Sign in to follow this  
Sports Prophet

Serena Williams

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, ckn said:

The single thing I saw wrong with the picture was that the real Japanese girl was not blonde and white!  The main picture of Williams was clearly a caricature with no intent to racism.

Just because someone is black does not give them a free pass from satire, all it means is that the satirist has to be careful and be sure of their intent before doing so.

Yeah the important word being 'caricature'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

I thought it was fairly obviously racist but then that's because a lot of cartoonist is about turning someone into a caricature and so if you do that with a black person you're going to enlarge lips etc in a way that shrieks stereotype. Anyone with any understanding of art is going to know that.

What it did make me wonder is if there is a daily political cartoonist anywhere on the planet who is unutterably ghastly in every single way. It was terrible.

Please look up the word caricature in the dictionary. Is it racist to exaggerate features like caricaturists have done for literally centuries?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Johnoco said:

Is it racist to exaggerate features like caricaturists have done for literally centuries?

Certainly can be.

Ponder how comfortable you'd be giving a Jewish person a sharp, hooked nose ...

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Johnoco said:

Please look up the word caricature in the dictionary. Is it racist to exaggerate features like caricaturists have done for literally centuries?

No but it's not as simple as that is it? It's not just a carriacature drawing you see people having done in Leciester Square.  Racist intention or not, how can the cartoonist not have forseen that if you draw a black person like that (especially when you're mocking their behaviour) that some people are going to take issue because it's those exaggerated features that have been used to beat those people with the proverbial stick in times gone by. It's also especially exaggerated when the Asian opponent is portrayed as a white person.

Much like doing a political cartoon with a Jewish person having a large nose. Do it, that's your perogative but don't act incredulous when some people take issue with it.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Johnoco said:

Please look up the word caricature in the dictionary. Is it racist to exaggerate features like caricaturists have done for literally centuries?

If you search 'caricature Serena Williams' there are quite a few examples that do not play in the excessively huge lips or hugely wide bottom. Images like this have been controversial for a while, and to top it off with turning the Japanese woman into a white blonde woman does pose the question why would the artist do that?

One of the main features of Williams isn't her big lips, she doesn't have a mouth like somebody like Mick Jagger which is a natural thing to accentuate, the lips were made like that because she is a black woman.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, we need to ban caricatures. It wasn't akin to the Jewish guy with a big nose, that would possibly have been a bone through the nose or something. Many, if not most black people have certain features different from most white Europeans. Pretending they don't and accusing a cartoonist of racism for a topical subject in the news is way OTT.

Remember Spitting Image anyone??? Wasn't that rather cruel? But I guess people had more of a life in those days and didn't look for offence 24/7.

In fact. It's just a diversion from her pathetic behaviour really.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have a look at what Gillray was doing and see what public figures took then in mocking brilliant satire to make a point 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Tyrone Shoelaces said:

Err, what do you do about mixed doubles ?

Ban it! It's completely sexist to have a man hit a ball at a woman! 🤣

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Johnoco said:

 

Remember Spitting Image anyone???

I do. By the end it was just making grim looking puppets and completely missing the target because it focused on the cruelty rather than the message.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Wiltshire Rhino said:

Ban it! It's completely sexist to have a man hit a ball at a woman! 🤣

But that is the only tactic anyone has in mixed doubles - sock it as hard as you can at the woman on the other side!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

But that is the only tactic anyone has in mixed doubles - sock it as hard as you can at the woman on the other side!

True. In that case keep smashing it at the *weaker sex! 

 

*I'm now going offline for a bit. 😉

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

I do. By the end it was just making grim looking puppets and completely missing the target because it focused on the cruelty rather than the message.

So it didn't end well, that doesn't take away the point that it ripped the sh it out of people in the news and mocked and lampooned them. John Major wasn't actually grey and the Thatcher cabinet weren't actually vegetables.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Wiltshire Rhino said:

True. In that case keep smashing it at the *weaker sex! 

 

*I'm now going offline for a bit. 😉

My daughters (17) take on it was this; she's not standing up for women, she's making women look like they need allowances and special treatment.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Johnoco said:

But I guess people had more of a life in those days and didn't look for offence 24/7.

I'm not offended and I don't get offended by seeing the cartoon. I understand why black people are though. Big difference. I don't assume everyone thinks the same way as I do and then get annoyed when they don't.

The crux of it is just that it's simply not relevant and so you have to ask why it was drawn like that? Taking features of a black person that have been used to mock (and much worse) them throughout the years and applying it to Serena's childish behaviour is misguided.

Pretending it's just people wanting to be offended just shows how little awareness you have. I imagine you miss kids having golliwogs and just see it as a kids toy?

Regarding spitting image; Much like the case of Hustler Magazine v Falwell it was so over the top it wasn't perceived to be accurate therefore it works in a different way. John Major may not have been grey, but having grey hair has never been used a negative trait and used during decades of abuse and segregation of white people. Surely you can tell the difference?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Johnoco said:

My daughters (17) take on it was this; she's not standing up for women, she's making women look like they need allowances and special treatment.

I'm surprised so many intelligent men and women have taken her at face value about the trite line that she was doing it for other women.

No, she was doing it so she could get the advantage back in a match she was losing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Johnoco said:

My daughters (17) take on it was this; she's not standing up for women, she's making women look like they need allowances and special treatment.

I’d say she’s very perceptive 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, andyscoot said:

I'm not offended and I don't get offended by seeing the cartoon. I understand why black people are though. Big difference. I don't assume everyone thinks the same way as I do and then get annoyed when they don't.

The crux of it is just that it's simply not relevant and so you have to ask why it was drawn like that? Taking features of a black person that have been used to mock (and much worse) them throughout the years and applying it to Serena's childish behaviour is misguided.

Pretending it's just people wanting to be offended just shows how little awareness you have. I imagine you miss kids having golliwogs and just see it as a kids toy?

Regarding spitting image; Much like the case of Hustler Magazine v Falwell it was so over the top it wasn't perceived to be accurate therefore it works in a different way. John Major may not have been grey, but having grey hair has never been used a negative trait and used during decades of abuse and segregation of white people. Surely you can tell the difference?

 But why is it different ? All caricatures mock and exaggerate features and have for centuries . White old men , women , distinctive features of people . Everyone is given the same treatment 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So no issue if it had been one of the Israeli players being depicted with a big nose and ears etc..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, jacksy said:

So no issue if it had been one of the Israeli players being depicted with a big nose and ears etc..

I’d say yes as that’s a base stereotype rather a skilled caricature , but in general terms we’re saying that if someone sees something as offensive we outlaw satirical cartoons as the next thing in the firing line . It’s a can of worms and everyone has their own opinion but I’d say we have to careful where we want to go . Most right minded decent people , and I’d say we are here , would know the line of offence ,   but we seem to be  moving it more n more . It’s a big discussion point. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sorry but i do not see the difference between big lips, wide eyed and big noses and big eared. It's not a skilled caricature by the artist in my opinion.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, DavidM said:

It’s a can of worms and everyone has their own opinion but I’d say we have to careful where we want to go

What's under threat here?

The right to crudely draw to make a cheap easy point that could be made in a myriad other ways without the crude drawing?

Nobody, as far as I can see, has threatened the cartoonist with anything. He's not (yet, I'm aware this could change) had a knock from NSW police dragging him to the station for racially aggravated nonsense.

Free speech means he's splurged his guff but it also means people are free to respond. And that means getting to call him a no-mark racist with the skills and wit of pretty much every other failed human being who makes their living as a newspaper cartoonist. I note that he has also responded to some people with the same elegance and warmth he put into his cartoon. Apparently calling someone a sulky loser is fine but calling him anything back crosses a line.

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

49 minutes ago, DavidM said:

 But why is it different ? All caricatures mock and exaggerate features and have for centuries . White old men , women , distinctive features of people . Everyone is given the same treatment 

I've explained why it's different.

Having grey hair has never been used to malign and segregate old white men from society. Nothing Spitting Image did was "offensive" except to the recipient. They were exaggerations based on their public persona and nothing more. You look at "political cartoons" of the 1700 and 1800s and you'll find quite a few to show black people, caricatured in a derogatory way. It's the recollection and comparisons to those that makes it problematic. 

Fundamentally that is the difference. Black people have been marginalised from society for centuries, partly because of their appearance, and it was cartoon similar to the ones were talking about that helped to keep their face to the dirt. You can't just ignore that, even if it's not your intention to evoke those things. 

I wholeheartedly support his freedom to draw what I consider to be a misguided cartoon. I also wholeheartedly support those that find this to be in poor taste and wish to voice that. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, andyscoot said:

 

I've explained why it's different.

Having grey hair has never been used to malign and segregate old white men from society. Nothing Spitting Image did was "offensive" except to the recipient. They were exaggerations based on their public persona and nothing more. You look at "political cartoons" of the 1700 and 1800s and you'll find quite a few to show black people, caricatured in a derogatory way. It's the recollection and comparisons to those that makes it problematic. 

Fundamentally that is the difference. Black people have been marginalised from society for centuries, partly because of their appearance, and it was cartoon similar to the ones were talking about that helped to keep their face to the dirt. You can't just ignore that, even if it's not your intention to evoke those things. 

I wholeheartedly support his freedom to draw what I consider to be a misguided cartoon. I also wholeheartedly support those that find this to be in poor taste and wish to voice that. 

Fair enough , I respect that totally .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, DavidM said:

I’d say she’s very perceptive 

Despite her dad :biggrin:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I read an article that I disagreed earlier that claimed part of the racism was the depiction of black people as irrational and emotional. I don't think that is the case at all - it depicted this one woman's actions as being a spoilt brat, and I agree with that. Dummy spit an all.

Unfortunately, the racism comes from the completely unnecessary parts - the huge lips and hips and the conscious effort to make the two people discussing her in the background white.

This cartoon could have made Its point without the lips, hips and whitewashing of the Japanese woman.

The response of the artist (unaware of these racist cartoons from history) and stating the world has gone mad just convinced me that he knew exactly what he was doing. Horrible racism hidden behind a straight face.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


League Express - Online Now

League Express - Every Monday



Rugby League World - Sept 2018

Rugby League World - Sept 2018

Rugby League Books On Sale Here