TOOR.
Kong's 'issues' are irrelevant. The bottom line is, the cartoon compares a black man to a gorilla. End of.
As I said previously, if the cartoonist was seriously trying to suggest that Mario is misunderstood, there are plenty of other characters from popular culture he could have chosen rather than an ape.
Toor, but what you have said there, completely ignores the fact that people are aware that people of all ethnicities are aware that black people have been compared to apes in a derogatory way.
Awareness isn't ignorance.
Devil's advocate scenario - The cartoonist is the biggest racist going and did portray this in an attempt to be as contentious as he could be.
If we fail to make the link he wants, he loses and fails in his attempt. Those who see the monkey link have given him what he wants. Even if we all inwardly see it as racist but outwardly give no reaction then we will have taken the power away from the racist artist and failed to spread the monkey / black man link.
comment by shortlightandugly (U13938)
posted 1 minute ago
TOOR.
Kong's 'issues' are irrelevant.
---------------------------------
There's nothing more relevant in the cartoon, as that's what it's about.
comment by Pâî§Lë¥'&scaron... (U1541)
posted 1 minute ago
Toor, but what you have said there, completely ignores the fact that people are aware that people of all ethnicities are aware that black people have been compared to apes in a derogatory way.
Awareness isn't ignorance.
--------------------------------------------------
He isn't compared to an ape. He is compared to the character of King Kong. Where both share very very similar problems, in that they are misunderstood and that they can do damage in the heat of the moment when provoked. The only difference is, Kong was destroyed, Balotelli destroyed the English.
Stating that the ONLY interpretation of this cartoon is racist does nothing other than legitimise and perpetuate the pathetic suggestion made ONLY by racists that black people are synonymous with apes.
Shortlight
Kong's 'issues' are irrelevant.
-------------------
So the only thing that is of any relevance is the colour of a persons skin? I suggest you look up the definition of racism.
comment by FSB (U11355)
posted 39 seconds ago
Shortlight
Kong's 'issues' are irrelevant.
-------------------
So the only thing that is of any relevance is the colour of a persons skin? I suggest you look up the definition of racism.
---------------------------------
Exactly, this is what I'm trying to say. If people don't place any emphasis on skin colour, we have no racial link here, so why do people place emphasis on skin colour, when this very thing is what racists do?
Stating that the ONLY interpretation of this cartoon is racist does nothing other than legitimise and perpetuate the pathetic suggestion made ONLY by racists that black people are synonymous with apes.
---------------
Of course, the image has differing interpretations, but to imply that an individual maybe be racist by interpreting the image in this way is also wrong, because it's a reasonable interpretation to make.
I think it's sad that monkeys are now basically the 'property' of racists. When I see a monkey I see a monkey, racists are trying to take control of that and make sure I see a black man.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/9120915/Trade-unionists-win-racist-monkey-cartoon-case.html
The basis is placed on skin colour because that's what the cartoonist is drawing us to by comparing a black man to an ape!
comment by johnsonsbaby (U10461)
posted 2 minutes ago
I think it's sad that monkeys are now basically the 'property' of racists.
-----------------------------------
This is what happened to the word negro also. It wasn't a racist word, now it is. We're giving everything to racists. Black is next.
comment by shortlightandugly (U13938)
posted 1 minute ago
The basis is placed on skin colour because that's what the cartoonist is drawing us to by comparing a black man to an ape!
-------------------------------------------
No. He's not drawing us to that, you took that from what he drew. He's comparing Balotelli, who happens to be black, not that it has any relevance, to King Kong.
Of course, the image has differing interpretations, but to imply that an individual maybe be racist by interpreting the image in this way is also wrong, because it's a reasonable interpretation to make.
--------------------------------
I don't think that's the implication. It's not that you're a racist at all. More like you have been conditioned to link monkey and black man.
I would say it's reasonable to make the link with the KK film. Reasonable to see the animal and building re-drawn as a man and a different building. But not reasonable to make the leap to Balotelli > KK> ape> black man.
Balotelli is replacing KK in the image we are familiar with, but why does that have to mean it therefore follows that because racists equate ape with black man that we should, when transposing images from the film to this cartoon also transpose some racists view of it as well. Leave that bit out of it. Think of it as a classic film pose transferred to a modern day situation minus the racist interpretation.
Comment deleted by Article Creator
Balotelli is replacing KK in the image we are familiar with, but why does that have to mean it therefore follows that because racists equate ape with black man that we should, when transposing images from the film to this cartoon also transpose some racists view of it as well. Leave that bit out of it. Think of it as a classic film pose transferred to a modern day situation minus the racist interpretation.
-----------------
I can see what you're saying JB, but you can't just delete the correlation.
Another image we are familiar with is the swastika. It will forever be regarded as a symbol of nazism, when infact for thousands of years it was regarded by many cultures throughout the past 3,000 years to represent life,, strength,and good luck.
King Kong is an iconic ape. Black men have been regarded and depicted as apes by racists. The connection is there and will not be easily removed.
Stating that the ONLY interpretation of this cartoon is racist does nothing other than legitimise and perpetuate the pathetic suggestion made ONLY by racists that black people are synonymous with apes.
---------------
Of course, the image has differing interpretations, but to imply that an individual maybe be racist by interpreting the image in this way is also wrong, because it's a reasonable interpretation to make.
-------------------------------
Paisley's, I don't know how you interpreted what I said as meaning that to interpret this cartoon as racist is itself racist. What I said is that to insist that the racist interpretation is the ONLY interpretation only serves the racist cause by denying the relevance of any factor other than skin colour. Refusal to look beyond the colour of someone's skin is racism plain and simple..
I don't deny that cartoon can be deemed racist. My argument is that it can also be interpreted very differently if we take the trouble to look beyond the colour of Balotelli's skin.
I totally agree FSB.
My mistake, my comments were directed to Toor who appeared rightly or wrongly to imply that in one of his posts.
I don't think the cartoon is necessarliy racist as different interpretations can be made. As i said yesterday, I would defend the right for it to be published as I'm against censorship of the press for the most part, but for me anyway, the racial interpretation is one that can easily be taken.
A very interesting discussion fella's, well done you've made my head hurt.
I can see what you're saying JB, but you can't just delete the correlation......
-----------------------------------
I have. I'm not daft enough to say there isn't one but for me, I see monkey as an animal and that's it.
The connection is there and will not be easily removed
-------------------------------------
Unless you try, which I'm suggesting here. If you don't try, it will never be removed. It's not something that can be done gradually, you either drop the connection in your own mind or you don't - I have.
FSB - I agree.
Credit to everyone here for sharing and listening. It has helped me understand more fully other views.
Is this still going on?
Wow.
It was a poorly judged choice in terms of the iconic figure that he decided to use to depict Balotelli as. I don't think the artist drew it with thoughts of racism or deliberate controversy, he just drew it. Looking back now I'm sure he understands it was poor choice & how it could have been perceived ( especially given the recent incidents with Balotelli & the sensitivity surrounding the issue of racism, from the players perspective).
Is there really anything more to it than that?
When i see a monkey I don't see a black man.
However when I see an image of a black man, depicted as a monkey, given my awareness, empathy and history, it's natural to question the artists intentions.
yea my head hurts too but I have found it valuable and thought provoking
to all involved. well most.
comment by Toblerone Boots (U4965)
posted 10 minutes ago
Is this still going on?
Wow.
It was a poorly judged choice in terms of the iconic figure that he decided to use to depict Balotelli as. I don't think the artist drew it with thoughts of racism or deliberate controversy, he just drew it. Looking back now I'm sure he understands it was poor choice & how it could have been perceived ( especially given the recent incidents with Balotelli & the sensitivity surrounding the issue of racism, from the players perspective).
Is there really anything more to it than that?
------------------------------------------
Well no, that's exactly my view on the artist's intentions. However we've moved on from the artist's intentions and some have differing views on why and why not they believe it's racist.
Paisleys - he's depicted as a man though. He's even got a big smiling face not the scowl associated with KK. Your stored knowledge makes the leap.
I asked makar earlier to forget he knew anything about KK films just look at the drawing again and what do you see? I will ask you the same.
Sign in if you want to comment
Race Row or...
Page 16 of 21
17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21
posted on 28/6/12
TOOR.
Kong's 'issues' are irrelevant. The bottom line is, the cartoon compares a black man to a gorilla. End of.
As I said previously, if the cartoonist was seriously trying to suggest that Mario is misunderstood, there are plenty of other characters from popular culture he could have chosen rather than an ape.
posted on 28/6/12
Toor, but what you have said there, completely ignores the fact that people are aware that people of all ethnicities are aware that black people have been compared to apes in a derogatory way.
Awareness isn't ignorance.
posted on 28/6/12
Devil's advocate scenario - The cartoonist is the biggest racist going and did portray this in an attempt to be as contentious as he could be.
If we fail to make the link he wants, he loses and fails in his attempt. Those who see the monkey link have given him what he wants. Even if we all inwardly see it as racist but outwardly give no reaction then we will have taken the power away from the racist artist and failed to spread the monkey / black man link.
posted on 28/6/12
comment by shortlightandugly (U13938)
posted 1 minute ago
TOOR.
Kong's 'issues' are irrelevant.
---------------------------------
There's nothing more relevant in the cartoon, as that's what it's about.
posted on 28/6/12
comment by Pâî§Lë¥'&scaron... (U1541)
posted 1 minute ago
Toor, but what you have said there, completely ignores the fact that people are aware that people of all ethnicities are aware that black people have been compared to apes in a derogatory way.
Awareness isn't ignorance.
--------------------------------------------------
He isn't compared to an ape. He is compared to the character of King Kong. Where both share very very similar problems, in that they are misunderstood and that they can do damage in the heat of the moment when provoked. The only difference is, Kong was destroyed, Balotelli destroyed the English.
posted on 28/6/12
Stating that the ONLY interpretation of this cartoon is racist does nothing other than legitimise and perpetuate the pathetic suggestion made ONLY by racists that black people are synonymous with apes.
posted on 28/6/12
Shortlight
Kong's 'issues' are irrelevant.
-------------------
So the only thing that is of any relevance is the colour of a persons skin? I suggest you look up the definition of racism.
posted on 28/6/12
comment by FSB (U11355)
posted 39 seconds ago
Shortlight
Kong's 'issues' are irrelevant.
-------------------
So the only thing that is of any relevance is the colour of a persons skin? I suggest you look up the definition of racism.
---------------------------------
Exactly, this is what I'm trying to say. If people don't place any emphasis on skin colour, we have no racial link here, so why do people place emphasis on skin colour, when this very thing is what racists do?
posted on 28/6/12
Stating that the ONLY interpretation of this cartoon is racist does nothing other than legitimise and perpetuate the pathetic suggestion made ONLY by racists that black people are synonymous with apes.
---------------
Of course, the image has differing interpretations, but to imply that an individual maybe be racist by interpreting the image in this way is also wrong, because it's a reasonable interpretation to make.
posted on 28/6/12
I think it's sad that monkeys are now basically the 'property' of racists. When I see a monkey I see a monkey, racists are trying to take control of that and make sure I see a black man.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/9120915/Trade-unionists-win-racist-monkey-cartoon-case.html
posted on 28/6/12
The basis is placed on skin colour because that's what the cartoonist is drawing us to by comparing a black man to an ape!
posted on 28/6/12
comment by johnsonsbaby (U10461)
posted 2 minutes ago
I think it's sad that monkeys are now basically the 'property' of racists.
-----------------------------------
This is what happened to the word negro also. It wasn't a racist word, now it is. We're giving everything to racists. Black is next.
posted on 28/6/12
comment by shortlightandugly (U13938)
posted 1 minute ago
The basis is placed on skin colour because that's what the cartoonist is drawing us to by comparing a black man to an ape!
-------------------------------------------
No. He's not drawing us to that, you took that from what he drew. He's comparing Balotelli, who happens to be black, not that it has any relevance, to King Kong.
posted on 28/6/12
Of course, the image has differing interpretations, but to imply that an individual maybe be racist by interpreting the image in this way is also wrong, because it's a reasonable interpretation to make.
--------------------------------
I don't think that's the implication. It's not that you're a racist at all. More like you have been conditioned to link monkey and black man.
I would say it's reasonable to make the link with the KK film. Reasonable to see the animal and building re-drawn as a man and a different building. But not reasonable to make the leap to Balotelli > KK> ape> black man.
Balotelli is replacing KK in the image we are familiar with, but why does that have to mean it therefore follows that because racists equate ape with black man that we should, when transposing images from the film to this cartoon also transpose some racists view of it as well. Leave that bit out of it. Think of it as a classic film pose transferred to a modern day situation minus the racist interpretation.
posted on 28/6/12
Comment deleted by Article Creator
posted on 28/6/12
Balotelli is replacing KK in the image we are familiar with, but why does that have to mean it therefore follows that because racists equate ape with black man that we should, when transposing images from the film to this cartoon also transpose some racists view of it as well. Leave that bit out of it. Think of it as a classic film pose transferred to a modern day situation minus the racist interpretation.
-----------------
I can see what you're saying JB, but you can't just delete the correlation.
Another image we are familiar with is the swastika. It will forever be regarded as a symbol of nazism, when infact for thousands of years it was regarded by many cultures throughout the past 3,000 years to represent life,, strength,and good luck.
King Kong is an iconic ape. Black men have been regarded and depicted as apes by racists. The connection is there and will not be easily removed.
posted on 28/6/12
Stating that the ONLY interpretation of this cartoon is racist does nothing other than legitimise and perpetuate the pathetic suggestion made ONLY by racists that black people are synonymous with apes.
---------------
Of course, the image has differing interpretations, but to imply that an individual maybe be racist by interpreting the image in this way is also wrong, because it's a reasonable interpretation to make.
-------------------------------
Paisley's, I don't know how you interpreted what I said as meaning that to interpret this cartoon as racist is itself racist. What I said is that to insist that the racist interpretation is the ONLY interpretation only serves the racist cause by denying the relevance of any factor other than skin colour. Refusal to look beyond the colour of someone's skin is racism plain and simple..
I don't deny that cartoon can be deemed racist. My argument is that it can also be interpreted very differently if we take the trouble to look beyond the colour of Balotelli's skin.
posted on 28/6/12
I totally agree FSB.
My mistake, my comments were directed to Toor who appeared rightly or wrongly to imply that in one of his posts.
I don't think the cartoon is necessarliy racist as different interpretations can be made. As i said yesterday, I would defend the right for it to be published as I'm against censorship of the press for the most part, but for me anyway, the racial interpretation is one that can easily be taken.
posted on 28/6/12
A very interesting discussion fella's, well done you've made my head hurt.
posted on 28/6/12
I can see what you're saying JB, but you can't just delete the correlation......
-----------------------------------
I have. I'm not daft enough to say there isn't one but for me, I see monkey as an animal and that's it.
The connection is there and will not be easily removed
-------------------------------------
Unless you try, which I'm suggesting here. If you don't try, it will never be removed. It's not something that can be done gradually, you either drop the connection in your own mind or you don't - I have.
FSB - I agree.
Credit to everyone here for sharing and listening. It has helped me understand more fully other views.
posted on 28/6/12
Is this still going on?
Wow.
It was a poorly judged choice in terms of the iconic figure that he decided to use to depict Balotelli as. I don't think the artist drew it with thoughts of racism or deliberate controversy, he just drew it. Looking back now I'm sure he understands it was poor choice & how it could have been perceived ( especially given the recent incidents with Balotelli & the sensitivity surrounding the issue of racism, from the players perspective).
Is there really anything more to it than that?
posted on 28/6/12
When i see a monkey I don't see a black man.
However when I see an image of a black man, depicted as a monkey, given my awareness, empathy and history, it's natural to question the artists intentions.
posted on 28/6/12
yea my head hurts too but I have found it valuable and thought provoking
to all involved. well most.
posted on 28/6/12
comment by Toblerone Boots (U4965)
posted 10 minutes ago
Is this still going on?
Wow.
It was a poorly judged choice in terms of the iconic figure that he decided to use to depict Balotelli as. I don't think the artist drew it with thoughts of racism or deliberate controversy, he just drew it. Looking back now I'm sure he understands it was poor choice & how it could have been perceived ( especially given the recent incidents with Balotelli & the sensitivity surrounding the issue of racism, from the players perspective).
Is there really anything more to it than that?
------------------------------------------
Well no, that's exactly my view on the artist's intentions. However we've moved on from the artist's intentions and some have differing views on why and why not they believe it's racist.
posted on 28/6/12
Paisleys - he's depicted as a man though. He's even got a big smiling face not the scowl associated with KK. Your stored knowledge makes the leap.
I asked makar earlier to forget he knew anything about KK films just look at the drawing again and what do you see? I will ask you the same.
Page 16 of 21
17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21