P On Me and Tell Me It's Rain

[MissBrattified]

Originally Posted by OldTimey

I think you need to go dictionary shopping. That's not a current definition.

Yes it is.

www.dictionary.com

–noun
1. the offspring of one white parent and one black parent: not in technical use.
2. a person whose ancestry is a mixture of Negro and Caucasian.
–adjective
3. of a light-brown color.
Origin:
1585–95; < Sp mulato young mule, equiv. to mul(o) mule 1 + -ato of unclear orig.
Dictionary.com Unabridged


Based on the Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2009.

Also, see: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/mulatto

[TJJJ]

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

Yes it is.

www.dictionary.com

–noun
1. the offspring of one white parent and one black parent: not in technical use.
2. a person whose ancestry is a mixture of Negro and Caucasian.
–adjective
3. of a light-brown color.
Origin:
1585–95; < Sp mulato young mule, equiv. to mul(o) mule 1 + -ato of unclear orig.
Dictionary.com Unabridged


Based on the Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2009.

Also, see: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/mulatto

Thanks Miss B

[Jermyn Davidson]

Originally Posted by Digging4Truth

LOL... good chimp comparisons. That was funny.

Personally. I am not convinced that the cartoon was drawn with racist intentions.

But... those demanding such have their apology now so... done deal.

Digging4Truth,

How are you not convinced that the cartoon was drawn with racist intentions?

Btw, it was a half-hearted apology, more interested at taking cheap shots at Sharpton without naming him than really about admitting they did wrong and stating what they will do to not allow the same kind of journalistic irresponsibility.

[Digging4Truth]

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

Digging4Truth,

How are you not convinced that the cartoon was drawn with racist intentions?

Btw, it was a half-hearted apology, more interested at taking cheap shots at Sharpton without naming him than really about admitting they did wrong and stating what they will do to not allow the same kind of journalistic irresponsibility.

You're saying that it is impossible that it wasn't drawn with racist intentions?

And... I was unaware that the apology was insufficient.

What would it take for the apology to be sufficient?

[StillStanding]

Someone may have brought this up (I haven't read the entire thread), but maybe the NAACP needs to draw up guidelines of what is racially offensive when those in opposition to Obama wish to make fun of him and his policies.

With previous presidents, nothing was off limits to their distractors. With Obama, he may go down as the least criticized by the media in history because of the uber-sensitivity and political correctness along racial lines.

If the same monkey comparisons were made to Obama that were made to Bush, there would be rioting in the streets.

Everyone must now parse their words when it comes to mocking or criticizing Obama.

[Jermyn Davidson]

Originally Posted by Digging4Truth

You're saying that it is impossible that it wasn't drawn with racist intentions?

And... I was unaware that the apology was insufficient.

What would it take for the apology to be sufficient?

I am saying that it is impossible for that cartoon to be published without their knowledge of the racial overtones and implications of that drawing.

Therefore, there is racist intent because they knew the polarizing affect of that drawing.


It was like ripping the scab off of an old wound and pouring salt all over it.


It would take an apology that is an admission of guilt, wrongdoing with the commitment of being careful to not do it again.

A heartfelt apology doesn't usually have qualifications in it, doesn't usually try to justify it. That kind of stuff makes an apology not genuine.

[Jermyn Davidson]

Originally Posted by Mr. Steinway

Someone may have brought this up (I haven't read the entire thread), but maybe the NAACP needs to draw up guidelines of what is racially offensive when those in opposition to Obama wish to make fun of him and his policies.

With previous presidents, nothing was off limits to their distractors. With Obama, he may go down as the least criticized by the media in history because of the uber-sensitivity and political correctness along racial lines.

If the same monkey comparisons were made to Obama that were made to Bush, there would be rioting in the streets.

Everyone must now parse their words when it comes to mocking or criticizing Obama.

Mr. Steinway,

That's not necessary. Responsible journalism is.

The folks of printed media know what is and what isn't acceptable.
They know what is and what isn't offensive.

[tstew]

I personally refuse to waste energy getting too upset about things like this. I have plenty to spend my energy on as it is. However, I do believe that the chimp was primarily portraying Obama and that someone involved had to have known that it would cause a stir. I also believe that that was part of the reason it was run. Some newspapers do that (particularly those run by Rupert Murdoch). He's made millions doing that all over the globe. This particular illustrator also has a history. I'm willing to bet that their website has seen near record number of visitors since this all broke. This is the nature of the business that they are in. Murdoch is more a tabloid guy than anything.
To me it's just not worth it to play along for too long.

[Jermyn Davidson]

Originally Posted by tstew

I personally refuse to waste energy getting too upset about things like this. I have plenty to spend my energy on as it is. However, I do believe that the chimp was primarily portraying Obama and that someone involved had to have known that it would cause a stir. I also believe that that was part of the reason it was run. Some newspapers do that (particularly those run by Rupert Murdoch). He's made millions doing that all over the globe. This particular illustrator also has a history. I'm willing to bet that their website has seen near record number of visitors since this all broke. This is the nature of the business that they are in. Murdoch is more a tabloid guy than anything.
To me it's just not worth it to play along for too long.

I think you're right.

But how do you "inform" folks of the offense-- the ones who genuinely don't understand how something like this can be so offensive?


How do you convince the Murdochs of printed media that is just isn't worth their time and money to thrive on racially offensive stuff that can almost be hidden as something else?

[Digging4Truth]

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

I am saying that it is impossible for that cartoon to be published without their knowledge of the racial overtones and implications of that drawing.

Therefore, there is racist intent because they knew the polarizing affect of that drawing.


It was like ripping the scab off of an old wound and pouring salt all over it.


It would take an apology that is an admission of guilt, wrongdoing with the commitment of being careful to not do it again.

A heartfelt apology doesn't usually have qualifications in it, doesn't usually try to justify it. That kind of stuff makes an apology not genuine.

Is it not possible that there are people who are so past those days that this did not cross their mind?

Seeing the cartoon without all the hoopla this thought would not have crossed my mind.

But... one can rest assure... all of those who had not lived a life where the implications of certain references were not known through the scope of experience their life had offered will know the implications now.

I think the reaction did more to salt wounds than the cartoon would have ever done without the reaction itself.

And... if the person or the paper is a racist then one would expect an apology that would not feel genuine.

On the flip side... if the person or paper intended no racist overtones whatsoever and were totally caught off guard by the reaction. That person or paper would then offer an apology for something they did not do in an effort to quell the dissent. Apologies for things one did not do tend to not sound genuine either.

But when people believe you are guilty and will stand for nothing short of an apology, even if there was no wrong doing, then what else is a person or paper to do?

In reactions like this one there is no room allowed for the possibility that the person or paper have been judged and found guilty wrongly.

There must be an apology put forth whether they are wrong or not.

These things lend themselves to a corresponding response that seems insincere because one is, generally, insincere when apologizing for something they did not do.

So... either the person or paper is openly, blatantly and grossly racist or they have been falsely accused.

The latter will never be considered.

The former is, apparently, a given.