NationStates Jolt Archive

If this is getting protested as racist and won't be tolerated...
http://i235.photobucket.com/albums/ee218/Balderdash71964/Obama-George.jpg
Link (http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/metro/cobb/stories/2008/05/13/mulligans_0514.html)

And this has been going on for years without protest...
http://i235.photobucket.com/albums/ee218/Balderdash71964/GeorgieBoy.jpg
Link (http://www.bushorchimp.com/)

What is the difference? Why is one funny and the other offensive? Perhaps both are funny or both are offensive? What say you?

both funny. the obama monkey is cute.

If this is getting protested as racist and won't be tolerated...
http://i235.photobucket.com/albums/ee218/Balderdash71964/Obama-George.jpg
Link (http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/metro/cobb/stories/2008/05/13/88686180_obama.html)

And this has been going on for years without protest...
http://i235.photobucket.com/albums/ee218/Balderdash71964/GeorgieBoy.jpg
Link (http://www.bushorchimp.com/)

What is the difference? Why is one funny and the other offensive? Perhaps both are funny or both are offensive? What say you?

One is making fun of mental capacity, the other one of skin colour.

You tell me why one's racist and one isn't...

I wish we really did have monkey world leaders :(

still the guy knows exactly what hes doing and to be frank looking at his other "comments" I'm not all that surprised (not that it matters its just another hick town with a racist restaurant owner)

One is making fun of mental capacity, the other one of skin colour.

You tell me why one's racist and one isn't...

Wot U sed!

Why do you think that Obama is being portrayed as a monkey?

What is the difference? Why is one funny and the other offensive? Perhaps both are funny or both are offensive? What say you?I'd imagine that depending on who is saying it it could be deemed offensive. The reason why the Curious George thing is appropriate is rather self explanatory...

Why do you think that Obama is being portrayed as a monkey?

Why is GWB being portrayed as a monkey, with pictures and everything to show the similarities? Clearly they think he looks like one or else the visual similarities wouldn't be necessary.

I'd imagine that depending on who is saying it it could be deemed offensive. The reason why the Curious George thing is appropriate is rather self explanatory...

Then what about the people that say making fun of Obama's name is racist too...

Why is GWB being portrayed as a monkey, with pictures and everything to show the similarities? Clearly they think he looks like one or else the visual similarities wouldn't be necessary.
In case you haven't noticed, it's primarily his facial expressions coupled with his limited vocabulary. Not his skin color. One could make a case that his ears, which are a genetic trait, are involved as well, but that's about it. Not in the least bit comparable to the common "joke" that blacks are hairless monkeys that gets passed around amongst the more primitive elements of "white" society.

Then what about the people that say making fun of Obama's name is racist too...What about them? I've never heard of any such thing, which may not prove it's never happened, but certainly casts doubt as to whether there is any legitimacy in claiming its somehow representative enough to warrant the attention you're giving it.

both funny. the obama monkey is cute.

I think they should incorporate the Obama monkey in the campaign.

I'd vote for that sort of candidate who doesn't take himself all that seriously.

Besides, it is cute. :p

One makes fun of a politician because of his apparent intellect and facial expressions.

One harkens back to a viewpoint that black people were less than human, more akin to monkey than man.

Which do you think is racist and which do you think is not?

What about them? I've never heard of any such thing, which may not prove it's never happened, but certainly casts doubt as to whether there is any legitimacy in claiming its somehow representative enough to warrant the attention you're giving it.

It doens't cast any doubt on it whatsoever, it casts doubt on knowing how much you do or are able to watch the second string media and news commentary in America on a daily basis.

What is the difference? Why is one funny and the other offensive?

do you honestly not know or are you just trolling?

Then what about the people that say making fun of Obama's name is racist too...


who in the world said that? There are people who have said that implying that Obama's middle name of Huissein makes him:

1) a muslim
2) a terrorist

Is bigotted, racist, and stupid.

And they're right.

Why is one funny and the other offensive?
One is a charicature of mannerisms. The other is a charicature of biology.

Simple as that.

It doens't cast any doubt on it whatsoever, it casts doubt on knowing how much you do or are able to watch the second string media and news commentary in America on a daily basis.

so I'm sure you're willing to provide a source to back up your claims?

Because I heard on news commentary that you rape babies.

Both are stupid. The "GWB is stupid" angle has been so played out by libs that it's about as original as "Why did the chicken cross the road?"

It doens't cast any doubt on it whatsoever, it casts doubt on knowing how much you do or are able to watch the second string media and news commentary in America on a daily basis.I can assure you that people claiming making fun of the name Obama is racist is not news commentary. But since it's so common, I'm sure you can provide numerous examples of said news commentary.

Comparing somebody to an animal isn't inherently offensive to groups that the person in question is a part of.

Comparing Bush to a monkey isn't exactly the smartest or the funniest joke but there has been no historical association with that comparison and with the opression of white people. Therefore, it doesn't carry racist overtones.

One is a charicature of mannerisms. The other is a charicature of biology.

Simple as that.

Only if you - the beholder - attribute that meaning to the image.

Think of all the cartoon monkeys that have been depicted as being heroes or smart in stories or movies.

One viewpoint could be that Obama-monkey is peeling off the jaded old bad ways to reveal the better preserved core inside.

What meaning the image has is entirely dependent of the attitudes of the beholder: IF one automatically assigns cartoon monkey racist connotations that black are sub-human then that one is IMO the bigger racist, or at the very least close minded person.

so I'm sure you're willing to provide a source to back up your claims?

Because I heard on news commentary that you rape babies.

I can prove mine with CNN (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/28/tennessee.gop/index.html?eref=rss_politics) showing that using Barracks middle name was called offensive and even the GOP said they wouldn't use it in adds anymore, as far back as February. Are you ignoring all other media sources while you are busy writing thinly veiled personal insult posts here instead of actually issue based commentary? Pejorative tripe fits you so well it seems, it must have taken years of practice.

Only if you - the beholder - attribute that meaning to the image.

Think of all the cartoon monkeys that have been depicted as being heroes or smart in stories or movies.

One viewpoint could be that Obama-monkey is peeling off the jaded old bad ways to reveal the better preserved core inside.

What meaning the image has is entirely dependent of the attitudes of the beholder: IF one automatically assigns cartoon monkey racist connotations that black are sub-human then that one is IMO the bigger racist, or at the very least close minded person.

Oh please. Certain images, expressions, and words have strong racist undertones. It doesn't necessarily matter what the intent was, one should be mindful of that and realize that those images and words have certain meanings associated with them.

For instance, if I decided that tomorrow I would use the word "******" to mean smart, successful and motivated young black man, and decided to compliment every smart, successful, and motivated young black man I came across with a hearty "hello, ******", I highly doubt that you would accuse those who got mad at me and offended as being "close minded" or "the bigger racist".

Which is pretty much the same thing here. They're using a picture of a monkey to represent a black man, something that has highly charged racial stereotypes and a long history of racist stigma associated. Even if that was not the intent, it creates a powerful association, just as my "hello, ******" creates powerful associations, even if it wasn't my actual intent to offend, and just my blatant stupidity an insensitivity.

So, really, you're full of it.

I can assure you that people claiming making fun of the name Obama is racist is not news commentary. But since it's so common, I'm sure you can provide numerous examples of said news commentary.

I was refering to the Barrack Hussein Obama, Barrack Hussein Obama, Barrack Hussein Obama, stuff

I can prove mine with CNN (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/28/tennessee.gop/index.html?eref=rss_politics) showing that using Barracks middle name was called offensive and even the GOP said they wouldn't use it in adds anymore, as far back as February.

I suggest you learn to read for context.

Are you ignoring all other media sources while you are busy writing thinly veiled personal insult posts here instead of actually issue based commentary?

Actually I'm quite capable of dismantling your pathetic "arguments" while insulting you

Pejorative tripe fits you so well it seems, it must have taken years of practice.

years of practice and natural talent. It appears you lack both.

What meaning the image has is entirely dependent of the attitudes of the beholder: IF one automatically assigns cartoon monkey racist connotations that black are sub-human then that one is IMO the bigger racist.

symbols, like words, have meaning. you don't get to have private meanings for them that you put on public display.

the fact that you use http://img140.imageshack.us/img140/148/swagl2.jpg to mean "i love candy!" does not make it mean that.

being aware of meaning cannot by itself make one a racist. thats fucking stupid. on the other hand trafficking in racist imagery makes you a racist unless you are legitimately unaware of its meaning. but that most certainly does not make the imagery less racist, just excuses your accidental use of it.

I suggest you learn to read for context.

Actually I'm quite capable of dismantling your pathetic "arguments" while insulting you

years of practice and natural talent. It appears you lack both.

It's funny that you think you've dismattled any arguments of mine.

I can prove mine with CNN (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/28/tennessee.gop/index.html?eref=rss_politics) showing that using Barracks middle name was called offensive and even the GOP said they wouldn't use it in adds anymore, as far back as February. Are you ignoring all other media sources while you are busy writing thinly veiled personal insult posts here instead of actually issue based commentary? Pejorative tripe fits you so well it seems, it must have taken years of practice.Because likening Barak to Saddam would be an act of racism and not a regular offensive act... :rolleyes:

I was refering to the Barrack Hussein Obama, Barrack Hussein Obama, Barrack Hussein Obama, stuffI'd love to see you produce someone that claimed that that was a racist act, as you claimed.

It's funny that you think you've dismattled any arguments of mine.More due to the fact that you didn't have any...

What meaning the image has is entirely dependent of the attitudes of the beholder: IF one automatically assigns cartoon monkey racist connotations that black are sub-human then that one is IMO the bigger racist, or at the very least close minded person.
There's a difference between automatically doing it and doing it. If a visual parallel is drawn and there is no link between the expressions or mannerisms of the two figures then it is reasonable to assume that the person is doing it to jab at something related to physical appearence. Obviously one should look at other meanings as well, but when other meanings are shrouded, it is not prejudiced to conclude that what a given author or artist is trying to say is implied to be derogatory.

Because likening Barak to Saddam would be an act of racism and not a regular offensive act... :rolleyes:

Hobbs said Thursday that the party will no longer use Obama's middle name in news releases.

"We're not going to be using the middle name now, because apparently, it's become a distraction," he said. "But I would note, not too long ago, I saw a wire story out of the Middle East that talked about how a lot of people there are hungry for Obama to win and, in part, because his middle name gives him a connection, and that story used his middle name, so we're not the first people to notice and use his middle name."

Hobbs denied that the use of Obama's full name carried any racial overtones but said he wasn't surprised the statement has caused such an uproar.

He's arguing that he didn't use it in a racist way because no one accused him of using it in a racist way? funny.

More due to the fact that you didn't have any...

Exactly right. I didn't make any arguments, but he dismattled them sure enough. :p

Hobbs said Thursday that the party will no longer use Obama's middle name in news releases.

"We're not going to be using the middle name now, because apparently, it's become a distraction," he said. "But I would note, not too long ago, I saw a wire story out of the Middle East that talked about how a lot of people there are hungry for Obama to win and, in part, because his middle name gives him a connection, and that story used his middle name, so we're not the first people to notice and use his middle name."

Hobbs denied that the use of Obama's full name carried any racial overtones but said he wasn't surprised the statement has caused such an uproar.

He's arguing that he didn't use it in a racist way because no one accused him of using it in a racist way? funny.
Link?

Exactly right. I didn't make any arguments

It's good you admit that. Unfortunatly for you it's not for lack of trying

Link?

Oh my goodnes :rolleyes:... it's from the link I already gave you...

It's good you admit that. Unfortunatly for you it's not for lack of trying

*swoosh* swing and a miss....

*swoosh* swing and a miss....

It's good you admit that too. Because, frankly, while I was giving you the benefit of the doubt and call your barely coherent ramblings an "argument", it seems we're now both in agreement that they don't deserve to be called that.

Keep trying though

It's good you admit that too. Because, frankly, while I was giving you the benefit of the doubt and call your barely coherent ramblings an "argument", it seems we're now both in agreement that they don't deserve to be called that.

Keep trying though

Reading Comprehension is a skill you can improve with practice... good luck with it.

Because, and let's be honest with each other now, you came on here and asked why images of a white man comparing him to a monkey isn't considered racist, but comparing a black man to a monkey might be considered so.

I mean, really.

Reading Comprehension is a skill you can improve with practice

Then it would appear there is hope for you yet. I also noticed you've abandoned your little "point" you were trying to make in the OP after a mere 3 pages, and dissolved entirely into fallacy and nonsense.

Not surprising, really, considering the question you asked in the first place. Appears even you feel it worthy of abandonment and are now trying to pretend you never asked it in the first place.

Oh my goodnes :rolleyes:... it's from the link I already gave you...So now you're being a jerk about your failure to make the connection obvious?

As to the "racial overtones" thingy, as you can read in the context of the whole article, the issue has been that he's being painted as a muslim with the use of pictures showing him in traditional Somali garb along with using his middle name. That Hobb has denied there are racial overtones to the use of the name and pictures is not evidence that there actually have been such accusations concerning the name alone. In fact, its more likely that people are pissed that the RNC was trying to make a connection with Saddam Hussein, which is probably why the guy isn't surprised that there's an uproar.

Because, and let's be honest with each other now, you came on here and asked why images of a white man comparing him to a monkey isn't considered racist, but comparing a black man to a monkey might be considered so.

I mean, really.

I came here with a topic for discussion. I voted that both are stupid. I think that both are stupid, and I think that arguing that one is okay the other wrong because so and so has so and so skin color is stupid as well, but that's the first 'argument' I've made. Otherwise it's been questions and hypotheticals.

I came here with a topic for discussion.

No, you didn't. You came here with an axe to grind with some thinly veiled nonsense about why do we think that it's "OK" to do it to one race but not "OK" to do it to another.

If you had been someone else, someone with a different history, I might have assumed it was a legitimate inquiry. But you're not someone else, your you, and your viewpoints are already quite well known.

I came here with a topic for discussion. I voted that both are stupid. I think that both are stupid, and I think that arguing that one is okay the other wrong because so and so has so and so skin color is stupid as well, but that's the first 'argument' I've made. Otherwise it's been questions and hypotheticals.Actually, your poll is the only place where you've been arguing that they're both stupid. The OP, on the other hand, makes the argument that both are racist, which is something entirely different as well as untrue, as a couple of posters have pointed out.
If this is getting protested as racist and won't be tolerated...
[...]
And this has been going on for years without protest...
[...]
What is the difference? Why is one funny and the other offensive? Perhaps both are funny or both are offensive? What say you?

No, you didn't. You came here with an axe to grind with some thinly veiled nonsense about why do we think that it's "OK" to do it to one race but not "OK" to do it to another.

If you had been someone else, someone with a different history, I might have assumed it was a legitimate inquiry. But you're not someone else, your you, and your viewpoints are already quite well known.

Funny stuff.

Funny stuff.

no, the OP isn't funny at all. Pretty sad really.

As pointed out, you specifically asked "why one was racist" and the other was not. You specifically asked why one was offensive, and the other not. You weren't posing hypotheticals, you presented a very specific viewpoint, and then tried to argue against it. This whole thread started on a fallacy, and when that was exposed, you tried to twist the topic to be about Obama's last name, and then tried to support your suddent change of direction by linking to one news article, that in no way said what you claimed it did.

As pointed out, you specifically asked "why one was racist" and the other was not. You specifically asked why one was offensive, and the other not. You weren't posing hypotheticals, you presented a very specific viewpoint, and then tried to argue against it. This whole thread started on a fallacy, and when that was exposed, you tried to twist the topic to be about Obama's last name, and then tried to support your suddent change of direction by linking to one news article, that in no way said what you claimed it did.Middle name, actually.

Middle name, actually.

erm, yes, quite, sorry. And, on top of it all, this thread began with the question "why is it racist to portray a black man as a monkey but not a white man?"

I mean..really now.

If this is getting protested as racist and won't be tolerated...

<pic snip>


What is the difference? Why is one funny and the other offensive? Perhaps both are funny or both are offensive? What say you?

Are you an alien who just arrived on Earth, ignorant of the history and culture of racism, or something?

Are you an alien who just arrived on Earth, ignorant of the history and culture of racism, or something?

/thread

erm, yes, quite, sorry. And, on top of it all, this thread began with the question "why is it racist to portray a black man as a monkey but not a white man?"

I mean..really now.

You build that strawman like a professional hay baler... too bad you don't have any actual content.

You build that strawman like a professional hay baler... too bad you don't have any actual content.

Is that not what you were asking?

Balderdash, let me put this in a way you can understand:

Obama is compared to a monkey due to racial overtones that plagued your culture for quite a while.

Bush is compared to a monkey due to showing low intellect in policy and the mannerisms of one.

Now...

Until Obama invades a country under false pretenses, fouls it up beyond recognition, screws up America's economy, leaves New Orleans to rot after a hurricane, and tries to use religion as a tool to thrust in the state, you DON'T get to call him a monkey.

You build that strawman like a professional hay baler... too bad you don't have any actual content.

If this is getting protested as racist and won't be tolerated...
[...]
And this has been going on for years without protest...
[...]
What is the difference? Why is one funny and the other offensive?

Your words or not?

Is that not what you were asking?

of course that's not what he's asking. After all, it's been shown for 4 pages now what a ludicrus question that is, so of course he wouldn't possibly ask that question, considering how foolish it is.

And of course if you just use his own words to demonstrate that yes, that is what he asked, well you're just constructing a strawman actually.

You build that strawman like a professional hay baler... too bad you don't have any actual content.He didn't need to. It's been repeated so often that doing it again would unnecessarily reduce the lifetime of his keyboard.

As others have pointed out, it's a matter of context. "Black people are like monkeys more than they are people" has a long history in racist circles. Thus, comparing a black man to a monkey is usually racist. However, Bush is being compared to a monkey for 2 reasons:
1) His (apparent) stupidity
2) His facial expressions.

If Obama had a bunch of similar pictures to Bush's pictures usually used for comparison to chimps, and those pictures were used for the "monkey" joke, then it would be different.

Similarly, the use of his middle name depends on the context. If the story is "many middle-easterners feel a connection to him because of his heritage and the name he inherited," then that's not racist. But if you're ranting against him and always say "Barack Hussein Obama this and Barrack Hussein Obama that," (putting the stress on his middle name, as such people sometimes do) that's racist because it's using the "zOMG ARABZ! TERRARISTZ!" race card.

Here's an analogy:

Imagine there's a debate on capital punishment, and two people make image macros that say something to the effect of "Capital Punishment. Kill some sub-human bastards."
One picture has some famous serial killer/rapist sitting in an electric chair. The other has a black guy being hung with a mob of white southerners cheering.

One of these would be racist. The other would not be. Can you guess which is which?

Similarly, the use of his middle name depends on the context. If the story is "many middle-easterners feel a connection to him because of his heritage and the name he inherited," then that's not racist. But if you're ranting against him and always say "Barack Hussein Obama this and Barrack Hussein Obama that," (putting the stress on his middle name, as such people sometimes do) that's racist because it's using the "zOMG ARABZ! TERRARISTZ!" race card.
I'd argue that this is not the case, and that excessive reference to his middle name is meant to create a bridge to Saddam Hussein, who incidentally does not constitute a race.

Is that not what you were asking?

I question why it is okay to portray one presidential personage as a monkey and not the other... If some people can't see past skin tone when looking at presidential personages then too bad for them.

Every presidential personage since George Washington has been lampooned in newspaper cartoon editorials and characterized as animals and whatnot or worse, without exception. Why should Obama supporters expect an exception for their candidate just because of his race?

I question why it is okay to portray one presidential personage as a monkey and not the other

Comparing George Bush to a monkey due to his intelligence and mannerisms is an insult to him and only to him. Yes it's insulting and juvenile, but it's aimed at only one man.

On the other hand, comparing a black man, especially a black man like Barak Obama, to a monkey isn't just insulting him. It harkens back to a strong history of racism where black people universally were considered inferior to other human beings, nothing more than hairless monkeys.

Calling bush a chimp in account of his mannerism and intellect is an insult to him, not to white people in general, not to texans in general, not to people with the last name "Bush" in general, him. And only him.

On the other hand, black people refered to as monkey was evidence of systematic repression and racism, not limited to just the target. It's ok to take shots at Obama. He's not immune from the same lampooning Bush gets. But this goes beyond simply lampooning one man. Calling Barak Obama a monkey, on account of his skin color, is insulting to every black person in this country, because historically that's exactly what it was, an insult aimed at all blacks.

And the fact that you'd question why it is ok to portray a white man as a monkey but not a black man without even the most fundamentally basic understanding of this fact is what lead us down this path of profound ignorance of history, culture, and racism.

I question why it is okay to portray one presidential personage as a monkey and not the other... If some people can't see past skin tone when looking at presidential personages then too bad for them.

Every presidential personage since George Washington has been lampooned in newspaper cartoon editorials and characterized as animals and whatnot or worse, without exception. Why should Obama supporters expect an exception for their candidate just because of his race?Oh, so this is about you being allowed to call black people monkeys, is that it?

I question why it is okay to portray one presidential personage as a monkey and not the other...

And you specifically brought in the fact that one of them is deemed racist while the other is not.

The reason for this has been clearly pointed out to you. There is a clear history of racists drawing a comparison between black people and monkeys. Thus, it is likely that such a portrayal of a black candidate is rooted in that idea.

There is no such history of doing so for white people. Thus, there is no reason to believe the portrayal had anything at all to do with his race.

It makes sense to label one as racist and the other as not. I think we can both agree that racism is offensive.

Now, is it offensive to portray someone as a monkey because of his own apparent stupidity and facial expressions? Maybe. What do you think?

Every presidential personage since George Washington has been lampooned in newspaper cartoon editorials and characterized as animals and whatnot or worse, without exception. Why should Obama supporters expect an exception for their candidate just because of his race?

Now who's building a strawman?

Comparing George Bush to a monkey due to his intelligence and mannerisms is an insult to him and only to him. Yes it's insulting and juvenile, but it's aimed at only one man.

On the other hand, comparing a black man, especially a black man like Barak Obama, to a monkey isn't just insulting him. It harkens back to a strong history of racism where black people universally were considered inferior to other human beings, nothing more than hairless monkeys.

Calling bush a chimp in account of his mannerism and intellect is an insult to him. Calling Barak Obama a monkey, on account of his skin color, is insulting to every black person in this country.

And the fact that you'd question why it is ok to portray a white man as a monkey but not a black man is what lead us down this path of profound ignorance of history, culture, and racism.

Obama doesn't represent every black man in the country anymore than Bush represents every white man, nor every Texan, nor every Republican... the connection to race is made by you. Every characterization is offensive, it's the intent of the lampooning cartoon characterization. Obama will be made fun of, the same as all the other presidential personages. To claim that Obama, because of his skin color, is somehow going to be off limits is nothing but racially motivated division on your part. A presidential candidate is free game in a free society, period, regardless of their skin color or gender.

Snip.

Qui habet aures audiendi audiat.

Obama doesn't represent every black man in the country anymore than Bush represents every white man

Correct, glad you agree with me. However an image of a black man portrayed as a monkey has, in this country, strong racial overtones that do represent every black person in this country.

And that's the point you keep trying to ignore. The fact is, this has nothing, absolutly nothing to do with Obama. Refering to a black man as a "monkey" has a strong racist connotation in this country, and it doesn't matter who that man is.

YOU are the one who keeps wanting to make this about Obama. It has nothing to do with Obama, and it would be just as offensive, just as wrong, and just as badly thought out if it was Obama, Sharpton, Kofi Anin or my neighbor Steve.

To claim that Obama, because of his skin color, is somehow going to be off limits is nothing but racially motivated division on your part. A presidential candidate is free game in a free society, period, regardless of their skin color or gender.

Yea, we're the ones building strawmen :rolleyes: Oh well, here's that axe to grind coming out again, just as I predicted. Good to see you don't change.

Obama doesn't represent every black man in the country anymore than Bush represents every white man, nor every Texan, nor every Republican...

No, but the history of racism is that every black man - including Obama - is called "monkey" and the like.


the connection to race is made by you.

The connection to race was made by racists. We simply recognize that history and that *gasp* history has an impact on today.

Every characterization is offensive, it's the intent of the lampooning cartoon characterization. Obama will be made fun of, the same as all the other presidential personages.

Indeed.

But it is inappropriate to do so with racist imagery.

To claim that Obama, because of his skin color, is somehow going to be off limits is nothing but racially motivated division on your part. A presidential candidate is free game in a free society, period, regardless of their skin color or gender.

Obama isn't off-limits. Racism is.

Sexism would be equally appropriate. Clinton is certainly free game, but the idiots holding up "Iron my shirts!" signs were being inappropriate and sexist.

Quid habet aures audiendi audiat.

isn't that "Qui habet . . . "

....

YOU are the one who keeps wanting to make this about Obama. It has nothing to do with Obama, and it would be just as offensive, just as wrong, and just as badly thought out if it was Obama, Sharpton, Kofi Anin or my neighbor Steve. ...

It IS about Obama, you try to create a division between him and the caricature. He's the one running for President, not Sharpton, not Kofi Anin and not your neighbor Steve. The shirt says "Obama" on it. The topic is Obama and presidential caricaturization as animals in general and questions why Obama would or should be exempt.

The topic is Obama and presidential caricaturization as animals in general and questions why Obama would or should be exempt.

Because racism, sexism, bigotry and hate should never be accepted, never be tolerated, never be allowed to hide in the shadows and should be exposed wherever it lurks. Whether it's target is Obama, Sharpton, Anin or Steve, it doesn't matter.

And comparing a black man, because his is black, to a monkey, whether it's Obama, Shaprton, Anin or Steve is deeply, profoundly racist, and as such should not be tolerated.

That's why.

It IS about Obama, you try to create a division between him and the caricature. He's the one running for President, not Sharpton, not Kofi Anin and not your neighbor Steve. The shirt says "Obama" on it. The topic is Obama and presidential caricaturization as animals in general and questions why Obama would or should be exempt.

The topic is not "presidential caricaturization as animals in general". If Obama had, for some reason, been caricaturized as, say, a jackass, it would be normal political commentary. No one would say a thing.

The topic is this specific caricaturization in which a black man is portrayed as a monkey. The uproar over it would be the same if it were Sharpton, Kofi Anin, John Lewis, or any other black person.

Why? Because of the historical significance of the particular image being used - that racists have, for quite some time, portrayed black people as inferior by such caricaturizations.

As for whether or not Obama should be exempt from political cartoons, no one has made any argument that he should. You're arguing with a rather elaborate strawman of your own making.

The topic is not "presidential caricaturization as animals in general". If Obama had, for some reason, been caricaturized as, say, a jackass, it would be normal political commentary.

The topic is this specific caricaturization in which a black man is portrayed as a monkey. The uproar over it would be the same if it were Sharpton, Kofi Anin, John Lewis, or any other black person.

Why? Because of the historical significance of the particular image being used - that racists have, for quite some time, portrayed black people as inferior by such caricaturizations.

As for whether or not Obama should be exempt from political cartoons, no one has made any argument that he should. You're arguing with a rather elaborate strawman of your own making.

You just got done saying he should be exempt from being cartooned as a monkey and THEN said no one has made any argument that he should (be exempt)... funny stuff that.

Obama seems more like a lemur to me.

Obama doesn't represent every black man in the country anymore than Bush represents every white man, nor every Texan, nor every Republican... the connection to race is made by you. Every characterization is offensive, it's the intent of the lampooning cartoon characterization. Obama will be made fun of, the same as all the other presidential personages. To claim that Obama, because of his skin color, is somehow going to be off limits is nothing but racially motivated division on your part. A presidential candidate is free game in a free society, period, regardless of their skin color or gender.

You're just being intentionally dense now.

Calling Obama a monkey is (probably, depending on context) racist because there's a long history of calling black people monkeys as a sort of racial slur, in an attempt to imply that they are "less evolved" than True White Humans. It's ridiculous, yes, but the history exists. Therefore, comparing Obama to a monkey without some sort of context is racist.

If Obama's facial expressions and mannerisms resembled that of a monkey in certain pictures, and somebody called attention to that (as is often done with Bush), that would not be racist.

Nor would, say, putting Obama's head on an some sort of donkey body, since he's a democrat. That would not be racist, because it has no racial implications.

I return to my analogy, which you ignored.

Imagine two pictures being posted to a capital punishment debate. Both have a caption "Capital Punishment-- kill these subhuman bastards." One has a picture of a serial killer/serial rapist. The other has a picture of a black man being hung, surrounded by a mob of white southerners. The first is implying that the serial killer has done something so horrible that he's a disgrace to humanity. The second implies that black people are subhuman and should be lynched.

The first would not be racist (not that I'd necessarily agree with it, but that's not relevant to this thread), but the second one would be.

You just got done saying he should be exempt from being cartooned as a monkey and THEN said no one has made any argument that he should (be exempt)... funny stuff that.

once again, I do not find illiteracy to be at all amusing. Mostly just saddening.

isn't that "Qui habet . . . "

Fixed. :p

Are you really, really that clueless where you dont see why portraying a black man as a monkey, just because hes black, is racist?


Really? I had expected better even from you. Looks like I gave you way to much credit.

Obama seems more like a lemur to me. Perhaps a Meerkat?

Are you really, really that clueless where you dont see why portraying a black man as a monkey, just because hes black, is racist?


Really? I had expected better even from you. Looks like I gave you way to much credit.


You never gave me any credit... lies just pour off of you don't they?

And comparing a black man, because his is black, to a monkey, whether it's Obama, Shaprton, Anin or Steve is deeply, profoundly racist, and as such should not be tolerated.

That's why.


First, how do you know the motivations of the insulter? You assume "becasue he is black" but do you know this for a fact? Or is just your prejudicial assumption? It matters. Maybe the monkey thing is tied to the idea that Obama doesn't even know how many states are in the USA? Isn't is possible that Obama did something MORE to earn his caricature as a monkey?

Second, is it okay to compare a black man to a monkey under ANY circumstances at all? Or is it always assumed automatically that the characteristic being mocked is skin color? Isn't it racist to leap to the conclusion that any portrayal of a black man as a cartoon monkey is based solely on his blackness? Isn't that just the same as assuming that any professional success a black man has is due to affirmative action? I mean, give the man some dignity. You are treating Obama as if his only characteristic was blackness, when in fact there is a good deal of buffoonery as well.


Third, if monkey comparisons are declared off limits for black people due to potential racist implications, can you provide reasonable substitute animals? Are there other animals which carry the proper connotations of silliness and ignorance? I'm not sure if portraying Obama as an aardvark will have the desired effect. But just in case, I would like to know what my alternatives are, so that in the event of his election, I know I will not have endangered myself by using punishable bad-speech. So what symbols of moronic goofiness do you recommend, if monkeys are to be Verboten?

You never gave me any credit... lies just pour off of you don't they?

Yep, you are right. I had assumed you had the same intellectual capacity as a brick wall. Silly me. Didnt kno you could read minds:rolleyes:

First, how do you know the motivations of the insulter?

I don't, nor did I claim I did. I did say, calling him a monkey because he is black would be racist. I didn't say it would be racist if done for entirely other reasons.

I did say that such comparison has strong racial undertones, whether racism was the intent or not, and that people should be mindful of that. See here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/member.php?u=1307122) for that comment.

Which makes it, at worst, racist, and at best, very unwise. As unwise as me greeting black men with a "hey there, ******", even if I intend "******" to mean "successful young man"

once again, I do not find illiteracy to be at all amusing. Mostly just saddening.

She stated an entire thesis explaining 'why' Obama should not be characturized as a monkey. It wasn't a bad argument even, but she did make it. Calling for an exemption, even for good reasons, is still an exemption for one and not others (presidential personagaes), based soley on the skin tone of the candidate.

Mrs. Clinton gets assailed for showing too much cleavage or having an 'ugly' outfit on because she’s a candidate and a woman. Would that be the case if she was a man? No, if she were a man she would get attacked for something different. Does she get absolved from being attacked because she is a women though? No. She is simply attacked differently than the others but still attacked.

Obama gets attacked too, Clinton gets attacked and McCain gets attacked. What comes around goes around. Pretending that monkeys and presidents don’t go hand in hand though shows a seriously lacking understanding of presidential caricatures in history.

Which makes it, at worst, racist, and at best, very unwise. "

Unwise, I will agree.

Primarily because the knee-jerk reaction will be "that was racist"- whether it was or wasn't won't matter with the people who have that reaction. Only assumption and perception will matter.

Which still leaves us with the search for the appropriate alternate animal.

Squirrel? Or is that more for Ron Paul?

...

Ooooh, you said too much, they'll put you on the blackball list for sure now :(...

;)

If you want to go cute, he a bunny

http://www.funbumperstickers.com/images/Bugs_Bunny_5.gif

if you want to go dumb and evil he's a tasmanian devil

http://uncletaz.com/Tazdevil.GIF

Unwise, I will agree.

Primarily because the knee-jerk reaction will be "that was racist"- whether it was or wasn't won't matter with the people who have that reaction. Only assumption and perception will matter

Question for you. Would you consider it a knee jerk reaction to assume someone is being racist when he calls a black man ******? Should we give him enough benefit of the doubt to assume he is not using that word as it has always been used?

http://images.cafepress.com/image/13727131_125x125.jpg
Fight on Randall (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x2DxyAGzGxM&feature=related)...of course your motives aren't transparent or anything...

Look, you can jam your fingers in your ears and ignore hundreds of years of context and pretend the world is brand new with every utterance, but frankly it's just not the case. It'd be nice if all things were clean, that nothing was offensive unless we overtly put some asterix on it that says we mean it, but that's a fantasy. And it's so frightfully naive that we're forced to give you the benefit of the doubt and suspect other motives, because the stated premise without them is so blind, so unaware, that we frankly think better of your capacities.

Question for you. Would you consider it a knee jerk reaction to assume someone is being racist when he calls a black man ******? Should we give him enough benefit of the doubt to assume he is not using that word as it has always been used?

*hands Neo Art a pack of matches for his strawman is getting ready for the torch it would seem*

You just got done saying he should be exempt from being cartooned as a monkey and THEN said no one has made any argument that he should (be exempt)... funny stuff that.

No, I said that racism should be off-limits in political commentary.

It wasn't a bad argument even, but she did make it. Calling for an exemption, even for good reasons, is still an exemption for one and not others (presidential personagaes), based soley on the skin tone of the candidate.

It isn't based "soley on the skin tone of the candidate". I would have a problem with use of racist portrayals no matter what the person's skin tone was.

If any other candidate or president were portrayed in a racist manner, I'd have just as much of a problem with it. Hence the reason that it has nothing to do with Obama getting any kind of "exception". The exception is with the material, not the candidate.

Does she get absolved from being attacked because she is a women though? No. She is simply attacked differently than the others but still attacked.

She shouldn't be attacked any differently because of being a woman. That is sexist.

She should get exactly the same attacks that she would get if she happened to have a penis.

Likewise, Obama should not be treated any differently - attacked any differently - because he happens to be black. The attacks should be exactly as they would be if he happened to be white.

Obama gets attacked too, Clinton gets attacked and McCain gets attacked.

All of which is expected. But those attacks should not be based in their ethnicity or sex.

What comes around goes around. Pretending that monkeys and presidents don’t go hand in hand though shows a seriously lacking understanding of presidential caricatures in history.

I believe elephants and donkeys have been the most common animals used, actually - especially since the beginning of the Republican party. Pigs are pretty common as well.

First, how do you know the motivations of the insulter?

you don't need to know the motivations. symbols have meanings. using them employs those meanings. use racist symbols, express racist meanings - even if you don't intend them that way at all. this is basic communication.

Second, is it okay to compare a black man to a monkey under ANY circumstances at all?

hard to think of any. maybe if you added lots and lots of context that explicitly and strongly divorces your usage from the normal usage of that symbolism in our culture? but even then, to be frank, i'm going to call it fucking racist and demand that you stop.

it would probably be ok on parallel earth with a completely different history and culture from ours, where the racist usage was totally alien. but only for them, not for you.

Which still leaves us with the search for the appropriate alternate animal.

Squirrel? Or is that more for Ron Paul?

Assuming you're going for silliness and ignorance?

The first one to come to mind is the dodo.


*hands Neo Art a pack of matches for his strawman is getting ready for the torch it would seem*

What strawman?

You seem to think that we should ignore generations of racism and racist imagery when examining a political cartoon.

Thus, would it be ok if they portrayed Obama hanging from a tree with McCain and Clinton standing there laughing? After all, that wouldn't have anything to do with racism, right? It would just be commentary on McCain and Clinton both wanting to take Obama out.....

*hands Neo Art a pack of matches for his strawman is getting ready for the torch it would seem*

Calling it a strawman, however frequently and however emphatically, does not make it so.

Clearly you have never heard of the word "analogy" before.

http://images.cafepress.com/image/13727131_125x125.jpg
Fight on Randall (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x2DxyAGzGxM&feature=related)...of course your motives aren't transparent or anything...

Look, you can jam your fingers in your ears and ignore hundreds of years of context and pretend the world is brand new with every utterance, but frankly it's just not the case. It'd be nice if all things were clean, that nothing was offensive unless we overtly put some asterix on it that says we mean it, but that's a fantasy. And it's so frightfully naive that we're forced to give you the benefit of the doubt and suspect other motives, because the stated premise without them is so blind, so unaware, that we frankly think better of your capacities.

The similarities between Baldardash and Randell are rather striking now that I think about it...

*hands Neo Art a pack of matches for his strawman is getting ready for the torch it would seem*

Either you do not kn ow what a strawman is, or your reading comprehension sucks.

A strawman is where you create an argument for your opponent and defeat that argument instead of the one that your opponent is actually using.

What Neo Art is doing is entirely different. He is asking what Mott's reaction to another situation would be, and using that as an analogy for the current one. Now, you can attempt to dispute the analogy by showing why you think the situations are not similar, (I happen to think it's a good analogy, but you may still try to show otherwise) but calling it a strawman is just plain wrong.

*hands Neo Art a pack of matches for his strawman is getting ready for the torch it would seem*

How about for once you actually try to answer a question and not continue to misuse the term strawman?

Calling it a strawman, however frequently and however emphatically, does not make it so.

Clearly you have never heard of the word "analogy" before.

Have you noticed that people only learn the fallacies with the snappy names and just call any argument they don't like by one of them? It's like they showed up late on that day of English 1A, scanned the pages and went, "Oooh, neat, I'm using this on the internetz" and then went back to carving "Van Halen Rules" on their desk...

...
All of which is expected. But those attacks should not be based in their ethnicity or sex.

She gets attacked, in a way that is perceived as demeaning to women, Obama gets attacked in ways that are demeaning for being an elitist, McCain gets attacked for being very, very old...

Making fun of a presidential candidate for 'monkey like' IS EXACTLY like all other presidential candidates. Reagan and Bonzo come to mind, in addition to GWB being compared to chimps for a decade now... So Obama running and being compared to a monkey is exactly the same as the others, not different.

...I believe elephants and donkeys have been the most common animals used, actually - especially since the beginning of the Republican party. Pigs are pretty common as well.

All of which started as cartoon joke insults that 'stuck'. The Simpson's put pictures of monkeys in the oval office, do a search of monkey president and see that it implies Bush, not Obama... Like these (http://www.dorkinglabs.com/bush.php?id=76)

Question for you. Would you consider it a knee jerk reaction to assume someone is being racist when he calls a black man ******?

Absolutely. Being in the South Bronx I hear it every day, repeatedly, from many people. Assuming they are racist would be absolutely moronic, considering that they are all black and/or Hispanic, and using the term to address each other.

assumptions, assumptions, assumptions. Change one detail and they're all obsolete, aren't they?


I gather, when you typed "someone" you meant, "a white person", yes?

Of course, I find that assumption, that "someone" should be interpreted as "a white someone" to be racist in the extreme.

Good lord.... Avenue Q was right!

Have you noticed that people only learn the fallacies with the snappy names and just call any argument they don't like by one of them? It's like they showed up late on that day of English 1A, scanned the pages and went, "Oooh, neat, I'm using this on the internetz" and then went back to carving "Van Halen Rules" on their desk...

It tends to annoy me when anyone, including someone on the side I agree with, calls out a fallacy without a proper explanation of WHY the statement is a fallacy. It's a childish, idiotic maneuver that serves no real purpose in the context of debate other than to make the user look foolish when it's proven that he called his opponent out on a fallacy incorrectly.

It tends to annoy me when anyone, including someone on the side I agree with, calls out a fallacy without a proper explanation of WHY the statement is a fallacy. It's a childish, idiotic maneuver that serves no real purpose in the context of debate other than to make the user look foolish when it's proven that he called his opponent out on a fallacy incorrectly.

You'd think there'd be a fallacy that covers false fallacy accusations...there probably is but I was to busy carving my desk...(ba dum bump)

How about for once you actually try to answer a question and not continue to misuse the term strawman?

How about you stop making incorrect analogies as arguments then. The word in your analogy could not be put on a shirt about a different president, but the chimp/monkey analogy IS used about other presidents. Thus, your analogy is not an analogy, it's a strawman.

She gets attacked, in a way that is perceived as demeaning to women,

You ignore that these attacks are rightly called out for being sexist.

You'd think there'd be a fallacy that covers false fallacy accusations...there probably is but I was to busy carving my desk...(ba dum bump)

I'd argue that it's covered by the argument from ignorance. ;)

You are all trampling on Balders freedom of speech. Just because he called Obama a spear-chucker doesn't mean he was being racist. He meant that Obama was a good debater and speared his opponent with words. Quit trying to put some sort of racially motivated intention to it. Someone used it to describe a white guy a couple of times so the hundred years or so of the use of the word as a racial slur is null and void. There is absolutely no reason whatsoever to assume he could have had racist intentions.

You are all trampling on Balders freedom of speech. Just because he called Obama a spear-chucker doesn't mean he was being racist. He meant that Obama was a good debater and speared his opponent with words. Quit trying to put some sort of racially motivated intention to it. Someone used it to describe a white guy a couple of times so the hundred years or so of the use of the word as a racial slur is null and void. There is absolutely no reason whatsoever to assume he could have had racist intentions.

SB if you were black you'd be the biggest ****** I know.

. . . .

What?

What?

I had the same thought: What?

Smile and wave, boys, smile and wave.

I had the same thought: What?

Smile and wave, boys, smile and wave.

as I said, I'm using the word to mean a smart, successful and highly motivated black man. It's a compliment really.

You didn't think I meant it the other way did you?

Clearly they think he looks like one or else the visual similarities wouldn't be necessary.

I know this is a late reply but...

Yeah, thanks for this (dodge) digression, now can you answer the question I actually asked you, why do you think they have Obama pictured as a monkey?

Monkey Obama is racist because... well, it's about race.

Monkey Bush is not racist because it's not about race. It's probably still not nice though, things can be not nice for different reasons.

I don't think either is particularly funny. I found Frobama funny but it's pretty racist too. I think Obama should grow a fro though, he looks good.

http://z.about.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/z/n/1/obama_afro.jpg

I know this is a late reply but...

Yeah, thanks for this (dodge) digression, now can you answer the question I actually asked you, why do you think they have Obama pictured as a monkey?


Because no one would get the joke if they used a lemur?

Took at look at smunkeeville's picture link.

Now my mind is made up.

Monkey was way out of line, way off the mark.

With incisors like that, clearly a rodent of some kind, not a primate at all.

Obama could gnaw through brick.

Because no one would get the joke if they used a lemur?

And what 'the joke' is is at the core of this argument. You can pretend hundreds of years of history don't effect that, but it's like being upset when someone hands you peanut butter because you use 'peanut butter' to mean salt. If we all got our own special interpretations of what symbols and words meant, symbols and words would be meaningless.

What is the difference? Why is one funny and the other offensive? Perhaps both are funny or both are offensive? What say you?
I'll join the rest of the posters in wondering why you even have to asl that question. To me, it's blatantly obvious why one is offensive and the other is funny.

But let me repeat a couple of things:
For one thing, comparing Bush to monkies are, as you can see from your pics, plays on his mannerisms, his name and his tendency to misspeak. These are individual traits and the offending pics are not based on a history of hatred.

The pic you have found...
http://i235.photobucket.com/albums/ee218/Balderdash71964/Obama-George.jpg
...does not resemble Obama, nor does it make fun of anything he's said and done. (Though Obama might have a secret fondness for bananas that I haven't heard about. But I doubt it...)

This picture does not make fun of Obama based on anything except the fact that he's black, as far as I can see. And with regards to the history of the US, it is clearly racist and offensive.


YOU are the one who keeps wanting to make this about Obama. It has nothing to do with Obama, and it would be just as offensive, just as wrong, and just as badly thought out if it was Obama, Sharpton, Kofi Anin or my neighbor Steve.
I agree with Neo Art on this matter except for one thing.

Steve. I mean, Steve! Surely that would be an exception... ;)

This is silly. The basis for Bush-to-chimp comparisons is that he looks like the chimps in the pictures. Obama doesn't look anything like the cartoon monkey, so there must be some other reason for the comparison. I don't know with certainty what that reason was, but unfortunately there's only one obvious interpretation -- a reference to the use of "monkey" as a slur against black people.

You just got done saying he should be exempt from being cartooned as a monkey and THEN said no one has made any argument that he should (be exempt)... funny stuff that.

Which is one select animal and not a reference to animals in general. The monkey used to refer to a black man has racist overtones. You can't just change the connotation of a word or symbol simply because you don't want it to mean what it DOES mean. Similarly, I can't compare him to an eggplant, though I could call him a pickle. It's not that he's being compared to a vegetable that is the problem, but that he is compared to a vegetable that has racist overtones in the American environment.

You know what annoys me, that somewhere along the line being intellectually dishonest became a good argument in America. You are aware that certain things have racial underpinnings and that when you say them, whether you intend to or not, you bring up those underpinnings. I can't tell my brother-in-law to get to the back of the bus without raising that spectre. I also can't call him an eggplant or a monkey or boy. I also take a picture of him smiling and edit in watermelon and chicken.

Clearly, we white people are oppressed.

This is alljust Baldardash baiting us to try and prove that we all have some secret double standard or something.


So far baldy, you are failing. Miserably.

I don't know with certainty what that reason was, but unfortunately there's only one obvious interpretation -- a reference to the use of "monkey" as a slur against black people.

If you put a whole group of politicians-are-monkeys pictures together in one photo montage, would THAT be sufficient to drive home the point that the issue is not race, or would you still complain that the message was racist (but white pols as monkeys, that's fine.)? Would you approve of the montage as a whole but demand that the pictures of black politicians be removed?

Or, like me, would you consider it a slur against monkeys?

Which is one select animal and not a reference to animals in general. The monkey used to refer to a black man has racist overtones. You can't just change the connotation of a word or symbol simply because you don't want it to mean what it DOES mean. Similarly, I can't compare him to an eggplant, though I could call him a pickle. It's not that he's being compared to a vegetable that is the problem, but that he is compared to a vegetable that has racist overtones in the American environment.

You know what annoys me, that somewhere along the line being intellectually dishonest became a good argument in America. You are aware that certain things have racial underpinnings and that when you say them, whether you intend to or not, you bring up those underpinnings. I can't tell my brother-in-law to get to the back of the bus without raising that spectre. I also can't call him an eggplant or a monkey or boy. I also take a picture of him smiling and edit in watermelon and chicken.

Clearly, we white people are oppressed.



You know, until now, I had honostly never heard that calling a black person an eggplant had racial overtones.

Making fun of a presidential candidate for 'monkey like' IS EXACTLY like all other presidential candidates. Reagan and Bonzo come to mind, in addition to GWB being compared to chimps for a decade now... So Obama running and being compared to a monkey is exactly the same as the others, not different.

Reagan was in a movie (several, I think) about Bonzo. He was directly linked. Bush has been compared to chimps both because of direct pictures that look similar and because of his own bumbling.

What reason does this person have for the comparison of Obama to one?

You know, until now, I had honostly never heard that calling a black person an eggplant had racial overtones.

Me either. Maybe it's a regional thing?

Me either. Maybe it's a regional thing?

Cant be, me and Joc are from the same region.

This is alljust Baldardash baiting us to try and prove that we all have some secret double standard or something.

.

Of course it's a double standard, the only issue is, is the double standard justifiable or not?

If you put a whole group of politicians-are-monkeys pictures together in one photo montage, would THAT be sufficient to drive home the point that the issue is not race, or would you still complain that the message was racist (but white pols as monkeys, that's fine.)? Would you approve of the montage as a whole but demand that the pictures of black politicians be removed?

Or, like me, would you consider it a slur against monkeys?

as I said before, contex is everyting. This is not a montage, this is not in a series of comparing politicians to monkeys.

This is a tshirt with a monkey and Obama's name. That's it.

What other connection becomes apparent?

Of course it's a double standard, the only issue is, is the double standard justifiable or not?

it's not at all a double standard if the two things are entirely different. I think we're all in agreement here that people shouldn't be using historically racist imagery in connection with Bush either.

However, for a white person, being compared to a monkey does not have those historically racist imagery.

http://images.huffingtonpost.com/2007-10-11-Radaraimshighhitsit.jpg

http://obamawho.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/36931925.jpg

http://cagle.com/news/ObamaObama/images/trever.gif

http://politickernj.com/files/images/BoltNA050808.img_assist_custom.jpg

http://politickernj.com/files/images/BoltCC041408win.jpg

http://cagle.com/news/ObamaObama/images3/nease.jpg

I'll join the rest of the posters in wondering why you even have to asl that question. To me, it's blatantly obvious why one is offensive and the other is funny.

It's obvious to him, too. He knows it. We all know it. This is why he tries to suggest we're suggesting all animals are off-limits. He knows of the overtones of the monkey symbol. However, for some reason he thinks so long as he doesn't admit he knows he doesn't have to address it.

I assure you that Baldy isn't going to walk up to a park full of black children and tell their parents how nice it is to see the little monkeys playing.


But let me repeat a couple of things:
For one thing, comparing Bush to monkies are, as you can see from your pics, plays on his mannerisms, his name and his tendency to misspeak. These are individual traits and the offending pics are not based on a history of hatred.

The pic you have found...
http://i235.photobucket.com/albums/ee218/Balderdash71964/Obama-George.jpg
...does not resemble Obama, nor does it make fun of anything he's said and done. (Though Obama might have a secret fondness for bananas that I haven't heard about. But I doubt it...)

This picture does not make fun of Obama based on anything except the fact that he's black, as far as I can see. And with regards to the history of the US, it is clearly racist and offensive.

Well, it could be the fact, that there isn't even an attempt to explain the reference. Just a picture. The t-shirt practically nudges you in the ribs and goes, "get it" Do you get it? Ya see what I did there."

It might as show a pile of gray ash with Leiberman under it and pretend like that's got no racist overtones either.

Me either. Maybe it's a regional thing?

I think I heard it in a racial awareness thing... never IRL.

I have heard black people referred to as "Canadians" here a LOT though and recently found out that wasn't something a lot of people were aware of.

Bush has been compared to chimps both because of direct pictures that look similar and because of his own bumbling.

What reason does this person have for the comparison of Obama to one?

How about Obama's bumbling? Since we have that, do we merely have to wait to get the same facial expressions (easy to do when you freeze frame speech) and then it's OK? He would have fulfilled the same pre-requisites as Bush, right?

One makes fun of a politician because of his apparent intellect and facial expressions.

One harkens back to a viewpoint that black people were less than human, more akin to monkey than man.

Which do you think is racist and which do you think is not?
Neither... Obama's ears do stick out a little. It's all in good fun.
http://neveryetmelted.com/wp-images/Obama.jpg

I think I heard it in a racial awareness thing... never IRL.

I have heard black people referred to as "Canadians" here a LOT though and recently found out that wasn't something a lot of people were aware of.

Oh, I hate that one. Somehow using a word that quite clearly substitutes for the word "******" and intends the same meaning is okay, because "no one will know."

If you put a whole group of politicians-are-monkeys pictures together in one photo montage, would THAT be sufficient to drive home the point that the issue is not race, or would you still complain that the message was racist (but white pols as monkeys, that's fine.)? Would you approve of the montage as a whole but demand that the pictures of black politicians be removed?

Or, like me, would you consider it a slur against monkeys?
As has been said, context is everything. If there was an entire montage of monkey-politician slides, then that would, by narrowing the context, make it nonracial. However, since that T-shirt has no context whatsoever (unless, perhaps, it is from a website that has monkey shirts for all politicians, or is a reference to some sort of non-racial in-joke, or something), we have to look at the social context. This social context means that the most probable interpretation of the shirt is a racist one.

You know, until now, I had honostly never heard that calling a black person an eggplant had racial overtones.

Me either. Maybe it's a regional thing?

I've never heard it either.

How about Obama's bumbling? Since we have that, do we merely have to wait to get the same facial expressions (easy to do when you freeze frame speech) and then it's OK? He would have fulfilled the same pre-requisites as Bush, right?

Hed also have to be an utterly incompetent idiot and the worst president in US history.

Oh, I hate that one. Somehow using a word that quite clearly substitutes for the word "******" and intends the same meaning is okay, because "no one will know."

It's been going on here for like 10 years at least. I think that some of the people mean Mexicans now when they say Canadians so I get confused. I guess Canadian now means "brown people".

I assure you that Baldy isn't going to walk up to a park full of black children and tell their parents how nice it is to see the little monkeys playing.

.

What if it was a mixed group of children? Would you assume he was referring to the black kids only, or would you (most likely correctly) deduce that he refers to children in general as monkeys?

Neither... Obama's ears do stick out a little. It's all in good fun.
http://neveryetmelted.com/wp-images/Obama.jpg

It would be all in good fun if you picked an animal that wasnt loaded with racial undertones.


Come on man, youre from Georgia, you should know the history

What if it was a mixed group of children? Would you assume he was referring to the black kids only, or would you (most likely correctly) deduce that he refers to children in general as monkeys?

which is a false analogy, as that's not what happened here. It was just Obama.

Seriously though, quit trying to come up with these hypotheticals of "ok, what if he was in detroit, on a tuesday, and the black guy was his adopted brother, only he didn't KNOW he was, because his adoptive parents divorced, and the sun was in his eyes, and he thought he looked asian, would it be ok then?"

Someone juxtaposed the name of Obama with a monkey. No other context, no other explanation, no other way to interpret that. The most immediate and obvious explanation is a racial one. Is it possible it was something else? Sure. but if the designer intended to imply something other than that Barak Obama was a monkey, he did a piss poor job explaining it.

What if it was a mixed group of children? Would you assume he was referring to the black kids only, or would you (most likely correctly) deduce that he refers to children in general as monkeys?

Honestly, I might regard it as an honest mistake if someone were to say it to a park full of black children. I know people are sometimes ignorant. However, being careful of racially charged words isn't asking a lot in penance for what made them racially charged. I wouldn't assume anything in any case, but I would tell them that they're being insensitive and, if necessary, explain why. However, Baldy makes it clear, in this case, it's not ignorance. He's well aware of the racial overtones and thinks that as long as he pretends they don't exist he doesn't have to address or acknowledge them. It's called intellectual dishonesty and it's not an argument.

What if it was a mixed group of children? Would you assume he was referring to the black kids only, or would you (most likely correctly) deduce that he refers to children in general as monkeys?

Actually, in that context I would likely have to take into account how the person says it, something obviously lacking in written (or drawn, whatever) cases.

As has been said, context is everything. If there was an entire montage of monkey-politician slides, then that would, by narrowing the context, make it nonracial. However, since that T-shirt has no context whatsoever (unless, perhaps, it is from a website that has monkey shirts for all politicians, or is a reference to some sort of non-racial in-joke, or something), we have to look at the social context. This social context means that the most probable interpretation of the shirt is a racist one.

^this. Context gives meaning whether we want it to or not. We cannot ignore social context.

I've never heard it either.

It's kind of dated. Eggplants are dark in color. Also, from what I understand, more recently, the Italian word for eggplant is often used since people don't know it means that.

It's been going on here for like 10 years at least. I think that some of the people mean Mexicans now when they say Canadians so I get confused. I guess Canadian now means "brown people".

Longer in Chicago, where I first heard it. I've heard it around since I was a teen, so that's about 15 years or so.

Longer in Chicago, where I first heard it. I've heard it around since I was a teen, so that's about 15 years or so.
Yeah, probably longer now that I think about it, at least since I was in highschool maybe before that, it's resurfaced recently a lot, I hear it more often now than I remember hearing it then.

As has been said, context is everything. If there was an entire montage of monkey-politician slides, then that would, by narrowing the context, make it nonracial. However, since that T-shirt has no context whatsoever (unless, perhaps, it is from a website that has monkey shirts for all politicians, or is a reference to some sort of non-racial in-joke, or something), we have to look at the social context. This social context means that the most probable interpretation of the shirt is a racist one.
.

So what you're saying is... lacking genuine information (intentions and context of the artist) let's assume some that matches our own prejudices and shared paradigms, call it "social" and assume that it is the norm for everyone else as well. And when we find some people who disagree, we'll assume they're racist and fill ourselves with indignation and righteous umbrage as we correct their bad-think, instead of actually holding out for the actual intent and context of the image.

I don't think I can go with that.

Ever see a Western movie, where one character insults another, and the second character, rather than start swinging or going for his gun, gets up, puts up a mean face, and says something like "Pardner, you'd best be explain'in that last remark."?

Leaping to the assumption can get people killed, even if... especially if its "social context". Smart guys, those characters in those Westerns.

Could well be, as Freud might have said, sometimes a monkey is just a monkey. Could well be the artist merely happens to have an opinion- Obama, regardless of the color of his skin, reminds him of a monkey.

Honestly, I might regard it as an honest mistake if someone were to say it to a park full of black children. I know people are sometimes ignorant. However, being careful of racially charged words isn't asking a lot in penance for what made them racially charged. I wouldn't assume anything in any case, but I would tell them that they're being insensitive and, if necessary, explain why. However, Baldy makes it clear, in this case, it's not ignorance. He's well aware of the racial overtones and thinks that as long as he pretends they don't exist he doesn't have to address or acknowledge them. It's called intellectual dishonesty and it's not an argument.


Perhaps you would like to spend even twenty seconds explaining how in all the disagreements you and I have ever had that I have ever taken a racist point of view about someones skin color? Once you fail at that then you can come back here and apologize for your intellectual dishonesty and being a general liar en masse.

You know, until now, I had honostly never heard that calling a black person an eggplant had racial overtones.
I have heard it, but I've also heard it being used about persons of Sicilian heritage.

Oh, and of course, there's True Romance:
Clifford Worley: You're Sicilian, huh?
Coccotti: Yeah, Sicilian.
Clifford Worley: Ya know, I read a lot. Especially about things... about history. I find that shit fascinating. Here's a fact I don't know whether you know or not. Sicilians were spawned by niggers.
Coccotti: Come again?
Clifford Worley: It's a fact. Yeah. You see, uh, Sicilians have, uh, black blood pumpin' through their hearts. Hey, no, if eh, if eh, if you don't believe me, uh, you can look it up. Hundreds and hundreds of years ago, uh, you see, uh, the Moors conquered Sicily. And the Moors are niggers.
Coccotti: Yes...
Clifford Worley: So you see, way back then, uh, Sicilians were like, uh, wops from Northern Italy. Ah, they all had blonde hair and blue eyes, but, uh, well, then the Moors moved in there, and uh, well, they changed the whole country. They did so much fuckin' with Sicilian women, huh? That they changed the whole bloodline forever. That's why blonde hair and blue eyes became black hair and dark skin. You know, it's absolutely amazing to me to think that to this day, hundreds of years later, that, uh, that Sicilians still carry that ****** gene. Now this...
[Coccotti busts out laughing]
Clifford Worley: No, I'm, no, I'm quoting... history. It's written. It's a fact, it's written.
Coccotti: [Laughing] I love this guy.
Clifford Worley: Your ancestors are niggers. Uh-huh.
[Starts laughing, too]
Clifford Worley: Hey. Yeah. And, and your great-great-great-great grandmother fucked a ******, ho, ho, yeah, and she had a half-****** kid... now, if that's a fact, tell me, am I lying? 'Cause you, you're part eggplant.
Vincenzo Coccotti: Ohhh!
Clifford Worley: Huh? Hey! Hey! Hey!
[motioning with his hand three times]
Vincenzo Coccotti: You're a cantaloupe.
[shoots Cliff in the face]


it's not at all a double standard if the two things are entirely different. I think we're all in agreement here that people shouldn't be using historically racist imagery in connection with Bush either.

However, for a white person, being compared to a monkey does not have those historically racist imagery.
Indeed.

This:
http://lonestartimes.com/images/Weidenhof/bush_hitler.jpg
...is an offensive image and should not be used in polite debate.

It's obvious to him, too. He knows it. We all know it. This is why he tries to suggest we're suggesting all animals are off-limits. He knows of the overtones of the monkey symbol. However, for some reason he thinks so long as he doesn't admit he knows he doesn't have to address it.
True that.

It might as show a pile of gray ash with Leiberman under it and pretend like that's got no racist overtones either.

Quite. Adding the stereotypical evil jew-traits (Money grubbin big nosed conspiracists) to him is not acceptable either.

Perhaps you would like to spend even twenty seconds explaining how in all the disagreements you and I have ever had that I have ever taken a racist point of view about someones skin color? Once you fail at that then you can come back here and apologize for your intellectual dishonesty and being a general liar en masse.



Can you read? He never called you a racist.


So now its either you who is being intellectually dishonost or a liar.

Perhaps you would like to spend even twenty seconds explaining how in all the disagreements you and I have ever had that I have ever taken a racist point of view about someones skin color? Once you fail at that then you can come back here and apologize for your intellectual dishonesty and being a general liar en masse.

Pardon? I didn't say you were a racist. I said you were being intellectually dishonest when you pretend you don't understand the social context of calling a black man a monkey.

So you can ask for evidence that won't support the claim I made, or you can, you know, address what I actually said. I don't care which you do. It won't make your argument valid.

Perhaps you would like to spend even twenty seconds explaining how in all the disagreements you and I have ever had that I have ever taken a racist point of view about someones skin color? Once you fail at that then you can come back here and apologize for your intellectual dishonesty and being a general liar en masse.

He's not saying you're racist (although you might be), he is saying that you are deliberately pretending away the fact that the picture of Obama as a monkey has a clearly racist premise despite you obviosuly knowing full well that it is (you can't be a complete idiot) thus you are being intellectually dishonest.

Can you read?

I'm fairly certain that this thread is sufficient evidence to justify an answer of "no, no he can not"

Perhaps you would like to spend even twenty seconds explaining how in all the disagreements you and I have ever had that I have ever taken a racist point of view about someones skin color? Once you fail at that then you can come back here and apologize for your intellectual dishonesty and being a general liar en masse.

Um....perhaps you'd like to explain how Jocabia suggested that you've taken a racist point of view?

He said you are taking an intellectually dishonest point of view by pretending that there are no racial overtones in calling a black man a monkey. He didn't say anything at all about you personally being or saying anything racist.

(you can't be a complete idiot)

I'm fairly certain that this thread is sufficient evidence to justify a response of "yes, yes he can"

SB if you were black you'd be the biggest ****** I know.

. . . .

What?


you fucking racist! Oh wait, you meant I'm smart and successful... ok then, thanks! :fluffle: I can't see how I first thought that you were being derogatory towards blacks. :confused:

Ever see a Western movie, where one character insults another, and the second character, rather than start swinging or going for his gun, gets up, puts up a mean face, and says something like "Pardner, you'd best be explain'in that last remark."?

Leaping to the assumption can get people killed, even if... especially if its "social context". Smart guys, those characters in those Westerns.
That's not giving him a chance to clarify - that's giving him a chance to back down and retract his words. The person saying that almost always know exactly what he did mean by that last remark.

Could well be, as Freud might have said, sometimes a monkey is just a monkey. Could well be the artist merely happens to have an opinion- Obama, regardless of the color of his skin, reminds him of a monkey.
That is incredibly unlikely though.

It would be more plausible if you said Obama made him think of the US intervention in latin-America through United Fruits and the support of banana republics, and Obama would be a person that could actually eat all those bananas.

I know, my idea doesn't make sense either.

So what you're saying is... lacking genuine information (intentions and context of the artist) let's assume some that matches our own prejudices and shared paradigms, call it "social" and assume that it is the norm for everyone else as well. And when we find some people who disagree, we'll assume they're racist and fill ourselves with indignation and righteous umbrage as we correct their bad-think, instead of actually holding out for the actual intent and context of the image.

I don't think I can go with that.

All meaning is defined by social context. How do you think you're understanding the language I'm using? Pretending that you get to define language all by yourself is just silly.

Words, letters, symbols all have the meaning they carry because of a social agreement.

If the satirist has to stand next to his work and go, "No no, what I mean with this picture is-", then it fails as satire or commentary. At that point why not just post a paragraph of what you mean? If you use a symbol that carries a connotation, that's the connotation it's going to carry. If you want it to mean something else, chose a better image, don't lambaste the audience because they didn't get you or for people handing you peanut butter when you wanted salt.

Maybe he meant the Obama has a nice banana

Obviously, the solution is to make a caricature of Obama as the prophet Muhammad. Guaranteed to piss off enough people to make it worthwhile.

In case you haven't noticed, it's primarily his facial expressions coupled with his limited vocabulary. Not his skin color. One could make a case that his ears, which are a genetic trait, are involved as well, but that's about it. Not in the least bit comparable to the common "joke" that blacks are hairless monkeys that gets passed around amongst the more primitive elements of "white" society.

Sexy AND articulate. Laerod = win.

It would be all in good fun if you picked an animal that wasnt loaded with racial undertones.


Come on man, youre from Georgia, you should know the history
It wouldn't matter to a professional victim what animal was chosen. It would be 'demeaning'. As far as Georgia history goes, it's history. I firmly believe that there is more real equality of opportunity in the South today than in the bastions of liberalism up north.

If you put a whole group of politicians-are-monkeys pictures together in one photo montage, would THAT be sufficient to drive home the point that the issue is not race, or would you still complain that the message was racist (but white pols as monkeys, that's fine.)? Would you approve of the montage as a whole but demand that the pictures of black politicians be removed?

In that case, I'd be fine with the montage in its entirety. Black politicians, white politicians -- so long as the joke is that their facial expressions or mannerisms are similar to the monkeys they're depicted next to, it's all fine with me.

Or, like me, would you consider it a slur against monkeys?

Or this. I haven't decided yet. ;)

Maybe he meant the Obama has a nice banana

I think this interpretation should be spread around. Let it be known to the world that anyone buying this t-shirt is trying to let everyone know that they really want a taste of Obama's banana. :p

I think this interpretation should be spread around. Let it be known to the world that anyone buying this t-shirt is trying to let everyone know that they really want a taste of Obama's banana. :p

I know I do....

....

What? I like bananas

It wouldn't matter to a professional victim what animal was chosen. It would be 'demeaning'. As far as Georgia history goes, it's history. I firmly believe that there is more real equality of opportunity in the South today than in the bastions of liberalism up north.

Professional victim? Who is a professional victim?

Professional victim? Who is a professional victim?

Black people.
And I rather hope you don't think I'm serious about this.

I know I do....

....

What? I like bananas

Don't we all? I mean, really, who doesn't like getting their mouth around a nice, thick, firm banana? I think there could be real bipartisan agreement on this, because whatever side of the aisle politicians are on, they're almost all banana-suckers.

Don't we all? I mean, really, who doesn't like getting their mouth around a nice, thick, firm banana? I think there could be real bipartisan agreement on this, because whatever side of the aisle politicians are on, they're almost all banana-suckers.

You are making me so hungry. *licks lips* I could really go for some banana cream right now.

The Obama t-shirt is several miles beyond what might be considered acceptable, whereas the Bush monkey is simply lampooning his mental faculties.

Professional victim? Who is a professional victim?
A number of y'all that can find racism hiding in every crack and crevice. Especially when it just ain't there.

But to make it more clear, Jesse Jackson is a professional victim of racism. So is Al Sharpton. I think we can add the right Reverend Jeremiah Wright to that list, too. As much as I admire the man for his actions in support of civil rights, John Lewis is a professional victim of racism. And so on... All have a vested interest in perpetuating the fiction that racism just as rampant now as it was during their heydays.

A number of y'all that can find racism hiding in every crack and crevice. Especially when it just ain't there.

But to make it more clear, Jesse Jackson is a professional victim of racism. So is Al Sharpton. I think we can add the right Reverend Jeremiah Wright to that list, too. As much as I admire the man for his actions in support of civil rights, John Lewis is a professional victim of racism. And so on... All have a vested interest in perpetuating the fiction that racism just as rampant now as it was during their heydays.

This is pretty clearly racism. It doesnt take much looking.

This is pretty clearly racism. It doesnt take much looking.
Okay. Say it is. So what? The man has said his piece, let him now suffer the consequences... if there are any.

And where I first mentioned professional victims, I believe I said just about any animal would be seen as racist. I'm sure a number of caricatures would be regarded that way, too.

Way to bend the topic to suit yourself!

A number of y'all that can find racism hiding in every crack and crevice. Especially when it just ain't there.

But to make it more clear, Jesse Jackson is a professional victim of racism. So is Al Sharpton. I think we can add the right Reverend Jeremiah Wright to that list, too. As much as I admire the man for his actions in support of civil rights, John Lewis is a professional victim of racism. And so on... All have a vested interest in perpetuating the fiction that racism just as rampant now as it was during their heydays.

I would not disagree with the general thrust of this; racism has been altered from a largely valid charge to level, to simply another empty slur that, if said enough, tends to linger.

However, that t-shirt is racist; there is no other basis for depicting Mr.Obama as a monkey with a banana, unless he has a hitherto unknown and unhealthy banana fixation. Which, I concede, is a possibility; a bloody small one though, and I doubt the t-shirt's designer is equipped to know either.

I would not disagree with the general thrust of this; racism has been altered from a largely valid charge to level, to simply another empty slur that, if said enough, tends to linger.

However, that t-shirt is racist; there is no other basis for depicting Mr.Obama as a monkey with a banana, unless he has a hitherto unknown and unhealthy banana fixation. Which, I concede, is a possibility; a bloody small one though, and I doubt the t-shirt's designer is equipped to know either.

I can't believe I'm saying this:

I agree with you.

A number of y'all that can find racism hiding in every crack and crevice. Especially when it just ain't there.

But to make it more clear, Jesse Jackson is a professional victim of racism. So is Al Sharpton. I think we can add the right Reverend Jeremiah Wright to that list, too. As much as I admire the man for his actions in support of civil rights, John Lewis is a professional victim of racism. And so on... All have a vested interest in perpetuating the fiction that racism just as rampant now as it was during their heydays.

Actually, most of them would readily admit that racism is NOT as rampant as in their "heydays". In fact, all of them have admitted we've made significant progress. But don't let reality get in the way this late in the game.

Nothing better than people who feel like the moment you mention racism, because *gasp* what could possibly be racist about suggesting a black man is a monkey, suddenly we're talking about Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. What's the matter? If you stick to the topic, you might have to admit the rather obvious racism here?

Oh, wait, we're just "finding racism in every crack and crevice" when we suggest comparing a black man to a monkey, with no other context offered, has racial connotations. I almost forgot. How dare we?

Way to bend the topic to suit yourself!

Pardon? The topic is about a t-shirt and whether it's racist. How is commenting on that "bending the topic to suit yourself", especially when you're suddenly talking about Jesse Jackson and Reverend Wright.

What is the difference? Why is one funny and the other offensive? Perhaps both are funny or both are offensive? What say you?
Because George W. Bush makes faces that make him look like a chimpanzee and "black people are monkeys" is an old racist stereotype - ie, "porch monkey."

Pardon? The topic is about a t-shirt and whether it's racist. How is commenting on that "bending the topic to suit yourself", especially when you're suddenly talking about Jesse Jackson and Reverend Wright.

I have no idea. There are some people here with whom I just say my peice and then just stop all conversation with them on that topic, because I know further discussion would be like talking to a brick wall.

Myrm is usually one of those people.

Because George W. Bush makes faces that make him look like a chimpanzee and "black people are monkeys" is an old racist stereotype - ie, "porch monkey."

Oh, you're just finding racism in every crack and crevice, professional victim.

Which is one select animal and not a reference to animals in general. The monkey used to refer to a black man has racist overtones. You can't just change the connotation of a word or symbol simply because you don't want it to mean what it DOES mean. Similarly, I can't compare him to an eggplant, though I could call him a pickle. It's not that he's being compared to a vegetable that is the problem, but that he is compared to a vegetable that has racist overtones in the American environment.

You know what annoys me, that somewhere along the line being intellectually dishonest became a good argument in America. You are aware that certain things have racial underpinnings and that when you say them, whether you intend to or not, you bring up those underpinnings. I can't tell my brother-in-law to get to the back of the bus without raising that spectre. I also can't call him an eggplant or a monkey or boy. I also take a picture of him smiling and edit in watermelon and chicken.

Clearly, we white people are oppressed.

We are oppressed. We don't get nearly enough watermelon or chicken. I'm going to end the oppression and make some chicken now.

We are oppressed. We don't get nearly enough watermelon or chicken. I'm going to end the oppression and make some chicken now.

dude, I was so totally planning chicken for dinner.

dude, I was so totally planning chicken for dinner.

Oh me too. I have chicken about 5 nights out of the week, actually. Maybe this weekend I'll get a watermelon, and fight the oppression further. Care to join me in this protest of the oppression of white people?

http://images.cafepress.com/image/13727131_125x125.jpg
Fight on Randall (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x2DxyAGzGxM&feature=related)...of course your motives aren't transparent or anything...

Look, you can jam your fingers in your ears and ignore hundreds of years of context and pretend the world is brand new with every utterance, but frankly it's just not the case. It'd be nice if all things were clean, that nothing was offensive unless we overtly put some asterix on it that says we mean it, but that's a fantasy. And it's so frightfully naive that we're forced to give you the benefit of the doubt and suspect other motives, because the stated premise without them is so blind, so unaware, that we frankly think better of your capacities.

I actually didn't know Porch Monkeys was a racial slur.

I didn't know there existed such a thing as Porch Monkeys though.

Oh me too. I have chicken about 5 nights out of the week, actually. Maybe this weekend I'll get a watermelon, and fight the oppression further. Care to join me in this protest of the oppression of white people?

I had chinese tonight.


Im a race traitor.

Oh me too. I have chicken about 5 nights out of the week, actually. Maybe this weekend I'll get a watermelon, and fight the oppression further. Care to join me in this protest of the oppression of white people?

If you could make some way to combine chicken and watermelon then I would love you forever.

If you could make some way to combine chicken and watermelon then I would love you forever.

Hmm...does it look like a watermelon and taste like a chicken?

Does it look like a chicken but taste like a watermelon?

...or is it some mixed up abomination?

If you could make some way to combine chicken and watermelon then I would love you forever.

We could easily do a chicken marinade that has watermelon juice as one of the main ingredients. Or just have watermelon as part of a fruit salad accompanying the chicken. Very tasteful.

We could easily do a chicken marinade that has watermelon juice as one of the main ingredients. Or just have watermelon as part of a fruit salad accompanying the chicken. Very tasteful.

I prefer the former.

All: Recent conversation with my female boss. (This is entirely made-up because I'm not insane and whether I want context to exist or not, it does.)

Me: Hey, bitch, you smell nice.
My boss: Pardon me?
Me: I'm just saying you smell like my bitch.
My boss: Are you kidding me?
Me: No, seriously, I use a special shampoo on my dog to cover the smell of her being in heat. She smells nice. You smell nice.

Poll: Did I...
A) Get fired
B) Get killed
C) Get fired and killed
D) This can't have happened because you're asking me this question.

Oh me too. I have chicken about 5 nights out of the week, actually. Maybe this weekend I'll get a watermelon, and fight the oppression further. Care to join me in this protest of the oppression of white people?deep fry that chicken and I'm there! :D

I prefer the former.

All: Recent conversation with my female boss. (This is entirely made-up because I'm not insane and whether I want context to exist or not, it does.)

Me: Hey, bitch, you smell nice.
My boss: Pardon me?
Me: I'm just saying you smell like my bitch.
My boss: Are you kidding me?
Me: No, seriously, I use a special shampoo on my dog to cover the smell of her being in heat. She smells nice. You smell nice.

Poll: Did I...
A) Get fired
B) Get killed
C) Get fired and killed
D) This can't have happened because you're asking me this question.

D)

Assuming you haven't been resurrected. Since I know you don't know any level 6+ Clerics, and since you know I'm too lazy to actually expend the XP to cast a Wish spell to get your sorry ass back, I think we can safely assume you were not resurrected, and therefore the answer MUST be D.

D)

Assuming you haven't been resurrected. Since I know you don't know any level 6+ Clerics, and since you know I'm too lazy to actually expend the XP to cast a Wish spell to get your sorry ass back, I think we can safely assume you were not resurrected, and therefore the answer MUST be D.

But why would she kill me? I mean, we can ignore all the social implications of both calling a woman a bitch and comparing a woman to a dog. Right? Of course, Baldy would do this and be utterly shocked that people find this rude and perhaps even a fireable offense. I mean, there are no social implications to words with long-time racist or mysogynist connotations, right?

One is making fun of mental capacity, the other one of skin colour.

You tell me why one's racist and one isn't...

They both look like monkeys. In my opinion, that is why it is amusing.

Even if that is not the case, how is portraying someone with a skin colour as something with vaguely the same colour racist?

Is this (http://www.saskschools.ca/~gregory/animals/fox/fox3.jpg) making fun of my hair colour?

They both look like monkeys. In my opinion, that is why it is amusing.

Even if that is not the case, how is portraying someone with a skin colour as something with vaguely the same colour racist?

Is this (http://www.saskschools.ca/~gregory/animals/fox/fox3.jpg) making fun of my hair colour?
Find your old high school, locate your history teachers, slap the hell out of them for having failed you.

We could easily do a chicken marinade that has watermelon juice as one of the main ingredients. Or just have watermelon as part of a fruit salad accompanying the chicken. Very tasteful.

hmm....

a Watermelon Marinade...

Watermelon juice...
some kind of oil... either olive or seseme seed...
what else would it have?

Find your old high school, locate your history teachers, slap the hell out of them for having failed you.

sorry, but I didn't learn about the racial slurs from my history teachers... but from movies and Television.

@ Bann-ed.

monkeys or Porch Monkeys were a racial slur used against black people. why? I don't know.

Find your old high school, locate your history teachers, slap the hell out of them for having failed you.

I'm finding more and more that history these days has become a detriment to the future.

The best way to stop progress is continually and needlessly dredge up the past.

If it is offensive, then don't look at it? Freedom of expression?
It isn't physically damaging anyone as far as I can presume.

sorry, but I didn't learn about the racial slurs from my history teachers... but from movies and Television.

@ Bann-ed.

monkeys or Porch Monkeys were a racial slur used against black people. why? I don't know.

Presumably, comparing black people to other primates was an attempt to imply that they are "less evolved."

I'm finding more and more that history these days has become a detriment to the future.

The best way to stop progress is continually and needlessly dredge up the past.

If it is offensive, then don't look at it? Freedom of expression?
It isn't physically damaging anyone as far as I can presume.

Ah, the classic confusion between calling something objectionable and 'freedom of expression.' Freedom of expression is a two way street, you can say stupid things, and people can call said things stupid. That's how it works. Being offended and calling it offensive does in no way infringe on free expression.

To the world being born new with ever utterance, that's so clownishly ridiculous I'm not sure what to say. It's like saying "All these signs are an impediment to me crossing the street, I find it's best to ignore them." Said right before getting plowed by a semi.

@ Bann-ed.

monkeys or Porch Monkeys were a racial slur used against black people. why? I don't know.

Presumably, comparing black people to other primates was an attempt to imply that they are "less evolved."

Thanks. I sort of figured that but have no idea why that should be relevant now.

I assume we can't acknowledge everything in a vacuum, but I try to evaluate everything on its own first.

Actually, obama has those ears that make him look like a monkey

Ah, the classic confusion between calling something objectionable and 'freedom of expression.' Freedom of expression is a two way street, you can say stupid things, and people can call said things stupid. That's how it works. Being offended and calling it offensive does in no way infringe on free expression.

To the world being born new with ever utterance, that's so clownishly ridiculous I'm not sure what to say. It's like saying "All these signs are an impediment to me crossing the street, I find it's best to ignore them." Said right before getting plowed by a semi.

And then blaming the signs.

Presumably, comparing black people to other primates was an attempt to imply that they are "less evolved."

might be, but then, wouldn't slugs then be preferable if it was less evolved or lower than human?

then again, who can guess why those small minded people think the way they do?

Ah, the classic confusion between calling something objectionable and 'freedom of expression.' Freedom of expression is a two way street, you can say stupid things, and people can call said things stupid. That's how it works. Being offended and calling it offensive does in no way infringe on free expression.
Okay? So other than it being 'offensive' or 'objectionable' is there a problem with it?
I don't think so. Which is why I don't see any sort of great issue here. It's just a matter of 'this isn't offensive, ha' and 'that's offensive you racist'.
To the world being born new with ever utterance, that's so clownishly ridiculous I'm not sure what to say. It's like saying "All these signs are an impediment to me crossing the street, I find it's best to ignore them." Said right before getting plowed by a semi.
Terrible analogy.

The signs would physically be harming someone in that case and it hardly matters what is printed on them.

might be, but then, wouldn't slugs then be preferable if it was less evolved or lower than human?

then again, who can guess why those small minded people think the way they do?

Back in the late 1800s to early 1900s, there was a small belief among certain racists that all of the races evolved from different primate ancestors. Guess what was fingered for blacks.

Actually, obama has those ears that make him look like a monkey

I agree.

Him and Bush both have the 'monkey ears'. Which is why I find it amusing.

might be, but then, wouldn't slugs then be preferable if it was less evolved or lower than human?

then again, who can guess why those small minded people think the way they do?

Well, consider the level of intellect that these people usually have. Their understanding of evolution is generally "we evolved from monkeys!" So, if we evolved from monkeys, black people did too... just not quite as much.
The thing is, it isn't just an insult-- it's an actual belief that's been historically held. There used to be diagrams "demonstrating" (through the use of showing the skull at a different angle, or even by flat-out drawing it incorrectly) that a "negro" skull was in between a "normal human" skull and a gorilla skull, for example.

Terrible analogy.

The signs would physically be harming someone in that case and it hardly matters what is printed on them.

And then blaming the signs.
Awesome.

But why would she kill me? I mean, we can ignore all the social implications of both calling a woman a bitch and comparing a woman to a dog. Right? Of course, Baldy would do this and be utterly shocked that people find this rude and perhaps even a fireable offense. I mean, there are no social implications to words with long-time racist or mysogynist connotations, right?

Heh.

But why would she kill me? I mean, we can ignore all the social implications of both calling a woman a bitch and comparing a woman to a dog. Right? Of course, Baldy would do this and be utterly shocked that people find this rude and perhaps even a fireable offense. I mean, there are no social implications to words with long-time racist or mysogynist connotations, right?

Are you entirely incapable of actually quoting any of my authentic arguments or words from real posts I’ve made? Is it entirely too much to ask that you take your head out of your own rectum long enough to see what's actually going on around you before you address me and or my positions, at least long enough to correctly identify what my positions are?

My position in this thread is that calling Obama a monkey is stupid. But my position is also that calling GWB a monkey is stupid. I, however, recognize that when an individual who places themselves in a position that WILL be ridiculed (such as running for President) these sorts of 'offensive' caricatures will occur and those caricatures are usually intended as insults meant to be offensive. Calling GWB a monkey is intended to be offensive, saying curious George is rooting for Obama on a T-shirt is intended to be offensive, it's an attack on Obama though, not all African Americans or all monkeys.

Now where is my actual position represented in your contraction of my position? Why it's not there, it's not there at all. No, you've decided that my position is something entirely different than what it really is and what I’ve said it is in this thread.

You could have discovered my position by reading my posts but no, you would rather just say something yourself and assign that to me. You say something like what the shirt says or what you said about your female supervisor and pretend that I said it... that sir is a falsehood, and as such, it's a strawman construction of yours. You made it, you assigned it to me, and then you attacked it. And as has become your custom, you failed again.

Are you entirely incapable of actually quoting any of my authentic arguments

when you manage to make one, we'll get back to you. Until then it's just been nonsense.

Are you entirely incapable of actually quoting any of my authentic arguments or words from real posts I’ve made? Is it entirely too much to ask that you take your head out of your own rectum long enough to see what's actually going on around you before you address me and or my positions, at least long enough to correctly identify what my positions are?

My position in this thread is that calling Obama a monkey is stupid.

We aren't talking about whether it is stupid. You denied that it's racist despite the very real and very obvious connotation of comparing a black man to a monkey.


But my position is also that calling GWB a monkey is stupid. I, however, recognize that when an individual who places themselves in a position that WILL be ridiculed (such as running for President) these sorts of 'offensive' caricatures will occur and those caricatures are usually intended as insults meant to be offensive. Calling GWB a monkey is intended to be offensive, saying curious George is rooting for Obama on a T-shirt is intended to be offensive, it's an attack on Obama though, not all African Americans or all monkeys.

Oh, come on. This is the dishonesty I'm talking about. It doesn't say Curious George is rooting for Obama. It's comparing a black man to a monkey and it's giving no other context. By the simple existence of social context, this makes it a racial slur. It could certainly be unintended, but being ignorant doesn't change the meaning of words or symbols.

I wonder if that would work here? I wasn't flaming him when I called him an ass, I was just talking about his face and an ass have a hole in the middle. What do you mean I'm banned? or ****** just means a person who nigs. I don't know of this racial slur of which you speak.


Now where is my actual position represented in your contraction of my position? Why it's not there, it's not there at all. No, you've decided that my position is something entirely different than what it really is and what I’ve said it is in this thread.

Heh. So you never suggested there were no racial overtones to comparing a black man to a monkey. Are you sure you wish to claim that? Because that's what I arguing against. Your claim that we can ignore the social context of a symbol or term. Because that is the ONLY way to arrive at the claim there are not racial overtones to comparing a black man to a monkey.


You could have discovered my position by reading my posts but no, you would rather just say something yourself and assign that to me. You say something like what the shirt says or what you said about your female supervisor and pretend that I said it... that sir is a falsehood, and as such, it's a strawman construction of yours. You made it, you assigned it to me, and then you attacked it. And as has become your custom, you failed again.

According to you, you don't have a position. It's not new though. You always either change your position or deny having one when your argument is getting anihilated.

Let's see if I can guess your next response. "My arguments haven't been annihilated. I haven't made any arguments." Nope, you already used that one. "That's a strawman." Oh, right, used that one, too. "Why are insulting me? Focus on the argument." Oh, wait, that card's been played too.

How about we play a different game where you address the FACT that the racial underpinnings of comparing a black man to a monkey exist and must be addressed.

As to that bit about the falsehood, where did I claim you said what I pretended to say to my advisor? It was clearly made up. You talk about reading posts. First you made up that I called you a racist rather than addressing my point and now you made up that I'm pretending my made up allegory was something that you said. The only was the comparison to suggesting that calling a woman a bitch has no mysogynistic underpinnings. Seriously, what's next?

Okay, so... some notes from the story, Baldy linked.

First, it's saying Curious George is voting for Obama, as Baldy is now claiming. The proprietor selling the shirts is intentionally comparing Obama to Curious George and admits to it.

Second, the proprietor acknowledges the racist underpinnings, even while Baldy won't.

Norman acknowledged the imagery's Jim Crow roots but said he sees nothing wrong with depicting a prominent African-American as a monkey,

So let's just dispell the nonsense that it's saying Curious George is voting for Obama.

Calling GWB a monkey is intended to be offensive, saying curious George is rooting for Obama on a T-shirt is intended to be offensive, it's an attack on Obama though, not all African Americans or all monkeys.

Again, don't let reality get in the way, though.

Now, going back to what we're arguing with. Your OWN poll offers up the choices of them being funny, stupid or racist. You admit to choosing that they are both stupid. By doing so, you clearly offer up your opinion that they are not racist. We are addressing this opinion. It's the subject you put in the thread and gave your position on. We are addressing it, both to you, and to others who have made similar claims that we should ignore the social context of the symbol, including the person selling the shirt who is being protested.

EDIT: A bit more context...

http://community.livejournal.com/blackfolk/6132654.html

Some of our friendly, non-racists proprietor's greatest hits.

"I wish Hillary had married OJ,"

BWAHAHAHA!!! I get it. Because Hillary is a white woman and OJ kills white women. Hillarious.

"No habla espanol — and never will"

Brilliant. You show those dirty mexicans whose boss, you non-racist you.

"I.N.S. Agents eat free."

Wonderful. It's quite clear that the person who is providing these shirts, who you're implicitly defending, is not racist at all. That his topics happen to include typical racist and mysogynistic positions must just be coincidence.

When will people realize that just because they have freedom of speech doesn't mean anyone has to respect their opinions? This is rather obviously Wink-wink-nudge-nudge-say-no-more rascism, and I refuse to respect racist opinions.

And no, asshole, you don't have a confederate flag outside your house because you "like the color."*

*This is directed at a hypothetical confederate flag waving asshole and not anyone in this thread.

Come now, you're TOTALLY misinterpreting all of this.

"I wish Hillary married OJ?" May I remind you, OJ was never convicted of killing anyone, unlike Bill Clinton who was impeached. It's also worth noting that OJ has never been shown to have an extra-marrital affair, unlike Bill Clinton. It's ludicrus to suggest that this comment is aimed at the fact that he wants Hillary dead. It's obvious that he means that he wish a woman of Hillary's dignity and sophistication had married a nice, never convicted of a crime, never cheat on her man, unlike her actual dirt bag husband. It's flattering to Hillary, really.

"don't speak spanish and never will?" Well in our global climate, being multi-lingual is obviously a benefit. Businesses that have the ability to communicate with customers obviously fair better. Unfortunatly, because he doesn't speak spanish, any spanish speaking customers would not get good service there. Out of respect for his spanish speaking clientel, he is informing them that his inability to speak their language will limit his ability to communicate with them, and possibly lead to a not very satisfying experience. Out of respect for his customers he informs them of this so they may make an informed decision as to what business to frequent.

And INS agents eat free? Obviously this man has a great deal of respect for his government, and its hard working federal agents, and wants to provide them with a free meal, in showing of his appreciation.

How you got ANYTHING mysoginistic, racist, bigoted or ignorant out of that I have no idea.

You porch monkey.

...
Wonderful. It's quite clear that the person who is providing these shirts, who you're implicitly defending, is not racist at all. That his topics happen to include typical racist and mysogynistic positions must just be coincidence.

I'm defending him directly? That's funny, I thought I called him stupid, perhaps you can quote me doing otherwise? No? I guess you made that up too then didn't you...

Side Topic: I think it might be against the rules to 'quote' a person and then change their name in the quote brackets itself. You've done so, please correct it.

My position in this thread is that calling Obama a monkey is stupid.

But not, apparently, racist.

Stupid commentary is....well....stupid. But it is to be expected. Racist commentary is something else entirely, and many of us find it to be much more objectionable.

saying curious George is rooting for Obama on a T-shirt is intended to be offensive, it's an attack on Obama though, not all African Americans or all monkeys.

Where does the shirt say that Curious George is rooting for Obama?

It's pretty clear that it is meant to be Obama.

I'm defending him directly?

You don't know what implicitly means? It means indirectly.

If I mean "directly", I'd have said "EXplicitly".

That's funny, I thought I called him stupid, perhaps you can quote me doing otherwise? No? I guess you made that up too then didn't you...

Your defending his racism. I'm not suggesting you're claiming he's a great guy.

Side Topic: I think it might be against the rules to 'quote' a person and then change their name in the quote brackets itself. You've done so, please correct it.

Side topic: No. I didn't change your name. I wrote the quote tags myself and frankly I don't care to even attempt to spell your name correctly. There's nothing flamey or baity about calling you Baldy. Much as there's nothing wrong with people calling me Joccy.

"We're not living in the (19)40's," he said. "Look at him . . . the hairline, the ears — he looks just like Curious George."

He's wrong. A lot of people *are* living in the 1940s. :p That's his mistake, and he made it with gusto.

However, he's right about Obama - he does look a bit like it, with the hairline (haircut, more importantly) and the ears.

But not, apparently, racist.

Stupid commentary is....well....stupid. But it is to be expected. Racist commentary is something else entirely, and many of us find it to be much more objectionable.



Where does the shirt say that Curious George is rooting for Obama?

It's pretty clear that it is meant to be Obama.

The article he quoted says explicitly that he believes Obama looks like Curious George. His claim contradicts his own evidence.

What is the difference? Why is one funny and the other offensive? Perhaps both are funny or both are offensive? What say you?

The George Bush monkey comparison makes sense - his face reminds people of a monkey, and he acts like a monkey, therefore it's funny.

While the Obama shirt is cute, the comparison has no basis on his behaviour or appearance. The comparison is purely based on his racial background, therefore it is somewhat racist. It may not be intended as offensive as such, but it's certainly idiotic and rude

But not, apparently, racist.

Stupid commentary is....well....stupid. But it is to be expected. Racist commentary is something else entirely, and many of us find it to be much more objectionable.

I agree with racist commentary being different than political caricature. But I temper the perception of this 'insult' with the fact that other Presidents are also called monkeys and in much worse ways than Obama was associated with a monkey. IF it's permissible to be rude and objectionable to call other presidential personages a monkey hundreds of times over again then it is only fair that all presidential personages can be called monkeys as well.

Where does the shirt say that Curious George is rooting for Obama?

It's pretty clear that it is meant to be Obama.

As many people have said, they think Curious George looks a little like Obama, and others have said they see no visual correlation, I see Curious George and the words. If I put Minnie Mouse on a shirt and put 'Hillary 08' on it, it would be no different. If I made minny drunk or some other way of making her a joke, it too would be offensive.

When putting a satirical political shirt together one makes the connection offensive, that's the way the game is played. I don't like it and I won't participate, but neither would I outlaw the practice for others...

I agree with racist commentary being different than political caricature.

Well, there you go.

...
Side topic: No. I didn't change your name. I wrote the quote tags myself and frankly I don't care to even attempt to spell your name correctly. There's nothing flamey or baity about calling you Baldy. Much as there's nothing wrong with people calling me Joccy.

You put my name correctly in other quote brackets, you are capable of it. You quote me in bracket than you quote the name correctly. You quote me or addess me in your text, you spell it any way you like. Brackets indicate 'quote'. Please fix it. How you fix it is up to you, take the brackets off or fix the name.

You put my name correctly in other quote brackets, you are capable of it. You quote me in bracket than you quote the name correctly. You quote me or addess me in your text, you spell it any way you like. Brackets indicate 'quote'. Please fix it. How you fix it is up to you, take the brackets off or fix the name.

I really have to ask "or what"?

I agree with racist commentary being different than political caricature. But I temper the perception of this 'insult' with the fact that other Presidents are also called monkeys and in much worse ways than Obama was associated with a monkey. IF it's permissible to be rude and objectionable to call other presidential personages a monkey hundreds of times over again then it is only fair that all presidential personages can be called monkeys as well.

Again, this completely ignores the racist tone of calling a black man a monkey. Even the man selling these shirts acknowledges this. It is similarly not racist to compare Hillary to an eggplant, but it would be racist to do so with Obama.


As many people have said, they think Curious George looks a little like Obama, and others have said they see no visual correlation, I see Curious George and the words. If I put Minnie Mouse on a shirt and put 'Hillary 08' on it, it would be no different. If I made minny drunk or some other way of making her a joke, it too would be offensive.

When putting a satirical political shirt together one makes the connection offensive, that's the way the game is played. I don't like it and I won't participate, but neither would I outlaw the practice for others...

You're avoiding the point. No one is arguing whether it is or isn't offensive or whether it would be offensive to say it someone else. We're disagreeing on whether or not it has a racist tone.

It does. You've yet to address the racist tone of it. The best you've done is say "well if I can say it to a white person..."

Would it be racist to show a picture of GWB eating chicken and watermelon? I can't see how it would be. However, one would have to entirely ignore the history of American culture in order to deny a picture of Obama with watermelon and chicken has racist tones.

I really have to ask "or what"?

He's giving Joc orders.


Im personally hoping Joc just quotes him and says "No" just to be petty. Would be best if he quoted him exactly how Baldy told him not to as well.


But we cant all be as petty as me.

You put my name correctly in other quote brackets, you are capable of it. You quote me in bracket than you quote the name correctly. You quote me or addess me in your text, you spell it any way you like. Brackets indicate 'quote'. Please fix it. How you fix it is up to you, take the brackets off or fix the name.

Yes, when I use the quote button. When I type it out myself, you get what you get. I'm not sure what you think you're doing, but you're not going to get a change. It's not entirely uncommon to do that. In fact, I've likely done it to you in the past. You'll also notice it doesn't have the link arrow like it would if I used the quote button. I was in the middle of the post. I'm not going to go back an edit it.

Now how about you stop trying to dodge around the topic and get to the point.

TOPIC: Is it racist?

We're not arguing it's not offensive or that comparing Bush to a chimp isn't offensive. People are arguing that comparing Bush to a chimp isn't racist and comparing Obama to a monkey is. Address the point.

...
It does. You've yet to address the racist tone of it. The best you've done is say "well if I can say it to a white person..."

I never said that, if I've said anything it's been, "If they can say it to another presidential candidate..." Entirely different connotation.

...Would it be racist to show a picture of GWB eating chicken and watermelon? I can't see how it would be. However, one would have to entirely ignore the history of American culture in order to deny a picture of Obama with watermelon and chicken has racist tones.

You can't ignore the political satire when you address the racial tones. If presidents are insulted by being called monkeys, and Obama wants to be president, then he opens himself to being insulted by being associated with or as a monkey, the same as all other presidents.

...
TOPIC: Is it racist?

We're not arguing it's not offensive or that comparing Bush to a chimp isn't offensive. People are arguing that comparing Bush to a chimp isn't racist and comparing Obama to a monkey is. Address the point.

I am addressing the point, I'm saying its rude and objectionable but if it's okay to call other presidents monkeys then it's okay to call all presidents monkey. I don't agree that it should be done, but racist could be construed as a hate crime and thus illegal. Political satire is not illegal, Curious George ~ Obama on a shirt should not be a hate crime and should not be illegal, it's political satire, not racial.

but racist could be construed as a hate crime and thus illegal.

That's it, it's official. You don't have a clue about what you're talking about.

I really have to ask "or what"?

Or I'll have to report it and see if it's against the rules to intentionally misspell a person's name in quote brackets and then refuse to fix it when they've been asked to fix it...

That's it, it's official. You don't have a clue about what you're talking about.

I burn a cross in my yard facing your house... hate crime?

I never said that, if I've said anything it's been, "If they can say it to another presidential candidate..." Entirely different connotation.

Okay, I'll give you that. However, it doesn't change the racial tone of the shirt, admitted by the person in your article selling the shirts, a person who shows a history of pretty obvious bigotry.


You can't ignore the political satire when you address the racial tones. If presidents are insulted by being called monkeys, and Obama wants to be president, then he opens himself to being insulted by being associated with or as a monkey, the same as all other presidents.

Nonsense. The racist overtones aren't removed just because it's been used in non-racist ways in the past. It's also been used in many, many racist ways. I know you wish to pretend there is no context here, but there is a long history of black people being compared to monkeys and various apes. There have scientific attempts to prove they are less evolved. You can't just say "Ignore all that cuz I'd really like to pretend that the history of our country, no longer exists."

If you said, "let's put GWB in shackles and auction him up, like he deserves", there would be no intended or unintended racists tones there. However, if you said the same about Obama, you cannot deny the tones are there. I wish race didn't matter, just like I'm sure you do. However, we, as a culture, gave meaning to certain things when applied to certain races, certain religions, certain genders. Wishing it didn't exist doesn't make it go away.

I am addressing the point, I'm saying its rude and objectionable but if it's okay to call other presidents monkeys then it's okay to call all presidents monkey. I don't agree that it should be done, but racist could be construed as a hate crime and thus illegal. Political satire is not illegal, Curious George ~ Obama on a shirt should not be a hate crime and should not be illegal, it's political satire, not racial.

Illegal? Racism isn't illegal. Seriously, where do you get this crap?

I suppose "Hillary should have married OJ" was also political satire. This guy is a satirical genius.

I burn a cross in my yard facing your house... hate crime?

Actually, no. Unless burning your own lawn is illegal in your town. In order to be a hate crime it has to first be a crime.

Or I'll have to report it and see if it's against the rules to intentionally misspell a person's name in quote brackets and then refuse to fix it when they've been asked to fix it...

I didn't intentionally misspell your name. I intentionally shortened your name. You sound like your using mods as a weapon You're pretty clearly telling me to change it or you'll tell. Meanwhile, if you'd like I can find precedent about people complaining about nicknames. It's roundly ignored.

I burn a cross in my yard facing your house... hate crime?

without intent, nope, not a crime.

I burn a cross in my yard facing your house... hate crime?

Depends. It might be seen as a terroristic threat, in which case it could be a crime. If it were a crime motivated by racism, sexism, etc., it could also be designated as a hate crime, although I believe hate crimes are generally restricted to violent crime.

Also, burning large objects of any sort in your front yard tends to be a crime in and of itself.

...
I suppose "Hillary should have married OJ" was also political satire. This guy is a satirical genius.

It too is satire. Its offensive crap and would make me not visit the establishment, but it shouldn't be 'hate speech.' IN the mode of a campus speech ordinance (even though this event isn't on a campus) it would fall under a zero tolerance offense IF it were hate speech and not political satire.

I didn't intentionally misspell your name. I intentionally shortened your name. You sound like your using mods as a weapon You're pretty clearly telling me to change it or you'll tell. Meanwhile, if you'd like I can find precedent about people complaining about nicknames. It's roundly ignored.

First I asked you and I said please... then I told you what I thought your two options were. Three, you did intentionally misspell it, you said you couldn't be bothered to spell it correctly... And I'm not complaining about the nickname, I'm complaining about the brackets quote around a joke of my name...

you know, I don't think you know what "hate speech is"

It too is satire. Its offensive crap and would make me not visit the establishment, but it shouldn't be 'hate speech.' IN the mode of a campus speech ordinance (even though this event isn't on a campus) it would fall under a zero tolerance offense IF it were hate speech and not political satire.

I'm going to have to agree with NA. I don't think you have the first clue what you're talking about.

More importantly, you're again changing the subject. We're talking about whether or not it's racist, not whether or not it's "hate speech"?

Neo... Could you clue him in on what you do for a living?

This will be fun.

Gosh, I wonder if either of these are racist.

http://i87.photobucket.com/albums/k144/jocabia/hangmans-noose-BUSH.jpg

The rational leap here is that I'm referring to Bush as a war criminal. There are long and known rants about Bush as a war criminal.

http://i87.photobucket.com/albums/k144/jocabia/hangmans-noose-OBAMA.jpg

The rational leap here is that Obama, a black man, belongs in a noose. There are no known other reasons to put Obama to the noose and I ddin't offer any.

Balderdash71964 calm down. Neo Art, quit jabbing. Both of you, knock off the nonsense and stick to the subject.

You were getting stroppy with each other earlier in this thread -- about 11 hours ago -- but I thought you'd have come off it by now. I'll acknowledge, NA, you're not flaming directly any more, but please return to your usual cool.

Balderdash71964, I think I've seen you called "Baldy" before without objections from you, but if you now feel it's offensive, I'm sure other posters will respect your wishes and not use it again.

Because if you deliberately call someone by a name they've found offensive, your normally sweet and lovable mods might think you were flaming, and we wouldn't want to make said mods go all prickly when there are gawd-'elp-us months to get through before the election, would we?

Gosh, I wonder if either of these are racist.

http://i87.photobucket.com/albums/k144/jocabia/hangmans-noose-OBAMA-1.jpg

The rational leap here is that I'm referring to Bush as a war criminal. There are long and known rants about Bush as a war criminal.

http://i87.photobucket.com/albums/k144/jocabia/hangmans-noose-OBAMA.jpg

The rational leap here is that Obama, a black man, belongs in a noose. There are no known other reasons to put Obama to the noose and I ddin't offer any.

....they're both the same picture.

Gosh, I wonder if either of these are racist.

http://i87.photobucket.com/albums/k144/jocabia/hangmans-noose-OBAMA-1.jpg

The rational leap here is that I'm referring to Bush as a war criminal. There are long and known rants about Bush as a war criminal.

http://i87.photobucket.com/albums/k144/jocabia/hangmans-noose-OBAMA.jpg

The rational leap here is that Obama, a black man, belongs in a noose. There are no known other reasons to put Obama to the noose and I ddin't offer any.

I don't see a difference between those two pictures... aren't they the same? And I think that picture goes too far. If it were on a campus I would call it hate speech and have it taken down. I don't think it falls under political satire because it's not anything but a call for violence.


Side note: When making the obligatory request for clarification of what's allowed or not in moderation, I discovered that there are now 3 requests in moderation spawned from this thread alone! Some of you guys are not being very nice and I've been accused, and found innocent mind you, of trolling. :)

Because if you deliberately call someone by a name they've found offensive, your normally sweet and lovable mods might think you were flaming, and we wouldn't want to make said mods go all prickly when there are gawd-'elp-us months to get through before the election, would we?
*Makes plans to sacrifice monkees (http://neverwriteitdown.files.wordpress.com/2007/07/monkees2.jpg) to appease prickly Mods.*

Balderdash71964, I think I've seen you called "Baldy" before without objections from you, but if you now feel it's offensive, I'm sure other posters will respect your wishes and not use it again.

Because if you deliberately call someone by a name they've found offensive, your normally sweet and lovable mods might think you were flaming, and we wouldn't want to make said mods go all prickly when there are gawd-'elp-us months to get through before the election, would we?

Okay... the side about clarification helps. But I would like to remind those involved that I'm objecting to the bracket quotes around the nickname which bold and indicate a different level of authenticity.

Thanks

Balderdash71964 calm down. Neo Art, quit jabbing. Both of you, knock off the nonsense and stick to the subject.

You were getting stroppy with each other earlier in this thread -- about 11 hours ago -- but I thought you'd have come off it by now. I'll acknowledge, NA, you're not flaming directly any more, but please return to your usual cool.

Balderdash71964, I think I've seen you called "Baldy" before without objections from you, but if you now feel it's offensive, I'm sure other posters will respect your wishes and not use it again.

Because if you deliberately call someone by a name they've found offensive, your normally sweet and lovable mods might think you were flaming, and we wouldn't want to make said mods go all prickly when there are gawd-'elp-us months to get through before the election, would we?

He said I cannot shorten his name. Fine, from now it's gonna say "that guy" or "him", because, seriously, I can't and won't be arsed to type it out. It's a obvious attempt to avoid debate, much like the game he and NA are playing and, frankly, I'm not going to waste time worrying about what random characters people strung together.