[Phantom]

I'm sorry, but I really can't just leave that thread closed with no place to discuss the issue, since I think it's an interesting and very useful discussion.

I did not mean to provoke anyone with the cat cartoon I posted. In fact, as I said, that cartoon was published in a respected Belgian weekly family magazine. And I'm actually kind of shocked that apparently several mature people here are seriously, earnestly offended by it and even go as far as to censor it (???)

...

Censoring an image that was originally printed in a family magazine on a FORUM on the INTERNET? Wow.

Anyway, I respect the policy of the mods, so if anyone wants to see the (extremely funny) cartoon, they'll have to send me a private message. I do not mean to attack their authority, but I'd still like to continue the discussion about the issue.

Someone asked about why that cartoon was funny at all. My answer is: for the same reason I find Maddox' humour funny, and Tucker Max' stories fantastic.

I'll give the word to Tucker Max, a very intelligent guy by the way, who perfectly hits the spot in his review of Maddox' book:

But more importantly, to see this book in any sort of sexist or misogynistic or homophobic light is to miss the entire point of Maddox's humor. Maddox is just the pen name for a real person, George Ouzounian. George created the Maddox persona many years ago as a sort of alter ego for him to be all the things on the internet that he couldn't realistically be in his life, i.e., an ass-kicking pirate with tabasco sauce for blood who eats beef jerky for every meal. Though the rants on his website and book closely track his real life beliefs, they are not 100% aligned. Of course he doesn't think women should be randomly groped, nor does he believe that children should be beaten, and of course he doesn't think that pirates shit leprechauns.

Maddox is a caricature. The opinions he holds are purposefully exaggerated, in some cases to draw attention to their absurdity and derive humor from it, in other cases to mock the opposite position. Maddox is misogynist like Stephen Colbert is ultra conservative, or Sarah Silverman is anti-semitic. This is one of the classic faces of comedy: the comedian pretends to be the most exaggerated version of something, taking an idea to its logical extreme in order to show its absurdity and thus mock it completely. Carol O'Connor did the same thing brilliantly with his Archie Bunker character in All In The Family. With these types of comedians, you are never exactly sure where their opinions end and the opinions that they are mocking begin, and in toeing that line comes the real humor. Some things they say are so absurd that no one would agree with them, but you find yourself laughing more at the taboo.

[jacog]

I think Borat is funny for these very same abovestated reasons, but that cat comic did not fall into this category at all. There's no social commentary there about the absurd nature of racism. It plainly said that black people are the colour of shit. Is this sort of thing acceptable in Belgium? And please also try and consider other people and what might offend them. Just because you are a lily-white European does not mean everyone else is.

[Phantom]

Originally Posted by jacog

I think Borat is funny for these very same abovestated reasons, but that cat comic did not fall into this category at all. There's no social commentary there about the absurd nature of racism.

It falls in exactly the same category. Borat claims all women are dumb and all Uzbekes are either pedophiles or underage prostitutes; South Park claims all Canadians are stupid; Maddox claims all handicapped people should be killed; Jeroom claims all black people are just shit. It's taking racism (or sexism) to the extreme, and therefore mocking it. It's also a lesson in relativism.

Is this sort of thing acceptable in Belgium?

Yes. As it should in every other part of the world (in my opinion).

[jacog]

Well if you are to maintain that that is the nature of that comic, then that artist is not very good at conveying it, because I don't see it. Usually such humor involves a character of some sort, and the joke is in laughing at how obviously stupid the character is. That comic has none of these elements... purely just making an offensive cartoon does not make you some brilliant social messenger. Anyone can do it. The Andrew Dice Clay era has fallen out of fashion... not sure it ever was in.

[Jackal]

Originally Posted by Phantom

Censoring an image that was originally printed in a family magazine on a FORUM on the INTERNET? Wow.

The image that was removed was NOT the image you apparently posted originally. It was neither a cartoon nor had anything to do with racism, but an incredibly vulgar photograph. Frankly, I don't know how or why it ended up replacing the original one. My only guess is an inadvertent change of images on the linked site, but in any case, it certainly wasn't appropriate.

[Phantom]

Originally Posted by Jackal

My only guess is an inadvertent change of images on the linked site, but in any case, it certainly wasn't appropriate.

That was my first thought as well, but I checked it and the image was still there. If I'm allowed to repost it, I'll upload it to my own webspace and post it from there to be safe. If not, I'm fine with that as well.

[SnorkleCat]

Originally Posted by Phantom

It falls in exactly the same category. Borat claims all women are dumb and all Uzbekes are either pedophiles or underage prostitutes; South Park claims all Canadians are stupid; Maddox claims all handicapped people should be killed; Jeroom claims all black people are just shit. It's taking racism (or sexism) to the extreme, and therefore mocking it. It's also a lesson in relativism.



Yes. As it should in every other part of the world (in my opinion).

Are you actually thinking about this with an independent mind? Or are you just regurgitating everything you've been told by other white Europeans who really don't have a RIGHT to tell other races what they should and should not find offensive? You seem to assume that every single overtly racist thing must be a satirical joke, without actually thinking about what the content actually says, or how people who are on the receiving end of the abuse actually feel. You repeatedly stick to your guns saying that your cartoon is NOT racist; I can't help but think that you must be very far removed from people who are not of your race. I have dealt with plenty of racist people who didn't mean to be offensive. It's one thing if people say - or even create- offensive material without meaning to be cruel...I can deal with this and really- if someone doesn't MEAN to be offensive, I can let it go. But to beat people over the head with it despite having been told that it is offensive and racist? Don't you ever listen to anyone besides people who think like you? I'm a mixed race, non European, and I'm telling you that it offends me. There are many reasons WHY it offends me, ones that you cannot ever hope to understand, since you've probably never dealt with racism a day in your life- it's something that happens to OTHER people. This is what is so frustrating- you're in the privileged and lofty position of not having to give a damn, and sure enough, you don't even try to understand- you just want to spew ignorant opinions based on nothing more than your own narrow experience- because it is your right to do so. If that cartoon appeared in a "respected family magazine" as you say, then that does NOT speak well for the people of Belgium...but then you wouldn't know that would you? You're a product of your environment.

[jacog]

I have only two words to say about Belgium: Helmut Lotti

[ATMachine]

Yeah, I don't think Belgium is exactly a bastion of liberal tolerance when it comes to race relations vis-a-vis people of African descent.

Even Tintin, perhaps the greatest BD character to come out of Belgium ever and of whom many of the AG forumites here are fans (myself included to some degree), showed incredible racism in the book Tintin au Congo (which was until very recently considered so repugnant as not to merit an English translation!) in which Africans are depicted as lazy, stupid and naturally inclined to submit to their white "betters".

In other Tintin books the artist Herge was told by his American publisher to redraw numerous panels to eliminate stereotypical drawings of black people (coal-colored skin, Simpson-style nubs for hair, cherry-red puffer-fish lips... the standard blackface minstrel look).

And judging by what this thread is saying, I doubt attitudes in the conservative corners of Europe (supposedly the most open-minded area of the world) have changed for the better in the past 50 years. Regrettable and unfortunate.

[SoccerDude28]

Originally Posted by ATMachine

Yeah, I don't think Belgium is exactly a bastion of liberal tolerance when it comes to race relations vis-a-vis people of African descent.

Even Tintin, perhaps the greatest BD character to come out of Belgium ever and of whom many of the AG forumites here are fans (myself included to some degree), showed incredible racism in the book Tintin au Congo (which was until very recently considered so repugnant as not to merit an English translation!) in which Africans are depicted as lazy, stupid and naturally inclined to submit to their white "betters".

In other Tintin books the artist Herge was told by his American publisher to redraw numerous panels to eliminate stereotypical drawings of black people (coal-colored skin, Simpson-style nubs for hair, cherry-red puffer-fish lips... the standard blackface minstrel look).

And judging by what this thread is saying, I doubt attitudes in the conservative corners of Europe (supposedly the most open-minded area of the world) have changed for the better in the past 50 years. Regrettable and unfortunate.

Come on Tin Tin was written 70 years ago. Have you seen Tom and Jerry from seventy years ago? It was racist as well. That's how the world was back then, and you can't blame a country for being racist TODAY because of a work of art that was released in a racist era.

[Melanie68]

To keep this thread from becoming a bash against Belgium and/or Europe, let's try not to make assumptions that because Phantom didn't find the cartoon racist, he speaks for ALL the people of Belgium. That's generalizing and it makes the problem worse (not only here but everywhere). People of color don't like it when they are generalized. Speaking as a white person who wants to understand and sympathize, I don't like to be generalized either.

[SnorkleCat]

Come on Tin Tin was written 70 years ago. Have you seen Tom and Jerry from seventy years ago? It was racist as well. That's how the world was back then, and you can't blame a country for being racist TODAY because of a work of art that was released in a racist era.

__________________

Yes...that's how the world was 70 years ago....so why is the same offensive material being tossed around a "respected family magazine" in Belgium in 2007? Phantom by his own admission above said that such material was widely accepted as normal in Belgium, and that in his opinion, should be accepted everywhere in the world. This is what I have a hard time understanding. If a cartoon such as that appeared in a respected magazine here in South Africa, the entire editorial staff would get fired, and rightly so. I don't know if Phantom is representing his country properly, but if what he says about the casual acceptance of racist content in general literature is true, then I would consider that to be an unflattering portrait of the country and what it deems to be appropriate.

[SoccerDude28]

I was commenting on Tin Tin and the argument that just because Tin Tin was racist 70 years ago, than that makes all of the Belgian people racist today. That is hardly a strong argument to be made, and a very narrow minded generalization that Melanie pointed out in her post. As far as the magazine goes:
1- I haven't seen the offensive picture to comment on it
2- The magazine can hardly represent the point of view of a whole nation. Just take Fox news in the USA. If you listen to them, you'd think every American is a neo-con republican. Oh and Fox is supposedly a "respected TV station".

[SnorkleCat]

Originally Posted by SoccerDude28

I was commenting on Tin Tin and the argument that just because Tin Tin was racist 70 years ago, than that makes all of the Belgian people racist today. That is hardly a strong argument to be made, and a very narrow minded generalization that Melanie pointed out in her post. As far as the magazine goes:
1- I haven't seen the offensive picture to comment on it
2- The magazine can hardly represent the point of view of a whole nation. Just take Fox news in the USA. If you listen to them, you'd think every American is a neo-con republican. Oh and Fox is supposedly a "respected TV station".

You really need to see the toon first...the basic gist was of a cat mistaking a black child for a piece of shit and covering him up with sand.

Of course a magazine can't represent an entire country...but if the aforementioned cartoon, and others in a similar vein by the same artist, appear regularly in a general circulation, family magazine- as Phantom has said- doesn't that indicate a certain level of general acceptance? If the same cartoon appeared in an American periodical-say, Parade magazine- you can BET readers would be absolutely shocked, because cartoons like those are considered inflammatory and demeaning and haven't been seen for years. It's one thing to have a conservative slant, which Fox news clearly does, and quite another to come out and say "black people can be mistaken for shit because their skin is the color of shit." The former is the opinions of one political camp of consumers-fully debatable; the other is just a jaw dropping statement that leaves no room for debate or discussion, because its assumptions from the very beginning are bigoted, cruel, and demeaning.

[Stoofa]

But more importantly, to see this book in any sort of sexist or misogynistic or homophobic light is to miss the entire point of Maddox's humor.

This kind of comment pisses me off. If you're going to be all meta and ironic about racism or any other kind of bigotry, I don't understand why you'd get your dander up when people are understandably offended. Some things cut too close to the bone and you can walk too fine a line. Too many piece of shit bigots have hidden their vile ideas behind supposed humour.

[ATMachine]

I apologize if I insulted the people of Belgium. That certainly wasn't my intention. The point I was trying to make (perhaps less coherently than I should like) was just that certain stereotypes from years ago seem to be unfortunately still around in *some* circles (by no means all), and that perhaps less progress had been made on dispelling them than in other parts of the world.

Certainly history plays a great role in this. The United States has been confronted by the problem of race relations from the very beginning and has frequently erupted into violence over the issue (viz. the US civil war and the numerous riots of the 1960s). As such, the American people have been forced to question some of the stereotypes that were common in earlier areas. I won't be so hopelessly naive as to say that we've eliminated the problem of discrimination, but on the whole Americans are much more sensitive to the issues involved than they would have been 50 years ago.

South Africa, as SnorkleCat points out, is similarly sensitive to racial stereotyping, due to its own history. I don't think I really need to elaborate.

Now consider Europe. The Europeans, being sensible, did not have to fight a war to get rid of the cruelty of slavery. Free black men and women were not legally oppressed and segregated as they were here. I would argue that, paradoxically, the fact that the legal and class barriers were so much more easily overcome has led Europeans to avoid a head-on confrontation with some of the latent stereotypes that remain in the minority's minds from the days of empire. The deep-seated perceptions of the racist few have been papered over, if you will.

Don't get me wrong. I know that most Europeans are perfectly open, liberal, tolerant, and generally all around good people. And America has plenty of bigots who are just as bad as the worst perpetrators across the pond. But the fact remains that their society has been wracked by race issues far less often, and thus is perhaps less ready to confront the issue and denounce the perpetrators of stereotypes when it comes up.

I suppose where some of my frustration (and my inability to say what's exactly on my mind) comes from is that as a progressive American I generally look to Europe as an example of social liberalism and tolerance, a model that I want my country to follow. Unfortunately, this issue flies in the face of that hope, and it's very disappointing.

[SnorkleCat]

I suppose where some of my frustration (and my inability to say what's exactly on my mind) comes from is that as a progressive American I generally look to Europe as an example of social liberalism and tolerance, a model that I want my country to follow. Unfortunately, this issue flies in the face of that hope, and it's very disappointing.

I know just what you mean...it is tempting...but I think it is a naive and false way to view those countries. Unfortunately, European superiority over Americans, Australians, and other "New World" countries is something that is often implied, if not downright said...but is it deserved?
I don't think so. Let us not forget that down here in Africa we are dealing with the nasty fallout of many years of European colonialism. The Belgians, Dutch, Germans, English, French, and Spanish sailed overseas to oppress people instead of importing them (of course they were willing to import slaves to the New World, just not to their home countries) and set up empires- that they did not have policies of slavery in their own countries is of little value if similar policies were in place across the globe. The fact that they did not have an institution of slavery such as was found in the US, probably had more to do with the small size, economy, and climate of those countries, ie, Holland could never have had a cotton trade like Mississippi and Georgia did...but if they had? I'm not so sure they wouldn't have embraced slavery too. Let us not forget Nazi Germany. Let us not forget recent race riots and ethnocentric violence in France, or the ongoing discrimination faced by the Asian community in Britain...and let us not forget that even people of color who made great contributions, such as Alexandre Dumas, were still denied honors they deserved until very recently.
...I think your theory about why Europeans might view these issues with less sensitivity is right on. One has to wonder what will happen as more and more people emigrate from the developing world. So many people in countries like Zimbabwe are desperate to get out. It seems that communities tolerate an influx of refugees for a short time and then things blow up- as they did in France.

[Phantom]

Originally Posted by jacog

Well if you are to maintain that that is the nature of that comic, then that artist is not very good at conveying it, because I don't see it.

That is a subjective measure, as apparently I apparently do see the humour and social commentary, while you don't. So then I say: such a subjecive classification should not be used to condemn a cartoon.

[Phantom]

Originally Posted by SnorkleCat

Or are you just regurgitating everything you've been told by other white Europeans who really don't have a RIGHT to tell other races what they should and should not find offensive?

Other races? What on earth are you talking about? I can guarantee you that not the entire black race finds that cartoon offensive, as I personally know at least one black friend who can see the humour in it. Don't generalize please.
I agree though: I don't think the white Europeans (why do you automatically assume I am one, by the way?) should tell anyone, no matter what race, what to find offensive and what not. That would be a very pretentious thing to do, and I would not approve of it (and yes, I know it DOES happen).
But it also goes the other way: other people shouldn't tell me what I am allowed to find funny and what not. I won't stand for it. I laughed hard at that cat joke, and you're in no bloody position to condamn me for it. You don't even know me.

I'm a mixed race, non European, and I'm telling you that it offends me.

Good for you. That is your right. If you don't like it, turn away or ignore it. It is also my right to find it funny. And that opinion is apparently shared by a large audience, as the author is very popular and also does tv commercials. A non-racist audience by the way, as the cartoon was published in one of the most left-liberal magazines in Belgian (in fact, that is actually the only reason why it was allowed to be published in the first place!)



As for the rest of your post: I take those statements as a personal attack on me by a guy who has NO idea about who I am or what I do, and who's just flapping his jaw. I'm probably the least racist guy you'll ever meet (I despise it, and any form of it, because it's irrational), and I've had several friendships with coloured people in the past. In fact, I'm going on a weekend trip to Barcelone (Spain) with one (and a bunch of other friends) tomorrow, so if I don't reply to this later it's because I'm away for a couple of days.

You accuse me of racism, of close-mindedness, of having no contact or feeling with other races, while you know nothing at all of me, except that I find a cartoon funny. Don't jump to conclusions please.

[jacog]

I wonder if my great plot to dress up the mannequin pis up in a Zulu outfit would have gone down well.