Racist? yes, NO?

[Sacred Jellybean]

Not true at all, not in the least. You just explained the art of caricature. A caricature of whoopie goldberg is going to give her a giant lipped smile and a horribly widened nose, try it on google. Some artists focus on her smile and scrunch her face up, others blow her other proportions in to humorous levels. Try a Lil Wayne caricature or 50, it takes his already bizarre look in to something that strikes fear in to the heart of every woman. But their 'black features' are blown way out of proportion - it's a caricature, it's supposed to make you smile. If the person is fat, the same idea is implied, the chubby cheeks get blown out, the double chin gets exaggerated etc. But here's the fun part: A caricature of a beloved actor (John Candy) Vs. one of a hated political figure who's over weight (pick one) guess who is going to look like a warm hearted teddy bear and which will look like a fat disgusting mess? It's the hate that matters. He may even have pieces of food dribbling from his chin, etc.

I'll give you this one, perhaps I've been a little too sensitive on the subject. I can concede that exaggerating certain features alone doesn't imply that an image is racist. Otherwise, this image would be, which I don't think is true:

So all we have to do is think: Are they (artists) depicting their features to reflect their actual features or are they attempting to demoralize and demonize someone? But wait, what if the black person in question is a universally hated political figure? Well, that answers our question - its perfectly okay.

There's a difference between depicting someone specific and depicting a generic person from one race with stereotypes abound.

Actually, I can't tell if you agree or disagree with me. Making fun of someone specific is okay, because you're only deprecating one person (which is run-of-the-mill in political cartoons), but deprecating an entire race is bad.

War means you destroy the people responsible for that government. Any supporter of that government, the fact that you live there makes you responsible. If you are a part of a government that is at war, you are fair game.

I guess Muslim fundamentalists would be justified in wiping America off the map without a second thought since every single one of us supports every idea from our government and every facet of influence we have upon the middle east (since we have such a hive-like mentality, especially the paranoid schizophrenic variety of us). George W. Bush was elected, so that means I supported him (even though I didn't vote for him) and okay, I voted for Obama, so even though I disagree with his administration supporting policy to detain people indefinitely and potentially continuing to detain those who could be acquitted by trial, even though I had nothing to do with the policy and the opposing candidates policy would have just as bad, I still support him and can justifiably be killed.

I don't even know why I'm wasting my sarcasm, you would be perfectly one-hundred percent-okay-no-problem-stamp-of-approval with killing children who have no concept of politics or war with being slaughtered for being at the wrong place at the wrong time. That's not just twisting those words out of context, I'm basing it on the other post you made in the other thread.

We had to shoot children because they used their children against us, strapping bombs to them. They are a horrible, horrible people that will always support their need for hate. It is honestly too bad when you consider how beautiful the rest of their culture is.

Yeah, using children/teens to do their dirty work is all kinds of fucked up, but isn't it possible to disable them without killing them, such as with rubber bullets?

Converted Muslims view religion like they did with Christianity; you can 'make it your own'. Literally picking and choosing what you want from the Koran, ignoring passages you dont agree with. This is not the case with true Islam, the Islam that is practiced in the middle east. For all it's poetry and beautiful lessons, writings of hope and prosperity, it also carries a message of hate, destruction and death. To kill anyone who disagrees and that people who aren't a part of it have no soul to bear. That's not a religion, that's a cult. They can be exterminated for all I care.

Do you honestly believe that the terrorist organizations are comparable to our 'Waco Incidents' where someone slipped his nuts and bolts and made privately funded insane asylums? Our own government snuffed Waco, our own organizations burnt it to the ground. Can you say the same for their government who publicly funded these organizations and supplied them (along with America's support that bit us in the ass)? I dont think so. It is a war with a race, like it or not, simply because it is that race who follows those beliefs. If you dont follow the beliefs, you'll move and seek sanctuary. Instead they stay, they strap explosives to their infants in a tooth and nail fight to murder anyone they dislike in their current tormented hell of their constantly grinding axe they have with the entire world.

Am I wrong?

Although I don't know any Middle Eastern people and have never been there, I would hesitate to say that so many people who live in the Middle East are fundamentalist psychopaths who support using children as weapons. Human nature holds that people are defiant and free-minded enough to not conform to every single idea that any kind of leadership will put out.

Do you have any more information on the underlined? From what I know, terrorist groups (I think Hezbollah) will sometimes provide humanitarian services (such as basic utilities like water, schools, etc) to the populace and I wouldn't be surprised if they're ingrained enough in the way-of-life that it's difficult for the government (the Lebonese government, in Hezbollah's case) to not support them in some way.

I agree, it should be up to the people. But if its a war with a people who happen to be of a particular race and there is something in media to demonstrate it, dont immediately disregard it. If we went to war with Ireland, I would expect the same hate of their culture and likes. It's imperative to war. There should be a picture of a red headed inbred-looking woman getting raped by an American human/helicopter Transformer-esque robot while she flails and tries to beat it off of her while holding pitchers of beer and I will support it fully. Thankfully though, if I disagree with the war, if I think it's wrong, I can fight that propaganda and support the ones that mesh with my thinking, or I can make my own.

So what you're saying is that propaganda that dehumanizes a group of people is just fine and in fact imperative to war, if you agree with it? Again, concern for "spies" or not, it's wrong to get caught up in cultivating hostility towards one race in our own country because our government says we should be at war with them. Why should a 5th-generation Chinese American man take shit from a bunch of pig-headed, jingoistic, nationalistic, flag-waving retards for something China did?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patton

I don't get the point you're trying to make? And I'm not reading through thousands of words to see how it's relevant to what I quoted. :P

What about a fruit basket that, among other fruits, also contains watermelon? Is it only slightly rude and demeaning? Or do I get away from being rude because there's also oranges? Read what you said: Giving a gift = rude and demeaning. I have gone to park barbecues with every kind of people with bags of chips under one arm and a watermelon under the other. I guess I'm a big rude asshole that hates those niggers. Nevermind that I like watermelon (especially considering it works like natural Viagra!) and nevermind that in the cartoon you posted, the white guy (who I believe is implied to be southern) is the one ready to eat the watermelon. Yes, I will give a watermelon as a gift to a black person and if I got any negative response i'd take it back and tell that fucker to lick the wettest part of my taint.

I never said WATERMELON = FUCK NIGGERS! WHAT THE FUCK THERES A WATERMELON IN THE ROOM SOMEONE HATES NIGGERS OH SHIT. If you already know a black person and give him a watermelon, it's probably alright because he likely knows you well enough to know you aren't racist. You're oversimplifying things by saying "giving a gift = rude and demeaning". No one likes to be stereotyped. It's more like, if you were a fat kid and eating dinner at your friends' parents house and they gave you 5x the portions of everyone else. Wouldn't you feel insulted?

Like I said, watermelons aren't the most harmful stereotype, it's that it's part of a larger racist force that IS harmful. It's guilty by association. I'm not calling every white man who's given a black man a watermelon racist, but the act can certainly be seen as suspect.

This is incredibly ignorant! I cant make the same observation as the writer of the show (which I have brought up multiple times in the what-if scenario of if MLK being alive today)? I cant agree with what the show proclaimed because that makes me racist? If I directed or wrote for the show (that ep in particular), now i'm racist? Dont be like that, please. Honesty, educated opinion and having a pair of balls are not negative aspects about anyone, no matter who or what they are. I dot care if the director was Chinese and the writer was an orthodox Jew, its truth and message is perfectly clear and easy to agree with by all parties. Blacks were once Kings and Queens, Pharaohs and Prince's, now American as you and I and have the freedom to rule the world, and do it well (with some questionable spending). Dont tell me that I cant voice my opinion that black assholes are dragging down other Americans of every race, because I can say the same about mexicans and whites or who ever I have an opinion on without being considered a hate monger or racist. Do you agree with what the show depicted? If you do, does that mean you're racist?

You can make the same observation, but it sounds more racist coming from a white man's mouth than it does from a black man's mouth. Do you really not grasp the context? On one hand, the observation is coming from an outsider, someone who's not part of the race and isn't born with the same disadvantages. Say what you want, white privilege exists in this country (see about how we agreed that a black person whose facial features more closely match that of a white person's is more marketable). It's easier to deprecate an entire race and brush them off and feel hatred towards them or feel that they're inferior WHEN YOU'RE NOT PART OF THAT RACE.

Think of it this way. What hurts more: when you criticize yourself in your own mind, or when someone else criticizes you?

Aaron MacGruder has more privilege to speak about black people without sounding racist because he IS a black person and can empathize more with their struggles (or criticize them if he considers falling short). It's alright as a white man to see certain parts of black culture, like gangsta rap or other harmful influences, and recognize them for what they are. But if it were a white man behind that specific episode, with black people acting like completely incoherent morons and essentially pissing all over the progress they've made from the end of civil war to the end of Jim Crow laws, it not only wouldn't have sounded as authentic and but it would have sounded racist.

You just can't stand up and make the same criticisms about the collective black population that Bill Cosby makes, I'm sorry, I know it's racist at heart, and you can cry and whine "reverse racism" and "but what about MEEE??" all you want, but it's just not the same. It's just not your place and they're taking on that role just fine without you. Just agree as tactfully as possible and move on. If you think about how you're at an advantageous position in being white and male, a part of the most readily-accepted status quo, you shouldn't whine about it.

Not at all, Al Jolsen was a great musician and had an act where he pretended to be a black man. He wasn't a big stupid ignorant nigger for people to laugh at, he played the role of a talented performer.

I didn't mean Al Jolsen specifically, I meant blackface in general. But again, I'm willing to admit I might be wrong on that. Given the history of racism from whites towards blacks, though, somehow I doubt I am.

Whoopie Goldberg does an awesome impression of when she was little and wanted to be a white girl with white girl hair, she ties a t-shirt to her hair and pretends its her golden locks (that bit also has messages of being young and black and thinkiung you're not 'good enough' as whites, something that all blacks dealt with in a mostly white country growing up in the 50's and 60's).

This sounds heartbreaking, incredible, and funny all at once, and if you could refer me to what movie/TV show/stand-up she did that, I'd love to see it.

When Goldberg and Ted Danson (who I believe they were either dating or just best friends) dawned blackface at a press event, Danson got reamed for it. It was completely blown out of proportion by people who simply didn't understand.

Yeah, that sounds like it was blown a little out of proportion. If Goldberg was okay with it, why shouldn't we be?

People see someone mention 'black' and immediately question if its racist or not. It's horrible.

Racism should not be tolerated, so I have no problem with certain things being scrutinized. As long as we're careful about what's actually racist and what's lighthearted, what's actually harmful and what can be laughed off, it's not an issue.

The problem here is that it's so subjective, otherwise we wouldn't be wasting our time and fingerstrokes (I tell ya, I know my fingerstrokes could be put to better use than this *ignores blue-balled boner crying silently from within pants*)

Picaninny; would you have also believed it was a racist advertisement if it said 'Bush baby'?

You're going to have to explain Bush Baby, I don't get how that has any racial connotations.

or 'black kid'? or 'Colored baby ice cream'? Is it racist to use a black person or a caricature of a black to sell something? It's not being obtuse to suggest that a word has no hate behind it. But maybe i'm terribly wrong, i'll explore a bit,

From wiki: Pickaninny (also picaninny or piccaninny) is an offensive, derogatory term for black children, derogatory term in English that refers to black children or a racist caricature. It is a pidgin word form, which may be derived from the Portuguese pequenino (an affectionate term derived from pequeno ("little").

I'm already confused, an affectionate term for little is derogatory?

Nobody said that the origins of the word have the exact same meaning. The meaning of certain words and phrases changes and evolves, that's how not only language but human ideas work.

wiki: Although the term was used generally, it came to refer to the associated stereotype of African American children. "Picaninnies had bulging eyes, unkempt hair, red lips and wide mouths into which they stuffed huge slices of watermelon."[1] The Picaninny was distinguished by its young age, male or female. "They were also half dressed and animalistic. The picaninny was seen as one of a multitude of black children.

So what we have here is a word whose meaning has shifted. Until it was phased out of common vocabulary, it was a racially-charged and demeaning term used to paint black children as uncivilized savages. It WAS used generally against all children, but it's changed to most likely describe black children. Do you think this might be because black americans were uncivilized when taken for slavery from Africa? It can easily be taken as a slight against black people, one step away from calling not their children unwashed and wild animals but calling they themselves animals. Which again, ties into the racist idea of black people being uncivilized and inferior human beings.

Do you see the humor yet? A term used to describe any child as an animalistic, half dressed heathen is now a racist term because it was also used on blacks. So I suppose 'asshole' is now a racist term.

Now you're just being ridiculous. People didn't collectively change the meaning of "asshole" to mean "black-skinned piece of trash", so it's not a racist term. "Pickaninny" changed to specifically describe black people.

When I worked in Louisiana, I had a friend who was an extra on one of the sets (he was black and older) and said in conversation, "I have to get home cuz my picaninny's have probably ate me out of the house." and was refering to his own kids. Later, one woman (white) told me that 'her little picaninnies got in trouble' because they didn't stay behind a line when shooting on location. I dont believe either the black guy or that woman were trying to be hateful to a race, just using a derogatory term for their children that is meant to be cute and refer to them as little rule breaking, animalistic shit heads.

reference.com: Related terms
Cognates of the term appear in other languages and cultures, presumably also derived from the Portuguese word, and it is not controversial or derogatory in these contexts. It is in widespread use in Melanesian pidgin and creole languages such as Tok Pisin of Papua New Guinea, as the word for "child" (or just young, as in the phrase pikinini pik, meaning piglet). In certain dialects of Caribbean English, the words pickney and pickney-negger are used to refer to children. Also in Sierra Leone Krio the term pikín refers to child or children. In Nigerian and Cameroonian Pidgin English, the term used is picken. In Chilapalapa, a pidgin language used in Southern Africa, the term used is pikanin. In Surinamese Sranan Tongo the term pikin may refer to children as well as to small or little.

What we can learn walking away from this is that different regions have different meanings for the word, I suppose. But the fact that wikipedia cites it as a racially-derogatory term indicates that there are plenty of places that do see this as something racial. Maybe your encounters provide a counter-point, but it's not as though one person pulled this idea out of their ass and it caught on.

But, if its used by a racist to make a hateful remark to a black person or child, then there's a problem. It's the hate that makes it what it is. And when there is hate, anything can be racist. I can call a man a failure, but if that man is black is he honestly going to think I speak of 'failure' in terms of being slaves? being genetically deficient in some form? or some other bullshit? is it *my* fault that he's paranoid about what a white says? No. I have no reason to alter or change my vocabulary in any way as to be 'more polite' to anyone or fear the use of a word because it may offend someone, somewhere, at some point, for some reason. Bullshit, bullshit bullshit.

I'm not suggesting that any aggression towards any black person is an act of racism, nor that people need to be overly-polite towards black people for fear of offending them. That may sound like a contradiction, but if it was completely unheard of that "pickaninny" had any racial connotations, I would have no problem with calling black children pickaninnies.

This is so wrong... on so many levels, sir. Claiming victimhood? Is that what blacks do? And not only that, but apparently I cant claim victimhood when I feel its appropriate because i'm not the right race?

And you complain about me "making these all encompassing claims and then I have to come in and explain and everything"? What you said makes no sense in the context of the debate and you completely twisted my words around. In a racial context, you can't really claim victimhood in the same way that blacks have and do. The best you could do is cite an example where you got beat up by a group of black kids because they wanted to get back at whitey, or some shit. But even that isn't on the same scale, because neither you nor your ancestors had to deal with institutionalized racism to the same degree.

The only race that's been shat on more than black people in this nation's history are Native Americans, and at least they weren't taken as slaves and forced to live side-by-side with people who hated them and constantly made to feel inferior through segregation when they finally were granted their freedom. Not that I'm minimizing what was done to Native Americans, but that's another topic.

There isn't a single black person alive today under the age of 30 that has dealt with any real persecution or inequality, or slavery, a side from idiot racists who banter on about whatever it is they're mad about.

http://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/loca...exion.html

Seriously, although we've made a lot of progress, we're still not completely there, and in fact are probably still far off.

But I do, in fact fully fully, have the right to feel persecuted. I was hugely fat, I was treated like absolute shit for it from anyone and everyone. I'd be sitting with my dad at a restaurant or at the movies just to have people walk by and collectively yell out "ew!" or make cow sounds or yell 'Oh God imagine that naked!" How about being a nine year old kid and getting ice cream from the ice cream truck and having a car load of people drive by and yell 'ENJOY YOUR ICE CREAM FATTY" and it happened every day, everywhere I went, no matter what I did or what context it was used in. Even when I was jogging or working out. I was constantly and consistently belittled through school and in anything I did. Dont you dare tell me I have no rights to feel persecuted or victimized or have the capacity to understand it. I dealt with more shit as an overweight white male than any average black guy in this day and age. Unless they lived up the road from a nightly clan meeting.

I suspect you're exaggerating. I've never seen fat people being verbally abused and discriminated against so much beyond grade school. Intolerance towards fat people, as towards any group of people, should not be tolerated, but if you're a fat or chunky white male, things are still looking pretty good for you in this country. I'd rather be a fat white male than a female or a racial minority any day of the week, not because they're inferior, but because perceptions towards them still aren't free of bias.

Just be glad you aren't a fat woman, given that so much more is expected out of women and their bodies/looks.

As far as black entertainers making fun of whites, it means absolutely nothing to me (a side from being funny or well executed), it doesn't offend and it's not because there's no slave history. In fact in my genes somewhere are people that were persecuted by Rome, probably in yours too. But we have the ability to laugh at ourselves, we have humility. Someone without those abilities will be 'victimized' at anything pointed in their general direction, all I have to do is say 'a black guy walked in to a bar' and the emotionally defunct will grip their fists in anger, but everyone else can enjoy the joke, including blacks.

I look forward to a day when races can freely poke fun at each other without it being misinterpretted or misconstrued as something truly hateful, but I don't quite think we're there yet.

The word cracker or honky or nigger or any derogatory word towards a race will cause pain if real hate is involved. If I get in a fender bender and a black guy gets out of his car and yells 'you stupid honky bitch!" You bet your ass i'm going to get offended, just as offended if I was black and called a nigger. It's hate, and I have every right to feel just as pissed as any other race.

It might hurt you, but it's easier to take lumps when you're part of the majority in power than a minority.

Tropic Thunder had some awesome moments and Robert Downy Jr's lines were some of the best. Why would anyone call that racist? The dyanmic that made it fun was that the black guy was being 'overly masculine and ghetto' to compensate for being homosexual and attempting to hide it while Downy was stuck in his character because he didn't like who he actually was and only comfortable portraying other people. In different contexts, they were the same person, both pretending their lives. I thought it was well written and hilarious. The black guy's char (forgot his name, his char or the actor :P) reminded me of the Family Guy quote "Behind every gold tooth is a man saying please dont look at my tiny penis." :FuckYou:

Tropic Thunder was pretty damn funny, but unfortunately, I thought it fell short. :( Some of the jokes just seemed cliched and weak, like "Oh these are just M&Ms" *makes it obvious that it's actually drugs*, and white guy dancing like a black guy (though the fact that it was Tom Cruise made it funnier), and some other things. It definitely had its moments, though, that Simple Jack stuff was pretty damned funny.

I dunno, I thought the black guy turning out to be gay was kind of cliched as well. It just seems like it's been done to death before. Still a funny movie and worth at least a rent, though.