comment by Cobnob (U12084)
posted 2 minutes ago
However I would also say that the cartoonist has a right to do the cartoon - I agree, but anyone putting anything in the public domain has a duty of care, and they should consider what they make public.
They should also be willing to take criticism and apologise if their work is deemed an issue for some.
The artist and paper appear to have realised how it could be veiwed and have apologised and hopefully will have clearer thought the next time they publish anything.
--------------------------------------
Yes, of course. If I were an artist and I did a painting which I consider brilliant but people were offended about, I'd take it out of the public line of fire but I'd still consider it brilliant. Only I have a duty to the public, to do what they like, as it is them I'm selling it to.
comment by makar - Thread Killer (U4260)
posted 3 minutes ago
Dr Seven Grater - Farewell Biscan, we're all Igor Beavers. (U13441)
In the end, I didn't comment on the thread, ostensibly because of the shïtstorm that the Samba bit probably would have caused, but I was struck by the strangeness of the situation I found myself in; feeling like I couldn't make a non-racist remark (it's not Samba's colour that causes him to remind me of a gorilla - indeed, I can't think of another black footballer off-hand who reminds me of a gorilla/monkey, whereas the likes of Bale and Peter Reid remind me of monkeys) because it would have seen me branded a racist.
----
But I don't see the problem here, it was a dangerous thread and so you steered clear of it. There was nothing to really gain from contributing to it anyway though right? I think that some people (not saying you btw, just using your comment to highlight a point) feel that the 'rules' around racism are supremely oppressive, but let's face it, by just being careful, thoughtful and staying away from anything that could potentially be construed as racist -especially for comedic effect - is no real hardship, and in no way as damaging as racism actually can be and indeed has been in the past.
----------------------------------------------
Well this is something I strongly disagree with. Why should people watch their words and be careful if they are not racist and don't racially abuse? If they don't intend to say something racist, then they should be free to say what they like, without feeling doubt and feeling uncomfortable, due to idiots who do say racist things.
That looks racist to me!
There many more way whoever drew that would've done what he wanted to portray. Read up king kong and racism to see how racists it is
Ok lets stop arguing and all sing Baa Baa Rainbow Sheep. No-one will be offended. Altogether now...
What I find funny is that its the Daily Mail who are a showing outrage when they are the first to blame immigrants for everything wring in this country.
comment by There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
My view was on you and simply stated that you claim you did not know the kong movies had racial undertones but now you seemingly accept that they do,but you are still adamant that there are no racial undertone to the depiction.
Wondering why if you have only just found out now about the racist undertones why your views are still the same
i find people who cry racism without there actually being any evidence of it being intended the biggest racists going.
take a pakistani for example, at my sons school they are having to learn all about their culture because they claimed that by failing to do so makes us racist.
boll0x to that, i'd rather have my son learning maths, or how to write well, not because i'm racist, but because its more beneficial to my son.
What would that problem be exactly? That they don't perceive things in exactly the same way as you?
-----------------------------
No. Consider this - take Big Ben away. Now tell me that Balotelli is depicted as a gorilla. For someone to be depicted as something other than human then they have to have been drawn with the features of the animal they are supposed to be.
Those animal features aren't in this cartoon so why do people see a gorilla? Some have made a mental leap based on what an iconic building and a larger than life being on it springs to mind for them.
But I don't see the problem here, it was a dangerous thread and so you steered clear of it. There was nothing to really gain from contributing to it anyway though right? I think that some people (not saying you btw, just usingyourcommentto highlight a point) feel that the 'rules' around racism are supremely oppressive,but let's face it, by just being careful, thoughtfulandstayingawayfrom anything that could potentially be construed as racist -especially for comedic effect - is no real hardship, and in no way as damaging as racism actually can be and indeed has been in the past
---
Yep, in the end I decided that the comment wasn't worth the potential trouble.
However, most artists are fairly passionate about their work, so if he did decide that his message meant more to him than any racist undertones that he didn't mean bit were inferred by others, then I can understand that too. His freedom to Express himself through his work would mean more to him than some throwaway comment on 606 would ever mean to me.
There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by makar - Thread Killer (U4260)
posted 3 minutes ago
johnsonsbaby (U10461)
posted 3 minutes ago
If people looking at that cartoon see an ape then they have a problem.
---
What would that problem be exactly? That they don't perceive things in exactly the same way as you?
------------------------------
I think what is meant it, the people who do have a problem, in that they consider it racist. The racist part being the problem.
---
I know, but what I'm saying is that some people will find it racist and I don't believe that all of those people will be purposefully just trying to be attention seeking, I think there will be some genuinely offended people. I know you acknowledged this yourself earlier TOOR but johnsonsbaby (U10461) appears to think that views other than his can only be had by people with a problem.
comment by phil neville has three left feet (U13806)
posted 45 seconds ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
My view was on you and simply stated that you claim you did not know the kong movies had racial undertones but now you seemingly accept that they do,but you are still adamant that there are no racial undertone to the depiction.
Wondering why if you have only just found out now about the racist undertones why your views are still the same
-----------------------------------------
No. I don't consider the cartoon to have any racial undertones in it. I do accept however, that due to the nature of the film and how some drew comparisons from it, in black slaves coming to USA etc. that some people do.
This doesn't change my opinion that it isn't racist only now I understand why some consider that it is.
johnsonsbaby (U10461)
ok fair enough. I think for me, I saw that the title mentioned King Kong so I made the association that way, perhaps if I were to see the cartoon stand-alone I wouldn't make the association. I think I would, but I cannot prove it and look at it from a fresh perspective now.
phil neville has three left feet (U13806)
He has read other people's views and adjusted some of his opinions like-wise. No shame there, if more people were to do that, the world would be a better place.
comment by makar - Thread Killer (U4260)
posted 1 minute ago
There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by makar - Thread Killer (U4260)
posted 3 minutes ago
johnsonsbaby (U10461)
posted 3 minutes ago
If people looking at that cartoon see an ape then they have a problem.
---
What would that problem be exactly? That they don't perceive things in exactly the same way as you?
------------------------------
I think what is meant it, the people who do have a problem, in that they consider it racist. The racist part being the problem.
---
I know, but what I'm saying is that some people will find it racist and I don't believe that all of those people will be purposefully just trying to be attention seeking, I think there will be some genuinely offended people. I know you acknowledged this yourself earlier TOOR but johnsonsbaby (U10461) appears to think that views other than his can only be had by people with a problem.
---------------------------------------------
I don't believe JB stated that at all. JB merely stated that if somebody doesn't see that there is a gorilla, then they might not see it as racist. If somebody does see it as a gorilla, then they might.
This doesn't change my opinion that it isn't racist only now I understand why some consider that it is.
======================================
Ok then some people like me think it's racists and trying to claim those people who think are more racist is stupid. That picture can be very offensive.
find it quite astonishing that this cartoon can even be considered racially related. To suggest that it is, actually is more racist than anything, in my opinion. If the person on the building had been white, would the cartoonist be suggesting he's black? Ridiculous.
------------------------------------------------------
I think you need to detract this from your article,as you have now been shown why most people consider there are racial undertones but we aren't rascist
No. Consider this - take Big Ben away. Now tell me that Balotelli is depicted as a gorilla. For someone to be depicted as something other than human then they have to have been drawn with the features of the animal they are supposed to be.
Those animal features aren't in this cartoon so why do people see a gorilla? Some have made a mental leap based on what an iconic building and a larger than life being on it springs to mind for them.
-------------------------------------------------------
People have seen what the artist intended i.e. that he's depicting him as a King Kong figure, hanging off Big Ben.
Are you trying to infer that eveyone who's seen it has come to the wrong conclusion & the artist meant something totally different?
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
johnsonsbaby (U10461)
I am sorry if you look at that picture and you do not instantly think of king kong then you either have never seen the film or are a kid who has no real attachment to the film. King Kong is an epic of many generations and the image portrayed is extremely iconic.
just search King Kong image
comment by phil neville has three left feet (U13806)
posted 6 seconds ago
find it quite astonishing that this cartoon can even be considered racially related. To suggest that it is, actually is more racist than anything, in my opinion. If the person on the building had been white, would the cartoonist be suggesting he's black? Ridiculous.
------------------------------------------------------
I think you need to detract this from your article,as you have now been shown why most people consider there are racial undertones but we aren't rascist
-----------------------------------------
I have already changed my view. I'm not going to change my past views as they were my past views, which at the time, I agreed with. With knowledge, things change. Who knows, even you could change with a little help.
Why is he using his hands to swat away the footballs?
However I would also say that the cartoonist has a right to do the cartoon and even that his interpretation is a great one and that right shouldn't be taken away because some people see it in their own way and not how it was intended.
------------------
The cartoonist can clear that up himself straight away. Perhaps he should do, indeed perhaps he will.
I can to an extent understand johnsonsbaby's comment about people having a problem if they see an ape in that picture. However the connotation is implicit, given that it parodies such an iconic image (although whether the cartoonist intended it as a satire on the film itself is debatable). It is however clearly a satire on the issues surrounding Balotelli. If the message of the cartoon is being misinterpreted, then the cartoonist has either failed in getting the message he wanted across, OR he made his message somewhat ambiguous in order to court controversy. I would suggest the latter.
The bottom line however is that Balotelli is being portrayed as Kong. The Empire State Building/Twin towers (depending on which version of Kong you watch) being replaced by Big Ben - simply because Balotelli plays in England. Is the cartoonist saying that Balotelli is "swatting the footballs away" - thus conquering football, or that football will ultimately become the demise of Balotelli? If it is one of these, then it need not be a comment on racism in the game at all.
Or perhaps the footballs stand for football authority, and it could be that the cartoonist is making a comment about how Balotelli is flying in the face of said authority's approach to dealing with racism in the game. Which, if so, wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing.
With knowledge, things change. ✓
I have already changed my view. I'm not going to change my past views as theywere my past views, which at the time, I agreed with. With knowledge, things change. Who knows,even you couldchange with a little help.
---
I've said it before. TOOR before you make any statement make sure you've done your research and know the implications of the statement.
You come up with articles like this while you don't even completely know the reason behind people's views.
Sign in if you want to comment
Race Row or...
Page 6 of 21
7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11
posted on 27/6/12
comment by Cobnob (U12084)
posted 2 minutes ago
However I would also say that the cartoonist has a right to do the cartoon - I agree, but anyone putting anything in the public domain has a duty of care, and they should consider what they make public.
They should also be willing to take criticism and apologise if their work is deemed an issue for some.
The artist and paper appear to have realised how it could be veiwed and have apologised and hopefully will have clearer thought the next time they publish anything.
--------------------------------------
Yes, of course. If I were an artist and I did a painting which I consider brilliant but people were offended about, I'd take it out of the public line of fire but I'd still consider it brilliant. Only I have a duty to the public, to do what they like, as it is them I'm selling it to.
posted on 27/6/12
comment by makar - Thread Killer (U4260)
posted 3 minutes ago
Dr Seven Grater - Farewell Biscan, we're all Igor Beavers. (U13441)
In the end, I didn't comment on the thread, ostensibly because of the shïtstorm that the Samba bit probably would have caused, but I was struck by the strangeness of the situation I found myself in; feeling like I couldn't make a non-racist remark (it's not Samba's colour that causes him to remind me of a gorilla - indeed, I can't think of another black footballer off-hand who reminds me of a gorilla/monkey, whereas the likes of Bale and Peter Reid remind me of monkeys) because it would have seen me branded a racist.
----
But I don't see the problem here, it was a dangerous thread and so you steered clear of it. There was nothing to really gain from contributing to it anyway though right? I think that some people (not saying you btw, just using your comment to highlight a point) feel that the 'rules' around racism are supremely oppressive, but let's face it, by just being careful, thoughtful and staying away from anything that could potentially be construed as racist -especially for comedic effect - is no real hardship, and in no way as damaging as racism actually can be and indeed has been in the past.
----------------------------------------------
Well this is something I strongly disagree with. Why should people watch their words and be careful if they are not racist and don't racially abuse? If they don't intend to say something racist, then they should be free to say what they like, without feeling doubt and feeling uncomfortable, due to idiots who do say racist things.
posted on 27/6/12
That looks racist to me!
There many more way whoever drew that would've done what he wanted to portray. Read up king kong and racism to see how racists it is
posted on 27/6/12
Ok lets stop arguing and all sing Baa Baa Rainbow Sheep. No-one will be offended. Altogether now...
What I find funny is that its the Daily Mail who are a showing outrage when they are the first to blame immigrants for everything wring in this country.
posted on 27/6/12
comment by There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
My view was on you and simply stated that you claim you did not know the kong movies had racial undertones but now you seemingly accept that they do,but you are still adamant that there are no racial undertone to the depiction.
Wondering why if you have only just found out now about the racist undertones why your views are still the same
posted on 27/6/12
i find people who cry racism without there actually being any evidence of it being intended the biggest racists going.
take a pakistani for example, at my sons school they are having to learn all about their culture because they claimed that by failing to do so makes us racist.
boll0x to that, i'd rather have my son learning maths, or how to write well, not because i'm racist, but because its more beneficial to my son.
posted on 27/6/12
What would that problem be exactly? That they don't perceive things in exactly the same way as you?
-----------------------------
No. Consider this - take Big Ben away. Now tell me that Balotelli is depicted as a gorilla. For someone to be depicted as something other than human then they have to have been drawn with the features of the animal they are supposed to be.
Those animal features aren't in this cartoon so why do people see a gorilla? Some have made a mental leap based on what an iconic building and a larger than life being on it springs to mind for them.
posted on 27/6/12
^wrong
posted on 27/6/12
But I don't see the problem here, it was a dangerous thread and so you steered clear of it. There was nothing to really gain from contributing to it anyway though right? I think that some people (not saying you btw, just usingyourcommentto highlight a point) feel that the 'rules' around racism are supremely oppressive,but let's face it, by just being careful, thoughtfulandstayingawayfrom anything that could potentially be construed as racist -especially for comedic effect - is no real hardship, and in no way as damaging as racism actually can be and indeed has been in the past
---
Yep, in the end I decided that the comment wasn't worth the potential trouble.
However, most artists are fairly passionate about their work, so if he did decide that his message meant more to him than any racist undertones that he didn't mean bit were inferred by others, then I can understand that too. His freedom to Express himself through his work would mean more to him than some throwaway comment on 606 would ever mean to me.
posted on 27/6/12
There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by makar - Thread Killer (U4260)
posted 3 minutes ago
johnsonsbaby (U10461)
posted 3 minutes ago
If people looking at that cartoon see an ape then they have a problem.
---
What would that problem be exactly? That they don't perceive things in exactly the same way as you?
------------------------------
I think what is meant it, the people who do have a problem, in that they consider it racist. The racist part being the problem.
---
I know, but what I'm saying is that some people will find it racist and I don't believe that all of those people will be purposefully just trying to be attention seeking, I think there will be some genuinely offended people. I know you acknowledged this yourself earlier TOOR but johnsonsbaby (U10461) appears to think that views other than his can only be had by people with a problem.
posted on 27/6/12
comment by phil neville has three left feet (U13806)
posted 45 seconds ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
My view was on you and simply stated that you claim you did not know the kong movies had racial undertones but now you seemingly accept that they do,but you are still adamant that there are no racial undertone to the depiction.
Wondering why if you have only just found out now about the racist undertones why your views are still the same
-----------------------------------------
No. I don't consider the cartoon to have any racial undertones in it. I do accept however, that due to the nature of the film and how some drew comparisons from it, in black slaves coming to USA etc. that some people do.
This doesn't change my opinion that it isn't racist only now I understand why some consider that it is.
posted on 27/6/12
johnsonsbaby (U10461)
ok fair enough. I think for me, I saw that the title mentioned King Kong so I made the association that way, perhaps if I were to see the cartoon stand-alone I wouldn't make the association. I think I would, but I cannot prove it and look at it from a fresh perspective now.
posted on 27/6/12
phil neville has three left feet (U13806)
He has read other people's views and adjusted some of his opinions like-wise. No shame there, if more people were to do that, the world would be a better place.
posted on 27/6/12
comment by makar - Thread Killer (U4260)
posted 1 minute ago
There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by makar - Thread Killer (U4260)
posted 3 minutes ago
johnsonsbaby (U10461)
posted 3 minutes ago
If people looking at that cartoon see an ape then they have a problem.
---
What would that problem be exactly? That they don't perceive things in exactly the same way as you?
------------------------------
I think what is meant it, the people who do have a problem, in that they consider it racist. The racist part being the problem.
---
I know, but what I'm saying is that some people will find it racist and I don't believe that all of those people will be purposefully just trying to be attention seeking, I think there will be some genuinely offended people. I know you acknowledged this yourself earlier TOOR but johnsonsbaby (U10461) appears to think that views other than his can only be had by people with a problem.
---------------------------------------------
I don't believe JB stated that at all. JB merely stated that if somebody doesn't see that there is a gorilla, then they might not see it as racist. If somebody does see it as a gorilla, then they might.
posted on 27/6/12
This doesn't change my opinion that it isn't racist only now I understand why some consider that it is.
======================================
Ok then some people like me think it's racists and trying to claim those people who think are more racist is stupid. That picture can be very offensive.
posted on 27/6/12
find it quite astonishing that this cartoon can even be considered racially related. To suggest that it is, actually is more racist than anything, in my opinion. If the person on the building had been white, would the cartoonist be suggesting he's black? Ridiculous.
------------------------------------------------------
I think you need to detract this from your article,as you have now been shown why most people consider there are racial undertones but we aren't rascist
posted on 27/6/12
No. Consider this - take Big Ben away. Now tell me that Balotelli is depicted as a gorilla. For someone to be depicted as something other than human then they have to have been drawn with the features of the animal they are supposed to be.
Those animal features aren't in this cartoon so why do people see a gorilla? Some have made a mental leap based on what an iconic building and a larger than life being on it springs to mind for them.
-------------------------------------------------------
People have seen what the artist intended i.e. that he's depicting him as a King Kong figure, hanging off Big Ben.
Are you trying to infer that eveyone who's seen it has come to the wrong conclusion & the artist meant something totally different?
posted on 27/6/12
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 27/6/12
johnsonsbaby (U10461)
I am sorry if you look at that picture and you do not instantly think of king kong then you either have never seen the film or are a kid who has no real attachment to the film. King Kong is an epic of many generations and the image portrayed is extremely iconic.
just search King Kong image
posted on 27/6/12
comment by phil neville has three left feet (U13806)
posted 6 seconds ago
find it quite astonishing that this cartoon can even be considered racially related. To suggest that it is, actually is more racist than anything, in my opinion. If the person on the building had been white, would the cartoonist be suggesting he's black? Ridiculous.
------------------------------------------------------
I think you need to detract this from your article,as you have now been shown why most people consider there are racial undertones but we aren't rascist
-----------------------------------------
I have already changed my view. I'm not going to change my past views as they were my past views, which at the time, I agreed with. With knowledge, things change. Who knows, even you could change with a little help.
posted on 27/6/12
Why is he using his hands to swat away the footballs?
posted on 27/6/12
However I would also say that the cartoonist has a right to do the cartoon and even that his interpretation is a great one and that right shouldn't be taken away because some people see it in their own way and not how it was intended.
------------------
The cartoonist can clear that up himself straight away. Perhaps he should do, indeed perhaps he will.
I can to an extent understand johnsonsbaby's comment about people having a problem if they see an ape in that picture. However the connotation is implicit, given that it parodies such an iconic image (although whether the cartoonist intended it as a satire on the film itself is debatable). It is however clearly a satire on the issues surrounding Balotelli. If the message of the cartoon is being misinterpreted, then the cartoonist has either failed in getting the message he wanted across, OR he made his message somewhat ambiguous in order to court controversy. I would suggest the latter.
The bottom line however is that Balotelli is being portrayed as Kong. The Empire State Building/Twin towers (depending on which version of Kong you watch) being replaced by Big Ben - simply because Balotelli plays in England. Is the cartoonist saying that Balotelli is "swatting the footballs away" - thus conquering football, or that football will ultimately become the demise of Balotelli? If it is one of these, then it need not be a comment on racism in the game at all.
Or perhaps the footballs stand for football authority, and it could be that the cartoonist is making a comment about how Balotelli is flying in the face of said authority's approach to dealing with racism in the game. Which, if so, wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing.
posted on 27/6/12
With knowledge, things change. ✓
posted on 27/6/12
I have already changed my view. I'm not going to change my past views as theywere my past views, which at the time, I agreed with. With knowledge, things change. Who knows,even you couldchange with a little help.
---
posted on 27/6/12
I've said it before. TOOR before you make any statement make sure you've done your research and know the implications of the statement.
You come up with articles like this while you don't even completely know the reason behind people's views.
Page 6 of 21
7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11