If a theatre company wanted to do a stage version of Jungle Book, could the black members play any character they liked apart from King Louis? Would he only be able to be played by a white actor in case someone was offended? Genuine question.

comment by johnsonsbaby (U10461)
posted 18 seconds ago
If a theatre company wanted to do a stage version of Jungle Book, could the black members play any character they liked apart from King Louis? Would he only be able to be played by a white actor in case someone was offended? Genuine question.
---------------------------------------
Good point.

I was puzzled as I couldn't understand the racism link, other than people thought the sole fact that Balotelli has been drawn in a role, which was made famous by King Kong, a gorilla, is racist, which I found ridiculous.

-----------------------

Balotelli himself has been subjected to monkey chants in the past, which surely must be taken into account when judging if he or others may be offended by a picture of the same man being depicted as a giant ape.

Just to clarify, I am not offended by it. however, I would question the motives of the artist as to whether he was courting controversy or not, especially If he knew that Balotelli had been subjected to racist abuse (monkey chants and banana throwing)

comment by Pâî§Lë¥'&scaron... (U1541)
posted 10 minutes ago
I was puzzled as I couldn't understand the racism link, other than people thought the sole fact that Balotelli has been drawn in a role, which was made famous by King Kong, a gorilla, is racist, which I found ridiculous.

-----------------------

Balotelli himself has been subjected to monkey chants in the past, which surely must be taken into account when judging if he or others may be offended by a picture of the same man being depicted as a giant ape.
------------------------------
Yes he has, this isn't a monkey chant though and isn't coming from a racist who does these chants. He's a cartoonist, who likened Balotelli, a great likeness by the way, to King Kong.

If the illustrator was aware that Balotelli had been subjected to money chants and banana throwing, (and since this happened when he was playing for Italy, surely that is a distinct possibility) could the cartoonist be accused of being deliberately provocative?

The answer is definitely yes.

comment by Pâî§Lë¥'&scaron... (U1541)
posted 3 seconds ago
If the illustrator was aware that Balotelli had been subjected to money chants and banana throwing, (and since this happened when he was playing for Italy, surely that is a distinct possibility) could the cartoonist be accused of being deliberately provocative?

The answer is definitely yes.
------------------------------------
I don't think whether he knew or not is relevant, as there is no monkey in the cartoon, nor banana throwing.

If you are provoked by it then for you it's provocative. Nothing can be 100% provocative as each individual acts in an individual way. We all have different levels of tolerance to provocation in general. Were this picture is concerned, for me there's no tolerance needed, as I don't see it as racist. I accept that some do see it as racist and are upset by it to varying degrees.

controversial may have been the more appropriate word.

Paisley's, to paraphrase what I wrote earlier. Racist doctrine that equates black people with apes has been accepted into mainstream culture, despite the fact that it is clearly nonsense. This ridiculous part of the racist mindset has therefore become enshrined in our culture

The only link between black people and apes is in the mind of racists. But to constrain our actions in order to avoid putting black people and apes into a common context simpy accepts and legitimises that link. The more we all collectively do this the stronger the linkage becomes and we all end up living on terms dictated by the racists.

John Barnes stated I believe, that he's not bothered about people making monkey chants and throwing bananas because they don't apply to him. And, if you refuse to accept the racist mindset, they don't.

We cannot eradicate racism and racists will always try to abuse people who are different from them but let's not help them by accepting and assimilating their ridiculous arguments.

If, as in this case, there are other rational interpretations we should focus on them rather than considering ONLY the irrational racist one. Black people are not apes and its only racist's who pretend that they are. We should be condemning racists and rejecting their short sighted attitudes about a link that doesn't exist rather than accepting their propaganda and living our lives subject to the constraints that the acceptance of this non-existent link places upon us.

controversial may have been the more appropriate word.
---------------------------------

Well it's kept us in contoversy for two days.

John Barnes stated I believe, that he's not bothered about people making monkey chants and throwing bananas because they don't apply to him. And, if you refuse to accept the racist mindset, they don't.
-----------------------------

I posted this same thing about 10 pages ago. More people need to have his attitude. As a black man with a strong sense of self he refuses to make the link and I would rather follow his view on it than that which some ignorant racists say I should. To do this, isn't to deny it exists, it's a start of taking back power.

Sorry JB, that's probably where I got it from. Hope you weren't making it up

Nothing to be sorry for mate. At least you bother to read some or all of the posts on a thread before having your say

JB's argument is a compelling one. I think it is a potential solution that requires further analysis in fact. I don't however think it is the best solution.

JB is just one man, he cannot speak for every person that may ever suffer racial abuse. It is simply unreasonable to expect every single person who may suffer racist abuse to simply ignore it. Effectively, the onus is being passed to the victim and it will depend entirely on their natural sensitivity to put up with it and ignore it.

Whilst you may think 'tough luck' if you are unable to deal with this, I think this is also unfair since people are all different. I, for example, am an extremely sensitive person (like Balotelli) and whilst I could perhaps bbring myself to just completely ignore having bananas thrown at me or whatever, it is not good to bottle up such emotions and I think that I would eventually go into a massive rage and just snap at some point.

..... I have some chores to go and do, I will continue this point another time....

Again you're saying "ignore" but you can't ignore what isn't there!

makar - my points haven't been about racial abuse but have been specifically about the making of a connection between monkeys and black men, which is just one small part of how racists operate.

A mass concerted effort to refuse to make that connection would or could see it eliminated. And yes I'm aware that it will never happen but should we stop trying because the scale of it is too huge? For me, no. I regard it in the same way as - what's the best way to eat an elephant? A bit at a time.

The issue of racial abuse is another matter. You can't use the approach of ignore it and it will go away and I think that's where a lot of confusion (if that's the right word) has been in this discussion.

It's been very interesting to me that while me, TOOR and RAP have a very similar view on this picture (me and RAP having identical views) - at the time of the Suarez affair, we had three quite different takes on it, merging on some points but very dissimilar on others.

There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
posted 46 minutes ago
Again you're saying "ignore" but you can't ignore what isn't there!

---

Very sound advice and a solution that would most certainly work if everyone where to employ it.

I originally thought that perhaps this was a bad idea but I have changed my mind on it now and so to a certain extent, I agree with you here. However, I don't think that this is the final solution because we simply have to accept that not every person will do it. Not ever. This isn't something that needs time, this is something that will effect different people based on where they naturally fall on the spectrum of sensitivity. A very sensitive person will either not be able to ignore it or they will ignore it and something else will have to give instead, which is likely to be an emotional reaction which ultimately, nothing good will come from.

If we accept that these people will always exist then it is highly likely that when a comic illustration such as the one we have been talking about (to bring it back to this point like johnsonsbaby recommends) people will complain to the publisher. If the publisher were to then uphold the rule of ignoring the racism implied and not respond to the complaints, then the victims will have the double whammy of feeling victimised and unheard. They will then vent in other ways.

I realise this is getting quite low level but I wanted to try and point out ways in which I think the ignoring rule won't work for everyone. In order to inflict racism, a perpetrator and a victim are required and as you have pointed out, if you ignore it then there is no victim and so racism does not exist. But there will be people that will make themselves victims by responding, we have to accept that.

We will never find a water-tight solution but I would be interested to hear what other people think could be done to account for the naturally highly sensitive victims who will be offended.
So perhaps some more supplementary rules could be added

A mass concerted effort to refuse to make that connection would or could see it eliminated.

------------------

I do agree with this. Signifiers only ever carry weight when the signified ascribe meaning and importance to them.

The best way to deal with the "monkeys-being-used-as-a-racist-stereotype-towards-Black-people" is not to censor that link completely whenever it appears, but to dismiss any racial connotation whenever this (for want of a better word) trope presents itself. And that is irrespective of the intentions of the artist/author/director/whoever.

No easy task. We're talking about a century's worth (if not more) of discourse here. Something that isn't easy to wipe out completely. So the easier (although perhaps not best) option is to deny anyone the "right" to create such a work that could possibly be interpreted in a negative light. But that simply leads to saturation, whereby nothing that could possibly offend (even if such offence has been garnered because of misunderstanding) will be created. To go down that route (which I fear we are actually doing) will lead to a society in which nothing can ever be said because there is always the risk that someone somewhere will end up being offended by it.

Which is, in my opinion, sad. One step closer to thought police if you will. We've seen the result of this kind of approach already, with the hysteria created surrounding paedophiles - to the extent that any adult male can be accused of such an horrendous identifier. I walk passed a primary school and I feel guilty - "don't look in that direction in case anyone misconstrues it". It's quite frankly ridiculous. My point being, whether we are racists or not, perverts or not, we are all one innocent step away from being labelled as such. And that, at least to me, really is a terrifying thought. I would never hurt a fly. I object to anyone who would think me capable of doing so. Yet my objections would only ever fall on deaf ears. Simply put, we are heading towards a society in which everyone is guilty before being proved innocent. Quite like the author of the Balotelli cartoon all said and done. If a recipient of that cartoon finds it offensive, then the cartoonist has to be held responsible for that. So let's punish him then. Even though the offence only lies in the mind of the person who was offended. And irrespective of whether the person who was offended actually missed the point or not.

Or to put my point more succintly, if we were all to ignore the implied racism in that picture, than the ones that inevitably are offended (and I really believe there always will be some) will feel more hurt.

My question is, does that become our responsibility too if that resentment builds up to more and the circle of racism continues?

RipleysCat (U1862)

A very well written piece and thoughtful too. I did want to pull you up on the peadophilia hysteria though. The reason this nonsense has come up is because paedophiles were being found. People were being urged to speak up. It is no longer a taboo thing that victims cannot speak about their experiences and bring people to justice.

Of course the side effect of this is, as you say, that everyone now runs the risk of being labelled a paedophile. This is a very unfortunate product and something that needs to be worked on. But you have to admit, that it is better than the alternative, which is what we had before where paedophiles got away with it.

However, if people were heckled or given abuse from kids or people shouting accusations and you're left in the position of do you ignore it or not? It has come back full circle if you will.

Again, to summarise, the way things are at the minute is not an ideal scenario where people have to tread so carefully, but it is better than the alternative of what we had before, let's not forget that!

I see the implied racism in that picture maker. I've explained why in several posts earlier in this thread. It didn't offend me however.

I will not fight someone else's cause unless I agree with it. If someone gets offended by something, as far as I am concerned they are on their own. Simply because what offends one person doesn't offend another. And when a person is offended, nothing actually happens to them. To quote the comedian Steve Hughes - "I saw a comedian last night, and he, he said something about the lord. And I, I, I was offended. And when I woke up in the morning, I had leprosy".

Being offended by something is subjective. Steve Hughes is absolutely spot on there. If a person is racist, it isn't my responsibility to stop him from being a racist, because quite frankly that is a pointless exercise that I will never succeed in achieving. All I can do is shut my ears to such a person's diatribe. They can continue to spout it, but if no one listens, then their message will never get through. Thus it becomes a pointless exercise for them in continuing to express it, as opposed to it being a pointless exercise in others trying to change their opinion.

We all know how it works. We've all engaged in debates on forums such as this - debates to no avail. Yes, we've presented our argument, but the person on the opposite side will rarely if ever change their mind. To use a forum as an analogy, if a troll comes along and writes a post that is incredibly controversial, which of the following two options do you think that troll will garner most satisfaction from:

1) lots of posts responding to him, even if every single one disagrees?

or

2) his post never ever receiving one single reply?

At least with the second option, the troll will never ever know whether anyone has even read his post (heard his voice) or not.

I agree with what you say about trolling but I don't think that is a fair analogy here given the extreme circumstances that have surrounded the products of racism in the past.

I still believe that some people cannot help but be offended due to their natural make-up. I have read about this a lot recently and about how babies react to things when their first born and how this is a reflection of their sensitivity which is their natural make-up and unavoidable.

We can choose to ignore this and claim that they need tougher skin etc. but all we have really done is shifted the burdon onto another victim.

I certainly agree that if one who is receiving racism on the street chooses to ignore it that racism improves, but I disagree that choosing to pretend their are no racist undertones in an illustration that people are inevitably going to perceive is the final solution given the disservice you do to those that naturally take offence.

I have been known to change my mind though so try me.

Makar, we don't need everyone to reject the link. It would only require most people to do so. No individual can create societal change alone but every person who rejects the racist link between black people and apes will contribute momentum towards the critical point where the link is no longer the dominant paradigm. From that point on it is no longer considered a valid link to make (which lets be honest it isn't, so why do we accept it as valid now?!?!)

Obviously, the best way to strengthen the racist cause is to do the opposite and insist that the only plausible explanation of this cartoon is that it equates Balotelli to an ape. Ignoring the character traits that they evidently share.

You make a good point about people feeling doubly aggrieved if their complaints are ignored. Sadly this is true in the short term. However, if we get to the stage where society utterly rejects this link then there is no reason to feel aggrieved and no need to complain as no one any longer sees a victim. If you stop scratching, the wound will heal; if you keep scratching the wound will never heal.

This is a very unfortunate product and something that needs to be worked on. But you have to admit, that it is better than the alternative

----------------------

Actually I disagree. It isn't better than the alternative. Statistically there are no more or less paedophiles caught today than there were, say, 20 years ago. There are more s-offenders caught today, but the reason for that is obvious. Today, in America for example, a drunk person found peeing down a back alley will be placed on the s-offenders list. A college student caught doing a streak or pulling a moonie will be placed on the s-offenders list.

Now go out and say to any one that there is a s-offender living in close proximity. Just garner their reaction. We now live in a world in which the term s-offender equates to paedophilia. We now live in a world whereby the media fuels such hysteria by presenting stories about parents not being allowed to film their own children in a public place (which is of course rubbish, but nevertheless adds to and fuels the hysteria that is/has been created).

I'm in danger getting away from the point of this thread, but hopefully my point remains clear. Over-saturate something, anything, and it's a dangerous path that we end up going down. A fine line has to be found, but unfortunately we do not live in subtle times.

The way I look at it - I can understand why some people would be offended by the Balotelli cartoon. I have, in this thread, tried to explain why that may be the case. But hand on heart, I doubt there are many people who genuinely did find it offensive. I have no doubt that there are lots of people however who are trying to take a moral high ground with it, to speak for others, and to present themselves in a moral light. One thing I hate, is faux-emotion. Speaking for others? Telling us how we should think? And based on what? Their subjective opinion?

Johnson'sbaby said something really pertinent in this thread. To paraphrase, the ones with the most closed mind are the ones who claim to speak in defence of others. The ones who refuse to consider any other possible interpretation. In short, people will see what they want to see.