Menestras del Negro

[Me Myself]

That does surprise me, as the image is so stereotypical of an earlier time period.

If I'm reading this correctly, it appears that the restaurant was first opened in 1998.
(source)


Ignorance doesn't make a particular word or characterization un-racist. It just means the person didn't know that it was racist.

However, as dust1n mentioned, this might be a cultural thing. Most Americans, due to our history, will likely find such an image distasteful and racist. Ecuadorians might not have the same visceral (or programmed) response.

What constitutes a racist depiction may not necessarily be universal.


There are cartoons with black people in it that do not strike me as racist. Or at least, they do not utilize imagery from a very racist time in our nation's history, that has symbolically become heavily associated with racism.


Nope. We neither sanctified, nor is it ridiculous to realize that some depictions are racist.


Now this is ridiculous. There is nothing barring a depiction from being racist.

Here is a website linking to images from the Ferris State Jim Crow Museum. It might be informative for you to peruse these in order to better understand why these depictions are racist, and particularly, why an American would think so.

Anti-Black Imagery

Of course one image cannot be racist. Symbols made withh the specific purpose of communicating racist ideas may be but the face of a artoon made up in the moment of course cant,

If you make an incredibly stereotypical character with all the stereotypical flaws thought up in a racist mind, given that it is one single character, it would still not necessarily communicate all people of said race are like that character, and as such, it cannot be racist.

For something to be racist, it needs to communicate "everyone from this race is ____" because that is what racism is. One single image of a face cannot do that, unless the viewer is programmed to read it that way, but then again, that would not be racism in the image, but pre-programming of the viewer.

I other words, it is not the image that is racist at all.

We are not even talking about a symbol like thw swastika which is a symbol in itself and it is meant to be read as a symbol of one specific thing. We are talking about the image of the face of a cartoon, that could be drawn in many different ways.

Which cartoons of different races are you saying you wouldnt find racist?

 

[Me Myself]

Whoa !
This has a 'bait and switch' feel to it.
The OP asked ...


I answered that it would probably be offensive to black Americans because the logo is stylistically of the 'blackface' form.

Now you are responding with ...


That is two different issues.

Sure, there are racial caricatures of all races. We have lots of Italian 'Luigis' and 'Marios' selling pasta and fronting video games, and eskimos selling icecream, and whatever.

But you asked if this might be offensive and why, and you got a reasonable answer - the image is clearly of the form that made blacks in America look foolish and inferior during the time of 'blackface' theatre, a time when most black movie actors played waiters with huge eyes for comic relief, because blacks were not to be taken seriously - whether the artist was a racist or not.

I cannot and do not believe that you don't get that.

That, as you have pointed out, does not mean that the restaurant owner intended a racist slur.

But that is not what the OP asked. So it seems you are setting us up for some righteous indignation here. I feel like you are 'having a loan of me' to make your point.

Oh no I am not indignated at all

I did "set you up" to give new readings of an image with a before and after though.

So let me get this straight, what makes the image be black theather something is the big eyes???? A lot of cartoons have big eyes... I now any cartoon with big eyes that happens to be black must be racist? (I am seriously asking)

 

[Me Myself]

To falvlun:

I saw the link. The only thing vinculating the cartooon to those in your link are wide lips and wide eyes. Which of course happen in all kinds of caricatures of all races and the lips are more bound to happen on a race which stereotypically has big lips.

You are basically saying that cartoonists are baned from using a wide eye black cartoon or they would be "racists" about it and equally so with wide lips which is completely ridiculous.

 

[Falvlun]

Of course one image cannot be racist. Symbols made withh the specific purpose of communicating racist ideas may be but the face of a artoon made up in the moment of course cant,

If you make an incredibly stereotypical character with all the stereotypical flaws thought up in a racist mind, given that it is one single character, it would still not necessarily communicate all people of said race are like that character, and as such, it cannot be racist.

For something to be racist, it needs to communicate "everyone from this race is ____" because that is what racism is. One single image of a face cannot do that, unless the viewer is programmed to read it that way, but then again, that would not be racism in the image, but pre-programming of the viewer.

I other words, it is not the image that is racist at all.

We are not even talking about a symbol like thw swastika which is a symbol in itself and it is meant to be read as a symbol of one specific thing. We are talking about the image of the face of a cartoon, that could be drawn in many different ways.

I'm sorry, MM, but this makes absolutely no sense. I don't think you fully understand what racist stereotypes are, or the history behind many images that are deemed racist now. Did you look through those images from the Jim Crow museum?

Which cartoons of different races are you saying you wouldnt find racist?

Cleveland in Family Guy is the one I was initially thinking of. (Just regarding the image, as I'm sure some of the the things he does are racist stereotypes.)

 

[Me Myself]

I'm sorry, MM, but this makes absolutely no sense. I don't think you fully understand what racist stereotypes are, or the history behind many images that are deemed racist now. Did you look through those images from the Jim Crow museum?


Cleveland in Family Guy is the one I was initially thinking of. (Just regarding the image, as I'm sure some of the the things he does are racist stereotypes.)

I did saw the link. One extremely stereotypical image is not racist.

For it to be racist it needs to insult all people of such race, but one character withu all the stereotypes cannot do that, because quite honstly, chances are that at least one real life person is extremely stereotypical too.

In this case, the only things that might have alerted you about the images are:

Big eyes: lots of cartoons have big eyes, but now you want black cartoons with big eyes to mean something different

Big lips: as above

Bone in hair: of course they used bones the tribesmen. The difference here is the drawing made it clear it was a bone and gave it also the image of a fork because it is food related.

The fact he is smiling: why would he not be smiling? Cartoons made to attract customers routinely smile. Its what they often do. While they could have made a grumpy negro, I truly doubt it was what they were aiming for.

I dont see anything above that somehow must mean "all black people are dumb, or slaves or w e "

 

[Me Myself]

I mean unless you have a message next to the character saying "all black people are like this :" it simply cannot be racist.

If you have a GROUP of black characters acting idiotic (not just ignorant of technology while being a recently discovered tribe mind you, but outright idiotic) next to white cartoons acting smart THEN you have a case, but cartoons acting idiotic is also common so it would need to be pretty specific (like tthe example of just black characters being idiotic) or else you are just sanctifying something that wouldnt be originally so because of prejudices against e artist or the producer of such content.

 

[Falvlun]

I mean unless you have a message next to the character saying "all black people are like this :" it simply cannot be racist.

This is mindbogglingly incorrect.

If you'd bothered to educate yourself with the link I provided, it explained why the various depictions are considered racist. There is history behind these images, and reasons why such depictions were chosen-- reasons which were either overtly racist, or racist out of sheer ignorance.

Your contention that racism needs to be spelled out is ridiculous to the extreme. Have you ever heard the saying "A picture is worth a thousand words"? An image can be racist the same way that any image can convey unwritten information, prejudices, and connotations. This is marketing 101.

 

[Me Myself]

This is mindbogglingly incorrect.

If you'd bothered to educate yourself with the link I provided, it explained why the various depictions are considered racist. There is history behind these images, and reasons why such depictions were chosen-- reasons which were either overtly racist, or racist out of sheer ignorance.

Your contention that racism needs to be spelled out is ridiculous to the extreme. Have you ever heard the saying "A picture is worth a thousand words"? An image can be racist the same way that any image can convey unwritten information, prejudices, and connotations. This is marketing 101.

No, actually it is communication 101

By my branch of studies I know how people read way more into images than there is actually there and how this will change depending on the person too.

You didnt answer anything else I said.

The reality is that you see that face and choose to believe it means "all black people are like this" or "you should think this means all black people are dumb, even though that wasnt the attempt at communication of the owner nor the artist, because in US, people have made cartoons of black people and they had wide eyes and lips and they were dumb"

Both are very silly reads on a simple face.

Or if not by all means tell what way you think it should be read or why. Of course you dont think the image thinks and is racist (because you are not an animist) so you either think people should think racists thoughts about the image, or think the artist had racist thoughts or what? What do you mean when you say "oh yeah, no one in its city takes it that way nor it was meant to be taken that way, but it is totally racist" ?

 

[Me Myself]

I mean I can understand how education would give you one extra posible way to interpret that image, what I dont follow is why you think education should restrict you to take it any other way.

That is the problem here. Peole immidiately assuming it is offensive because it must be, when that just doesnt need to be the case at all.

 

[Falvlun]

No, actually it is communication 101

By my branch of studies I know how people read way more into images than there is actually there and how this will change depending on the person too.

No, actually it's both.

Sure, it will change from person to person, but there are also some pretty (culturally) universal things that most people will get from particular images. If it was as random as you are suggesting, then your "communication 101" would never work.

You didnt answer anything else I said.

I don't know where to start, to be honest. Your very premise from which these questions flow is so completely backwards, that the questions are unanswerable.

It's like you are insisting that the sky is red, and then asking me "Since the sky is red, why are the oceans blue?"

The reality is that you see that face and choose to believe it means "all black people are like this" or "you should think this means all black people are dumb, even though that wasnt the attempt at communication of the owner nor the artist, because in US, people have made cartoons of black people and they had wide eyes and lips and they were dumb"

Both are very silly reads on a simple face.

Or if not by all means tell what way you think it should be read or why. Of course you dont think the image thinks and is racist (because you are not an animist) so you either think people should think racists thoughts about the image, or think the artist had racist thoughts or what? What do you mean when you say "oh yeah, no one in its city takes it that way nor it was meant to be taken that way, but it is totally racist" ?

This truly indicates that you have no concept of what a racist image is.

I don't look at that face and say ""all black people are like this" or "you should think this means all black people are dumb"

I look at it and say "Holy cow! This is straight from a history and culture that was incredibly racist, and is a common way that these people chose to depict black people."

The source of this sort of image, at least from my perspective, is from an extremely racist period and way of thinking.

Your owners may be completely ignorant of this, or else maybe they thought it was funny (my dad thinks racist stuff is funny. ).

As I mentioned before, the difference in culture may be the culprit. If Menestras del Negro ever wanted to open up shop in the U.S., though, they better be ready to change that logo.

 

[oldbadger]

................If Menestras del Negro ever wanted to open up shop in the U.S., though, they better be ready to change that logo.

I reckon that it would need to re-think the logo for any UK opening as well.

Robertsons Jams had to dump their logo and its (logo) name in 2002 after criticisms stretching back from the 70's. I have attempted to show it below.

We surely need to use a simple 'easy to remember' slogan for any such high-risk trademarks or company names. It goes something like:-

................if in doubt......... Leave it out!!

 

[Me Myself]

No, actually it's both.

Sure, it will change from person to person, but there are also some pretty (culturally) universal things that most people will get from particular images. If it was as random as you are suggesting, then your "communication 101" would never work.


I don't know where to start, to be honest. Your very premise from which these questions flow is so completely backwards, that the questions are unanswerable.

It's like you are insisting that the sky is red, and then asking me "Since the sky is red, why are the oceans blue?"


This truly indicates that you have no concept of what a racist image is.

I don't look at that face and say ""all black people are like this" or "you should think this means all black people are dumb"

I look at it and say "Holy cow! This is straight from a history and culture that was incredibly racist, and is a common way that these people chose to depict black people."

The source of this sort of image, at least from my perspective, is from an extremely racist period and way of thinking.

Your owners may be completely ignorant of this, or else maybe they thought it was funny (my dad thinks racist stuff is funny. ).

As I mentioned before, the difference in culture may be the culprit. If Menestras del Negro ever wanted to open up shop in the U.S., though, they better be ready to change that logo.

Oh no, I never said it as random, just that you choose what to see. Because people as masses choose what to see in somewhat predictable ways then it is not random. Of course when I say predictable I dont mean infalible.

In any case. Would you say depicting women the way ancient greek art does is sexist?

The thing is the drawing has nothing special to it. Its a black tribesman smiling. It emphasizes the features of the race, just like in another thread hats that were made thinking on chinese and other races so I immidiately assumed you would have problems here.The thing is that any strong emphasis on race in cartoons is seen as pejoratie I ve noticed.

 

[Me Myself]

That logo had problems?

People truly are capricious.

 

[Falvlun]

That logo had problems?

People truly are capricious.

That's what you are failing to understand. It's not capricious at all. The distaste for such images is founded on a very extensive, and very racist, history of such images.

 

[oldbadger]

The thing is the drawing has nothing special to it.

If people were to tell you that there was a chance that it could upset others, would you listen? Would you take notice?

 

[Falvlun]

Oh no, I never said it as random, just that you choose what to see. Because people as masses choose what to see in somewhat predictable ways then it is not random. Of course when I say predictable I dont mean infalible.

Ok. So you understand how an image-- by itself-- can convey information, connotations, and prejudices.

In any case. Would you say depicting women the way ancient greek art does is sexist?

Not particularly.

The thing is the drawing has nothing special to it. Its a black tribesman smiling. It emphasizes the features of the race, just like in another thread hats that were made thinking on chinese and other races so I immidiately assumed you would have problems here.The thing is that any strong emphasis on race in cartoons is seen as pejoratie I ve noticed.

The "specialness" of the image is it's strong correlation to the images utilized during a very racist time, that were developed due to racist biases.

 

[Me Myself]

Ok. So you understand how an image-- by itself-- can convey information, connotations, and prejudices.

You are looking at it backwards. i understand how people may choose to believe an image means something, whether or not that is accurate.

You people have chosen that any caricature that strongly emphasizes race must be sexist and are wired to read them that way, which is sad.

Not particularly.


The "specialness" of the image is it's strong correlation to the images utilized during a very racist time, that were developed due to racist biases.

The ancient greeks were sexists. Your difference is arbitrary.

 

[Me Myself]

If people were to tell you that there was a chance that it could upset others, would you listen? Would you take notice?

I wouldnt put it as someone making a logo for the company because I must take people idiocy into account when making a logo.

What I say is that it is a sad correlation and a sad restriction. You are wired to look at it as if it was racist, which is honestly very short sighted.

 

[oldbadger]

I wouldnt put it as someone making a logo for the company because I must take people idiocy into account when making a logo.

What I say is that it is a sad correlation and a sad restriction. You are wired to look at it as if it was racist, which is honestly very short sighted.

The world is surely a crazy place........ but you did just get it right when you wrote :- I must take people idiocy into account'.

Obviously, it would have been perfect as 'I must take people ----- into account'.

Few people would think that taking others into account is always easy, but that's what we need to do, all the time. A subjective view of such 'things' could be very dangerous, I reckon.

 

[Koldo]

In your opinion, is this offensive to black people? If so, why?

To some, most certainly.