I’m not disfavoring them. I said explicitly (post #91) that we’re making the moral judgment that racism is wrong. I agree with that judgment, and with a number of other moral judgments.
I’m saying something entirely different, which you seem unable to recognize: that some of the statements you claim included a moral judgment don’t contain that judgment.
Want to address the portions of the rest of my post #98 which you chose not to quote? Here they are again:
Thanks, but no thanks. Other than to observe - as I said - that you are using a lot more qualifiers now than you did upthread.
Which is fine. I readily acknowledge that it is not uncommon for MB posts to be imperfectly phrased, and not intended to be carefully parsed.
I’m pretty sure I’m done here. But I suggest that similarly to how some people may see racism when others see a duck, perhaps some might claim their statements are merely “informational,” whereas others perceive judgment. Who is to say who is right and who is wrong? Most likely, each is right in their own view. I doubt there is a universally agreed upon objective standard.
I often get the impression that people claim they are simply being “informational,” when it sure seems there is at least some subtext to their statement. But I apparently run in different circles than you.
No. My argument is that both of the two things gkster cited are not what he says. gkster is therefore not a reliable witness on visual matches. So therefore when gkster says
I will give that all the due consideration his other observations in that post have earned him.
I do notice you only addressed the banjo thing, and not the fact that no-one in that picture is dressed like Ducky either.
You should know that that is not my argument.
I can completely see how an over-enthusiastic person might overcomensatingly decide it’s possibly minstrel-adjacent.
My argument is that it’s not, actually. That there’s no there, there.
My moral argument would be that playing into the hands of right-wing idiots who accuse us of seeing racism everywhere is not a good thing.
Well, actually if that was the question, then it would have been definitively and uncontrovertibly answered in the affirmative. Yes, the image could be seen by others as racist - there is no dispute about that, and no way to debate the answer to that question into a ‘no’, because it happened right here in the thread.
… except the question wasn’t really that, it was (paraphrasing) ‘does the duck represent a (dated) racist trope, via his garb etc’? That is a little closer to being an objectively answerable question than ‘will some people think it is so?’. It is apparently also rather more debatable.
‘Could it be seen as X?’ is not the same as ‘is it X?’ - a cloud in the sky could be seen as a turtle or a teddy bear, but that doesn’t mean that’s what it is.
Exactly.
[Caution: mild rant.]
I know people who have been taught/conditioned to be hypersensitive to perceived racism. Everything is racist to them. A ham sandwich is somehow racist to them. They claim to see things that simply aren’t there by any objective measure. Furthermore, their beliefs are not falsifiable, and hence not up for debate. And when I politely disagree with them, I am accused of being racist. Unfortunately, and unbeknownst to them, they are actually hindering progress in the elimination of bigotry and racism in our society, as they become easy prey for right-wingers who point at them and mock them, resulting in the gain of cheap political points.
I think I should be really clear here - there are images that, while not intended as such, do have a bad look on this particular front. That have too many concordances with actual minstrel imagery to be allowed to stand. Take a look at the Hadozee example, and my arguments there.
So I’m not arguing this never happens. I’m just arguing it isn’t the case with this imagery. That the concordance is too slight to merit any concern based on my experiences with minstrelsy.
I’d probably defer to any actual African-American posters who say it stirs concern in them. Is that any of y’all?
The problem is, this claim is often made of legitimate issues by people who just don’t understand those issues. Heck, it’s rare online to see any such discussions where someone doesn’t claim the person is seeing something that is unreasonable.
There’s not only a lot of ignorance on this topic, but a lot of defensiveness. Not only are there concepts you might not know, but you aren’t motivated to learn them if it makes something you love seem racist.
I’d say the real issue is people seeing racism as only this single trump card, rather than something that can be stronger or weaker. Whether something is racist is seen more as a condemnation rather than an attempt to learn about origin, imagery, history, etc.
That’s not the question, though. The question is more whether a significant enough number of people might interpret it that way. And thus it makes sense for those who can see it to opine that they do.
I do agree that there is bias due to the thread title. But I’d also suggest there is bias due to the demographics of this board. Asking it this way makes it easier for us to try and put ourselves in the mind of a possible objector.
Personally, I agree with the idea that coloring it with more vibrant colors would likely eliminate any possible misunderstandings. As long as the duck doesn’t look black, I don’t think most people would think of minstrels. Though the part about colors fading in tattoos is something I’d not considered.
But I still say “it’s just a duck” is not all that useful of commentary. It was worth exploring what comes across as racist to different people, and how even small differences can make big changes in perception. Even just figuring out why the OP had some misgivings was interesting.
Yep, there are going to be loud people on each side of any contended issue, and some of those people are going to be on the wrong side. The existence of loud, concerned-but-plain-wrong people in one place neither negates or supports the veracity of loud, concerned arguments made somewhere else. That support or negation must come from the facts at hand.
A ham sandwich might not be racist but it could well be antisemitic or Islamophobic depending on context.
The image looks dated and quaint to me. It’s more kitsch, like a duck on a salt shaker. I would think whoever had this as a tattoo would be old-fashioned, but I wouldn’t they’re advocating black-faced minstrels.
But at least you can indict a ham sandwich. Not so with a purveyor of hate speech. Not in the US, anyway.
Well, yeah? It is more than 60 years old.
That’s the point. Maybe the OP wants to re-experience the joys of childhood, but maybe a duck with rock star hair and an electric guitar would be more outstanding.
The OP says:
That sounds like it’s supposed to remind them of someone dead, so presumably someone older. An old image may be directly appropriate.
Or maybe a punk with a green moduck.
Moduck?
Well it isn’t a hawk.