan
It’s a cruelly effective caricature of Serena.
Before being enlightened about the fact that Osaka had a blonde ponytail I would’ve said that portion of the cartoon arguably veered over the line, but now I don’t think that makes the cartoon racist.
She is big, black, scary-looking, and has big lips and frizzy hair. Isn’t that a racist caricature? It was when she was depicted as throwing a tantrum.
Regards,
Shodan
I think the idea was, a good test for racism would be to ask yourself whether the potentially offended party would say it’s racist - and if by some miracle you actually cared what they thought.
The whole point of the “he’ll punch you in the face/he’ll Martin Luther King shame you” business is because without that sort of thing, it’s generally assumed that the average person is a horrible selfish monster who takes active pleasure in being offensive.
Yes it’s racist. Here’s a (rather gentle, actually) example of the “ignorant savage” cartoon most of us can recognize.
Note that it shares two feature with the racist cartoon that all of the non-racist examples of Serena drawings do not have:
- Topknot
- Large earrings
In actual photos of the event, Serena’s hair was tied toward the back of her head, not in a topknot, and she certainly isn’t wearing garishly large earrings.
How about you send this comment to Tyron Woodley and ask how he feels, as a black man, about being portrayed as a thug who would settle any difference of opinion with violence?
It’s a great standard because it puts skin in the game. The basics of the question are “Would I be able to risk something valuable on the assumption that this is not offensive to a racial group?” If you’re not willing to risk something valuable on that question, then it’s probably racist. It’s easy to sit behind a computer screen being comfortably white and debate the merits of racism in a detached way. It’s much more difficult if you’re putting yourself at risk over the answer. If you can’t even put yourself at risk in a hypothetical scenario in support of your claim that it’s non-offensive, then it probably is.
You’re like someone claiming pickaninny dolls are just historical or the Confederate flag is about state’s rights. When you’re looking at it from a position of power, safely ensconced in your living room and protected by all of the law enforcement white money can buy, it’s easy to make that argument. If you’re facing down someone with the legal right to impact your life negatively based on their perception of your actions, you might have a different opinion. When debating racism, it’s necessary to put yourself in the position of the oppressed.
I would definitely apply the Tyron Woodley test to the Tyron Woodley test and I’m willing to bet my purty little face that he’d be fine with it. I think that it’s reasonable that a black person would like to be put in a position where they can without repurcussion revisit retribution for racist attitudes on people that perpetuate them. That’s not being a thug. That’s reversing the dynamic.
I don’t think its intended as racist - but it is damn easy to interpret that way.
What complete drivel. Would you go to North Korea and tell Kim that he’s a psychopath? If you are afraid to do that, does that mean he is not a psychopath?
No it’s not. Your test is illogical and dumb. It doesn’t test anything other than might makes right and implies that the black man in the ring is just waiting to snap.
Give that cartoon to a prime Fedor and have him show it to your welterweight and your test is even more pointless.
I think the idea was, a good test for racism would be to ask yourself whether the potentially offended party would say it’s racist - and if by some miracle you actually cared what they thought.
The whole point of the “he’ll punch you in the face/he’ll Martin Luther King shame you” business is because without that sort of thing, it’s generally assumed that the average person is a horrible selfish monster who takes active pleasure in being offensive.
So all black people speak for Serena Williams now? Do we care what a random white UFC fighter thinks when George Bush is caricaturized as a chimp? No.
Why would I have to know you personally to judge your arguing tactics in this thread? You provided no definition of the term before an example was given, and continue to not provide one. And yet any example given doesn’t fit. That sure suggests changing the definition to me.
If I’m wrong, then tell me what your definition is. One that doesn’t seem to equivocate to leave out all of the other examples in the thread.
I also note you didn’t comment on the rest of what I said. Ignore that last snarky paragraph. Do you disagree with the rest of what I said? If so, why?
My argument is simply that you cannot caricature a black woman by using the old racist stereotypes. You can’t give her comically large “witch doctor” lips, make her fatter than she is, or change her kempt curly hair to that wiry mess used in racist cartoons.
Any use of the stereotypes that were used before in racist caricature are not allowed, and will be deemed racist.
We’re talking about racism though. The primary question is whether or not an action is offensive to a person/group. In your Kim example, I think it’s reasonable to assume that calling him a psychopath is offensive. If we are discussing whether calling dictators psychopaths is offensive to dictators, then your Kim test has merit. It has little to do with whether or not it is true or not. Something can be true and also offensive. If I tell an Asian person, you probably got good grades, it’s statistically true, but also offensive and racist. Hiding behind “It’s true.” doesn’t excuse the offensiveness.
Yeah. Besides the big-minstrel-lips feature, it’s a bit peculiar to show such an exaggerated contrast between the figures of Williams as huge-hulking-fatass and Osaka as slender-tall-pointynose. As you can see from these photographs, Williams and Osaka are actually quite similar in height and figure (and Osaka’s nose isn’t really any more prominent than Williams’s).
A casual glance at that cartoon without knowing the athletes involved would certainly give the impression, IMHO, that it’s contrasting a fat black woman with a skinny white one.