Racist Cartoon in the Australian

(Log in to remove this ad.)

MightyFighting

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Jun 23, 2003
Posts
10,300
Likes
57
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Port Melbourne
Thread starter #77
The cartoonist should always be given the benifit of the doubt. However, the meaning of this picture is so overt that I'm suprised so many people here are claiming the meaning is ambiguous. It's like one of those nazi-era cartoons depicting jews with devious faces, hooked noses and flies hovering around them.
 

Mr Q

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
May 27, 2002
Posts
10,984
Likes
29
Location
Wombling Free
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
East Perth
#78
bunsen burner said:
Nothing wrong with stereotyping a group of people. Stereotyping individuals is however wrong.
I'm not letting that ride BB. There is indeed something wrong with stereotyping entire groups. For instance, if you say "black men bash their wives" or "Americans are religious fundamentalist nutters", or "Lebanese youth are in gangs" you are implying something about the entire group (racial or otherwise) - which is clearly not true.

That cartoon clearly makes a broad statement about Aboriginal people that is unfair and derogatory to many Aboriginal people. To create and use a stereotype is unfair to many of the people that get unfairly tarred.
 
Joined
Jun 4, 2002
Posts
13,342
Likes
5,187
Location
Location!
AFL Club
Geelong
Other Teams
pivotonians
Admin #79
feher said:
beater = white
victim = black
?

beater = black
victim = white
?

Or the classic both white?
The Australian readership is a predominantly white. If you want to draw a picture of Mr or Mrs average you make them white - thats just the convention. If there was an aboriginal paper that was read predominantly by aboriginals, then mr and mrs average would be black. It connects the average reader with the person being depicted. If you want to draw attention to a particular section of society then you add features to their depiction to make that connection. In this case 'bleak' has made them aboriginals.

By making them aboriginals he moves the emphasis away from society in general to targetting aboriginals in particular. He is not pushing a messge about how we feel about ourselves, his message is commenting on a particular group of people of which most of us are not part of. He's not making a statement about domestic violence in general society. He is making a statement about domestic violence in aboriginal socities.
 

Ripper

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Nov 6, 2002
Posts
23,162
Likes
5,954
Location
End of the Earth.
AFL Club
Fremantle
#80
Acually it is abrilliant cartoon. The main purpose of a political cartoon is to provoke thought & dicussion which this one clearly has.

Any discussion about domestic violence is good as it has been swept under the carpet for far to long, and anything that educates victims that it is not acceptable is welcome.

Sadly too many victims wear their black eyes and thick lips with pride as it is proof that their man cares.

Conversley when this attidude has been turned around the next step is to educate against emotional abuse as that can be just as damaging as physical abuse.
 

feher

Premiership Player
Joined
Sep 29, 2003
Posts
3,509
Likes
5
Location
Adelaide
Other Teams
HFC 9xAFL Pre, Liverpool
#83
Jim Boy said:
... He is making a statement about domestic violence in aboriginal socities.
If others took it that way would why would they be screaming racist?


My question to all, if you want to make it about white domestic violence how do you go about it?

FF said it was about ALP something a rather, how would you do it in a classy way if that is seen as racist?
 

funkyfreo

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Jul 21, 2004
Posts
6,912
Likes
4
AFL Club
Fremantle
Other Teams
Freo
#84
Feher - the fact I know about the ALP leader comments is the one saving grace for the cartoonist, because I think I CAN see what he was trying to do, and I've said it earlier in the thread. But I think he erred, bad judgement call, by making it indistinguishable from a generig negative stereotype about blacks cartoon.

If I did not know about the ALP guys comments then I would DEFINATELY immediatly think it was far more raacist, not the other way.

You are right, in 20 years time if racism in general was not widespread, then I think the cartoon could represent real social comment, if there was an issue to comment about. IMO a cartoonist has to tread a fine line when dealing with indigenous issues to make sure he/she gets their point across, without leaving it so ambiguous that it could be seen as just a racist jibe. There is always a line, and I think it has been crossed here.

As for the white issue - I think a society can also go much further in pointing out hometruths that may be a bit unpalletable about ITSELF, as opposed to another culture. I know that Indig aussies ARE aussies so that is another fine line I guess.

I for one have never read any mainstream social comment about white australian society that has been what I would call racist.

You also need to see the difference between a racist person, and a racist person backed up by a racist society and leaders. it is a fine line and Howard and Co are just on the right side of it I think, but there are times you overstep the mark.

Heck I love innapropriate jokes, I tell em all the time, and sometimes a joke I tell to bloke A is a joke I should not have tole to lady B, and I know it, and I have to backpedal. Some racist jokes are funny, you just have to choose your audience.

Context - that is the key.
 

funkyfreo

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Jul 21, 2004
Posts
6,912
Likes
4
AFL Club
Fremantle
Other Teams
Freo
#85
bunsen burner said:
Such as?

Big statement, now back it up.
Now now BB, I am certain labor would do the same if it would win them an election. They just got outfoxed on public sentiment fair and square - no argument from me there. I'm not talking about a racist Howard government, just one that played upon public fears with some carefully chosen situations.
 

Ripper

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Nov 6, 2002
Posts
23,162
Likes
5,954
Location
End of the Earth.
AFL Club
Fremantle
#86
Freo Big Fella said:
You deny that the 2001 election was won due to Howard's response to the Tampa and 9/11?
Urban Myth peddled by the ALP who have never lost an election as events have conspired against them.

Until that attitude changes they will be forever in opposition.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

funkyfreo

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Jul 21, 2004
Posts
6,912
Likes
4
AFL Club
Fremantle
Other Teams
Freo
#87
feher said:
If others took it that way would why would they be screaming racist?


My question to all, if you want to make it about white domestic violence how do you go about it?

FF said it was about ALP something a rather, how would you do it in a classy way if that is seen as racist?
But it was not about domestic violence per se. What I would have is a split cartoon.

Three couples, bloke at the table reading the paper, and three women in the background in the kitchen. One bogan in a blue singlet, one business man, and one aboriginal man if you like. Each bloke reading the paper, saying "DO you know hon, it says here that more women thing their is domestic violence in their relationship than men do - rediculous." The women in the background each have black eyes.

That could comment on how domestic violence reaces across all cultures and races, and then men are in denial of the fact. I don;t think many men would find that sexist, because you are either most likely a wife basher (loosely speaking) or someone who objects to DV and would support the cartoon.
 

feher

Premiership Player
Joined
Sep 29, 2003
Posts
3,509
Likes
5
Location
Adelaide
Other Teams
HFC 9xAFL Pre, Liverpool
#88
ff was that carton anti-labour? is that one of the meanings? If so Leak has a number of cartoon's that I think are anti-Liberal.
 

bunsen burner

Hall of Famer
Joined
Sep 12, 2001
Posts
32,664
Likes
1,427
Location
Sydney
AFL Club
West Coast
#89
funkyfreo said:
I thought it was the other way round? I don't care if people stereotype me.
Let me explain it to you:

As much as people don't like to admit it (read are delusional), different races or groups of people have features that are more predominant in their group than others, whether they be percieved as good traits or bad traits. Only a fool would deny this.

So there's nothing wrong with stereotyping or generalising a group of people. What is wrong is stereotyping individuals within those groups. Just because a group may have a certain stereotype, doesn't mean that all people within that group possess this trait.

And therein lies the problem. If a group of people are stereotyped some people (often left wing whingers) think that every single person within this group has been tarred with the same brush. Common sense tells us that this is not the case.

It's only logical to group people, animals, or anything else for that matter by their characteristics. And it doesn't mean that everything within a group has to be identical. If we didn't use grouping systems it would be hard to.....actually it's human nature because we are intelligent. Which leads to the conclusion that people who don't understand why we use grouping systems (yes, even based on race) are inherently stupid.
 

funkyfreo

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Jul 21, 2004
Posts
6,912
Likes
4
AFL Club
Fremantle
Other Teams
Freo
#90
feher said:
FF said it was about ALP something a rather, how would you do it in a classy way if that is seen as racist?
Sorry you mean the ALP thing, not the Dom Violence thing. ok.

erm.

I'd have had the ALP VP arguing with Latham and Lawrence.

"For Christ's sake, we have to do SOMETHING to get the redneck vote back."
 

funkyfreo

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Jul 21, 2004
Posts
6,912
Likes
4
AFL Club
Fremantle
Other Teams
Freo
#91
bunsen burner said:
Let me explain it to you:

As much as people don't like to admit it (read are delusional), different races or groups of people have features that are more predominant in their group than others, whether they be percieved as good traits or bad traits. Only a fool would deny this..
If you are talking about strength, speed, sort of physical attributes, I agree. But I disagree on social issues. We are all as capable as anyone else of the good and bad, just based upon our race.

bunsen burner said:
So there's nothing wrong with stereotyping or generalising a group of people. What is wrong is stereotyping individuals within those groups. Just because a group may have a certain stereotype, doesn't mean that all people within that group possess this trait..
Look as a pom I get stereotyped all the time. But what it does mean is people judge me initially on the stereotype, otherwise there would be no stereotype. You make it sound as though the majority DO have the stereotype?

bunsen burner said:
And therein lies the problem. If a group of people are stereotyped some people (often left wing whingers) think that every single person within this group has been tarred with the same brush. Common sense tells us that this is not the case...
stereotype
Function: noun
: something conforming to a fixed or general pattern; especially : an often oversimplified or biased mental picture held to characterize the typical individual of a group

note the "oversimplified or biased", and the "individual". Ie when you stereotype a group, it is the INDIVIDUAL you are tarnishing.

bunsen burner said:
It's only logical to group people, animals, or anything else for that matter by their characteristics. And it doesn't mean that everything within a group has to be identical. If we didn't use grouping systems it would be hard to.....actually it's human nature because we are intelligent. Which leads to the conclusion that people who don't understand why we use grouping systems (yes, even based on race) are inherently stupid.
Yes, birds, dogs, and humans. You are free to stereotype humans.

Racism is not grouping people by reasonable stereotypes anyway. Racism is grouping people by unfounded stereotypes to discriminate. ie all blacks beat their wives.
 

funkyfreo

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Jul 21, 2004
Posts
6,912
Likes
4
AFL Club
Fremantle
Other Teams
Freo
#92
feher said:
ff was that carton anti-labour? is that one of the meanings? If so Leak has a number of cartoon's that I think are anti-Liberal.
Erm, no I don't think so at all. It was pretty a-political. Comment on internal Labor dispute, rather than against Labor as such. I actually almost believe he was trying to show that touchy feely policies have lead to an agressive society where certain things are accepted because we are too PC (for want of a better term). I just think it was hastily and poorly put together, and the image of a black drunk beating a woman is too "in your face" for the subtle message to get across.
 

funkyfreo

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Jul 21, 2004
Posts
6,912
Likes
4
AFL Club
Fremantle
Other Teams
Freo
#93
Feher - do you see that the cartoon would have had the same effect had there been a black guy on the floor of a cell getting beaten up by a white copper saying "I'll show you touchy feely" may have got coppers upset as being portrayed as black-bashers? That could have been the 1st pane, followed by the second existing one.

Actually it would have been good as it may have shown we were not so touchy feely after all, and it is these hard nasty policies like general brutality to the population over generations that have led to the current situation. It also would have shown that all things are linked and we need a genuine open aproach to reconcilliation so we don;t just go round in circles for another 50 years.
 

Freo Big Fella

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Sep 30, 2003
Posts
10,731
Likes
5,401
Location
The great wide north
AFL Club
Fremantle
Other Teams
WA, Australia
#94
RIPPER_46 said:
Urban Myth peddled by the ALP who have never lost an election as events have conspired against them.

Until that attitude changes they will be forever in opposition.
Disagree. I'm the first to say that the ALP performed poorly this year in appointing Latham too late and making some ridiculous policy sacrifices.

However, I beleive 2001 was a special case. You can't deny that there was a massive swing towards the ALP that year, with Labor govts elected in nearly every state. At the beginning of the year Beazley was laughing it up in the polls and it looked like we would have a new PM. Howard was struggling.

Fast forward to August-September-October. First the Tampa, Howard/Ruddock's tough stance achieves near-universal support and his approval rises dramatically for the first time in 10-12 months. Then 9/11 occurs, Howard plays up his tough stance on Immigration as "Protecting the Nation from Terrorists", which is met with more approval.

I'm not saying that the ALP is totally blameless, but the fact is that had the Tampa/9-11 not occurred we may have seen a much closer election in 2001.
 

bunsen burner

Hall of Famer
Joined
Sep 12, 2001
Posts
32,664
Likes
1,427
Location
Sydney
AFL Club
West Coast
#95
Mr Q said:
I'm not letting that ride BB. There is indeed something wrong with stereotyping entire groups. For instance, if you say "black men bash their wives" or "Americans are religious fundamentalist nutters", or "Lebanese youth are in gangs" you are implying something about the entire group (racial or otherwise) - which is clearly not true.
Lets take a stereotype:

"Chinese retailers are very price oriented. They generally use cheap pricing as their business model".

I interpret that as saying:

"The propensity to use cheap pricing as a business model is much more evident amongst Chinese retailers than retailers of other nationalities. Not all Chinese retailers use this model but there is enough of a pattern to form a generalisation"

You interpret that as saying:

"The propensity to use cheap pricing as a business model is much more evident amongst Chinese retailers than retailers of other nationalities. Therefore, if a retailers is Chinese then they must use this business model."

Now let me explain why your interpretation is flawed:

Humans are intelligent. We group like things to characterise things and make information easier to digest. If we didn't generalise/group/stereotype then there would be an assumtion that everything is the same. This is just plain stupid. So we group things with an assumed knowledge that each individual within that group may not be the same and may not possess the characteristic that it has been grouped to.

Maybe if you just accepted that a stereotype of a group is a mere generalisation that doesn't mean every single person in that group possess the said trait you wouldn't have to jump up and down every time.

Certain traits are undeniably strong in certain groups and you think that information should be disregarded? For each individual - yes, but for the group - no - because it exists.


That cartoon clearly makes a broad statement about Aboriginal people that is unfair and derogatory to many Aboriginal people. To create and use a stereotype is unfair to many of the people that get unfairly tarred.
Settle down. I've already stated my distaste for the cartoon.
 

bunsen burner

Hall of Famer
Joined
Sep 12, 2001
Posts
32,664
Likes
1,427
Location
Sydney
AFL Club
West Coast
#96
Freo Big Fella said:
You deny that the 2001 election was won due to Howard's response to the Tampa and 9/11?
But what has it got to do with prejudices? He simply lied about a situation to make himself look good. Had nothing to do with him portraying racial prejudices.

Now, want to try again?
 

bunsen burner

Hall of Famer
Joined
Sep 12, 2001
Posts
32,664
Likes
1,427
Location
Sydney
AFL Club
West Coast
#97
funkyfreo said:
Now now BB, I am certain labor would do the same if it would win them an election. They just got outfoxed on public sentiment fair and square - no argument from me there. I'm not talking about a racist Howard government, just one that played upon public fears with some carefully chosen situations.
That's ok then.
 

funkyfreo

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Jul 21, 2004
Posts
6,912
Likes
4
AFL Club
Fremantle
Other Teams
Freo
#98
BB, I think you are arguing with people who agree with you.

I certainly do, and I'm sure Mr Q does, agree that general stereotypes of a group of people are 100% natural, and pretty much unavoidable. We all assign certain ideas and values to different groups of people. Whether they are posh people, people in Volvos, black, asian, poms, Tasmanians etc etc. You just have to use your judgement to not automatically apply them to people, because they are more often than not based uopn myth and legend than actual fact.

So while it is valid to have a stereotype to have of many things - eg poms don't shower, greeks are rude, Australians are pretty stupid etc, South Africans are racist, well I just don;t think that "aboriginals bash their wives" is a valid stereotype, as it is a minority occurence. There is no evidence that it is more likely than not (although certianly is evidence it is more frequent (possibly) than in general society).
 

Freo Big Fella

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Sep 30, 2003
Posts
10,731
Likes
5,401
Location
The great wide north
AFL Club
Fremantle
Other Teams
WA, Australia
#99
bunsen burner said:
But what has it got to do with prejudices? He simply lied about a situation to make himself look good. Had nothing to do with him portraying racial prejudices.

Now, want to try again?

It played on the inherent predjudices certain elements of the community were feeling towards Muslims at the time. I'm not saying Howard was racist, moreso that he effectively utilised racism as a political tool to ensure his election victory.
 

feher

Premiership Player
Joined
Sep 29, 2003
Posts
3,509
Likes
5
Location
Adelaide
Other Teams
HFC 9xAFL Pre, Liverpool
funkyfreo said:
Feher - do you see that the cartoon would have had the same effect had there been a black guy on the floor of a cell getting beaten up by a white copper saying "I'll show you touchy feely" may have got coppers upset as being portrayed as black-bashers? That could have been the 1st pane, followed by the second existing one.

Actually it would have been good as it may have shown we were not so touchy feely after all, and it is these hard nasty policies like general brutality to the population over generations that have led to the current situation. It also would have shown that all things are linked and we need a genuine open aproach to reconcilliation so we don;t just go round in circles for another 50 years.
Okay I think you have lost me completely. 2nd Panel = Leak cartoon? The first panel I would see it as:

- Police brutality
- Coppers not being able to express their nicer side

I think I have totally missed the point.
 
Top Bottom