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.