That wasn't clear when you said rap had racist and violent roots. It appeared to be the reiteration of the propoganda that hounds our media. Part of the reason so many took offense to the cartoon, I believe.

No. And that's just the point I'm making. The cartoon is implying that all rap/hip-hop music is about living a criminal lifestyle. That's like saying because Johnny Cash was a drug addict and sang about killing a man just to watch him die, all those who listen to country music are violent drug addicted murders.

Sort of silly if you really think about it.

Thanks for the clarification. I'm not sure I understand how a commodity translates into "culture" without a consumer--but all right, it's your position and you clarified it.

All right.

I noticed you deleted this question:

"What I'm wondering is why you think anything that perpetuates those stereotypes on any group wouldn't be found offensive to that group--especially if the group has been unjustly discriminated from reaching their full potential by those outside their group?"

I was hoping you would answer it.

Jesus, Mike, Leave me alone, will you? You don't want my answers. You don't care what I think. You just want me to be wrong. I can tell the difference between being harassed and being asked my opinion on something because someone values it.

But I'll still answer your question.

It is my opinion that nothing is offensive. It's people that take offense. Offense is manufactured by the observer. What one man laughs at, another man is offended by. Was the object offensive? No. The observer's response is what determines whether he's going to be offended or not.

I'll bet you a million dollars that two people, 2 rap artists, 2 black, gangsta rap artists could look at that cartoon and one would be pissed and one would laugh. Is the cartoon offensive? To one guy is it, to one it isn't. It isn't so shallow as only being offended if you're "in that group".

Like I said: I would say it's entirely up to the person.

I don't give power to stereotypes. Yeah, it's just ink on a page. If the cartoon was about ME specifically, it's still just ink on a page.

I'm not harrassing you Bella. Are you saying I can't post on the same threads you do without it being considered harassment? If that's true, then perhaps you should avoid threads that discuss racial issues as this is an area I've been researching and studying for the better part of three years now.

I have an agenda and a position on issues of racism:

Agenda: To confront racial mythology when I come across it and debunk it with facts.

Position: I will not be party to systemic racism either by deed, or inaction.

I do care what you think. I do want your answers to my questions. I do value what you have to offer. If I didn't, I would completely ignore you like I do a few other posters on these forums.

I don't want you to be wrong. That directly goes against my own agenda. I want you to be factually correct. Why would I want anyone going though life being wrong? What purpose would that serve?

I agree. Offensiveness is subjective. However, I also believe that people can be offensive purposefully. I also believe that people can perpetuate negative stereotypes and that perpetuation of that negative stereotype should be offensive to society as a whole.

After all, if we're supposed to all work toward equality and peace--then perpetuating negative stereotypes about a certain group is counterproductive to that end and should be offensive to those working toward that goal.

Correct?

First off, I'm not positive that the rap billboard really had all that much to do with the cartoon. Maybe it was just depicting that they were in a predominantly African American populated area or in an urban area. Secondly, rap is not all about violence, sex and drugs. Yes, there are the chosen few who are placed in the limelight to give hip hop music a bad name. There are also those such as Run DMC, Will Smith, for the most part Kanye West, etc. that want to spread good words and are working for social activism.
People need to keep in mind that it is not only rappers who exploit violence, drugs, sex, etc. so don't go saying it is all their fault.
As far as the cartoon goes, I think it's a little offensive but I'm sure there is a purpose behind it.

MikeT's comments in black. Mine in green

Position: I will not be party to systemic racism either by deed, or inaction.

This is an interesting position and I can understand it. My position is to not be a part of racism, but I don't believe that my inaction necessarily contributes to racism. I have a much more "hands-off" position as I observe the attitudes of people changing before my eyes. The very fact that we're talking about this cartoon is an advancement in how the races see each other.

I strongly support a dialog about this kind of issue. My hope, though is to help people recognize and acknowledge that this is a stereotype, and to not take meaning from it.

Because people are always going to have "offensive" views and I believe it's their right to express them, even if they KNOW they're "offensive" and they mean to be offensive. I think it sparks debate and that's an important issue to talk about. But more importantly, it's an exercise of their free speech, to which they are entitled. It's a right, no matter how offensive others find it.

I believe if this right were somehow stifled, because people take offense, that would be a crime. That's why I think people should be allowed to make this kind of statement, even if it is their opinion that all rap music is violent, and that's the message they want to get across (even though I'm not sure that's what this cartoonist was trying to say at all).

I don't agree with the picture that some have of a bunch of dumb Americans sitting out there looking at the cartoons and believing everything they see. I don't agree with stifling expression because people might believe it. I think it's much more important to have these opinions OUT and to talk about them than to somehow send them underground to fester.

There are people open to being educated. Let's educate them instead of trying to reduce their exposure to "offensive" issues and ideas.


Why would I want anyone going though life being wrong? What purpose would that serve?

I don't know. Maybe so you can be right? I apologize if I misinterpreted your approach. It felt like a nagging or pestering to me. I am open to the possibility that you just want to talk about it.


I also believe that people can be offensive purposefully.

Yes, and I think that's ok. I think if people want to be offensive, nasty and rude, they should be allowed to. And we should be allowed to point it out and talk about it.


I also believe that people can perpetuate negative stereotypes and that perpetuation of that negative stereotype should be offensive to society as a whole.

I see it differently. I think instead of being offended, it's important for me to be able to point it out, prove it wrong, make the whole incident meaningless. Let people say what they will. The more we talk about it, the more people get educated. If we were to disallow this kind of cartoon because it perpetuates a stereotype or offends people, then it's not out there to talk about. All the cartoons would be about Cathy and The Family Circus. Talk about an ignorant society.

After all, if we're supposed to all work toward equality and peace--then perpetuating negative stereotypes about a certain group is counterproductive to that end and should be offensive to those working toward that goal.

Correct?

Attempting to perpetuate negative stereotypes reveals the stereotype and the fallacy (and truth) of it. There is some truth to the stereotype. To deny that is to deny reality.

Bella's comments in black. Mine in blue.

This is an interesting position and I can understand it. My position is to not be a part of racism, but I don't believe that my inaction necessarily contributes to racism. I have a much more "hands-off" position as I observe the attitudes of people changing before my eyes. The very fact that we're talking about this cartoon is an advancement in how the races see each other.

To me, inaction means allowing anything racist--either a comment, or an action, or a statement of a deeply rooted belief--to go unaddressed. Federally, at the state level, locally, and individually. So, to not comment on the cartoon is against my own principles.

I strongly support a dialog about this kind of issue. My hope, though is to help people recognize and acknowledge that this is a stereotype, and to not take meaning from it.

Unfortunately, more people will see the cartoon than you or I will be able to talk to. That's the fundamental difficulty I have with this. There are too many of "them" who embrace stereotypes and applaud those who are racist in their beliefs--and not enough of "us" who combat the perpetuation of those attitudes and beliefs.

To be clear though--I am conflicted because I do believe in free speech and artistic expression. Both my parents were artists, after all. More on this below.

Because people are always going to have "offensive" views and I believe it's their right to express them, even if they KNOW they're "offensive" and they mean to be offensive. I think it sparks debate and that's an important issue to talk about. But more importantly, it's an exercise of their free speech, to which they are entitled. It's a right, no matter how offensive others find it.

I believe it's their right to express whatever they wish, however offensive it is. I do. Limiting free speech wasn't where I was headed with this.

I believe if this right were somehow stifled, because people take offense, that would be a crime. That's why I think people should be allowed to make this kind of statement, even if it is their opinion that all rap music is violent, and that's the message they want to get across (even though I'm not sure that's what this cartoonist was trying to say at all).

Yes, people have the right to be offensive, derogatory, insulting and even racist, as well as ill-informed, uninformed, and speak out of ignorance (Not directed at you--please don't take that personally!)

However, that wasn't my point either. (Getting to it below.)

I don't agree with the picture that some have of a bunch of dumb Americans sitting out there looking at the cartoons and believing everything they see. I don't agree with stifling expression because people might believe it. I think it's much more important to have these opinions OUT and to talk about them than to somehow send them underground to fester.

Well, there are some people who do believe everything the media--in all its forms, including this cartoon--tell them. After all, four years ago most Americans believed Saddam was responsible for 9/11

As to these beliefs being "outed" so we can discuss them, I agree with that. Yet, that wasn't the point of my post--still getting to it below


There are people open to being educated. Let's educate them instead of trying to reduce their exposure to "offensive" issues and ideas.

Using this cartoon as an illustration while discussing racism in the United States would be a good use of that ink

I don't know. Maybe so you can be right? I apologize if I misinterpreted your approach. It felt like a nagging or pestering to me. I am open to the possibility that you just want to talk about it.

Bella, you have no idea what I would give to be wrongabout what I know concerning race relations in the United States. If someone suggested that chopping off my legs would erase all racism and discrimination, I (seriously) would ask, "Where's the axe?"

I'm not kidding here either. As much as that would be for others (since I'm white) that would be for my children as well. To know they could grow up in a world where racism and discrimination no longer existed? You betcha, I would do it in a heartbeat.

Yes, and I think that's ok. I think if people want to be offensive, nasty and rude, they should be allowed to. And we should be allowed to point it out and talk about it.

Whole-heartedly agree there.

I see it differently. I think instead of being offended, it's important for me to be able to point it out, prove it wrong, make the whole incident meaningless. Let people say what they will. The more we talk about it, the more people get educated. If we were to disallow this kind of cartoon because it perpetuates a stereotype or offends people, then it's not out there to talk about. All the cartoons would be about Cathy and The Family Circus. Talk about an ignorant society.

Okay, now here's where we get to my point and what I was attempting to convey the last time:

I think people should choose to be offended to the perpetuation of negative stereotypes. Not only because it's offensive to the targeted group, but because it's offensive to all of us who labor in the fight against inequality, discrimination and racism. It should be offensive because it's counter-productive to that goal.

Now, if those who are perpetuating a negative stereotype know that the majority of his or her peers will stomp it out harshly with a massive backlash of our opinion on how it's counter-productive to what's in the best interests of society--then they will find ways to highlight real injustices in a way that is factual and helpful--rather than inciteful and counter-productive.

That is my goal in taking "offense" to the cartoon. The artist makes my job unnecessarily tougher than it needs to be--when it's already monumentally hard.

Attempting to perpetuate negative stereotypes reveals the stereotype and the fallacy (and truth) of it. There is some truth to the stereotype. To deny that is to deny reality.

Stereotypes are never reality--they are exaggerations and 'stereotypes.' There were many ways to address the "Don't Snitch" thinking in some sectors of some communities (not exclusive to blacks(this should read: not exclusive to a few criminally inclined blacks--see how easy it is to slip into stereotyping if you're not ever-vigilant? I left this in to illustrate that I am still guilty of what I fight against in my own culture) , but also organized crime, drug cartels, etc.) without using rap music or a black man calling a child a "ho."

Even if the artist were attempting to specifically address the issue of "Don't Snitch" in some black communities by some black people, there wasn't a need to tie it into the stereotype of rap music--or a black man calling a child a 'ho.'

As an ex-artist myself (I write now) I see a plethora of possibilities that would be just as compelling.

In the end, it's time that we abandon stereotypes and started talking about realities.

Wouldn't you agree?

according to our first amendment rights people can have a freeom of expression so if ur affended by what other people feel sux for u suk it up

I think I understand what you wrote--it's a bit hard to tell, considering the errors here, but okay...

I would prefer that the first amendment rights were dragged out more often to criticize the works of those who would perpetuate any sort of inequity in our country.

In other words, it would be nice for a change that the media attention didn't so much focus on an artist's right to free expression--but rather on the people's right to freely express how racist/sexist/discriminating/bigotted etc. or offensive to those working toward equality, the freely expressed view happened to be.

My position is: go ahead and be offensive--and we can choose to be offended--our right to express being offended is just as important and should enjoy equal public protection, as in media focus.

Instead of "how offensive can we be?"
it should be:

"How offended should we get?"