Its got nothing to do with the colour of the skin but the recent history surrounding the person in question.

Been away a while and missed a lot, not going to get back involved again now. To the relief of most I expect. It is certainly a controversial picture though, page 9 and counting for the comments!

Going round in circles I think, I'm out, probably to the relief of most too.

OK picture this - A smiling Pele larger than life sitting on top of the Eiffel Tower. Is that racist?

why would pele be on the Eiffel tower though? is it because it represents the erection he struggles to get

Cobnob (U12084)

I bet you're not out. Just like last time. And how I'm still not.

It's good that we can talk about racism like we have here without the personal abuse that so often these things degenerate into. TOOR had a change of mind after creating the article so that in itself has been a good thing.

duncan it was just another similar image with the first names that came to mind, using the KK symbolism. What would that image evoke.

If the Balotelli image is steeped in his current situation, I took 2 images with no current history.

I like debating, so I enjoyed this article. I learnt why people might consider the illustration racist also, which is certainly a good thing. I like to learn. So with the exception of one idiot, who we all know, the article, which is on a strong topic, went well. It could have went horribly wrong but it's good to see everybody took the opinions of others on board.

TOOR, good article that sparked decent debate. I sill fully agree with your OP. I'm not comfortable with the attitude that any comparison between 2 characters essentially boils down to their colour, while ignoring any other glaring similarities. This tendency to judge a person based solely on their colour, regardless of whatever other attributes and characteristics they possess is usually called racism

TOOR

good article

FSB

I think the problem is that by studying one person's illustration it is difficult to work out if the intent was there or not, but we also have to consider that there are a lot of racist people in the world, so it isn't as completely inconceivable as others think that the intent is there. However, I dismiss the notion that you're the racist if you see racist intent in something when you can clearly back-up your argument as to why you think it is racist. Clearly, there will always be the odd few annoying people who will kick up a fuss just because they can and because some people seem to find comfort in being a victim etc. etc. But we cannot therefore assume that anyone that claims something is racist is being purposefully antagonistic just as we also cannot assume that they have no basis for the assertion.

A tricky subject, but luckily it weeded down to a handful of sensible posters in the end who generally agree on the fundamentals, whilst many of the the others whittled out without explanation , which is usually the case in such threads.

It seems like we all agree that there is scope for uncertainty there at least.

Good discussion all round TOOR.

I didn't change my mind about how I see the cartoon but I like that there are so many different views, all of which I respect.

What I mean is, there is a big difference between saying:

'I think that Balotelli looks like a gorilla in that illustration and that is racist'

and

' I think that the illustrator is presenting Balotelli as a gorilla-like figure due to the recent controversies he has had and that is racist'

and unless someone is being purposefully antagonistic, then I can see nothing wrong in stating the latter point above if you can back it up.

However, I dismiss the notion that you're the racist if you see racist intent in something when you can clearly back-up your argument as to why you think it is racist
---------

Agreed, it all boils down to interpretation. For me the racial aspect seemed an obvious leap to make, as obvious as Balotelli being depicted as a character who is misunderstood, conquering England - the team and the media.

Where my viewpoint may differ to others is that I'm unconcerned that it was published, as I find censorship of the press more disturbing.

I think there is a world of difference between something being racist and someone being offended. Everyone has the right to be offended at what they want - it doesn't give them the right to dictate what other people do or say. If the cartoon had depicted him as a monkey sat in a chair, that would be racist as the suggestion would be that he is a monkey, with obvious racist imagery. However, depicting him as a character that is commonly used as a metaphor, is not racist - if people wish to make the connection between the fact that KK is an ape and this is also common racist imagery, is entirely their right, but does not make the cartoon racist.

It would be like someone comparing you to a German to suggest they are efficient (a stereotype, but go with it!) - this happens all the time, but you don't instantly presume they are calling you a German war criminal (banned word!!) - it's not in the context!

If we were asked to put an assessment of the cartoon without being influenced by the newspaper headline it cam with or being able to read others comments then I would say -

I think the illustrator has satirised a well known film and replaced the gorilla figure with Balotelli atop an iconic English building in an attempt to rub in the fact that Italy beat England.

Pâî§Lë¥'š _P䆆ê®ÑëÐ_ÐrÊåm§ (U1541)

Or whoever, can you explain why you will defend someone's write to publish whatever they want? I can't decide where I sit with this argument, it sounds like such a bold statement to make when you consider the sort of things people could conceivably go on to publish if there were no fear of it being removed due to controversy.

I would just add that Balotelli was chosen to be in the drawing because he's the only one who plays in England. If Diamanti was still at West Ham it could have been him.

(That's probably me not wanting to believe that an artist would be purposely inflammatory)

Makar
'I guess it is also possible that out of the thousands of ways of depicting a misunderstood man, they picked a gorilla and never once thought about how this could be controversial.'

Name 5 other ways of depicting this that is as powerful and instantly recognisable as Kong!

Cobnob
'I see you have neglected to read the rest of the article you posted where it says there is "A popular racist allegory has been that of Kong as the black man seeking to dominate the fair haired white woman and how society rightly destroys Kong, the black man, for his defilement of the pure white woman"'

If you want to see it that way!! How many black leading ladies were there back then? What about well tanned white ladies? Very few, so the inclusion of a pail, fair-haired woman was completely the norm irrelevant of topic. Now think of another creature that could be 'hugified' in such a way as to allow them to be personified in the way Kong is - I can't think of any, so I assume that is why an ape was used.

As I've said before, treating someone differently cos of the colour of their skin is what I think racism is - therefore using a different imagery from that you would use for a white person, is just racism in a different form!

Pâî§Lë¥'š _P䆆ê®ÑëÐ_ÐrÊåm§ (U1541)

Or whoever, can you explain why you will defend someone's write to publish whatever they want? I can't decide where I sit with this argument, it sounds like such a bold statement to make when you consider the sort of things people could conceivably go on to publish if there were no fear of it being removed due to controversy.

-----------

Blimey where do I start?

The essence of the argument I suppose can be encapsulated in with the current ongoing debates and proposals about policing the internet.

"Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference, and impart information and ideas through any media regardless of frontiers" - The Universal declaration of Human Rights.

Basically I believe in the above, but I understand that there are laws which are vital to protect against the exploitation and he persecution of others.

For example quite rightly many people abhor the BNP in this country and what they represent. However, I would defend their right to have their say, regardless of how abhorrent I find their views.

Makar, I don't deny that the depiction of Balotelli as King Kong could be interpreted as racist. However, there are a number of other shared attributes that can also be plausibly applied (misunderstood, acts of kindness, mean streak, unexpected behaviour, both one-offs, etc, etc). My argument is that to simply ignore any other relevant attributes and focus only on colour is to deny entirely the relevance of the many facets of the man's character. This reduction of a person to a single attribute, the colour of their skin is the essence of racism.

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

RAP - you've nicely summed up everything I've said on here

Just found this - The cartoonist, Valerio Marini, said the aim of the cartoon, published on Sunday, was to show Balotelli dominating England in the Euro 2012 quarter-final.

Read more: http://www.theweek.co.uk/football/bonkers-balotelli/47654/mario-balotelli-king-kong-race-row-after-italian-cartoon#ixzz1z0kvCBvX

makar - on press censorship I think that normal rational people should be able to handle non-censorship, however children and vulnerable adults could be adversely affected and need protection from what they could see or read that was never intended for them but nevertheless found it's way into their viewing.

TOOR.

I assume your comments are meant as sarcastic. Either that or you're living in the 70s.
How can a cartoon portraying a black man as an ape being anything other than racist?