Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it,
follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given
their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!
Interpretation, Plausible Denial and racially loaded imagery (NYPost cartoon)
Posts
The problem with using monkey as an insult of intelligence is that it ends up insulting the intelligence of monkeys. It's the most counterproductive insult.
Like "I know you are but what am I‽"
Wow. How can I answer that?
I'll counter with Yes Kagera Yes! (Nailed!)
A clear racist said that a monkey was responsible for writing a piece of legislation that is the first African American President's first major policy initiative. Its not fucking rocket science.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
Well if that Chimp hadn't gone nuts and needed to be put down the cartoon probably would have never been made.
So obviously the CHIMP was the racist all along.
Let me tell you about video games. Let me tell you about Homestuck
http://troublethinking.wordpress.com (Updated Wed) http://twitter.com/#!/Durandal4532
Pokemon Black 2: 0519-5108-3139
Yeah I mean the "joke" just seems to be that the bill is so stupid that the only explanation is that a monkey must've written it.
Let me tell you about video games. Let me tell you about Homestuck
I'm seeing a terrible, terrible comic that means nothing, but no racism
but I suppose it's not totally unfair for others to interprate it as being racist
"It was the best of stimuli, it was the blurst of stimuli..."
Maddie: "I am not!"
Riley: "You're a marsupial!"
Maddie: "I am a placental mammal!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F7yFHkvAYbQ
My point on this is that you could draw/write/create/wear something that a casual observer might construe as racist when you had no intention of portraying that or even any idea such a thing could be construed as that.
Im going with Speed Racer on this one. Based on his previous work if the monkey was meant to imitate Obama it would have had some obvious reference to Obama. Possibly his face, a hope symbol on his chest, something, and in gigantic letters BLACK GUYS ARE TOTALLY MONKEYS.
Do we really need to have an argument on the merits of pink versus very masculine light red? If you want to draw an arbitrary line and say "this is cultural insensitivity" and "this is racism," that's fine, I just don't see it as particularly necessary. I'm under the assumption that we're adults, and adults can understand that it is possible for something to have a quality (let's say, elements of racism) without being entirely defined by or epitomizing that quality, and for racism to exist in different forms outside of very simple, very straightforward and explicit hatred for a specific racial group.
There's obviously a crossover and a similar thought process between "I cannot empathize with these people" and "all these people act in this manner" and "I am better than all these people." Limiting racism as a definition to only very explicit "I HATE BLACK PEOPLE THEY ARE SMELLY AND STOOPID!" strikes me as trite. Regardless, its pretty obvious we're talking about what amounts to the same thing, so I don't really see much merit in a purely semantic argument.
So instead of accidentally making a racist comment, one makes a racist comment accidentally? This isn't a point worth arguing.
The "did they mean for it to be racist?" question is irrelevant, it is "moot" in the legal sense of the word. An artist, writer, or author will ALWAYS have some level of plausible deniability as to the "true intent" of their works, and an artist, writer, or author will never have irrefutable proof as to the "true intent" of their works. What the creator wants a story, cartoon, or other piece of media to mean is determined by the creator, and unless El Jeffe created a mind reading device and didn't tell me about it (dick move yo), there's no way to prove one way or another whether the creator's claimed intent and their actual intent match.
Let's take this cartoon as an example and use two hypotheticals:
Situation 1: The creator of the cartoon did not intend to imply or convey any racist message with the cartoon.
Situation 2: The creator of the cartoon did intend to imply or convey a racist message with the cartoon but will deny this accusation if it is made against him.
How do you distinguish between these two? How do you distinguish between the countless other situations where you have a mix of intentional or unintentional racist thought, mixed messages and unclear symbols? What is the author believes "stupid stinky black son of a bitch!" isn't racist? What if the author hates every non-white man, woman, and child on the planet but hides that hatred behind buzzwords and "its just a joke" arguments?
How far does "I didn't mean for it to be racist / offensive / stupid / demeaning / whatever!" go? Can the cartoonist create a comic of President Obama, fried chicken in one hand a young blonde woman in the other and claim he hasn't used any racist imagery? What if the cartoonist is really stupid enough to believe it?
Point of all this being, as I said before, the artists motive is irrelevant. The artist (and it unfortunately appears I must use that term very loosely) can claim any number of meanings with anything they create. What they "actually mean" isn't something that we can prove one way or another.
We can, however, hold an artist to a reasonable expectation of understanding what their art could mean to a reasonable person. Whether the cartoonist here intended for "Obama is a monkey!" to be racist is irrelevant: He should have been familiar with the racist image and stereotype of blacks being portrayed as subhuman monkeys and reconsidered the content of his cartoon. The cartoonists actions are indicative of either great ignorance or intentional racism or very likely both. I don't know which. I can't prove that it was one or the other and I don't see that there is any particular need to.
It appears there are many people who define racism as only a very explicit and open thing. Racism has never existed through subtle stereotypes? It has never existed in pictures or stories or cinema? Racism has never been hidden or subconscious or semi-conscious, it has never been renamed or improperly justified or hidden beneath codewords and bogus issues?
I think everyone is over-reacting.
Monkey getting shot was a news story. Stimulus deal was a news story. Put them together.
I don't get it.
Take a look at the other cartoons by this artist. They are homophobic, racist, and generally filled with messages bigoted against people who aren't white, straight and male. By itself this editorial cartoon is "in poor taste" and generally a not-good idea. If that was the end if it... "meh" no big deal. But really, just go take a look at this guy's other work. Sean Delonas is a bigot, of this I have little doubt.
So yeah, I say Sean Delonas should get heat for this. He can certainly say anything he wants in this country, but he, like all of us, better be prepared to face the social consequences. Namely, being called out for the bigot he is.
I'll maybe give you that. Except I think one has to assess the thing-in-itself rather than the thing with regard to a particular context.
I'll meet you at "it can be seen as being racist".
The KKK doped the APE (get it right or pay the price) with cocaine which caused it to go insane and needing to be shot by cops so douchebag editor could make this connection.
That was the first thing that I thought of since I heard about the story on the radio on the way to work.
Edit: I also thought it was a bit of a stretch and silly
I've seen two people in this thread mention the KKK and so far they've both been strawmen.
Not very impressed.
I'll work harder for your inestimable praise.
You'd better.
Do you have any facts or citations you would like to offer to support your claim?
Yes, I heard it on Coast to Coast.
I truthfully see this as a very, very poor joke. It was meant to insult congress. I doubt the author even contemplated the "million monkeys on typewriters" bit. Just, "politicians are monkeys."
The factual side is that the bill wasn't written by Obama at all. But I do realize the cartoon didn't need to have been correct to have been racist. If it honestly did mean Obama, it would be both racist and incorrect. Double retarded.
No, I think this was, at worst, just very very ignorant, only perhaps to the level of insensitivity.
I can see that if my statement were to have offended some people, then under law I am probably considered at fault, regardless of my intentions; however, I am really interested in hearing why using that word means that I hate black people.
Yes, you see, there's no such thing as nuance, and you accidentally using a term that has a history of racism is the same thing as you HATE BLACK PEOPLE EVERYWHERE!
Is there a particular reason why this cartoon has to be seen "in a vacuum" (to use a common metaphor)?
I mean really, this is nothing new, coming from Sean Delonas. The guy is a bigot, clearly, in my opinion. This time he got "caught" as it were because the outcry to this particular editorial cartoon gained enough momentum to break into the mainstream media cycle.
And again, let me make this clear (and not to you specifically _J_, i mean the thread in general): Sean Delonas knew what he was doing. This is not accidental racism! Look at his previous art, this guy has a history of using bigoted jokes for cheap laughs.
Even if it was accidental racism, he should have known better. I expect a nationally published cartoonist to have a basic grasp of symbolic imagery and historical context. "I didn't know" isn't a valid defense when you should have known.
You're the one who's talking about "accidental racism."
You do understand that my response was sarcastic and mocking you, right?
Do I need sarcasm tags?
The definition of racism is not "I HATE BLACK PEOPLE!" I'm sorry that the world has nuance and that all issues are not easily defined and separated into two simple black-and-white categories but that's just how it is, sorry someone else lead you to believe otherwise I'll buy you a cookie someday to make up for it.
As for your incredibly bad hypothetical "what if I called a black child a silly monkey?" question, you would be very vaguely and accidentally referencing a racist image that you aren't aware of and the child likely isn't aware of and there's a very good chance nobody would care, least of all me. If that child's parent were to ask you to not call their child a monkey again, would you agree or would you lecture them about how you're not actually racist?
Listen, I need to make something clear to you and, unfortunately it appears, to many other posters here: It is possible to harbor thoughts, images, or stereotypes that are either racist or are rooted in racist messages, and to harbor these without being a cross-burning white supremacist. It is possible to harbor some of these thoughts, images, and stereotypes while still being a functional and emotionally stable individual who would not fit into any contemporary definition of a "racist." Racism isn't some mythical badguy that we get to pin up next to zombies, vampires, nazis, and aliens as "evil things we get to hate and shoot in videogames." Explicit belligerent racism is rare in America, but racism still exists.
Legally we do. We absolutely can drag them through the mud for being assholes on a social/employment level, though. Private solutions for the win.
Free Speech allows for bigots to spread their hate, and it also allows for the rest of us to tell the bigots to fuck right off, to tell their newspaper to fuck right off, tell their advertisers to fuck right off, and tell the whole lot of them to sit on it and spin.
Freedom of Speech is not the same thing as Freedom from Consequences.
If you've never heard about that kind of stuff, then I would have to assume that you're fairly sheltered or somewhat blind, to be quite honest.
A few of my favourites behind the spoiler:
The other dude is US Senator Russ Feingold, not that you need to know who he is to get the joke. The Feingold reference is obscure, but everyone gets Lord of the Rings gags.
I don't really get what you're saying here. Why do we need to distinguish between the two? He's allowed to draw whatever he wants, and his editor can choose to print it or not. He can draw a comic of Obama eating fried chicken and looking like a monkey if he wants, and your question of 'can we claim that this is racist?' is irrelevant. You keep asking where we draw the line, what we can and can't allow, but I don't understand why we need to draw a line at all.