OT: Political Poll - Racist or Not Racist?

[Thomas Rogers]

Bill V,



I took Caymen's comment to mean that there wasn't malice or hatred involved in the Bush picture because legitimate, physical trait parallels could be drawn.



With such a read on what Caymen said, I quoted it to try to restate something I still think you are missing or not acknowledging.



I thought you were missing my point that the two examples are fundamentally identical as both play on physical traits shared by a real person and a portrayed character; and that the only specific differences between the two examples are:



1. In one case the physical trait in question is skin color



2. When skin color is the observed trait, regardless the observation or inference, people often can't see very far past perceived racism





A sidebar:



Last night on HBO Real Sports there was a segment describing the racial divide between blacks and whites when it comes to swimming. It quoted an alarming statistic, and that was that blacks are 3x more likely to drown than whites. It explained why this is.



So, I ask: if I were the manager of a public pool and I instructed my lifeguards to pay particularly close attention to black swimmers, would it be racist?



I don't think so. In this particular example there is an observed trend related to skin color, and that trend/attribute can be observed, things can be inferred from it, and actions can be changed all because of the observation and inference. It's all related to skin color, but without a malicious intent I don't think it is racist.



No, I am not saying that blacks are bad swimmers. I am not saying that blacks can't swim. I'm just taking about statistics related to people sharing a common trait and how observing people with those traits might be affected by the statistics.



In general, that last example is more related to the question of "profiling", and is it "racist". Again, I don't think it HAS to be racist, if racism requires malice.



TJR

 

[Bill V]

1. In one case the physical trait in question is skin color

TJR, if only that were true. I dumbfounded to hear you, of all people on this board, saying that skin color is only a "physical trait". We both know that with rare exceptions, such claims are complete hogwash, lame excuses made by those trying to rationalize their positions which, at their core, treat skin color as far more than a "physical trait". And let's be honest here--even attempting to claim that this picture is simply a matter of "physical trait" is the pinacle of naivety (sp?). That's like claiming that the hammer-and-sickle in the "Obama Care" text below the image wasn't trying to make a link to Soviet government policies, and that it was actually just an artistic flourish. It's BS, and you know it.



Regarding your question about the lifeguard--Is it racist? It depends on how you define "racist"--in some contexts it is, in some it isn't. It's definitely "racial", but for some definitions "racial" and "racist" have the same meaning, and not for others. But the answer really doesn't matter. What does matter is, is it appropriate and/or beneficial for the manager to make such instructions to the lifeguards. And my answer is--no, it's not, and doing so can lead to an increase in danger for everyone there. One thing lifeguards are repeatedly taught (as my two lifeguard sisters have told me) is to observe EVERYONE, even those individuals you "know" to be good swimmers, thoroughly. It's when you think that certain people are "safer" swimmers and need less monitoring than others that problems arise due to complacency. And if it's a bad idea to pay less attention to the INDIVIDUALS who are KNOWN to be good swimmers (which implicitly means that the people who are either poorer swimmers or whose swimming ability is unknown would receive more attention), then it's obvious that it would be an even worse idea to pay a different amount of attention to GROUPS whom they ASSUME (for race or any other reason) are comprised of individuals who are either better- or worse-than-average swimmers.

 

[Richard L]

TJR,

So, I ask: if I were the manager of a public pool and I instructed my lifeguards to pay particularly close attention to black swimmers, would it be racist?

While you intended no malace, some blacks might misunderstand your meaning since you did not mention why the lifeguards should pay particular attention to the blacks. Are the lifeguards watching the blacks because they might steel something, or do something wrong to offend others in the pool??? Blacks may not know the statistics that they are 3 times more likely to drownd, and think they are being watched for other reasons.



Those kinds of things happen almost everyday where a black person or a group of black people were offended because someone did something or said something that was not meant to be malicious or racist, but was interpreted that way.



It's often a communications problem since the message was not received in the manner inwhich it was intended.



That's why I say that white people cannot judge how a black person is going to view something that shows a black person in a subordinate position.



Doctors routinely screen Blacks for certain inherited health problems that afflict black more often than other races. particularly Sicklecell. The difference is that the doctores don't announve, "Your black so I have to check you for Sicklecell".



Often times it's just how the statement is phrased or the context of where the message appears make it ofensice when no malice was intended.



Most blacks will view the image of Obama as a witch doctor as racist, while most whites will not.





...Rich

 

[JerryW Gilliland]

A friend of mine wrote this the other day, and there's some truth in it:



"Look here, this is how I see it. People who say that if you don't like Obama's policies you are a racist, then THEY must be racist. Because instead of seeing Obama as our President, one that we have every right to disagree with as people did with Bush and others...then they are racist because they don't see him as our President, but rather as our BLACK President. They are unable to see past the fact that he is Black...ergo, they are racists."



I'd love a comment on this since it pretty much says what I've been thinking but not able to put into words.

 

[Keola P]

As mentioned, the only person that can honestly answer this question is the artist.



I can't give you an answer based on your choices.



1. is a loaded answer.



2. since this particular satire is unlike any other we may have seen before (hence the

controversy), it would be hard to play this one off as just another "cartoon".



3. denotes ignorance.



The old adage "a picture is worth a thousand words" would undoubtedly be true in this case. There's so many angles that one can see this picture, as reflected in the original question and choices of answers to the question (TJR's perspective), and the many responses to redundant posts of this sort (mine included).



It's no surprise that the FB moderators decided to delete your post as FB tries to keep people "connected", as post like this tend to have the opposite effect.



If I wasn't bored out of my mind at work (yes the trac is spotless right now), I wouldn't even have read this post...

 

[OLE442]

My thoughts have always been that if you notice the diferences, it's racist. A black lady i worked with was apalled when i said this ...I'm sure because only caucasians can be racists! I do notice the difference...so what can i say. Some of my best friends happen to be of another race than I and some of my best bosses have been black. I have worked with Ukranian and Vietnamese folks and have enjoyed their friendship and viewpoints.



Most folks i dislike are white since I happen to live more in the Caucasian community. If I don't care for you, it won't be directly linked just to the race you happen to be. Obama is half true African and half white....I'm not sure where in his genes the policy's I don't like come from and really don't care. Heck a lot of "white" folks would be suprised what is actually in their geens.



I just don't care for most of his policy's and it has more to do with his left slant and the Democrats theory's. I've voted on all 3 sides of the presidential politics and started out voting Republican in 1972 when it wasn't popular for a long haired, draft age male to do so. I've voted for a peanut farmer and a young ex governor of a southern state who both turned out to be a real letdown IMO! U.S politcs is corrupt at a lot of levels and really don't believ either side is really looking out for us. I would rather have had Colin Powell as our 1st black president because i more closely related to what political views he has presented.



By the way, I think the pic at the top could be considered racist but then his ancestors are partly african. I do think it has more to do with the voodoo(witch doctor) that a lot of folks think his plan resembles. When you're in the public eye, you have to expect this especially in politics.

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Jerry great point. I agree with you.





Bill V, Richard L,



I think we are getting to the crux of the matter. There are observations and even actions that can be "racial" in nature, but that doesn't make them "racist."



To understand if something is racist, I think we should look at the definition of racism, as defined by Merriam Webster:

1: a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race

2 : racial prejudice or discrimination

I don't think in the case of the Obama image above there is any inference that the author/artist was intending some message of inferiority of blacks (or the superiority of anyone else).



So, that leaves the 2nd definition. Is there some form of "racial prejudice or discrimination" at play in the image. Prejudice means, literally, to pre-judge. Racial prejudice means to "pre-judge based on race". I don't get that from the image at all. As for discrimination, I don't see how an image can discriminate.



Again, yes, it is racial, and it is even politically incorrect, but by definition I don't see how the image itself or even the author's intent of the image is "racist".



Bill V, said:

TJR, if only that were true. I dumbfounded to hear you, of all people on this board, saying that skin color is only a "physical trait". We both know that with rare exceptions, such claims are complete hogwash, lame excuses made by those trying to rationalize their positions which, at their core, treat skin color as far more than a "physical trait". And let's be honest here--even attempting to claim that this picture is simply a matter of "physical trait" is the pinacle of naivety (sp?). That's like claiming that the hammer-and-sickle in the "Obama Care" text below the image wasn't trying to make a link to Soviet government policies, and that it was actually just an artistic flourish. It's BS, and you know it.

Not hogwash, not naive. Yes, the hammer and sickle are there to make a point...that we are on the verge of becoming a more socialistic government. Just like the choice of using a witch doctor was to make a point...that point that Obama Care is misguided, ludicrous medicine. The fact that both those symbols are controversial, and even offensive to some doesn't negate their legitimacy in making those points. Those are the primary points. If the truth hurts, well then...



The way I see it the image WORKS because it hits on two levels:



1) (first and foremost) it pokes fun at the fact that Obama Care is witch doctor medicine



2) Obama, being that he is a black man, could resemble a witch doctor (the physical trait).



That's great satire.



Those are the same reasons the Bush image works, and to review, that image works because:



1) Bush sounded and acted like a showbiz monkey that had been trained to entertain, in this case trained and coached into what to say to put no blame on his administration;



2) Bush kinda looks like a monkey.



The big difference here, and it isn't big to me, is that Bush can look like a monkey NOT because of his race. However, Obama looks like a tribal witch doctor because of the color of his skin.



I'm getting SICK of the race BS.



Case-in-point: The "Obama Joker" signs and images, where someone photoshopped Obama's face to look like Joker from the recent Batman movie. People are calling that racist! WTF! Racist! How exactly is that racist, other than the fact that Obama is BLACK...and I guess anything that you say or portray negative about a black man will be consider RACIST!



Now THAT'S crap, and YOU know it.



TJR

 

[Thomas Rogers]

'07 ST said:

My thoughts have always been that if you notice the differences, it's racist.

Then '07 ST went on to say

Some of my best friends happen to be of another race than I and some of my best bosses have been black. ...



Most folks i dislike are white ...

You seem to be noticing a lot of differences there.



If you didn't notice the differences, you would have best friends, bosses, and people you dislike.



TJR

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Bill V,



One last thing to consider about one thing that you said:

It is racist. If the current president were white, but was doing everything exactly as Obama is doing it, then the picture would never have been created.

I agree with you. I agree that the picture wouldn't have been created as such BECAUSE the WHITE president would look stupid as a BLACK witch doctor. It wouldn't make sense, and it wouldn't be good satire. Good satire has shades of reality taken to an absurdity, and to work well it has to "fit". A white witch doctor doesn't fit. A black witch doctor DOES.



Now, if the white president was given "black face" to fit into the black witch doctor photo then I guess most would call that racist...



TJR

 

[OLE442]

TJR:



The next line in my post was:

I do notice the difference...so what can i say.

I just believe that most people notice the diferences and that this "racist" crap is used to help defend poor policy's. IMO....Jimmy Carter is an idiot and i'm sure glad i only wasted one vote on him. Most people who get accused of racism these days are no more guilty than the accusers...sometimes even less guilty.

 

[Jeffrey Travis]

I got sick of reading 1/3 of the way through but what I find the most odd about 'racist' comments when it comes to Obama.....he's not "just" black, he is white too..........



Now it is stated he likes to play some hoop - what would be said if someone mentioned he "couldn't jump"? - we all know whites guys can't.

 

[Richard L]

It has nothing to do with the intent of the author, it is how it is perceived by others. The photo is disrespectful towards the President and plays on typical racial stereotypes. Not any different than depicting any black person eating fried chicken or watermellon (another common stereotype for blacks)



The author's use of the words "Obama Care" were sufficient to make his point. IMO superimposing Obama's face on the photo of witch doctor crossed over that fine line from political satire to a racial insult.



...Rich

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Richard L,



You and I will have to agree to disagree.



If it were a picture of a lawn jockey, or a black guy eating watermelon, or fried chicken, then I would agree that it was racist. But since a witch doctor makes sense and fits in the context of a jab against Obama Care, and since witch doctor's are black (any one I have ever seen portrayed, or filmed) then it's not contrived and not overtly racist (IMHO).

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Preliminary results (taking one, top answer for those that voted for more than one choice):





Response .......... Percent ....... # Votes

============ ========= =====

Yes..................... 6% ...................... 1



No ...................... 44% .................... 7



Don't Care /

Doesn't Matter .... 50% .................... 8

 

[Bud Williams]

It would be interesting to show that stats with a minority demographics reflected in the numbers....

How about going to the projects with that picture and take a poll...

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Bud suggested:

How about going to the projects with that picture and take a poll...

I think most folks from the projects thought O.J. was innocent too.



Sometimes emotions cloud logic, common sense and good judgement.



That's what I think happens with the Obama Witch Doctor and the Obama Joker images. Some people see them and the see, first and foremost, the satirization of a black man and consider that the images are therefore racist. Similar images satirizing a white man aren't even considered to be racially motivated.



Too many people have tried to stiffle Obama critics by calling them racist. Al Sharpton would be proud, but I am not.



TJR

 

[Bill V]

Preliminary results (taking one, top answer for those that voted for more than one choice):





Response .......... Percent ....... # Votes

============ ========= =====

Yes..................... 6% ...................... 1



No ...................... 44% .................... 7



Don't Care /

Doesn't Matter .... 50% .................... 8

Seeing that the members of this site (or at least the ones that partipate in the political discussions most regularly) are predominantly white, male, conservatives, this comes as no surprise--and it also renders the results rather meaningless. If you asked this question of 16 people at a Klan meeting, you'd likely get 16 "No"s; and if you did it at a Black Panthers meeting, you'd likely get 16 "Yes"s. But all three results are of small enough samples and of limited enough demographic scope to be moot.

 

[Richard L]

Bill V,

That is exactly what I have been saying from the begining.



Whenever a black person is depicted in any kind of old stereo-types when biggotry was more rampaant most, if not all blacks are offended. If the photo is offensive to blacks it must be considered racially inflamitory.



I don't say that the author is a racist or that he made the photo to incite a racial backlash, however it does show that he and many other white people here and throughout the nation are insensitive or ignorant to what blacks feel about these matters. Yes, some are more sensitive than others but it still matters to most blacks



Many Blacks object to the image of the black woman that appers on Aunt Jemima pancake and syrup products because it depicts the stereo-type of a slave or servant woman of a bygone era.



I'm doubt that the company that makes the Aunt Jemima products are necessarily racist or that they intended to offend anyone. Just like the guy who put Obama's picture on a witch doctor to make a political statement...Is he a racist? I don't know but he is obviously ignorant or insensitive to what that picture represents to blacks.



It really doesn't matter if white people think it is racially offensive or not, It is only racially offensive if a black person finds it so, since it is the blacks who are being riddiculed or stereo-typed.



The fact that the poll was conducted would indicate that TJR thought it was possibly in the grey area or bordering on being a racially inflamitory issue.



...Rich

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Bill V said:

Seeing that the members of this site (or at least the ones that partipate in the political discussions most regularly) are predominantly white, male, conservatives, this comes as no surprise--and it also renders the results rather meaningless. If you asked this question of 16 people at a Klan meeting, you'd likely get 16 "No"s; and if you did it at a Black Panthers meeting, you'd likely get 16 "Yes"s. But all three results are of small enough samples and of limited enough demographic scope to be moot.

And if you asked a bunch of blacks from the project if O.J. is innocent they will tell you "YES", and if you ask them if Bill Cosby is "racist" for admonishing inner-city blacks to stop having children out of wedlock and to pull up their pants, and to stop gang banging many would ALSO so "YES".



So I guess what we are saying is that racism is a subjective thing?



TJR

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Richard L said:

It really doesn't matter if white people think it is racially offensive or not, It is only racially offensive if a black person finds it so, since it is the blacks who are being riddiculed or stereo-typed.

I find that very, very "convenient." That mentality, the mentality of deciding "what is racist" is up to the determination of the minority, is, IMHO, what has lead to the "over playing" of the race card. It is for this very reason that I created the poll. To see what others thought and to see if others felt the image was racist or not.

I'm glad we have a black president because it has shown unequivocally that we have a long way to go. I think some of those that have the FURTHEREST to go in this country are the ones always crying "racist!" and crying that they are the victim of racism when no real racism exists (like in this case, I submit).



That crying of racism and that playing of the race card has become the "get out of jail free card", and the "free pass card" for many, that use and pull out said card whenever anyone is ridiculing them, or otherwise challenging them or their ideas. Case-in-point: Bill Cosby was called racist by his own people because he challenged them to be better. Case-in-point: The Obama Joker image called racist, for no other reason than it mocks a black president.



Richard L also said:

The fact that the poll was conducted would indicate that TJR thought it was possibly in the grey area or bordering on being a racially inflammatory issue.

Actually, as I said above, I conducted the poll because many people are claiming the image is racist, and I think many of those that are doing so can't even articulate WHY it is racist and haven't even considered WHY the image might have been chosen to make a point. I think for many, they claim it is racist because doing so is the quickest, easiest, "third-rail" way to try to shut up the opposition, and because that its what they do when they or theirs are challenged or ridiculed.



TJR