• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is this cartoon racist?

Is this cartoon racist?


  • Total voters
    69
Is there any kind of examples you can provide of a notion of a "chocolate touch" outside of this?

The Chocolate Touch - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"The Chocolate Touch covers roughly the same narrative as the myth of King Midas, but in changing the object of its protagonist's desire, modifies its target in significant ways. The myth of King Midas, who loved gold above all things, targets greed as its main theme, while The Chocolate Touch highlights another of the Seven Deadly Sins, gluttony. Both stories deal with self-centeredness vs. compassion, though The Chocolate Touch does so in a manner accessible to children. Although John's self-centeredness is unlike most other cases of self-centerdness that put other people at a disadvantage; in John's case he wants his family to stop telling him what he can and cannot eat. Towards the end of the story John comes to realize that his parents' and doctor's demand for healthy eating was for his own good. While people reading the myth of King Midas may not all have daughters of their own, almost all have mothers. In recasting the Midas story with a younger protagonist, author Catling hits on some of children's worst fears, albeit with a light touch.

Protagonists and Antagonists:
John Midas as the center character but antagonist
Mr. & Mrs. Midas, the candy shop owner as the protagonist."
 
The Chocolate Touch - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"The Chocolate Touch covers roughly the same narrative as the myth of King Midas, but in changing the object of its protagonist's desire, modifies its target in significant ways. The myth of King Midas, who loved gold above all things, targets greed as its main theme, while The Chocolate Touch highlights another of the Seven Deadly Sins, gluttony. Both stories deal with self-centeredness vs. compassion, though The Chocolate Touch does so in a manner accessible to children. Although John's self-centeredness is unlike most other cases of self-centerdness that put other people at a disadvantage; in John's case he wants his family to stop telling him what he can and cannot eat. Towards the end of the story John comes to realize that his parents' and doctor's demand for healthy eating was for his own good. While people reading the myth of King Midas may not all have daughters of their own, almost all have mothers. In recasting the Midas story with a younger protagonist, author Catling hits on some of children's worst fears, albeit with a light touch.

Protagonists and Antagonists:
John Midas as the center character but antagonist
Mr. & Mrs. Midas, the candy shop owner as the protagonist."

Hey! Someone actually engaging in a back and forth conversation. Lovely!

Thanks for the link. Had never heard of the book, but glad to see it's not entirely an unheard of concept (though still seemingly significantly less historical usage than "everything I touch turns to ****"). It makes sense as a means of aging down the King Midas story a bit to a kid level.

Though again, given the context of the cartoon, the historical narrative behind the use of the idea of "everything I touch turns to ****" and the narrative behind this "chocolate touch", I think it's a large stretch to suggest the Cartoon was actually suggesting Obama's power was initially, or ever, the ability to turn things into chocolate as opposed to the ability to turn things into something bad.
 
I guess it depends on the cartoonist's intention. Did he mean it as just a joke or is there any deeper meaning. I'm not really familiar with the guy so I can't really say but I do know white chocolate sucks. Just way too sweet, I prefer milk chocolate.

I took it to mean the things Obama touches turn to crap and not chocolate. What is racist about that?
 
There is an old joke that says if black is beautiful that my feces is a masterpiece.

The cartoon can be viewed as racist because it subtly plays on the notions of Obama's skin color, chocolate and feces.

Where did you see anywhere in the cartoon any reference to Obama's skin color?
 
How is it possible 1010 people voted yes in the poll but only one poster thinks it is racist?
 
How is it possible 1010 people voted yes in the poll but only one poster thinks it is racist?

If you log out, you can vote as many times as you like. Looks like someone didn't like the direction his poll question was taking.
 
Hey! Someone actually engaging in a back and forth conversation. Lovely!

Thanks for the link. Had never heard of the book, but glad to see it's not entirely an unheard of concept (though still seemingly significantly less historical usage than "everything I touch turns to ****"). It makes sense as a means of aging down the King Midas story a bit to a kid level.

Though again, given the context of the cartoon, the historical narrative behind the use of the idea of "everything I touch turns to ****" and the narrative behind this "chocolate touch", I think it's a large stretch to suggest the Cartoon was actually suggesting Obama's power was initially, or ever, the ability to turn things into chocolate as opposed to the ability to turn things into something bad.

Lol You said give a example.


My googling though didnt turn up even one racial reference to the term "chocolate touch". So I googled "**** touch"

And found these:
53700333.jpg

43395526.jpg
42635876.jpg


Racial reference to chocolate was by majority a positive relationship to skin tone. It seems to be right up there with ivory used in reference to skin tone. In fact the words chocolate and ivory are commonly used by the womens make up industry. But in relation to this cartoon the only implication to tones is the assumption that **** and chocolate can be the same color. Clearly the caricature of Obama is a different color than the objects, indicating that the artist asserted that Obama isnt the same color as the objects. Therefor any assumption of racism is done by bias since the artwork defies such connections to racism.


I agree that there never was a assumption that Obama turns anything into chocolate. It is as you say that whatever hes touches turns to ****. The specific policies that are labeled in the cartoon point to a decidedly Conservative bias to the cartoon. All of which are political in nature and not racist.
 
And that's where I do not agree. I can't not possibly see how someone can claim it IS racist. Mildsteel is making an affirmative, definitive statement about something without any factual evidence to his statement.

The POTENTIAL for it to be racist does not inherently make it racist.

The statement "The pot calling the kettle black" is not inherently racist. It has the POTENTIAL to be stated in a racist fashion, but it would only be so with substantial surrounding context indicating it is. In and of itself, the statement is not inherently racist as it has a clear and direct meaning that has nothing to do with race. It is ONLY by adding additional assumptions and context that one could try and claim it's racist.

That particular cartoon, inherently sans any additional content, can not reasonably be stated as being racist. It has the POTENTIAL to be, at best. Sans additional context, the clear and direct meaning of that cartoon is plainly obvious and clear. It is only through additional assumptions and intent, done without ANY factual evidence suggesting they are present, that one could possibly claim that the cartoon is racist. That suggests then that the cartoon itself is not inherently racist, but rather in such a case that the individual creating it is and his intent behind the cartoon is.

It is impossible to claim that the cartoon is inherently "racist" WITHOUT piling additional assumptions on top of it, assumptions that at this point are completely baseless and unsupported by any actual connecting facts as it relates to this specific cartoon

To be fair MidSteel is saying it is racist if you think a certain way or if you assume certain things about the intent of the author, not that on it's face it is racist. Anything can be racist if you twist it enough and I think that is what MidSteel is seeing here.
 
If you log out, you can vote as many times as you like. Looks like someone didn't like the direction his poll question was taking.

Wow, that seems like an awful lot of work for a meaningless thread.
 
To be fair MidSteel is saying it is racist if you think a certain way or if you assume certain things about the intent of the author, not that on it's face it is racist.

Well see, I don't know if that's the case, because that's basically what I've said and he was disagreeing with me.

I stated that absent any additional context OTHER than what was provided in the OP (Which was the cartoon, and that it was posted on a site that leans to the right) there was no realistic way to say this IS a racist cartoon.

I stated that if you wanted to make various assumptions and guesses and leaps in logic, one could craft a scenario where it could be racist, but only by adding in that additional context.

Mildsteel seemingly disagreed with me on that point.

I agree, you can contort pretty much anything into being racist. As evidenced by me using the same kind of logic Mildsteel used here to declare that a Hershey Chocolate Bar is racist because it's suggesting that Blacks (chocolate) are meant to be behind bars (the layout of the candy bar mimics the layout of jail cell bars). However, to do that with a Hershey bar you have to insert additional context that is in no way, shape, or form presented in any fashion within the item in question and you must ignore the far more obvious and simple answer before you. The same goes for this cartoon. In order to claim that it IS racist, one must insert additional context that is in no way, shape, or form presented in any fashion within the item in question AND must ignore the far more obvious and simple answer.

In this case, the additional context is that the "chocolate" reference in this cartoon is somehow referring to "black people". The problem is, there's no context within the cartoon to suggest that's the meaning or inference of chocolate in this case. There's no contextual way that his claim that everything he touches turns to sweet chocolate would make any sense within the cartoon if by "chocolate" he meant "black people". That makes zero sense. He thinks he can touch health care and turn it into black people? He touches foreign affairs and turn it into "black people"? The only way to actually make this argument is for one to assume that the artist is racist and assume he's trying to be covertly racist, and thus assume he is purposefully making a cartoon that looks like it makes sense but in reality is meant to not make sense so as to put forward a convoluted and poorly constructed racist message. How in the world anyone thinks that is a rational argument is beyond me.
 
So to get to "racist" one must first insert additional context that frankly is not present or implied what so ever in the cartoon. Furthermore, you have to flat out ignore the far more reasonable and clear message. Specifically, that the president delusionally believes everything he's worked on has turned out good, when really it's turned out bad. The fact you could take this exact same cartoon, put a white president in it's place, and the exact same joke and effect would be occuring clearly shows that the cartoon is not in any shape or form dependent on race to make it's point. Add to that the fact that chocolate and poo have a long history in comedy as being confused for one another, and the notion of "everything I touch turns to ****" being one that has existed for some time, and there's a clear, blatant, contextually fitting reason as to why "chocolate" was used as the item that Obama was mistakening the **** for.

Indeed, the only way to say with such certainty that this is racist...or even that it's likely to be racist...is for one to simply assume that, because "chocolate", "poo", and a black person are all in the same cartoon (regardless of context) and because the author is conservative, the author MUST be racist and therefore the cartoons use of those things MUST in a racist manner even if the cartoon does not present them in any such fashion.

The only way this cartoon can feasibly be "racist" is if the author was a racist and was intentionally creating a cartoon that makes absolute perfect sense in a non-racist way, but actually was meant to push a racist manner in a non-sensical fashion by being viewed in a non-contextual fashion. Which, while perhaps feasible, is horrendously unlikely even as far as "dog whistles" go, as it would be such a convoluted stretch and lacks so much logical connections within the frame of the cartoon, that it'd likely be missed even by most of the people it would've been meant for.

If the cartoonist was trying to do a "cartoon that acts as a dog whistle but LOOKS like it should be okay" they'd be having Ray Nagin telling Obama he's got the chocolate touch (since he's actually famous for a line referencing black people as that chocolate, so provides direct context). Or they'd have Obama suggesting everything turns to sweet chocolate, "like me". Or the cartoonish would've shaded Obama as the exact same brown as all the chocolate/poo items. Essentially, providing some actual context within the cartoon to allow the target audiance to put together he's really meaning it in that racist fashion.

Basically, the only way to actually find this comic pushing a racist message is to go into it actively looking for a racist message regardless of context.

So yes...racists or those always looking for racism in everything may be able to twist and contort it into a racist message by taking portions of it entirely out of context and adding in their own context to the picture. Just like I can twist and contort a Hershey bar into being a racist item. But there's no way, actually within the context and presentation of the cartoon, to suggest that it's message, purpose, or content is racist in nature.
 
Last edited:
Sweet chocolate? No. Dark chocolate? Yes.
 
I sense some veiled racism there... who ever heard of a person with a chocolate touch? The golden touch? Yes. The Chocolate touch? No, and then to have it be from a black man?

Did you really not understand what the cartoon was trying to say?
 
And that's where I do not agree. I can't not possibly see how someone can claim it IS racist. Mildsteel is making an affirmative, definitive statement about something without any factual evidence to his statement.

The POTENTIAL for it to be racist does not inherently make it racist.

The statement "The pot calling the kettle black" is not inherently racist. It has the POTENTIAL to be stated in a racist fashion, but it would only be so with substantial surrounding context indicating it is. In and of itself, the statement is not inherently racist as it has a clear and direct meaning that has nothing to do with race. It is ONLY by adding additional assumptions and context that one could try and claim it's racist.

That particular cartoon, inherently sans any additional content, can not reasonably be stated as being racist. It has the POTENTIAL to be, at best. Sans additional context, the clear and direct meaning of that cartoon is plainly obvious and clear. It is only through additional assumptions and intent, done without ANY factual evidence suggesting they are present, that one could possibly claim that the cartoon is racist. That suggests then that the cartoon itself is not inherently racist, but rather in such a case that the individual creating it is and his intent behind the cartoon is.

It is impossible to claim that the cartoon is inherently "racist" WITHOUT piling additional assumptions on top of it, assumptions that at this point are completely baseless and unsupported by any actual connecting facts as it relates to this specific cartoon
As I said, I do not perceive the cartoon as racist so you don't really need to explain why you don't see it that way. We agree on that point. My thing is that I'm just not as passionate about declaring it "not racist" like you are. Perhaps MildSteel arguing that it is factually racist is going to far, but, to be honest, I think that you're going a bit far in the other direction. Like I said, modern racism is subtle and insidious. It capitalizes on plausible deniability and benefits from people passionately defending it as "just a coincidence." I'm not going to do that.
 
Well see, I don't know if that's the case, because that's basically what I've said and he was disagreeing with me.

I stated that absent any additional context OTHER than what was provided in the OP (Which was the cartoon, and that it was posted on a site that leans to the right) there was no realistic way to say this IS a racist cartoon.

I stated that if you wanted to make various assumptions and guesses and leaps in logic, one could craft a scenario where it could be racist, but only by adding in that additional context.

Mildsteel seemingly disagreed with me on that point.

That's right I did disagree with you, and I guess you did not bother to read my rather long response to your post to explain why. Let me try to go over the basic contention again. I disagreed with you because, as I pointed out, the observer provides the context from which the meaning of the cartoon is inferred. He does so largely based on the conditioning that is the result of his past experiences. There is not, as you seemed to erroneously put forward, inherent meaning in words such as nigger. It is simply because the word nigger has been so commonly used as a derogatory term that we would likely conclude that it would be racist if used in a cartoon depicting Obama. However that is not necessarily so because the word has a non-racist usage as well.

As a result the problem that I have with your assertion is that you say there is no realistic way to say the cartoon is racist without additional context. I disagree because there is ample reference to feces being used in a derogatory context with reference to blacks because of their skin color. As such, someone such as me who comes from an environment where such usage was common could realistically conclude, WITHOUT ADDITIONAL CONTEXT, that the cartoon was indeed racist. This flows from the fact that observers give meaning to such a cartoon based on their past experiences. If there was not such common usage of feces with reference to blacks, your point would have merit. But because you have completely ignored this fact, your position is bogus. Therefore unlike you, I don't say that another person's conclusion is not realistic because I realize that not everyone has the same experiences and conditioning that I have. Just like for me, I never heard that chocolate touch story. Maybe that is a common story white people tell their kids. I know for sure I never heard it before until now. The point is that type of reference would not necessarily have a strong influence in my mind without additional context. It appears that you have never heard of feces being used in a derogatory fashion to describe blacks. IF that is the case, I can see why you would feel that additional context is needed. But you cannot do the same, and that is where we disagree.
 
As I said, I do not perceive the cartoon as racist so you don't really need to explain why you don't see it that way. We agree on that point. My thing is that I'm just not as passionate about declaring it "not racist" like you are. Perhaps MildSteel arguing that it is factually racist is going to far, but, to be honest, I think that you're going a bit far in the other direction. Like I said, modern racism is subtle and insidious. It capitalizes on plausible deniability and benefits from people passionately defending it as "just a coincidence." I'm not going to do that.

I'm not suggesting it's definitely not racist

I'm saying it's impossible to suggest it's racist based only on the actual presentation and context of the cartoon.

I've acknowledge it could possibly be racist, though I think the chances of that given the realities of how the cartoon is crafted are extemely low as it would be Avery very ineffective dog whistle given its lack of context that reasonably points one in that direction in any real fashion, but primarily by applyin outside assumptions and contest to portions of the cartoon, of which the cartoon gives zero credence to within its actual design.

Nothing in the cartoon, what so ever, gives ANY suggestion that the use of the word chocolate is meant to indicate race or that obama's effects on policies is turning them into policy equivalents of "black people". To reach a conclusion that the use of chocolate in that cartoon is to make reference to black peoples one must simply assume that's the case not because of any actual context or evidence within the cartoon, but based on the individual's personal feelings that certain people are racist and thus anything done by someome that in ANY WAY could possibly be racist must actually be racist.

My argument is not that it absolutely isn't racist. My argument is that it absolutely can't be suggested as racist without inserting outside context or assumptions that are no way actually represented within the comic itself, and that given the multitude of logical issues with claiming it as racist that I've outlined in numerous posts, I think the likelihood of it being racist is slim but at least feasible.
 
Have you followed the thread? I have explained it at length.

Yes I have followed it and none of what you say has any basis in reality.
 
Yes I have followed it and none of what you say has any basis in reality.

Good for you, neither do I give a damn about what you think.
 
I agree, you can contort pretty much anything into being racist. As evidenced by me using the same kind of logic Mildsteel used here to declare that a Hershey Chocolate Bar is racist because it's suggesting that Blacks (chocolate) are meant to be behind bars (the layout of the candy bar mimics the layout of jail cell bars).

That was an absurd example and I said why.
 
Some time ago this cartoon appeared with a George Will column. Is this cartoon racist?
It is accurate.

"Right, as the world goes, is only in question between equals in power, while the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must."

Interesting quote. It looks like it is right out of the Melian Dialog.
 
I disagree because there is ample reference to feces being used in a derogatory context with reference to blacks because of their skin color.

This is outside context being inserted into the cartoon.

Where or what in the cartoon provides any reference or suggestion that the fece's it implies (through the "sniff sniff" comment) is a reference in any fashion to skin color?

If you can't point to something within the comics content itself that clearly indicates or shows that the comic is tying the feces to skin color in some fashion, then your attempts to suggest that it's reference to feces is meant to reference skin color is inserting OUTSIDE CONTEXT, as opposed to using the context provided within the framework of the cartoon itself.

As such, someone such as me who comes from an environment where such usage was common could realistically conclude, WITHOUT ADDITIONAL CONTEXT, that the cartoon was indeed racist.

No, it's absolutely with additional context. Your statement above directly suggest that. You're using context from your environment to shade how your viewing the cartoon, despite nothing in the cartoon itself actually suggesting in any way that it's reference to feces is meant as a reference to black people.

Your environment is not part of the cartoon. It is external to the cartoon. Assumptions and context you gleem from your environment and project onto the cartoon are inherently external context and thus additional to that which the cartoon is itself providing. Which is my entire point.

This flows from the fact that observers give meaning to such a cartoon based on their past experiences.

And those meanings, outside of the ones the cartoon is clearly indicating, are based on their own assumptions and context that they project upon it.

Here is the context of the cartoon without any additional information besides what's in the OP, which means the cartoon and the fact it came from a conservative site:

1. Obama is taking about his policies (as evidenced by the titles of the various items around the room)

2. Obama believes he's had a good effect on those policies. This is clear as he has a positive expression on his face, compares it to the midas touch, and refers to chocolate which he calls "sweet" which is a positive descriptor.

3. The observers in the room believe the policies are actually made of poo, not chocolate. This is clearly contextually evident by the fact that one observer is making the determination by smelling them, has a clearly disgusted look on his face while the other is seemingly tasting it and having a horrified look on his face that one would not expect if they tasted chocolate, but would be reasonable to expect if they tasted feces.

4. Between the two observers actually testing the items and having a negative response (as opposed to Obama simply proclaiming it without smelling/tasting them), and the additional outside context provided by the OP that it was on a conservative commentators site, it's reasonable to conclude that the observers view of the items is meant to be the "correct" view.
 
Back
Top Bottom