Well i guess we’ll wait for that clarification.
If “they can be harmless” then what dictates whether they are harmless or offensive? If their very nature is to amplify characteristics then why is that unacceptable for some subjects but not others?
I think caricatures are individual pictures of one person who has agreed to it being done…
when you do it based on a stereotype of a whole culture… it becomes a racist or disrespectful image based on physical appearances that the whole group cant control.
5 Likes
I mean there is never going to be a hard line separating harmless or offensive. Just like someone else said, a joke that you make about yourself (or a close friend makes about you) can be funny but if some random person says the same thing than it probably wouldn’t be seen as funny.
So when a culture that has a long history of genocide against it’s indigenous population and then holds up this obvious caricature as a representation of that same group of people it doesn’t sit right with a lot of people (to put it lightly).
4 Likes
Uhhhhh…no. I used quotation marks because I was…wait for it…quoting you.
Again, if you read the whole sentence, it is very clear that I said it was a caricature…but that the racist origins of those caricatures needed to be acknowledged. As @mwglow15 well noted, those aren’t just caricatures.
But a nice job distracting from my point…if you can’t see the origins of those caricatures, it is telling.
No aim to distract here. Not sure why you were quoting a single word but you do you man.
What you have isnt really a point. “It’s telling” isnt really much of a position to hold. At least ive done my best to explain my position and why i hold it.
Theres no mention of it being voluntary, based on the definition of caricature already posted here. I see what your point is and im not unsympathetic to it.
So is it the caricature of the stereotype at fault? Maybe we can rally against all stereotypes together?
100% against all stereotypes. Agreed.
1 Like
Yeah i agree with most of this. But then the wrong doing is that of the genocide, not of the caricature.
No, it is very clear why you hold that position. Crystal.
3 Likes
But it’s the fact that those two have kind of gone hand in hand throughout history. Same could be said of 1940s Germany, the wrong doing was the concentration camps and not that they made the Jewish people wear arm bands. But they were just both components of a racist and violent system to denigrate a certain group of people.
If you look throughout recent history at times when a country, class, group, race, etc. committed systematic violence against another group then you will frequently see caricatures and cartoonish representations as a part of the widespread propaganda against that group.
So while it’s probably true that most (most likely almost all) people who are Cleveland Indians fans don’t hold any obvious racist feeling against Native Americans the fact is that cartoons like that have a history of racist propaganda used to push an anti-native agenda in the country.
4 Likes
Of course…it is painfully evident. Anyone with a rudimentary level of understanding about history should be able to grasp this.
The intent of these caricatures is to de-humanize those depicted, which just makes it easier to perpetuate the inherent racism in them…or in some cases, allow worse to occur (incarceration, genocide, etc)
7 Likes
This statement I agree with. I had shared the definition of caricature earlier in this thread and it appeared as if one had chosen to leave out part of the definition. The idea of a fair/amusement park caricature is something that one specific person chose to have made for them/about them, whereas other logos/mascots have not been in that case but are stereotypes about certain groups of people.
The problem is that there have been generations worth of stereotyping and racist propaganda that it appears to be the norm. People have grown up with that and inherently not learned the real meanings behind it and when people are wanting that to change they cite that people are “snowflakes” or “too easily offended”, when in reality they are defending racist behavior regardless if they are fully aware of not.
4 Likes
Of course caricatures of white people are racist. But it depends on where you sit. If you, as an expat American living in China, where there is a historical stigma against you, are depicted in a grotesque way that the dominate population sees as acceptable and amusing, you would feel it racist.
That is the point here, you can’t define the racism if you are the dominant population.
2 Likes
I am not in the US but from a foreign perspective this makes absolutely no sense.
Racism can not be based on emotions.
It has to be based on something objective or we can all start feeling victims about whatever and feel we are right
1 Like
Late-to-the-game thread.
Get the real deal here:
(Topic merger in aisle three! Topic merger, aisle three!)
1 Like
@Captain_Doughnutman I disagree. That thread you suggest putting this conversation in is a thread with 1600 posts and this specific topic brushed aside within. This was a new topic, a name changed was mentioned, and I was the first to comment on that name change being a good thing.
I’m sure there are plenty other threads about registering for that race over the years, why not talk about that there?
I believe the bigger topic was specifically the name change, and some are feeling uncomfortable pointing out the systemic racism behind it. Plenty here agreed that it was wrong and should have been changed, a few others didn’t understand why it was offensive to some. The conversation took a deeper dive.
I believe that being strong vocally and in the anti racist group is a good place to be. TR was making that push over the summer, and I believe that it is the right thing to continue to do. That is exactly why I called out the positive there, and explained the positioning when it was needed.
1 Like
Hey no worries.
The long thread was born out of forum members discussing racism on the Nate-initiated TR summertime thread you mentioned.
The thread also took a deeper dive and, like this thread, some members felt uncomfortable discussing anything else besides adoration of TR’s goodwill.
Thought I would introduce the jump before things got extra cranky around here.
Would this particular topic be brushed aside when it’s up against other far more horrendous examples? Maybe. I’ve already posted about the name change (and many other cycling related incidents) but weirdly enough, yes, the subject matter does seem to always return to the root cause.
——
Unrelated, is there gravel racing on zwift? 
only if you have a Neo!
1 Like
