True, true. I totally agree. It will take vigilance to prevent the pendulum from swinging back toward racism. (Good luck in the UK.) I'm not sure what your policies are like in the UK, but here in the US I think we should slowly back off of our racial policies (such as affirmative action) as racism withers -- and, we have done that, more or less. I think we are at a point in the US when we could back off a little more, and by the time I'm an old man we might be able to declare substantial victory over racism and move to a legally colorblind society. That will truly be a great day, but we're not ready for it yet.
I agree with the critics: having policies based on race does feel wrong. But I disagree with the critics who say that any policy which utilizes race is a racist policy. When society is close enough to colorblind, then the law can engage the fiction of post-racism; but to engage that fiction today would be to ignore reality. I accuse the critics of ignoring reality.
The rest of us just need to realize that people like you don't know about things like "races" or "stereotypes", which actually is a very good thing, a harbinger of your progressive society.
So that's great. I hope in the future everybody can be like you. But for now, the rest of us are living on planet earth in 2009, where racism is a relatively minor (in the US at least) but still-serious problem. The rest of us don't think we can make racism disappear from the world by pretending it doesn't exist, in the same way we don't believe we can fly by pretending there is no gravity. We didn't begin the fight for racial equality in the 60s by pretending race doesn't exist, and we also won't be able to finish the job that way. Long after we finish the job, then we can all be the way you suggest.
Yes, I know all about what the Watergate scandal was, but I don't know what "a watergate" is. I literally couldn't parse your grammar:
What would a CIA linked 'google' do with a Watergate, Iran contra ect. ? Show some more Iraqi museum images?
I'm just not sure what that means. What is a CIA-linked google? I know what Google is, but "a google" -- is that a pagefull of Google search results? Is it a Google search term? Is it an employee of the company? Once we establish that, what would it mean for "a google" to be "CIA-linked"? Is 'the google' hyperlinked on the WWW to a CIA webpage? Is 'the google' a compatriot of a CIA agent?
I don't mean that I can understand your diction but don't understand your point -- I mean your grammar and writing can't be parsed in my mind. I'm a native English speaker, and you may not be, so I'm not trying to offend you, I just can't understand. Your response is even more confusing, adding "the regime" to the pantheon of "a watergate", "a google". What regime? Do you mean the lizard people who secretly control the world? Do you mean the communist regime that runs China? Since I'm not inside your head, I can't posit a guess at what your words are meant to communicate. I am honestly confused.
Thanks! Your encouragement means a lot to all of us. I don't agree with your dislike of "fuck" (I love that word!) but yes, I too am glad to see the slow waning of racism from American and worldwide culture.
Do you for some reason think the standard is "don't make pictures of people looking like a monkey"? Could you possibly be so daft? The standard is don't disparage people by using stereotypes of the person's race. Do you see how that standard means that Obama-monkey pics are racist and Bush-monkey pics are not? They might both be in bad taste, but they aren't both racist, and there is no double standard.
Not feeding the flames is what stalled racial equality between 1870 and 1960. Feeding the flames in the 1960s is what brought us forward to the point we're at today, where we've come a long way, and still have a ways to go. It's rare when you can solve problems by ignoring them -- yeah, I love that kind of problem, but institutional and cultural racism isn't that type.
So we might disagree about the meaning of the image, but we agree that Google shouldn't be censoring it. They can if they want, but it would make you and me less likely to use their service. I want to filter my own results because I'm mature enough to do that; and people who aren't should maybe use a different search service which will filter for them.
But really, don't make the mistake of equating the Bush-monkey pics with the Obama-monkey pics. They aren't the same.
Interesting. On the Condoleezza page I didn't see any depictions of her as a monkey, or other racial thing, but there is her seemingly pregnant with a monkey, which may or may not represent Bush. The caption on that image is in Arabic (or something) so I don't know whether that has a racial meaning; in my understanding, I guess it doesn't. So that pagefull of images doesn't really support your point, but if it did feature Rice-monkey images, then that would be racist.
The page for Steele likewise doesn't have any monkey images, but has several of him in blackface. That is efinitely racist. Not only is the shown type of blackface racist on its own, but the deeper implication is that Steele is a white man pretending to be a black man, since that is the typical context of that kind of blackface. I'm offended by that, even though Steele is a bit of a jackass.
Back to the Condoleezza page: she is a remarkably brilliant and successful American woman, despite her deeply misguided policies. So there is an image of her face imposed on the butt-end of a horse. This is a great example of a politically-motivated image which is intentionally offensive, but not racist, because horses aren't a common stereotype of black people as far as I know. This is the distinction that people pretend not to understand when they pretend to equate Bush-monkey pictures with Obama-monkey pictures, or when they pretend that there is a double standard. It is a feat of logical gymnastics to claim a double standard when there is only one standard: it is racist to use stereotypes of a race to disparage members of that race. One standard; no double standard. We can't make racist pictures of Bush eating watermelons, and we can't make racist pictures of Obama eating crackers.
Uh... yeah, he's white, so his monkey pics werent racist. They still offended many people, though, and there was certainly outcry against those pictures. I think the Bush-Nazi pics got even more attention, and rightly so: saying Bush is as dumb as an ape might be offensive, but far less so than to say that his atrocities were as bad as the atrocities of the Nazis.
Those examples are all offensive, but only one is racist. You make a good point though: Michelle and her husband knew full well that they would be subjected to racism if they entered the public arena, and chose to do so. She is intelligent and successful, and can certainly handle the image in the internet.
The monkey pic is still racist though. There is no double standard.
Some of us live here on planet earth in 2009 where we have to deal with this thing called reality. I bet it's a lot easier and more fun to live in a fantasy inside your mind. Geez, I wish I could do that too, but I'm cursed with reason.
Yeah, 'porch monkey' is a bit of an older term. I'm only 30, and I'm American, and I only heard that term in the last few years. I think it's more commonly known in places where racism is more common (I grew up in Alaska, where maybe there is a little less anti-black racism).
The term comes from the stereotype of black people as lazy and sitting around on porches all day. (Yeah, I'm with you -- sitting around on a porch sounds awesome to me, too.) I think the slur is more about the monkey than the porch.
There is a funny-ass porch-monkey joke/meme in the American movie "Clerks 2". If you like gross low-brow comedic wit, check out that movie.
I agree it stinks, why is it racist when they turn Michell Obama into a monkey and not George Bush?
Oh, gosh, I think I can answer this one.
You might not have heard this, or have noticed, but Bush and Obama are members of different "races". A "race" is a social construct which (very) loosely groups people according to their geographical heritage, based on physical appearance. So -- again, you would have no reason to have noticed this -- Bush is a member of what is commonly called the "white" race; and Obama the "black" race. (These designations can be easily challenged.)
So, now that you know what race is, I will introduce you to the concept of the "racial stereotype", which is a notion, usually a negative one, which suggests that a member of a race has certain characteristics or tendencies. In the United States (which, if you don't know, is a country on planet Earth), blacks were used as slaves (I know you haven't heard about that, but you'll have to google it) and when they were finally freed, stereotypes were used to subjugate them in society.
So, finally, one of the most common negative racial stereotypes against blacks is that of a monkey. So when monkey imagery is used against a black person, that is a racial stereotype. (One common racial stereotype of a white person is that of a cracker.)
Now, here's the really hard part, the part you apparently have never considered: it is not possible to use a stereotype against a person who is not a member of the stereotyped race. So that's the thing: it is impossible to make a racial stereotype of Bush as a monkey, because Bush isn't black; similarly, it is impossible to make a racial stereotype of Obama as a cracker, because Obama isn't white. So that's pretty much the answer to your question:
I agree it stinks, why is it racist when they turn Michell Obama into a monkey and not George Bush?
Why? Why is one racist and the other not? Plainly, because Obama is black, and Bush is not. It's pretty much that simple. You can make similar pictures of each person, but because of the racial historical context of the stereotypes, the similar pictures might have very different meanings. In this case, they do.
So great, I'm really happy that you are open minded and can ask questions the way you did. The rest of us just need to realize that people like you don't know about things like "races" or "stereotypes", which actually is a very good thing, a harbinger of your progressive society. I really hope you will respond to me and indicate that you now know why one is racist, and the other isn't. Really, it's a pretty simple thing to figure out once you have a modicum of knowledge.
It's not more offensive because of the melanin in her skin, it's more offensive because of the historical context of comparing members of her race to monkeys -- a context which does not apply to members of other races.
I hope that clears it all up for you. I'm actually a little surprised that you weren't aware of the deep history of racist monkey/negro comparisons.
So it's a sick hate crime to compare a black man or woman with a monkey. Yet it's fine to compare a white man to a monkey?
Well, I don't know if it's "fine", but it's certainly not racist.
The term that describes your argument is "false equivalence". Specifically, you said this:
If you want one set of rules for whites and one set for blacks it's clear who is being the racist here.
There aren't two sets of rules here, there is only one. The rule is: it's racist to use racial stereotypes against members of that race. It's not possible to make a racist depiction of Bush as a monkey, because Bush isn't a member of a race commonly stereotyped as monkeys. However, it is not impossible to make an offensive depiction of Bush as a monkey, with the offense based on something other than race. If you want racist images of Bush, you would have to use stereotypes of his race, perhaps with pictures of crackers or something.
Really, that false equivalence is very, very common, and I often wonder whether or not the people making it believe it. I ask this seriously: do you honestly, really, deep down in your heart, think that a monkey-Bush picture is equivalent in all ways to a monkey-Obama picture? Do you also have trouble in other areas of your life making distinctions between two very different things that share a shallow commonality?
Policies only need to mention race if the policies are intended to solve racial problems; and they are; so they do. That's pretty clear.
I just looked up 'racism' and found this first definition, which is better than I thought it would be. The belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, esp. so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races. You might be using a different definition, but using this one, it is clear that legislation that would (let's say) gives preference in hiring to blacks is not racist, because it doesn't espouse that blacks possess certain abilities, it merely espouses that there is an existing anti-black prejudice that can be remedied through legislation. You might disagree about that (and I might, too), but it's still not racist.
Some racists defend themselves by saying that anyone who mentions race in any way is a racist, so nobody is different than they are. That is nonsense. You should be careful not to do that, lest you out yourself.
Okay, let's say that your interlocutor has the childish understanding of 'democracy' as simple majority rule, because he never got beyond kindergarten. Still, the constitution sets up, among other things, a system of majority rule -- with exceptions and limits. So even his dumb understanding of the concept is still covered by the Constitution, so I really can't figure out what he's trying to get at. He may be a simple troll, or he may have a completely batshit crazy world view, or he might be an actual retard, in the medical sense of the word. It's hard to tell from just his internet posts.
95% of black Americans always vote for the Democrat. 19 out of 20 black Americans voted for John Kerry. That's not a racial issue directly, it's more of a racial issue indirectly, because Dems like to make government programs that help black people. In that way, it is really a simple matter of voting for the policies out of self interest.
Moreover, affinity groups always gravitate toward their own representatives: Catholics liked Kennedy; Jews like Liberman. Considering this, it's surprising that more blacks didn't vote for Obama; but also, it's hard to improve on a base of 95%.
Finally, despite you being wrong about all your facts, I think you are right about your conclusion: you can vote for or against candidates any way you want, even for racial reasons. If your conscience says that black people are in some way bad, then you should not vote for black people. The grand effort of a liberal society should be to convince racists, bigots, haters, and the ignorant to change their ways; and if that's not possible, to convince their children to be different, and wait for the bigots to die. So as much as I hate to do it, I give you my personal blessing to continue voting your conscience, even as I vainly encourage you to stop being a bigot.
Surely you aren't suggesting that avoidance of the word "democracy" means that the constitution isn't all about establishing a democratic government. Nobody could be so retarded, so I will assume you must mean something else.
But if you insist on the most clear example, here it is: "The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government". A republican government is a democratic government.
Slashdot Mirror
True, true. I totally agree. It will take vigilance to prevent the pendulum from swinging back toward racism. (Good luck in the UK.) I'm not sure what your policies are like in the UK, but here in the US I think we should slowly back off of our racial policies (such as affirmative action) as racism withers -- and, we have done that, more or less. I think we are at a point in the US when we could back off a little more, and by the time I'm an old man we might be able to declare substantial victory over racism and move to a legally colorblind society. That will truly be a great day, but we're not ready for it yet.
I agree with the critics: having policies based on race does feel wrong. But I disagree with the critics who say that any policy which utilizes race is a racist policy. When society is close enough to colorblind, then the law can engage the fiction of post-racism; but to engage that fiction today would be to ignore reality. I accuse the critics of ignoring reality.
Right on brother! Here's what I said
The rest of us just need to realize that people like you don't know about things like "races" or "stereotypes", which actually is a very good thing, a harbinger of your progressive society.
So that's great. I hope in the future everybody can be like you. But for now, the rest of us are living on planet earth in 2009, where racism is a relatively minor (in the US at least) but still-serious problem. The rest of us don't think we can make racism disappear from the world by pretending it doesn't exist, in the same way we don't believe we can fly by pretending there is no gravity. We didn't begin the fight for racial equality in the 60s by pretending race doesn't exist, and we also won't be able to finish the job that way. Long after we finish the job, then we can all be the way you suggest.
Yes, I know all about what the Watergate scandal was, but I don't know what "a watergate" is. I literally couldn't parse your grammar:
What would a CIA linked 'google' do with a Watergate, Iran contra ect. ?
Show some more Iraqi museum images?
I'm just not sure what that means. What is a CIA-linked google? I know what Google is, but "a google" -- is that a pagefull of Google search results? Is it a Google search term? Is it an employee of the company? Once we establish that, what would it mean for "a google" to be "CIA-linked"? Is 'the google' hyperlinked on the WWW to a CIA webpage? Is 'the google' a compatriot of a CIA agent?
I don't mean that I can understand your diction but don't understand your point -- I mean your grammar and writing can't be parsed in my mind. I'm a native English speaker, and you may not be, so I'm not trying to offend you, I just can't understand. Your response is even more confusing, adding "the regime" to the pantheon of "a watergate", "a google". What regime? Do you mean the lizard people who secretly control the world? Do you mean the communist regime that runs China? Since I'm not inside your head, I can't posit a guess at what your words are meant to communicate. I am honestly confused.
Thanks! Your encouragement means a lot to all of us. I don't agree with your dislike of "fuck" (I love that word!) but yes, I too am glad to see the slow waning of racism from American and worldwide culture.
Do you for some reason think the standard is "don't make pictures of people looking like a monkey"? Could you possibly be so daft? The standard is don't disparage people by using stereotypes of the person's race. Do you see how that standard means that Obama-monkey pics are racist and Bush-monkey pics are not? They might both be in bad taste, but they aren't both racist, and there is no double standard.
Yes, it is the whole race thing.
Not feeding the flames is what stalled racial equality between 1870 and 1960. Feeding the flames in the 1960s is what brought us forward to the point we're at today, where we've come a long way, and still have a ways to go. It's rare when you can solve problems by ignoring them -- yeah, I love that kind of problem, but institutional and cultural racism isn't that type.
So we might disagree about the meaning of the image, but we agree that Google shouldn't be censoring it. They can if they want, but it would make you and me less likely to use their service. I want to filter my own results because I'm mature enough to do that; and people who aren't should maybe use a different search service which will filter for them.
But really, don't make the mistake of equating the Bush-monkey pics with the Obama-monkey pics. They aren't the same.
Interesting. On the Condoleezza page I didn't see any depictions of her as a monkey, or other racial thing, but there is her seemingly pregnant with a monkey, which may or may not represent Bush. The caption on that image is in Arabic (or something) so I don't know whether that has a racial meaning; in my understanding, I guess it doesn't. So that pagefull of images doesn't really support your point, but if it did feature Rice-monkey images, then that would be racist.
The page for Steele likewise doesn't have any monkey images, but has several of him in blackface. That is efinitely racist. Not only is the shown type of blackface racist on its own, but the deeper implication is that Steele is a white man pretending to be a black man, since that is the typical context of that kind of blackface. I'm offended by that, even though Steele is a bit of a jackass.
Back to the Condoleezza page: she is a remarkably brilliant and successful American woman, despite her deeply misguided policies. So there is an image of her face imposed on the butt-end of a horse. This is a great example of a politically-motivated image which is intentionally offensive, but not racist, because horses aren't a common stereotype of black people as far as I know. This is the distinction that people pretend not to understand when they pretend to equate Bush-monkey pictures with Obama-monkey pictures, or when they pretend that there is a double standard. It is a feat of logical gymnastics to claim a double standard when there is only one standard: it is racist to use stereotypes of a race to disparage members of that race. One standard; no double standard. We can't make racist pictures of Bush eating watermelons, and we can't make racist pictures of Obama eating crackers.
Uh... yeah, he's white, so his monkey pics werent racist. They still offended many people, though, and there was certainly outcry against those pictures. I think the Bush-Nazi pics got even more attention, and rightly so: saying Bush is as dumb as an ape might be offensive, but far less so than to say that his atrocities were as bad as the atrocities of the Nazis.
Those examples are all offensive, but only one is racist. You make a good point though: Michelle and her husband knew full well that they would be subjected to racism if they entered the public arena, and chose to do so. She is intelligent and successful, and can certainly handle the image in the internet.
The monkey pic is still racist though. There is no double standard.
I can't figure out what you are trying to say. What is "a google"? What is "a Watergate"?
Some of us live here on planet earth in 2009 where we have to deal with this thing called reality. I bet it's a lot easier and more fun to live in a fantasy inside your mind. Geez, I wish I could do that too, but I'm cursed with reason.
Google certainly has the right to filter its results if it wants to...
...but I'm glad they don't, and wouldn't want them to start...
...but this image is still offensive and racist...
...but people still have the right to make offensive and racist images if they want.
Holy shit. I need to improve my racist vocabulary. I only knew 11 of those 21 slurs!
Yeah, 'porch monkey' is a bit of an older term. I'm only 30, and I'm American, and I only heard that term in the last few years. I think it's more commonly known in places where racism is more common (I grew up in Alaska, where maybe there is a little less anti-black racism).
The term comes from the stereotype of black people as lazy and sitting around on porches all day. (Yeah, I'm with you -- sitting around on a porch sounds awesome to me, too.) I think the slur is more about the monkey than the porch.
There is a funny-ass porch-monkey joke/meme in the American movie "Clerks 2". If you like gross low-brow comedic wit, check out that movie.
Dude, "porch monkey" isn't a racial slur! My grandmother used that all the time! And if it is racist, then I'm taking it back.
I agree it stinks, why is it racist when they turn Michell Obama into a monkey and not George Bush?
Oh, gosh, I think I can answer this one.
You might not have heard this, or have noticed, but Bush and Obama are members of different "races". A "race" is a social construct which (very) loosely groups people according to their geographical heritage, based on physical appearance. So -- again, you would have no reason to have noticed this -- Bush is a member of what is commonly called the "white" race; and Obama the "black" race. (These designations can be easily challenged.)
So, now that you know what race is, I will introduce you to the concept of the "racial stereotype", which is a notion, usually a negative one, which suggests that a member of a race has certain characteristics or tendencies. In the United States (which, if you don't know, is a country on planet Earth), blacks were used as slaves (I know you haven't heard about that, but you'll have to google it) and when they were finally freed, stereotypes were used to subjugate them in society.
So, finally, one of the most common negative racial stereotypes against blacks is that of a monkey. So when monkey imagery is used against a black person, that is a racial stereotype. (One common racial stereotype of a white person is that of a cracker.)
Now, here's the really hard part, the part you apparently have never considered: it is not possible to use a stereotype against a person who is not a member of the stereotyped race. So that's the thing: it is impossible to make a racial stereotype of Bush as a monkey, because Bush isn't black; similarly, it is impossible to make a racial stereotype of Obama as a cracker, because Obama isn't white. So that's pretty much the answer to your question:
I agree it stinks, why is it racist when they turn Michell Obama into a monkey and not George Bush?
Why? Why is one racist and the other not? Plainly, because Obama is black, and Bush is not. It's pretty much that simple. You can make similar pictures of each person, but because of the racial historical context of the stereotypes, the similar pictures might have very different meanings. In this case, they do.
So great, I'm really happy that you are open minded and can ask questions the way you did. The rest of us just need to realize that people like you don't know about things like "races" or "stereotypes", which actually is a very good thing, a harbinger of your progressive society. I really hope you will respond to me and indicate that you now know why one is racist, and the other isn't. Really, it's a pretty simple thing to figure out once you have a modicum of knowledge.
Calling them Nazi's what?
If your clueless, then we're making progress
If your clueless what?
(I'm just being a wag. Your point is good, but your grammar needs work.)
It's not more offensive because of the melanin in her skin, it's more offensive because of the historical context of comparing members of her race to monkeys -- a context which does not apply to members of other races.
I hope that clears it all up for you. I'm actually a little surprised that you weren't aware of the deep history of racist monkey/negro comparisons.
So it's a sick hate crime to compare a black man or woman with a monkey. Yet it's fine to compare a white man to a monkey?
Well, I don't know if it's "fine", but it's certainly not racist.
The term that describes your argument is "false equivalence". Specifically, you said this:
If you want one set of rules for whites and one set for blacks it's clear who is being the racist here.
There aren't two sets of rules here, there is only one. The rule is: it's racist to use racial stereotypes against members of that race. It's not possible to make a racist depiction of Bush as a monkey, because Bush isn't a member of a race commonly stereotyped as monkeys. However, it is not impossible to make an offensive depiction of Bush as a monkey, with the offense based on something other than race. If you want racist images of Bush, you would have to use stereotypes of his race, perhaps with pictures of crackers or something.
Really, that false equivalence is very, very common, and I often wonder whether or not the people making it believe it. I ask this seriously: do you honestly, really, deep down in your heart, think that a monkey-Bush picture is equivalent in all ways to a monkey-Obama picture? Do you also have trouble in other areas of your life making distinctions between two very different things that share a shallow commonality?
Policies only need to mention race if the policies are intended to solve racial problems; and they are; so they do. That's pretty clear.
I just looked up 'racism' and found this first definition, which is better than I thought it would be. The belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, esp. so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races. You might be using a different definition, but using this one, it is clear that legislation that would (let's say) gives preference in hiring to blacks is not racist, because it doesn't espouse that blacks possess certain abilities, it merely espouses that there is an existing anti-black prejudice that can be remedied through legislation. You might disagree about that (and I might, too), but it's still not racist.
Some racists defend themselves by saying that anyone who mentions race in any way is a racist, so nobody is different than they are. That is nonsense. You should be careful not to do that, lest you out yourself.
Okay, let's say that your interlocutor has the childish understanding of 'democracy' as simple majority rule, because he never got beyond kindergarten. Still, the constitution sets up, among other things, a system of majority rule -- with exceptions and limits. So even his dumb understanding of the concept is still covered by the Constitution, so I really can't figure out what he's trying to get at. He may be a simple troll, or he may have a completely batshit crazy world view, or he might be an actual retard, in the medical sense of the word. It's hard to tell from just his internet posts.
95% of black Americans always vote for the Democrat. 19 out of 20 black Americans voted for John Kerry. That's not a racial issue directly, it's more of a racial issue indirectly, because Dems like to make government programs that help black people. In that way, it is really a simple matter of voting for the policies out of self interest.
Moreover, affinity groups always gravitate toward their own representatives: Catholics liked Kennedy; Jews like Liberman. Considering this, it's surprising that more blacks didn't vote for Obama; but also, it's hard to improve on a base of 95%.
Finally, despite you being wrong about all your facts, I think you are right about your conclusion: you can vote for or against candidates any way you want, even for racial reasons. If your conscience says that black people are in some way bad, then you should not vote for black people. The grand effort of a liberal society should be to convince racists, bigots, haters, and the ignorant to change their ways; and if that's not possible, to convince their children to be different, and wait for the bigots to die. So as much as I hate to do it, I give you my personal blessing to continue voting your conscience, even as I vainly encourage you to stop being a bigot.
Holy crapola. I hate to wade into your craziness, but I can't help but be curious what you think the constitution is about?
Surely you aren't suggesting that avoidance of the word "democracy" means that the constitution isn't all about establishing a democratic government. Nobody could be so retarded, so I will assume you must mean something else.
But if you insist on the most clear example, here it is: "The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government". A republican government is a democratic government.
Shown.