- Joined
- Jul 21, 2005
- Messages
- 51,633
- Reaction score
- 35,427
- Location
- Washington, DC
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
That's the context of the cartoon itself, along with a bit of additional outside context provided by the OP. If you think there's somehow some other context from within the cartoon that indicates that the reference to chocolate and/or feces was meant to refer to race, and not to the policies and/or to the literal objects of chocolate/feces, then please...I'd be all ears.
But pointing to historical uses of those words at times as a means of referencing black people is not pointing to context internal to the cartoon...it's pointing to context EXTERNAL from the cartoon and attempting to apply it to the cartoon, absent anything in the cartoon actually giving an indication that such an application is apt.
My issue has not been, nor is, that someone may end up believing that the cartoon may be racist. Hell; even though I can't understand in any way shape or form how someone could come to a conclusion that it definitively IS racist, I still wouldn't say that's completely ridiculous. My statements have been that I can't see how someone can claim this absolutely is racist based if they are viewing it simply from the context provided within the cartoon itself, without imposing outside assumptions and context onto it that isn't indicated in some fashion within the cartoon.
I had known, and have been acknowledging, that chocolate and feces have both been used to refer to black people before. But just like I wouldn't immediately say the word "Chocolate" in "Hershey's Chocolate Bar" was referring to black people even if it was in an ad for it that featured a black person, neither would I immediately say the word "chocolate" in this cartoon is referring to black people simply because it features a black person. The simple fact that it has been used that way doesn't inherently mean it is being used that way any time it's used in the vicinity of a black person. And when there is absolutely no internal context to the situation to suggest that it's being used to refer to black people, and there's clear contextual evidence to suggest it's referring to the literal candy of "chocolate", I have a hard time personally leaping to a definitive notion that "yep, talking about black people". But I acknowledge it's feasible that it could be what the cartoonist meant and he just choose to leave zero contextual clues within his cartoon to suggest that AND design the cartoon in such a way that interpreting it in that fashion actually makes the cartoon not make a lick of sense....I just think that's 1) highly unlikely and 2) is using external context to suggest that the word "chocolate" or the implication of "feces" in the cartoon is referencing black people.
Again, unless you can explain to me...internal to what's actually IN the cartoon...how you believe the cartoon is indicating or suggesting that "chocolate" or the idea of "feces" is referencing Obama specifically, or his race in general, I don't really see my stance on that changing. Again, I'm not saying I can't possibly fathom how someone can't find this racist by adding outside context and assumptions onto it...I've acknowledged repeatedly in multiple posts I can see that happening. I'm saying simply using the context of the cartoon itself, THAT I can't see and it has not been explained.
But pointing to historical uses of those words at times as a means of referencing black people is not pointing to context internal to the cartoon...it's pointing to context EXTERNAL from the cartoon and attempting to apply it to the cartoon, absent anything in the cartoon actually giving an indication that such an application is apt.
My issue has not been, nor is, that someone may end up believing that the cartoon may be racist. Hell; even though I can't understand in any way shape or form how someone could come to a conclusion that it definitively IS racist, I still wouldn't say that's completely ridiculous. My statements have been that I can't see how someone can claim this absolutely is racist based if they are viewing it simply from the context provided within the cartoon itself, without imposing outside assumptions and context onto it that isn't indicated in some fashion within the cartoon.
I had known, and have been acknowledging, that chocolate and feces have both been used to refer to black people before. But just like I wouldn't immediately say the word "Chocolate" in "Hershey's Chocolate Bar" was referring to black people even if it was in an ad for it that featured a black person, neither would I immediately say the word "chocolate" in this cartoon is referring to black people simply because it features a black person. The simple fact that it has been used that way doesn't inherently mean it is being used that way any time it's used in the vicinity of a black person. And when there is absolutely no internal context to the situation to suggest that it's being used to refer to black people, and there's clear contextual evidence to suggest it's referring to the literal candy of "chocolate", I have a hard time personally leaping to a definitive notion that "yep, talking about black people". But I acknowledge it's feasible that it could be what the cartoonist meant and he just choose to leave zero contextual clues within his cartoon to suggest that AND design the cartoon in such a way that interpreting it in that fashion actually makes the cartoon not make a lick of sense....I just think that's 1) highly unlikely and 2) is using external context to suggest that the word "chocolate" or the implication of "feces" in the cartoon is referencing black people.
Again, unless you can explain to me...internal to what's actually IN the cartoon...how you believe the cartoon is indicating or suggesting that "chocolate" or the idea of "feces" is referencing Obama specifically, or his race in general, I don't really see my stance on that changing. Again, I'm not saying I can't possibly fathom how someone can't find this racist by adding outside context and assumptions onto it...I've acknowledged repeatedly in multiple posts I can see that happening. I'm saying simply using the context of the cartoon itself, THAT I can't see and it has not been explained.
