Racist! Really?

Jono8 said:
If he had at least attempted to make it looks somewhat like Osaka ( like the example i did with the hair) , i'm sure people wouldn't have seen it so unfavorably.
Click to expand...

You're joking, right? The same people would have used a different excuse or just ignored that tiny and irrelevant aspect of the picture.

In the photo I saw of Osaka, she was wearing a cap that covered her head and had a blonde ponytail hanging out the back of it. Just as in the caricature cartoon, which is very obviously not intended to be a realistic depiction of physical appearance anyway.

As an artist ( or anyone who has a job in creating works that are published in the public sphere) it is always important to make sure you havent inadvertently drawn or written something that can be perceived in a different way to that which you intended. Which unfortunately is what i think has happened here.
Click to expand...

Why should an artist be required to censor themself and submit to sexist and racist double standards because some racists and sexists claim to perceive their art in a different way because of local stereotypes thousands of miles from the artist a lifetime ago?
 
inogen said:
I couldn't care less.
Click to expand...

Your activity in this thread suggests otherwise.

This kind of impasse always makes me think of this situation - you are seeing what you want to see.

M3jisFW.gif

It's becoming more and more common these days as people are so entrenched in their views and politics that they won't even consider looking at things from anyone else's viewpoint and want to demonise the opposing position.

I am old enough to remember the stereotypical characters in the Tom and Jerry cartoons. In my youth I had a work colleague who made it known that he found some of them upsetting and insulting after we'd adapted his first name, calling him "Thoooomas" for a laugh - that rightly stopped very quickly. I just don't think that this is comparable tbh.

I was consciously looking at people on the train today thinking how I would caricature them which was an interesting thought experiment. I just think that giving in to people who take offence at absolutely everything is just not the right thing to do. So much ammunition everywhere and I find satire takes priority over butthurt in all honesty, as long as it's not quite blatantly malicious.
 
Last edited:
Jono8 said:
No one is disputing the shading used. Yes she is given a darker skin colour than the umpire, but that is irrelevant.
Click to expand...

Irrelevant? You were literally making a claim about skin colour and yet you're also stating that the darker skin colour used is irrelevant to that? Eh???
 
Xgstk88.jpg

Would be interested if someone could draw a cartoon, in the cartoonists usual style, featuring her that wouldn't be construed as being "racist" (remembering that she is a big girl, she does have a flat nose and she was having a tantrum)
 
I think we got to the point where if anyone does or says anything to or against a person that's black skinned a lot of People will call it racist regardless of any message or original meaning.

People see what fits their agenda
 
Everyone seems to have an agenda to be offended on the behalf of others. While I don't condone any forms hatred or abusive behaviour towards anyone, providing it's not a personal attack at an individual, I don't see any harm in it. All jokes one way or another could be misconstrued to be offensive one way or another if you scrutinise them enough... I put it down to sheer boredom.
 
inogen said:
I'm not even talking the cartoon here. I'm talking about people asking for direction. If you think the cartoon isn't racist, then fine, carry on. tbh I couldn't care less. I think you're wrong and I've explained why I think that's wrong. That doesn't put me under any duress to explain alternatives. It's up to people themselves (if they want) to work out how to conduct themselves in a manner that doesn't have other people call them out.
Click to expand...


Of course you are under no obligation to explain alternative, but it means that your position is a bit pointless if you can't engage in discussion about what would be acceptable. It's all very well saying 'I don't think this is OK', but if you cant' say what you think is OK, then it's just a bit pointless saying anything at all.
 
Angilion said:
You're joking, right? The same people would have used a different excuse or just ignored that tiny and irrelevant aspect of the picture.


In the photo I saw of Osaka, she was wearing a cap that covered her head and had a blonde ponytail hanging out the back of it. Just as in the caricature cartoon, which is very obviously not intended to be a realistic depiction of physical appearance anyway.
Click to expand...

That is simply conjecture. If it was far more obviously Osaka, the white washing aspect of the criticism wouldn't be there.

Angilion said:
Why should an artist be required to censor themself and submit to sexist and racist double standards because some racists and sexists claim to perceive their art in a different way because of local stereotypes thousands of miles from the artist a lifetime ago?
Click to expand...

What an odd argument. Human history and the enslavement, perscution and ridicule of black people for centuries is precisely why we are having this debate and why the illustration is seen as contentious.

Quite frankly, the artist can draw what he wants (within the law). Freedom of speech and expression doesn't mean freedom from consequence or criticism though. If the artist doesnt want his work to be seen as racist, he could take a few minutes to step back and look at how it might be perceived and how he might change it to remove any possible misunderstandings or perceived insensitivity. If he doesn't care, then.. *shrugs*
 
The West bends over backwards to accommodate minorities, but that's not good enough. Equality under the law isn't good enough. Affirmative action isn't good enough. What will be good enough?
 
Jono8 said:
This quite a good write up on it by an Australian sports journalist and kind of echos my feelings on it

https://twitter.com/rohan_connolly/status/1039411641752797184?s=17
Click to expand...

The TldR version is ...


I'm a white male who can't possible be discriminated against because of muh white privellege (despite a raft of 'positive' discrimination actions launched in various countries showing this to be demonstrably false)...


And you can parody anyone apart from women or people of colour because that may be reminiscent if some previous 'hurtful' exaggeration seen in parody.....

So it comes back to the same bigotry of low expectations for wen and people of colour .....

And as one of the earlier replies stated

Can you please draw one of her and post it on Twitter so people can determine whether you're racist?
Click to expand...

I really doubt anyone against the cartoon has the guts to do this because it would expose the hypocrisy of their position.

So unless you can achieve the impossible (making a proper caricature of Serena that doesn't include her African female features) then you need to be against all satirical depictions of people (so wave good bye to thoose Trump, May, Farrage cartoons) or you are the racist and sexist
 
Skunkworks said:
The West bends over backwards to accommodate minorities, but that's not good enough. Equality under the law isn't good enough. Affirmative action isn't good enough. What will be good enough?
Click to expand...
I don't agree in general, I think minorities are still up against it when it comes to full equality of opportunity. That's hard to deny. But a lampooning cartoon like this isn't part of that battle IMO.
 
Skunkworks said:
The West bends over backwards to accommodate minorities, but that's not good enough. Equality under the law isn't good enough. Affirmative action isn't good enough. What will be good enough?
Click to expand...


Much like feminism the aims of 'anti racism' /'positive action' are not equality (of outcome or opportunity) ..... Its a power grab.....


Like Stella Creasy let slip 'feminism isn't about women it's about power'


Racial activism is just the same..... just like most modern 'activism' movements its primary aim of to obtain dominance and power of society.

In another thread I was called a racist because I said I was against policies that would result in the 'white' population of the UK becoming a minority in the UK within a generation or two (as the demographics show will happen under current trends) so I think that might be a clue as to the end game.
 
Caracus2k said:
Much like feminism the aims of 'anti racism' /'positive action' are not equality (of outcome or opportunity) ..... Its a power grab.....


Like Stella Creasy let slip 'feminism isn't about women it's about power'


Racial activism is just the same..... just like most modern 'activism' movements its primary aim of to obtain dominance and power of society.

In another thread I was called a racist because I said I was against the 'white' population of the UK becoming a minority in the UK within a generation or two (as the demographics shoe will happen under current trends) so I think that might be a clue as to the end game.
Click to expand...
Well ****. I thought we were arguing over the nuances of if a cartoon was drawn with racist intentions, you've just gone full ******.
 
dowie said:
Xgstk88.jpg

Would be interested if someone could draw a cartoon, in the cartoonists usual style, featuring her that wouldn't be construed as being "racist" (remembering that she is a big girl, she does have a flat nose and she was having a tantrum)
Click to expand...


Well god dam that photo makes the cartoon look pretty spot on.
 
dl8860 said:
Well ****. I thought we were arguing over the nuances of if a cartoon was drawn with racist intentions, you've just gone full ******.
Click to expand...

The principles at play are the same....


There is a lot of disengious people commenting here.....

Challenges have repeatedly been made to produce an 'acceptable' caricature of a black woman like Serena with no answer.

They will not outright state it but they know that the net effect of what they propose would make it impossible to satirise a black woman without accusations of racism automatically being levelled. They therefore advocate for preferential treatment based on race and gender (I. E literal racism and sexism) as they are not consistent enough to be against any satire (which will always include exaggeration of the subjects features including any features more typical in certain ethnicities)
 
Last edited:
Jono8 said:
Human history and the enslavement, perscution and ridicule of black people for centuries is precisely why we are having this debate and why the illustration is seen as contentious.
Click to expand...

Perhaps you should read up on your history more 'white' Europeans were taken to Africa as slaves then African slaves taken to what now constitutes the USA.

The principle difference is the Africans and their associated Muslim/ Arab slavers didn't allow the slaves to breed to leave a resentful domestic population behind.
 
Some people want to be treated equally irrespective of their skin colour but also want the colour of their skin to be considered all the time - racism will never go away because some people don't really seem to want it to.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom