Controversial "political" cartoon...

Just saw this on MSN...wow. At first glance before you read the article...what does this look like to you? I can't for one..believe they allowed this to be printed !

 http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29263781/

in all honesty, i think the intent of this cartoon, if i want to give the artist and the editor credit for being 'clever', was to be ambiguous so as to cause controversy

it accomplished that

 

i'm in favor of freedom of the press, so i don't think anybody should be fired or reprimanded (unless as a result of this cartoon the paper loses a bunch of money somehow, in which case, the editor might be let go because the paper can't afford to keep him/her - but given the right-winginess of the paper, it's likely to make more money not less)

Original Post by kathygator:

I was offended by the cartoon depicting Condoleeza Rice as the character played by Butterfly McQueen in 'Gone with the Wind'. Forget the character's name. The ditzy maid.

Prissy?

Yes, that's it. Prissy.

Also I like the word 'rightwinginess'....makes me think of chicken wings...

mmmmmm.....chickenwings......

Kathy drop that chicken wing and back away slowly!

Original Post by trhawley:

Original Post by coffincritter:

Original Post by kathygator:

Agree nomo, hence the above comment about G-Dubb being compared to a monkey.

Am certain Tom's way of thinking is best - if he doesn't get why it's offensive, that's great - perhaps the kids on the board who feel the same way is indicative of color-blindness - probably also a good thing.

 

If one is personally color-blind themselves that's good, but do you really need to practice or have experienced racism to be aware of it, it's historical context, and how it works? I mean, I get that there are and have been a long history of people likening black people to monkeys, even if I myself don't think that way. This sort of racism and it's effects were covered in high school social studies.

 Maybe they should stop teaching racism in high school social studies and should start teaching racial tolerance instead.

Give me a break! They don't teach racism, they teach ABOUT racism because it is a part of history. Teaching a lesson on slavery, segregation, the civil rights movement etc? Can't really do it without discussing racism towards blacks in America and the kind of social climate it created. Did you learn about World War II and the Holocuast in school? I'd be interested to hear how the topics were covered without touching on the Nazis' racial philosophies and anti-Semitism. Heck, you can't even talk about the settling of the New World by Europeans without getting into "manifest destiny", conquistadores and the like. You really think schools should stop teaching these things?

You can be aware of all this stuff or you can pretend to be ignorant of it to mask your own insensitivity to racial issues. But "You're the one who's racist because you're aware of racism!" doesn't make half as much sense to me as "Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it."

Original Post by trhawley:

"A lot of cartoonists have done that, yes, but I don't recall this one doing so. Do you have a link to that?"

I read that in this thread but maybe I misunderstood cartoonists for this cartoonist but I don't see how it's relevant. It is common in cartoons to refer to someone as an animal if you think their ideas are silly.

As a cartoonist I do find it relevant to not accredit something to an artist who didn't do it. If you had said that Basil Wolverton was the creator of "Fritz The Cat", I'd be calling you out on that just the same.

Impressive. Haven't seen a "Fritz the Cat" reference in about 15 years. :)

And The Post apologizes - but only to those who were offended - you others, who are only pretending to be offended:

No soup apology for you - one year!

...and today The Post ran a chilling photo of Rhianna's injurys as their front cover. Not that this has anything to do with the cartoon, but I'm predicting another $#!^storm from people who will feel this image is either too graphic, sensationalistic, or in poor taste. (For myself, while I feel DV is an issue that should be confronted, it was pretty heartwrenching to see that.)

Original Post by coffincritter:

...and today The Post ran a chilling photo of Rhianna's injurys as their front cover. Not that this has anything to do with the cartoon, but I'm predicting another $#!^storm from people who will feel this image is either too graphic, sensationalistic, or in poor taste. (For myself, while I feel DV is an issue that should be confronted, it was pretty heartwrenching to see that.)

 I  feel sorry for her.  Who wants a private picture of their messed up face spashed all over the front page.  I heard that it was possibly a picture taken for police records that was leaked by some ****.

I think showing it does more good than harm for Rhianna.

If she has any doubts about whether to file charges (which she evidently does), the outcry from her fans should squelch it.

It's a bit exploitative but people need to understand what a battered woman looks like - most have never seen one. :/

I can see both angles. That people may need to see the effects of battery, but also it seems important to me that the photo was made public with Rhianna's consent. The idea that someone may have just leaked it to the press against her wishes is an uncomfortable one. And either way, it is a very hard photo to look at.

I do hope she presses charges.