As a quick aside. I don't really think much of anything about American Indians based off of a cartoon mascot. That'd be pretty silly.
I do know that I don't know a whole lot about them and that a mascot is the furthest thing from an educational tool.
I wasn't attacking you, I was simply using what you yourself said (that Chief Wahoo is really the only familiarity that you have with American Indians at all.)
American Indians don't actually walk around wearing headdresses.
Yeah I know but I was just hoping that other people weren't so gullible.
My experience with racism suggests that a large percentage of it really does come from folks who were simply presented stereotypes as unbiased fact, and believed them honestly, without negative connotation.
There are folks out there who honestly believe that Jews have horns. They don't think this negatively, and they don't look down on Jews for it, but they honestly believe that it is true.
Still, in my admittedly small experience with North American Indians, even ignoring the head dress, I still don't remember ever seeing or meeting an Indian with a giant hook nose and big toothy grin. Hell, it makes me think of vaguely (and not so vague) anti-semitic references.
How many Jews have you met with giant hook-noses, for that matter?
These stereotypical facial traits aren't always based on reality. The fact is, that nose was definitely a part of the "accepted" view of the Native American savage, whether it was true or not.
It's not that things haven't gotten better, it's that, overall, Native Americans still have such a raw deal that every little thing is still bad. Asians and Hispanics technically have other countries that they could be in if they wanted to be accepted, and Blacks have worked hard already to make sure that charicatures of them are considered to be unacceptable (Aunt Jemima and Uncle Ben are still around, but they've definitely been softened.) American Indians have no where to go, and their rights movement simply didn't gain as much attention. So, really, we're still in the midst of it.
I think that eventually these things will be accepted as unacceptable, and they'll be changed. The issue is that if you force change, it actually results in MORE racism.
None. (On the jew thing). But it is a long-standing racist depiction of what jews were supposed to be like. And since I'm familiar with those various depictions, the only things that separate '40s Chief Wahoo from 'jew' is the headdress and ponytail.
Hell, as a Cowboys fan, I'd giggle myself to sleep if the 'Washington Team' was forced to change their nickname. (Anybody remember when they tried to adopt the Florida State look as an alternate uniform? Yeah...) But sometimes this drive to scrub all sports team usage of native imagery just strikes me as a bit too 'PC'. And I hate PC arguments on both sides.
Chief Wahoo sucks, but is it really such a horrible thing that the team is also called Indians? The drive to change both is what really pisses me off.
Yeah I know but I was just hoping that other people weren't so gullible.
My experience with racism suggests that a large percentage of it really does come from folks who were simply presented stereotypes as unbiased fact, and believed them honestly, without negative connotation.
There are folks out there who honestly believe that Jews have horns. They don't think this negatively, and they don't look down on Jews for it, but they honestly believe that it is true.
the only things that separate '40s Chief Wahoo from 'jew' is the headdress and ponytail.
There's also darker skin, and a hairless face (a Jewish charicature would have beady eyes and a beard)
The hairless face is part of a long tradition of belief that American Indian men were somehow not masculine. Old European textbooks even had information in them stating that American Indian males lactated.
the only things that separate '40s Chief Wahoo from 'jew' is the headdress and ponytail.
There's also darker skin, and a hairless face (a Jewish charicature would have beady eyes and a beard)
The hairless face is part of a long tradition of belief that American Indian men were somehow not masculine. Old European textbooks even had information in them stating that American Indian males lactated.
Yeah, now that I think about it, a Chick tract is probably all one needs to see old racist stereotypes in action.
Either way, I've never been a big fan of Chief Wahoo and would prefer they simply changed it to something more appropriate. Barring that, why not just use the old 'C' logo they had for a while? (Probably too close to the Reds...)
I have zero problems with the team names and mascots and frankly believe that if do, you're way too angry with life in general.
I think the issue is more that the folks who are still living in poverty on a reservation with no real hope for the future see it as adding insult to injury.
Just like how we've mostly cut out similar depictions of Black people in our society; the understanding should be: "some of these folks are having some trouble still, because of things our country did to them, so let's be a little more sensitive about it."
I have zero problems with the team names and mascots and frankly believe that if do, you're way too angry with life in general.
I think the issue is more that the folks who are still living in poverty on a reservation with no real hope for the future see it as adding insult to injury.
Just like how we've mostly cut out similar depictions of Black people in our society; the understanding should be: "some of these folks are having some trouble still, because of things our country did to them, so let's be a little more sensitive about it."
Having spent a large portion of my life living (relatively) close to reservations and seeing what life is still like for a lot of Indians...yeah.
The genocide the U.S. (both individuals and through official government policy) committed against the Indians could easily go head to head with the Holocaust. They're different, but equally horrific. And at least in the case of Indians, remarkably successful. Even more so when you stop treating "Indians" as one homogenous culture, and realize that many tribes were actually wiped off the face of the planet. By our government, and our people. Imagine if the Turks had actually managed to completely wipe out the Armenian culture [EDIT: or, for that matter, if the Germans had completely eradicated the Jewish faith]. Because we did that. Individual tribes compared to "Native" culture as a whole are quite analogous to European cultures compared to Europe as a whole, and we destroyed quite a few of them. Completely. Forever.
So yeah, maybe they might be a bit "sensitive." Go figure.
Out of curiosity, what sort of cartoon drawings of minorities are considered acceptable?
Because cartoon drawings are generally inherently exaggerations or outright caricatures. You have your Disney cartoons, where the people are generally just stylized, but then you have stuff like the Simpsons or Looney Toons where the people are plain goofy.
If a black dude drew this, would it be offensive?
What about this? Are the minorities in this picture offensive?
I think this might be a case where intent and audience have a lot more to do with how "offensive" something is than the actual content of the art.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
That is a ridiculously offensive depiction of a decapodian.
I see what you mean, but then again sports fans aren't the most high-brow crowd, nor are they looking for a quick and easy laugh. They're dead serious about their stupid stuff, and I think that lets the subtle racism have more power.
Depends on the context, definitely. For example, the depictions you posted are of specific characters with specific personalities identified within the context of their shows. In many cases, these personalities are NOT derived from racial stereotypes (although they do so with Hermes occasionally, but it's generally with a healthy does of self-awareness and irony). Nor are the characters meant to represent their races with in the same overt tone as a sports mascot for a team named after a specific race or term strongly associated with said race (e.g. Braves, Blackhawks, etc).
Such characters can, of course, breach into offensive territory. But if they have a sincere intention that doesn't involve racial profiling then it's likely that they will not.
Also relevant is comfort of the majority within the cultures producing said characters. A minority oppressed by any given majority is likely to be more sensitive to such issues than an affluent cultural group. Hence the reason "cracker" is generally met with far less outrage than the N word.
Honestly, where's the stereotyping in that futurama shot? The almond eyes, I guess, and the dreadlocks?
And elmer fudd's a rather different thing, since that's not a racial stereotype.
Except in Futurama's case, each character is a specific stereotype. It's just that not all of them are obvious from just a picture.
And in Elmer Fudd's case, he could be viewed as a stereotype of a hunter (usually white, but not the Great White Hunter) who only has an interest in shooting animals just because they exist. A rather redneck-y view in some extremes.
The thing is everything, when viewed with the proper perspective, is an insult to somebody. In many cases it's the reactions to these representations that we either learn why something is 'bad' or why people who respond to it are 'bad'.
Honestly, where's the stereotyping in that futurama shot? The almond eyes, I guess, and the dreadlocks?
And elmer fudd's a rather different thing, since that's not a racial stereotype.
Except in Futurama's case, each character is a specific stereotype. It's just that not all of them are obvious from just a picture.
And in Elmer Fudd's case, he could be viewed as a stereotype of a hunter (usually white, but not the Great White Hunter) who only has an interest in shooting animals just because they exist. A rather redneck-y view in some extremes.
The thing is everything, when viewed with the proper perspective, is an insult to somebody. In many cases it's the reactions to these representations that we either learn why something is 'bad' or why people who respond to it are 'bad'.
I don't know if I buy that. There's a difference between an archetype and a stereotype, most significantly in the latter having much more negative connotations.
The Futurama characters are most certainly archetypes.
Honestly, where's the stereotyping in that futurama shot? The almond eyes, I guess, and the dreadlocks?
And elmer fudd's a rather different thing, since that's not a racial stereotype.
Except in Futurama's case, each character is a specific stereotype. It's just that not all of them are obvious from just a picture.
And in Elmer Fudd's case, he could be viewed as a stereotype of a hunter (usually white, but not the Great White Hunter) who only has an interest in shooting animals just because they exist. A rather redneck-y view in some extremes.
The thing is everything, when viewed with the proper perspective, is an insult to somebody. In many cases it's the reactions to these representations that we either learn why something is 'bad' or why people who respond to it are 'bad'.
That was sort of my point. I think most of us wouldn't see Fudd as a racial stereotype because we're a bunch of white guys in a majority white culture looking at a cartoon drawn by another white guy. If we were a bunch of black guys in a majority black culture looking at Fudd as drawn by a black guy, even if it was the exact same picture, I think we might be more likely to see it as a white stereotype. Look, he has a big, fat head and giant, round eyes and he's pasty-white and he stutters!
A lot of cartoons, by nature, play up certain physical characteristics for comedy. We wind up with characters with big eyes, round noses, huge ears, crazy hair, and so on. Then you apply that style to, say, a black guy, and you wind up with big lips and a wide nose and zomg racism.
Which isn't to say that a lot of the drawings made in the Days of Yore depicting minorities weren't racist as all fuck. They were. But not necessarily because they showed blacks with big lips and asians with slanty eyes. Rather, because the intent of the cartoons was to say, "Ha ha, lookit those crazy lips, blacks are so fucking goofy looking!" It wasn't the drawing itself, it was the intent of the drawing.
I think Chief Wahoo is not an inherently racist drawing. Lots and lots of drawings have been made of dudes with big-ass smiles. That nose is not offensively drawn, it's just caricatured somewhat. And American Indians did, you know, wear feathers in their hair. I think it's offensive because A) it was meant to be derogatory, and Chief Wahoo? C'mon.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
Elmer Fudd's a stereotype of a particular subset of culture that includes mostly white people. Making fun of him for that (as well as for being generally awkward) is rather a far cry from making fun of native americans as a whole.
There's also the matter of historical oppression. The fact is that even if we wanted to, we don't have the cultural capability to roll a bunch of white stereotypes into one character, because whites have always been the dominant race in American society and they were never that interested in making fun of themselves. The closest we get in pop culture to making fun of white stereotypes is stuff like Will's family in The Fresh Prince, and it's only really amusing there because oh hey, it's weird that upper class people are black.
This is why the Fighting Whites thing missed the point completely. There isn't some equivalency between Elmer Fudd and imagery that was used to justify the systematic repression of an entire race of people for hundreds of years.
Eat it You Nasty Pig. on
it was the smallest on the list but
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
The UNC issue might have missed the point by a bit, but that doesn't mean that the caricature that is Elmer Fudd isn't potentially racist. Racism cannot only apply to those who have been historically oppressed. Elmer Fudd may not be as bad a thing as a minstrel show, but it can still be viewed as offensive anyway.
Elmer Fudd's a stereotype of a particular subset of culture that includes mostly white people. Making fun of him for that (as well as for being generally awkward) is rather a far cry from making fun of native americans as a whole.
There's also the matter of historical oppression. The fact is that even if we wanted to, we don't have the cultural capability to roll a bunch of white stereotypes into one character, because whites have always been the dominant race in American society and they were never that interested in making fun of themselves. The closest we get in pop culture to making fun of white stereotypes is stuff like Will's family in The Fresh Prince, and it's only really amusing there because oh hey, it's weird that upper class people are black.
This is why the Fighting Whites thing missed the point completely. There isn't some equivalency between Elmer Fudd and imagery that was used to justify the systematic repression of an entire race of people for hundreds of years.
Your tone suggests you are disagreeing with me, and yet your words say nothing in contradiction to what I said.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
I don't really have an opinion one way or the other, but if you're going for pure, offensive mascots, this one is up there.
Eh, that's a little different. The people basically named their team after themselves. It's like a tribe of Sioux calling their team the Redskins. Or a bunch of gay guys calling themselves queers.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
I don't really have an opinion one way or the other, but if you're going for pure, offensive mascots, this one is up there.
Eh, that's a little different. The people basically named their team after themselves. It's like a tribe of Sioux calling their team the Redskins. Or a bunch of gay guys calling themselves queers.
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
I don't really have an opinion one way or the other, but if you're going for pure, offensive mascots, this one is up there.
Eh, that's a little different. The people basically named their team after themselves. It's like a tribe of Sioux calling their team the Redskins. Or a bunch of gay guys calling themselves queers.
And people will still find offense in that.
Of course, and I've heard plenty of racist-ass white guys complain they can't use the ol' N-word while black guys can.
These people are called idiots.
If the Washington Redskins were a bunch of actual Indians and the team were, like, owned by Indians then maybe people getting offended should just, you know, get over it.
I think it's silly for one culture to ascribe meaning to another's set of words and symbols. I don't find The Chiefs name or logo offensive, but maybe there are Native Americans out there who think Chief means something powerful, and we're giving it to a bunch of steroid, crybaby, man-children who make millions of dollars a year.
We royally fucked over the native people of the United States. If they got to rename a couple of football teams, I wouldn't care.
Elmer Fudd's a stereotype of a particular subset of culture that includes mostly white people. Making fun of him for that (as well as for being generally awkward) is rather a far cry from making fun of native americans as a whole.
There's also the matter of historical oppression. The fact is that even if we wanted to, we don't have the cultural capability to roll a bunch of white stereotypes into one character, because whites have always been the dominant race in American society and they were never that interested in making fun of themselves. The closest we get in pop culture to making fun of white stereotypes is stuff like Will's family in The Fresh Prince, and it's only really amusing there because oh hey, it's weird that upper class people are black.
This is why the Fighting Whites thing missed the point completely. There isn't some equivalency between Elmer Fudd and imagery that was used to justify the systematic repression of an entire race of people for hundreds of years.
Your tone suggests you are disagreeing with me, and yet your words say nothing in contradiction to what I said.
I'm disagreeing that Wahoo isn't an inherently racist drawing. I disagree with your contention that intent to cause harm is a requirement of "racism."
Eat it You Nasty Pig. on
it was the smallest on the list but
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
Elmer Fudd isn't a stereotype. He's actually the generic placeholder left over from when various stereotypical minorities would hunt Buggs. Elmer isn't really even a stereotype of hunters. He's just an archetypal loser character. Change his skin color, or even his profession, and the character would work exactly the same.
If you want Looney Tunes' white stereotypes you have Yosemite Sam and Foghorn Leghorn.
As for Futurama, there's a difference between depicting race, and exagerating race. Amy may curse in Chinese occassionally, but she doesn't run a laundromat. Hermes is really more of a send up of Jamacans than American blacks, and even then, they just focus on Limbo, which is not a stereotype I've ever heard. Zoidberg is a slightly different case, but so is Jewish humor in general. Jewish humor is all about the Jewish people making light of their own foibles, and to look at a Zoidberg episode it is CLEAR that he has Jewish writers. Note that he doesn't have horns; that's a good way to tell that it is Jewish humor, and not anti-Semitism.
And was some one trying to say that Racism has to be intended to offend? Racism is merely discrimination along racial lines. That's all that it is. Discrimination, by the way, is the same as differentiation, in that it has no inherent positive or negative context. It could be either one, or neutral.
I graduated from UNC and I knew about the Fighting Whites, but I never knew they were from my school.
Also as a track and football conditioning coach, one of my favorite warm-ups for the team is the Indian Run (which is, if you don't know, where all the runners run in a single file line, and the last person in line sprints to the front over and over again). A few years ago all the schools were asked to stop calling it the Indian Run. All the athletes know it as the Indian Run, as did all the coaches. So there was a bit of confusion when we had to change it.
"Time for the.....last-person-sprints-to-the-front-run."
Reading over this, I didn't contribute much to the conversation at hand, but still.
Elmer Fudd is not a racial stereotype, and suggesting that he is shows a shocking and disturbing level of ignorance of what a racial stereotype is.
Why isn't Elmer Fudd a racial stereotype?
Because he doesn't look or act in a way that people think is indicative of all whites?
Having small penises, no rhythm, liking mayonnaise and watching Friends are white stereotypes.
Having a huge forehead, talking in a kind of deformed babytalk, and being a terrible hunter are not white stereotypes.
So whites being compared to deformed mongoloids with guns isn't potentially a bad thing? Not all stereotypes are universal and they don't always appear in a 'you ever notice how folks are different' sketch by a comedian with nothing better to say.
Elmer Fudd pretty clearly meant to play the dumb heel to buggs' likable rogue. The fact that Fudd is white doesn't make him a stereotype of white people.
Eat it You Nasty Pig. on
it was the smallest on the list but
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
Elmer Fudd pretty clearly meant to play the dumb heel to buggs' likable rogue. The fact that Fudd is white doesn't make him a stereotype of white people.
Chief Wahoo is intended to rally fans of a team behind a recognisable mascot. What make him a stereotype again?
Elmer Fudd is not a racial stereotype, and suggesting that he is shows a shocking and disturbing level of ignorance of what a racial stereotype is.
Why isn't Elmer Fudd a racial stereotype?
Because he doesn't look or act in a way that people think is indicative of all whites?
Having small penises, no rhythm, liking mayonnaise and watching Friends are white stereotypes.
Having a huge forehead, talking in a kind of deformed babytalk, and being a terrible hunter are not white stereotypes.
So whites being compared to deformed mongoloids with guns isn't potentially a bad thing? Not all stereotypes are universal and they don't always appear in a 'you ever notice how folks are different' sketch by a comedian with nothing better to say.
Jesus fucking christ. Just admit that you have no fucking clue what a stereotype is. Just because you make a stupid character doesn't make it a stereotype of whatever race it happens to be.
Posts
I wasn't attacking you, I was simply using what you yourself said (that Chief Wahoo is really the only familiarity that you have with American Indians at all.)
American Indians don't actually walk around wearing headdresses.
My experience with racism suggests that a large percentage of it really does come from folks who were simply presented stereotypes as unbiased fact, and believed them honestly, without negative connotation.
There are folks out there who honestly believe that Jews have horns. They don't think this negatively, and they don't look down on Jews for it, but they honestly believe that it is true.
None. (On the jew thing). But it is a long-standing racist depiction of what jews were supposed to be like. And since I'm familiar with those various depictions, the only things that separate '40s Chief Wahoo from 'jew' is the headdress and ponytail.
Hell, as a Cowboys fan, I'd giggle myself to sleep if the 'Washington Team' was forced to change their nickname. (Anybody remember when they tried to adopt the Florida State look as an alternate uniform? Yeah...) But sometimes this drive to scrub all sports team usage of native imagery just strikes me as a bit too 'PC'. And I hate PC arguments on both sides.
Chief Wahoo sucks, but is it really such a horrible thing that the team is also called Indians? The drive to change both is what really pisses me off.
H- horns? Really? Really? Geez...
There's also darker skin, and a hairless face (a Jewish charicature would have beady eyes and a beard)
The hairless face is part of a long tradition of belief that American Indian men were somehow not masculine. Old European textbooks even had information in them stating that American Indian males lactated.
Edit: Also, the picture with the 3 remakes of the Tribe's logo is superb. We should have teams like that.
Yeah, and why did Coon chicken inn have to change their name/mascot?
Racist caricature in spoiler
Seriously, you don't see anything wrong with racist caricatures as logos?
Yeah, now that I think about it, a Chick tract is probably all one needs to see old racist stereotypes in action.
Either way, I've never been a big fan of Chief Wahoo and would prefer they simply changed it to something more appropriate. Barring that, why not just use the old 'C' logo they had for a while? (Probably too close to the Reds...)
I think the issue is more that the folks who are still living in poverty on a reservation with no real hope for the future see it as adding insult to injury.
Just like how we've mostly cut out similar depictions of Black people in our society; the understanding should be: "some of these folks are having some trouble still, because of things our country did to them, so let's be a little more sensitive about it."
Having spent a large portion of my life living (relatively) close to reservations and seeing what life is still like for a lot of Indians...yeah.
The genocide the U.S. (both individuals and through official government policy) committed against the Indians could easily go head to head with the Holocaust. They're different, but equally horrific. And at least in the case of Indians, remarkably successful. Even more so when you stop treating "Indians" as one homogenous culture, and realize that many tribes were actually wiped off the face of the planet. By our government, and our people. Imagine if the Turks had actually managed to completely wipe out the Armenian culture [EDIT: or, for that matter, if the Germans had completely eradicated the Jewish faith]. Because we did that. Individual tribes compared to "Native" culture as a whole are quite analogous to European cultures compared to Europe as a whole, and we destroyed quite a few of them. Completely. Forever.
So yeah, maybe they might be a bit "sensitive." Go figure.
Because cartoon drawings are generally inherently exaggerations or outright caricatures. You have your Disney cartoons, where the people are generally just stylized, but then you have stuff like the Simpsons or Looney Toons where the people are plain goofy.
If a black dude drew this, would it be offensive?
What about this? Are the minorities in this picture offensive?
I think this might be a case where intent and audience have a lot more to do with how "offensive" something is than the actual content of the art.
I see what you mean, but then again sports fans aren't the most high-brow crowd, nor are they looking for a quick and easy laugh. They're dead serious about their stupid stuff, and I think that lets the subtle racism have more power.
Such characters can, of course, breach into offensive territory. But if they have a sincere intention that doesn't involve racial profiling then it's likely that they will not.
Also relevant is comfort of the majority within the cultures producing said characters. A minority oppressed by any given majority is likely to be more sensitive to such issues than an affluent cultural group. Hence the reason "cracker" is generally met with far less outrage than the N word.
Our first game is now available for free on Google Play: Frontier: Isle of the Seven Gods
And elmer fudd's a rather different thing, since that's not a racial stereotype.
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
Except in Futurama's case, each character is a specific stereotype. It's just that not all of them are obvious from just a picture.
And in Elmer Fudd's case, he could be viewed as a stereotype of a hunter (usually white, but not the Great White Hunter) who only has an interest in shooting animals just because they exist. A rather redneck-y view in some extremes.
The thing is everything, when viewed with the proper perspective, is an insult to somebody. In many cases it's the reactions to these representations that we either learn why something is 'bad' or why people who respond to it are 'bad'.
I don't know if I buy that. There's a difference between an archetype and a stereotype, most significantly in the latter having much more negative connotations.
The Futurama characters are most certainly archetypes.
Our first game is now available for free on Google Play: Frontier: Isle of the Seven Gods
That was sort of my point. I think most of us wouldn't see Fudd as a racial stereotype because we're a bunch of white guys in a majority white culture looking at a cartoon drawn by another white guy. If we were a bunch of black guys in a majority black culture looking at Fudd as drawn by a black guy, even if it was the exact same picture, I think we might be more likely to see it as a white stereotype. Look, he has a big, fat head and giant, round eyes and he's pasty-white and he stutters!
A lot of cartoons, by nature, play up certain physical characteristics for comedy. We wind up with characters with big eyes, round noses, huge ears, crazy hair, and so on. Then you apply that style to, say, a black guy, and you wind up with big lips and a wide nose and zomg racism.
Which isn't to say that a lot of the drawings made in the Days of Yore depicting minorities weren't racist as all fuck. They were. But not necessarily because they showed blacks with big lips and asians with slanty eyes. Rather, because the intent of the cartoons was to say, "Ha ha, lookit those crazy lips, blacks are so fucking goofy looking!" It wasn't the drawing itself, it was the intent of the drawing.
I think Chief Wahoo is not an inherently racist drawing. Lots and lots of drawings have been made of dudes with big-ass smiles. That nose is not offensively drawn, it's just caricatured somewhat. And American Indians did, you know, wear feathers in their hair. I think it's offensive because A) it was meant to be derogatory, and
There's also the matter of historical oppression. The fact is that even if we wanted to, we don't have the cultural capability to roll a bunch of white stereotypes into one character, because whites have always been the dominant race in American society and they were never that interested in making fun of themselves. The closest we get in pop culture to making fun of white stereotypes is stuff like Will's family in The Fresh Prince, and it's only really amusing there because oh hey, it's weird that upper class people are black.
This is why the Fighting Whites thing missed the point completely. There isn't some equivalency between Elmer Fudd and imagery that was used to justify the systematic repression of an entire race of people for hundreds of years.
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
From state that brought you Sarah Palin...
I give you: The Aniak Halfbreeds.
I don't really have an opinion one way or the other, but if you're going for pure, offensive mascots, this one is up there.
Your tone suggests you are disagreeing with me, and yet your words say nothing in contradiction to what I said.
Eh, that's a little different. The people basically named their team after themselves. It's like a tribe of Sioux calling their team the Redskins. Or a bunch of gay guys calling themselves queers.
And people will still find offense in that.
Of course, and I've heard plenty of racist-ass white guys complain they can't use the ol' N-word while black guys can.
These people are called idiots.
If the Washington Redskins were a bunch of actual Indians and the team were, like, owned by Indians then maybe people getting offended should just, you know, get over it.
But that isn't the case.
We royally fucked over the native people of the United States. If they got to rename a couple of football teams, I wouldn't care.
I'm disagreeing that Wahoo isn't an inherently racist drawing. I disagree with your contention that intent to cause harm is a requirement of "racism."
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
If you want Looney Tunes' white stereotypes you have Yosemite Sam and Foghorn Leghorn.
As for Futurama, there's a difference between depicting race, and exagerating race. Amy may curse in Chinese occassionally, but she doesn't run a laundromat. Hermes is really more of a send up of Jamacans than American blacks, and even then, they just focus on Limbo, which is not a stereotype I've ever heard. Zoidberg is a slightly different case, but so is Jewish humor in general. Jewish humor is all about the Jewish people making light of their own foibles, and to look at a Zoidberg episode it is CLEAR that he has Jewish writers. Note that he doesn't have horns; that's a good way to tell that it is Jewish humor, and not anti-Semitism.
And was some one trying to say that Racism has to be intended to offend? Racism is merely discrimination along racial lines. That's all that it is. Discrimination, by the way, is the same as differentiation, in that it has no inherent positive or negative context. It could be either one, or neutral.
That's clearly a Bantha run.
To hide your numbers.
Why isn't Elmer Fudd a racial stereotype?
Because he doesn't look or act in a way that people think is indicative of all whites?
Having small penises, no rhythm, liking mayonnaise and watching Friends are white stereotypes.
Having a huge forehead, talking in a kind of deformed babytalk, and being a terrible hunter are not white stereotypes.
So whites being compared to deformed mongoloids with guns isn't potentially a bad thing? Not all stereotypes are universal and they don't always appear in a 'you ever notice how folks are different' sketch by a comedian with nothing better to say.
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
Chief Wahoo is intended to rally fans of a team behind a recognisable mascot. What make him a stereotype again?
Jesus fucking christ. Just admit that you have no fucking clue what a stereotype is. Just because you make a stupid character doesn't make it a stereotype of whatever race it happens to be.