Menestras del Negro

[Me Myself]

To some, most certainly.

Oh no, anything is offensive to someone. I am asking if you believe it must have been intended that way or if it seems like a reasonable reading.

 

[Me Myself]

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.

Only subjective views exist as far as we know.

Taking into account people's idiocies is a must though, and I do mean idiocy. To now, nothing reasonable has been said as to why such image MUST be taken in a racist fashion, while we do know it wasnt meant to be racist and there certainly isnt anything that could be taken as "all black people are x" from that image
Given that that image cannot mean that unless one compares it to other cartoons that have nothing to do with it besides being cartoons of black people and even when doing so one must assume it wants to give the same message than those cartoon, then there is no reasonable way of seeing the face as racist.

 

[Koldo]

Oh no, anything is offensive to someone. I am asking if you believe it must have been intended that way or if it seems like a reasonable reading.

It is hard to say.
If the owner was/is a black man, then i don't think it was intended as racist.

 

[Me Myself]

It is hard to say.
If the owner was/is a black man, then i don't think it was intended as racist.

But thats just the thing. I understand that if the owner wasnt, then they wouldnt doubt it was racist. Which is ironically, racist.

 

[Curious George]

Only subjective views exist as far as we know.

Taking into account people's idiocies is a must though, and I do mean idiocy. To now, nothing reasonable has been said as to why such image MUST be taken in a racist fashion, while we do know it wasnt meant to be racist and there certainly isnt anything that could be taken as "all black people are x" from that image
Given that that image cannot mean that unless one compares it to other cartoons that have nothing to do with it besides being cartoons of black people and even when doing so one must assume it wants to give the same message than those cartoon, then there is no reasonable way of seeing the face as racist.

I would like to suggest that the conversation has been subtly shifted. The original OP asked whether the image and name were offensive and we are now discussing whether it is racist. There is a definite distinction between the two.

I understand that advertising is your specialty, so I assume that you should be well aware of the different uses of propaganda. I bring up propaganda because how a society depicts a race or group as a whole can be racist when we take in the totality of the culture. I do not think that the single image is racist. Let us look at Mushmouth from Fat Albert as an example. If our society had only portrayed African American's as mushmouth-esque characters then without doubt we could say that there is racism involved. There existed a time in American society where we did specifically depict African Americans in a very particular way. Thus, when characters pop up that reflect that imagery then there is a connection to that time period. does that mean that the image itself is racist? no. But it is not the image itself. It is a whole history.

If we were to remove that history and just look at the restaurant then it would not be racist. Yet some may still find it offensive if it reflected stereotypes.

I do not think that it is idiocy on the part of those who use their mental registries to interpret imagery. And, there is a part of some peoples registries which remember or recall "black-face" caricatures when confronted with certain imagery. Is it idiocy to make the connection? Absolutely not. This is how we interpret information and I would expect anyone in advertising to know these things. However the question remains- should we be able to remove ourselves from that connection by knowing that 1) we don't live in that society anymore and 2) there is a potential that the creator does not have the same registry information as us? Absolutely. But still, while this may move such imagery away from racist imagery, it does not extinguish the offensiveness of such imagery to some.

 

[apophenia]

This whole thread is a croc MeMyself. I am surprised at you, feigning innocent credulity.

As I posted earlier, the OP did NOT ask "Is a logo like this necessarily racist ? "

The OP asked "Would anyone find this offensive ?"

It has been clearly enunciated to you why black Americans would find this racist and offensive. Falvlun has spelled it out in detail.

You are persisting in the 'switch' from the question in the OP, to a simplistic argument about whether the logo is racist when viewed without any connection to the historical context which makes it so.

Seriously, that is BS. I am surprised, because generally your posts are thoughtful, but this time you seem to be interested in staging a fake argument based on pretending not to see the obvious.

 

[Me Myself]

I would like to suggest that the conversation has been subtly shifted. The original OP asked whether the image and name were offensive and we are now discussing whether it is racist. There is a definite distinction between the two.

I understand that advertising is your specialty, so I assume that you should be well aware of the different uses of propaganda. I bring up propaganda because how a society depicts a race or group as a whole can be racist when we take in the totality of the culture. I do not think that the single image is racist. Let us look at Mushmouth from Fat Albert as an example. If our society had only portrayed African American's as mushmouth-esque characters then without doubt we could say that there is racism involved. There existed a time in American society where we did specifically depict African Americans in a very particular way. Thus, when characters pop up that reflect that imagery then there is a connection to that time period. does that mean that the image itself is racist? no. But it is not the image itself. It is a whole history.

If we were to remove that history and just look at the restaurant then it would not be racist. Yet some may still find it offensive if it reflected stereotypes.

I do not think that it is idiocy on the part of those who use their mental registries to interpret imagery. And, there is a part of some peoples registries which remember or recall "black-face" caricatures when confronted with certain imagery. Is it idiocy to make the connection? Absolutely not. This is how we interpret information and I would expect anyone in advertising to know these things. However the question remains- should we be able to remove ourselves from that connection by knowing that 1) we don't live in that society anymore and 2) there is a potential that the creator does not have the same registry information as us? Absolutely. But still, while this may move such imagery away from racist imagery, it does not extinguish the offensiveness of such imagery to some.

But as you very well said it is your history that makes you register such image as racist or offensive.

The image only becomes offensive when someone interprets it as such (which may include the producer of e image having the intent of offending)

So my comment on this is that by continualy deciding it is offensive you are making it so when it could very well not be. While accepting the posibility of it being done with ill intent is not idiocy, it is idiocy to assume it was done in such a way and at is the only reasonable lecture because it is a restrictive look.

 

[Me Myself]

This whole thread is a croc MeMyself. I am surprised at you, feigning innocent credulity.

As I posted earlier, the OP did NOT ask "Is a logo like this necessarily racist ? "

The OP asked "Would anyone find this offensive ?"

It has been clearly enunciated to you why black Americans would find this racist and offensive. Falvlun has spelled it out in detail.

You are persisting in the 'switch' from the question in the OP, to a simplistic argument about whether the logo is racist when viewed without any connection to the historical context which makes it so.

Seriously, that is BS. I am surprised, because generally your posts are thoughtful, but this time you seem to be interested in staging a fake argument based on pretending not to see the obvious.

Oh no, I didnt asked "would anyone" that is a naive question. A lot of idiots think a lot of perfectly innocent things are offensive.

My argument is that it is a cartoon like it wouldaturally spoon out from many places if different paces would have done cartoons about black people, but it has has its reading contaminated and people are now for some reason ( or a lot of them at least) incapable of knowing that it has nothing inherently racist in it.

 

[Me Myself]

Actually my specific question was "in your opinion, is this offensive to black people? Why?" You may check it.

 

[oldbadger]

It has been clearly enunciated to you why black Americans would find this racist and offensive.

Yep..... and black English, Black scottish, Black Belgian, Black...... at least, some of them.....

 

[Me Myself]

Yep..... and black English, Black scottish, Black Belgian, Black...... at least, some of them.....

You have basically said that while y can caricaturize a lot of things and exagerate features as everyone does on cartooons, you cant do this with races be ause then you would be racist. Because people that were racists did that, so it must always be racist.

By that logic, we cannot depict women in any form of ancient art because almost all ancient peoe were extremely sexist.

Its not good logic. Its just a strong association, and apparently a desire to keep it and reinforce it and to make such ban persist even on people who never on their lifes had such experiences wi this cartoons.

You are deliberately perpetuating a useless taboo.

 

[apophenia]

Actually my specific question was "in your opinion, is this offensive to black people? Why?" You may check it.

It is offensive because it clearly, unambiguously echos the forms which have been used to diminish and ridicule people of African origin.

I don't understand why you are suggesting that you can't understand this.

If a hindu opened a restaurant in Israel, and used a swastika as the logo, you would surely have no difficulty understanding why it is offensive. Yet, by the standards you are setting in this thread, you could feign innocence and argue that it is an ancient hindu symbol, and any offense, or connection with Nazis, is merely the subjective interpretation of jews determined to see racism where there was none.

You would have a logical argument, and one with an arguably true basis, and it would be total BS, because of what was being deliberately ignored.

Then you could tell the jewish people "You are deliberately perpetuating a useless taboo. "

 

[Me Myself]

It is offensive because it clearly, unambiguously echos the forms which have been used to diminish and ridicule people of African origin.

I don't understand why you are suggesting that you can't understand this.

For starters because we disagree on this. I think it is completely natural that that kind of caricature would arise fropeople who had never seen what falvlun showed to me . The big eyes are natural to cartoons in general, the big lips are a feature prominent on the race, and given the nature of caricaturization we know a cartoon will exagerate the prominent features of a face, race or whatever really.

So exagerating the lips is just natural thin almost any cartoonist would do with a cartoon of a black person on a lot of contexts. Just like exagerating the closedness of the eyes on cartoons about chinese peope.

So i find it to be another cartoon. But because e first ones who did it were racists, you decided from now on, everytime the most natural caricaturization of the race appears, then it must be racist. Which is of course a very big stretch.

If a hindu opened a restaurant in Israel, and used a swastika as the logo, you would surely have no difficulty understanding why it is offensive. Yet, by the standards you are setting in this thread, you could feign innocence and argue that it is an ancient hindu symbol, and any offense, or connection with Nazis, is merely the subjective interpretation of jews determined to see racism where there was none.

It does depend a lot. I may be wrong and I may be freely correctedbut I think nazis swastika was inverted and the sides on the original were slightly curved and included dots or some other complementary signs that did not appear on the german one.

Of course it would be wrong to assume an ancient hindu symbol of compassion can only mean concentration camps.

That said though, your example is different in a crucial way (while of course being similar in other parts to the example of is logo) . The difference is that it is not something that would have naturally arised without looking at the original swastika. Sure, maybe by long long chance, but nowhere near as naturally as the exageration of the racial features of a face done by a visual style (cartoon) that exagerates the characteristic features of EVERYTHING.

Its like those evangelist videos that say that a plain circle or a plain square is satanic imagery because pagans used them :cover: . They are used because they are a natural obvious geometrical image that will come from our minds in very different places cultutures and lands.

And quite honestly, if different kind of people that have the cartoon stule saw a black person they are likely to cartoonize him to something similar to what falvlun posted. Just as there are obvious caricaturizations to chinese or others.

It just doesnt take a genius nor is it groundbreaking imagination happening on e cartoon.

 

[apophenia]

One last time.

" Is this offensive ?"

"Is this inherently racist ?"

Two different questions. Clear answers provided.

Next.

Oh yeah, for what it's worth at this point ...

I think nazis swastika was inverted and the sides on the original were slightly curved and included dots or some other complementary signs that did not appear on the german one

Not so. The swastika can be clockwise or anti clockwise (creation and destruction). Dots optional.

Mere details. The distress of holocaust victims is the only detail relevant to the reference in this case. The history of blackface and historical long term (recent .. even current) racial discrimination is the relevant detail in relation to your thread.

 

[Me Myself]

One last time.

" Is this offensive ?"

"Is this inherently racist ?"

Two different questions. Clear answers provided.

Next.

Oh yeah, for what it's worth at this point ...
Not so. The swastika can be clockwise or anti clockwise (creation and destruction). Dots optional.

Mere details. The distress of holocaust victims is the only detail relevant to the reference in this case. The history of blackface and historical long term (recent .. even current) racial discrimination is the relevant detail in relation to your thread.

I asked if you found it to be offensive personally, not if anyone ever could possibly find it offensive.

If you can tell me of any reason why you would find it offensive that has nothing to do with racism, by all means do. What I have read is that the association with the racist drawings makes it offensive to some or most, so I find the adjectives to be linked enough.

B this point I am kind of webildered. You understand you are finding it offensive just because of a history that neither the cartoonist nor anyone involved with its production may have been at all knowledgeable of... Why would you then choose to take offense to something that was never meant as an offense?

Or maybe I misunderstood and you do not yourself find it offensive?

 

[oldbadger]

You have basically said that while y can caricaturize a lot of things and exagerate features as everyone does on cartooons, you cant do this with races be ause then you would be racist. Because people that were racists did that, so it must always be racist.

Wrong. I have basically said that you need empathy and care about things, otherwise you stupidly cause needless upset and possibly worse.

By that logic, we cannot depict women in any form of ancient art because almost all ancient peoe were extremely sexist.

You're losing! When you divert to other issues, you simply show that you are losing. And, for what it's worth to you, copying or using depictions of women from any background that could be considered to be sexist is pretty stupid as well.

Its not good logic. Its just a strong association, and apparently a desire to keep it and reinforce it and to make such ban persist even on people who never on their lifes had such experiences wi this cartoons.

Let's face it...... you're just hell-bent on insisting that the opinions, feelings and thoughts of groups of people don't count, if your logic states that it doesn't matter.

You are deliberately perpetuating a useless taboo.

Put it this way..... I would be really worried if you were our government minister responsible for culture....... I would be worried if you sat on my local council!!

 

[Me Myself]

Wrong. I have basically said that you need empathy and care about things, otherwise you stupidly cause needless upset and possibly worse.


You're losing! When you divert to other issues, you simply show that you are losing. And, for what it's worth to you, copying or using depictions of women from any background that could be considered to be sexist is pretty stupid as well.


Let's face it...... you're just hell-bent on insisting that the opinions, feelings and thoughts of groups of people don't count, if your logic states that it doesn't matter.


Put it this way..... I would be really worried if you were our government minister responsible for culture....... I would be worried if you sat on my local council!!

I am sorry but you ve responded nothing I ve said, and the "losing" "winning" attitude gives me no desire to andwer anyways.

You do are saying that you want to deliberately perpetuate a useless taboo with no reasonable grounding that keeps people from caricaturizing something in the same way they caricaturize everytng else, simply because the first people to do it were racists.

As much as that, is effing freedom of expression and for nothing too.

 

[Falvlun]

I am sorry but you ve responded nothing I ve said, and the "losing" "winning" attitude gives me no desire to andwer anyways.

You do are saying that you want to deliberately perpetuate a useless taboo with no reasonable grounding that keeps people from caricaturizing something in the same way they caricaturize everytng else, simply because the first people to do it were racists.

As much as that, is effing freedom of expression and for nothing too.

I can understand your frustration, MM, but at the same time, what you are proposing would essentially unhinge any connection humans can ever make between similar items.

The fact is we are hardwired to make these connections. They aid in communication. They aid in allowing us to make decisions and judgments quickly.

You can't just snip away the history of images, and pretend they don't exist, in the name of freedom of speech. That's not how our brains work, nor do I think it a particularly desirable thing. You would have to re-create every meaning of every thing every time. There would be no short-cuts.

But we need short-cuts. We'd be overwhelmed without them.

 

[Me Myself]

I can understand your frustration, MM, but at the same time, what you are proposing would essentially unhinge any connection humans can ever make between similar items.

The fact is we are hardwired to make these connections. They aid in communication. They aid in allowing us to make decisions and judgments quickly.

You can't just snip away the history of images, and pretend they don't exist, in the name of freedom of speech. That's not how our brains work, nor do I think it a particularly desirable thing. You would have to re-create every meaning of every thing every time. There would be no short-cuts.

But we need short-cuts. We'd be overwhelmed without them.

We definetelyneed shortcuts, but what I am saying is that this one is very wide association.

One thing is to know that at first cartoons of black people were meant only to make fun of them as a race and another thing is to pretend almost all cartoons of black people except those that are so faithfuñ to reality as to not look like cartoons must be racist.

These two are very differen things. Again, e problem is at the features associated with "racist" images are the most natural ways of cartonising a black person's features. Its not even one standard way, but e link you posted showed different cartoons all having in common basically that they are cartoons and that they are from black people and that they arent uber real. Ironically, the fact that they were smiling was a recurring theme, so now a happy cartoon black man is racist?

That is the problem. Its too wide of an association, to the point it becomes ridiculous.