Comment deleted by Site Moderator
RAP.
Fair enough.
I couldn't be bovved to read 249 comments!
comment by shortlightandugly (U13938)
posted 12 minutes ago
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?
----------------------------------------
Read the comments dumbass and you'll have the answer before insulting.
If you still feel I'm worth the insult after then fair enough.
TOOR.
I wasn't aware that I'd insulted you but thanks for calling me a dumbass anyway.
Really can't be bovved to read 249 comments so I'll assume from your last one that your original post was sarcastic
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.
------------------
That's a valid and justified explanation. Even though I've put forward the allegorical meaning of King Kong in this thread (that is to try and explain why people may construe the Balotelli picture as being racist), TOOR has, to his credit, provided another interpretation to King Kong which in all honesty is equally as valid.
Anyway, this has been a great thread, with great points put forward by many. Hand on heart, a thread I've enjoyed reading and contributing to.
There are so many interpretations of the KK film that you could actually make it be an allegory for almost anything you wanted.
It was thought at the time that the giant ape Kong was a conservative film company's very sceptical symbolic assessment of the New Deal, with the adventurer-promoter character Denham was representing Franklin Roosevelt who's inauguration was around the same time the film was released. Critics wondered if Kong symbolised this possibility, the threat of the masses “losing their chains” in a revolutionary upheaval.
But the black/white theory also works.
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
Let me rephrase just for RAP - the black/yellow theory also works
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
There are so many interpretations of the KK film that you could actually make it be an allegory for almost anything you wanted.
--------------------
True. In fact the same could be said about any film.
But then predominant theories do rise to the fore on account of the number of people who ascribe/propose them. And when it comes to film theory, there is also the valid point as to what the actual intention of the film-makers themselves were. A lot has been written on Kong, especially the 1933 version, whereby the directors (Merian Cooper and Ernest Schoedsack) along with the writers (Edgar Wallace and Ruth Rose), have all themselves commented on the racial allegory of the film.
And when that happens, such readings into the film have to be taken into account.
But it doesn't stop there. The film takes on a meaning all of its own, and how prominent that meaning is shapes its understanding in popular culture. That also has to be taken into account. It's the same in regards to why a white person depicted as a monkey doesn't carry the same connotation as a black person depicted as monkey does. Simply because there is a historical significance and discourse whereby depicting Black people in such a way has become associated to issues of race and subordination. And that quite simply can not be ignored, whether we agree with it or not.
I mean, George Bush has been depicted as a monkey many many times. When he has been depicted in such a way, it isn't to make a comment upon his race, but rather his stupidity as an individual. Yet when the same happens to a black person, a comment on race does occur, simply because of how such a depiction has been used numerous times in the past in order to ascribe a certain persona (that of being stupid) to a particular race overall. In short, George Bush being depicted as a monkey makes a comment on George Bush and George Bush only being stupid. Yet when Obama is depicted as a monkey, it makes a comment on not only Obama being stupid, but Obama being stupid because he is Black. We may find that ridiculous, but there is still a long way to go before it ceases to be the case.
Hmmm whether you're talking about Peter kings version or Charlie chaplins Xmas special, that cartoon can be seen by a large enough porportion of people to be close to the mark!!
I just have to say that talking about a black person or white for that matter being depicted as a monkey is one thing, replacing a popular image with two completely different images is another. Balotelli was not depicted as a monkey, Big Ben was not depited as the Empire State. Both aspects of the cartoon had 'replacements' for what was in the original. Heck, a while back there was an advert for cat food where the kitten was made huge standing on top of the Houses of Parliament (I think). My first thought wasn't - oh look they're making a cat look like a gorilla! It was a film concept yes - but both elements (the animal and building) were replaced with two very different elements.
I don't look at the picture and think gorilla. I look at the picture and think Balotelli.
When JB mentioned about the picture not showing a gorilla, I went and looked and JB was right. However my first thoughts were that it was actually King Kong's body with Balotelli's head.
This makes you think, if it is only Balotelli, is it racist? If it is actually the body of King Kong, why is it now racist, when both examples are portraying the same image?
It's a very clear parody of KK, however you dress it up
comment by makar - Thread Killer (U4260)
posted 2 minutes ago
It's a very clear parody of KK, however you dress it up
------------------------------------------
Yes we know that. It's not dressing it up to say it's not actually an oversized gorilla with Balotelli's head on it. There are no gorilla features in the illustration.
I don't think that is relevant, he is there in place of KK in a similar pose to KK. As in KK the giant gorilla.
"There are no gorilla features in the illustration"
You're missing the point TOOR
TOOR - It's great that this is making us all re-think. I never saw it and still dont see it as a monkey body - because it isn't. It's a human body. If it was a monkey body with Balotelli's head then it could be seen as racist.
I accept that racists compare black people to monkeys even though I don't and quite frankly I have a real hard time making the link - but if that had been what the artist had done, it would give those who see it as racist much more stronger argument.
I studied racism as part of my degree so it's a topic very close to me. I personally refuse to link images of monkeys and black people. Those who call black people monkey or give credence to it are welcome to their views. As I said yesterday John Barnes refused to make the link too. 'If ignorant idiots make monkey noises then they are making making noises but not to me' - or somthing similar was what Barnes said.
Rappers have tried to reclaim the n word by taking it's awful meaning away. Claiming that if black people say it to each other, then it loses it's hold over them as an insult made to them by whites. It's very similar with the monkey noises.
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
comment by makar - Thread Killer (U4260)
posted 4 minutes ago
I don't think that is relevant, he is there in place of KK in a similar pose to KK. As in KK the giant gorilla.
--------------------------------------------
Of course it's relevant. It means Balotelli is being depicted as having the same mentality as King Kong but not the same features, which some think could be racist. This is a whole different argument than the one I was making before but one just as relevant.
comment by Pride of the North (U6803)
posted 4 minutes ago
"There are no gorilla features in the illustration"
You're missing the point TOOR
--------------------------------
No, no I'm not.
I also posted the artists reason for doing the picture - Balotelli dominating England - he may have chosen a contentious image for some - but his message is clear there. I don't believe he would purposefully portray a fellow countryman who they are relying on to win the Euros as a derogatory figure and bring this criticism on himself knowingly. It could be the end of his career, why would he risk that?
There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
This is a whole different argument than the one I was making before but one just as relevant.
---
then i am afraid i don't understand what you mean
Sign in if you want to comment
Race Row or...
Page 11 of 21
12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16
posted on 27/6/12
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 27/6/12
RAP.
Fair enough.
I couldn't be bovved to read 249 comments!
posted on 27/6/12
comment by shortlightandugly (U13938)
posted 12 minutes ago
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?
----------------------------------------
Read the comments dumbass and you'll have the answer before insulting.
If you still feel I'm worth the insult after then fair enough.
posted on 27/6/12
TOOR.
I wasn't aware that I'd insulted you but thanks for calling me a dumbass anyway.
Really can't be bovved to read 249 comments so I'll assume from your last one that your original post was sarcastic
posted on 27/6/12
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.
------------------
That's a valid and justified explanation. Even though I've put forward the allegorical meaning of King Kong in this thread (that is to try and explain why people may construe the Balotelli picture as being racist), TOOR has, to his credit, provided another interpretation to King Kong which in all honesty is equally as valid.
Anyway, this has been a great thread, with great points put forward by many. Hand on heart, a thread I've enjoyed reading and contributing to.
posted on 27/6/12
There are so many interpretations of the KK film that you could actually make it be an allegory for almost anything you wanted.
It was thought at the time that the giant ape Kong was a conservative film company's very sceptical symbolic assessment of the New Deal, with the adventurer-promoter character Denham was representing Franklin Roosevelt who's inauguration was around the same time the film was released. Critics wondered if Kong symbolised this possibility, the threat of the masses “losing their chains” in a revolutionary upheaval.
But the black/white theory also works.
posted on 27/6/12
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 27/6/12
Let me rephrase just for RAP - the black/yellow theory also works
posted on 27/6/12
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 27/6/12
posted on 27/6/12
posted on 27/6/12
There are so many interpretations of the KK film that you could actually make it be an allegory for almost anything you wanted.
--------------------
True. In fact the same could be said about any film.
But then predominant theories do rise to the fore on account of the number of people who ascribe/propose them. And when it comes to film theory, there is also the valid point as to what the actual intention of the film-makers themselves were. A lot has been written on Kong, especially the 1933 version, whereby the directors (Merian Cooper and Ernest Schoedsack) along with the writers (Edgar Wallace and Ruth Rose), have all themselves commented on the racial allegory of the film.
And when that happens, such readings into the film have to be taken into account.
But it doesn't stop there. The film takes on a meaning all of its own, and how prominent that meaning is shapes its understanding in popular culture. That also has to be taken into account. It's the same in regards to why a white person depicted as a monkey doesn't carry the same connotation as a black person depicted as monkey does. Simply because there is a historical significance and discourse whereby depicting Black people in such a way has become associated to issues of race and subordination. And that quite simply can not be ignored, whether we agree with it or not.
I mean, George Bush has been depicted as a monkey many many times. When he has been depicted in such a way, it isn't to make a comment upon his race, but rather his stupidity as an individual. Yet when the same happens to a black person, a comment on race does occur, simply because of how such a depiction has been used numerous times in the past in order to ascribe a certain persona (that of being stupid) to a particular race overall. In short, George Bush being depicted as a monkey makes a comment on George Bush and George Bush only being stupid. Yet when Obama is depicted as a monkey, it makes a comment on not only Obama being stupid, but Obama being stupid because he is Black. We may find that ridiculous, but there is still a long way to go before it ceases to be the case.
posted on 28/6/12
Hmmm whether you're talking about Peter kings version or Charlie chaplins Xmas special, that cartoon can be seen by a large enough porportion of people to be close to the mark!!
posted on 28/6/12
I just have to say that talking about a black person or white for that matter being depicted as a monkey is one thing, replacing a popular image with two completely different images is another. Balotelli was not depicted as a monkey, Big Ben was not depited as the Empire State. Both aspects of the cartoon had 'replacements' for what was in the original. Heck, a while back there was an advert for cat food where the kitten was made huge standing on top of the Houses of Parliament (I think). My first thought wasn't - oh look they're making a cat look like a gorilla! It was a film concept yes - but both elements (the animal and building) were replaced with two very different elements.
I don't look at the picture and think gorilla. I look at the picture and think Balotelli.
posted on 28/6/12
When JB mentioned about the picture not showing a gorilla, I went and looked and JB was right. However my first thoughts were that it was actually King Kong's body with Balotelli's head.
This makes you think, if it is only Balotelli, is it racist? If it is actually the body of King Kong, why is it now racist, when both examples are portraying the same image?
posted on 28/6/12
It's a very clear parody of KK, however you dress it up
posted on 28/6/12
comment by makar - Thread Killer (U4260)
posted 2 minutes ago
It's a very clear parody of KK, however you dress it up
------------------------------------------
Yes we know that. It's not dressing it up to say it's not actually an oversized gorilla with Balotelli's head on it. There are no gorilla features in the illustration.
posted on 28/6/12
I don't think that is relevant, he is there in place of KK in a similar pose to KK. As in KK the giant gorilla.
posted on 28/6/12
"There are no gorilla features in the illustration"
You're missing the point TOOR
posted on 28/6/12
TOOR - It's great that this is making us all re-think. I never saw it and still dont see it as a monkey body - because it isn't. It's a human body. If it was a monkey body with Balotelli's head then it could be seen as racist.
I accept that racists compare black people to monkeys even though I don't and quite frankly I have a real hard time making the link - but if that had been what the artist had done, it would give those who see it as racist much more stronger argument.
I studied racism as part of my degree so it's a topic very close to me. I personally refuse to link images of monkeys and black people. Those who call black people monkey or give credence to it are welcome to their views. As I said yesterday John Barnes refused to make the link too. 'If ignorant idiots make monkey noises then they are making making noises but not to me' - or somthing similar was what Barnes said.
Rappers have tried to reclaim the n word by taking it's awful meaning away. Claiming that if black people say it to each other, then it loses it's hold over them as an insult made to them by whites. It's very similar with the monkey noises.
posted on 28/6/12
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 28/6/12
comment by makar - Thread Killer (U4260)
posted 4 minutes ago
I don't think that is relevant, he is there in place of KK in a similar pose to KK. As in KK the giant gorilla.
--------------------------------------------
Of course it's relevant. It means Balotelli is being depicted as having the same mentality as King Kong but not the same features, which some think could be racist. This is a whole different argument than the one I was making before but one just as relevant.
posted on 28/6/12
comment by Pride of the North (U6803)
posted 4 minutes ago
"There are no gorilla features in the illustration"
You're missing the point TOOR
--------------------------------
No, no I'm not.
posted on 28/6/12
I also posted the artists reason for doing the picture - Balotelli dominating England - he may have chosen a contentious image for some - but his message is clear there. I don't believe he would purposefully portray a fellow countryman who they are relying on to win the Euros as a derogatory figure and bring this criticism on himself knowingly. It could be the end of his career, why would he risk that?
posted on 28/6/12
There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
This is a whole different argument than the one I was making before but one just as relevant.
---
then i am afraid i don't understand what you mean
Page 11 of 21
12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16