Ripley's - some great points there. I agree it's nigh on impossible to re-educate and remove the deeply ingrained links we are talking about and it's a shame that some aspects of society are becoming over PC'd. It's about finding a balance so the vulnerable are protected but the overly sensitive are de-sensitised.

makar - Some great points of yours too. I still think a lot of the points you make are with the view that this picture is racist or has racial undertones as you put it. And once again it comes down and back to the one perceiving that it does, refusing to believe that there's a possibility that it doesn't.

I never ask anyone to swap their opinion for mine and wouldn't expect it anyway. This is a huge subject and even this one very small picture has prompted more thoughts than any of us could have imagined.

Ripley's cat

One thing I hate, is faux-emotion. Speaking for others? Telling us how we should think? And based on what? Their subjective opinion?

---

I think you're in danger of placing the truely offended into the same category as the faux-moralists. Unfortunately there is not really any good way of working out which category someone falls in to when they're complaining about taking offence to something. Do you agree that not every complainer is taking the moral high ground at least?

FSB (U11355)



Well said. I'm always going to find it tough to turn a blind eye to those that suffer doubly due to my actions, I will soul search a bit more on this point.

Ripley's cat

My question sounded patronising. I meant do you agree that the two categories get bundled into one and do you think that any of the responsibility in that lies with us?

Ripley's, a lot of great points

I think the media are very much to blame in all of this. They thrive by creating a media storm. They actually profit from the propagation of the racist 'link' and the paedophile threat as it gives them an opportunity to take the moral high ground and express their mock indignation whenever stories such as this arise. Thus their main interest is in perpetuating the issue.

So as ever, the money-driven media are to blame

Couple of points, why does Ballotelli have bare feet in the image? Also to what extent does the intention of the artist govern the reaction once the picture is made public? If the cartoon was not intended with any racial undercurrent is it unreasonable for a viewer to take offense?? I would assume that the artist didn't intend any racial link as they would've had to justify the image to the editor who then made the decision to publish. For me this was an error of judgement as it could clearly be construed as racist in nature even if there was no intent and in todays PR conscious world to publish anyway was ill-judged. The old maxim that no publicity is bad publicity is clearly nonsense - ask Gerald Ratner!

Stirling

The artist is free to come out and explain his own work whenever he wishes. If he chooses not to do so, then we can only assume that that is because his intention with this cartoon was to create debate, leave its interpretation open, and, well, kick up a bit of a storm.

If he has come out and explained it, then any interpretation in environments such as this that conflicts with his explanation has quite simply missed the point of his work.

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

It's simple supply and demand if you ask me. More people want to buy the white dolls, therefore they're more expensive.

thats terrible lol!