Sounds to me like it might have been [the artist Andres] Guzman’s decision to make the family members minorities — not Businessweek’s. And I have a hard time believing that a man from Latin America deliberately intended to portray minorities, including Latinos, in a negative light.Ridiculous. It doesn't matter what Guzman intended or how Guzman feels about things. Bloomberg Businessweek chose to run the illustration on the cover. They are responsible for that decision which had to include judgment about how it would be perceived by potential readers. The point of a magazine cover is to reach out to readers — not to passively convey an illustration that an artist was asked to provide. If what comes in from the artist is going to strike readers as weirdly racial, the editors shouldn't run it. Does the Columbia Journalism Review seriously think otherwise?
Now, it is interesting that we perceive a cartoonish image with 4 black and/or Hispanic caricatures to be saying something about minorities. Maybe we should have evolved to the point where our natural reading of such a cartoon would be generic, but Bloomberg Businessweek's choice of cover illustration took place in the real world that currently exists.
Posts
82 comments:
It is a dirty little secret that -- in America, at least -- non-whites are more likely to harbor racist sentiments than white people are.
"decision which had to include judgment about how it would be perceived by potential readers."
So their "apology" is perfect.
Since they don't have to think about their own hearts and whether they intend racism. They forgot that people would be sensitive to this picture.
They didn't actually communicate something objectively wrong. They communicated something that could be taken the WRONG WAY. and that's why their "I'm sorry you were offended" is the right argument.
What is wrong with that argument is that a person is not made non-racist by having origins in a foreign country, and having minority status in this country.
(Despite any jokes I may have made on the last comment thread.)
My question is this: if he was providing an accurate representation of poor choices made by some members of the minority in the U.S., does that change the perception of what is communicated by the picture?
Non-white people can never be racist.
Unless, of course, they're white Hispanics.
I have an idea that stuff like never saying the n-word except as "n-word" is acceptance of a trip wire that activists have put out.
Cartoon criteria are probably another trip wire.
Whites love trip wires. They can conspicuously avoid them.
It's a new game in mine field traversal.
I call bullshit on the minefields.
Racism in Peru or from a Peruvian doesn't count and no one reviews the cover before it goes to press.
Is there a degree in excuse making of which only liberals are allowed to major?
Ok hold on.
are we saying that the cover OUT OF CONTEXT is racist?
Why?
You ask a peruvian cartoonist who likes drawing people in exaggerated ways (see his tumblr) to 'draw a family enjoying huge amounts of cash' and that is the result.
What makes THAT work racist (we can argue maybe BW is 'insensitive' to blacks for running it in an article about irresponsible homeowners of every persuasion.
But what is racist about the cartoon? The blackest figure in it doesn't even have a stereotypical African nose. So what is it?
And I have a hard time believing that a man from Latin America deliberately intended to portray minorities, including Latinos, in a negative light.
This made me chuckle. What a precious, naive statement. Latin America is a place where a white elite that looks a lot like Andres Guzman rules over a black and American Indian population that looks a lot like the people in the cartoon.
If you choose to think of this guy as a Latin American, the whole thing just becomes more racist!
I have a hard time believing that a man from Latin America deliberately intended to portray minorities, including Latinos, in a negative light
Yeah, because all Latinos are the same -- a Peruvian is the same as a Honduran is the same as a Cuban. They all think alike and love each other. And they especially love those descendants from Africa.
Besides, everyone knows that only white males can be racist.
@Maguro
from this
http://www.andresguzman.com/09_10.html
You're sure he's "White"?
George Zimmerman had a blood relative from Peru.
1. The lady in the lower left box seems white. Check the box.
2. Racism is now about perceived perceptions (e.g., "I think this makes minorities look bad so racists will think the same thing") and others must perceive your perceptions of other peoples' perceptions correctly or be found racist. In olden days of yore, racism was about actual racism.
3. The problem with this cartoon is that it is poorly drawn.
4. Dave's Rule of cartoons (credit Ace of Spades) applies. (Take any cartoon, remove the tag line and replace it with "I think I'm going to kill myself.")
Does it matter what we think? How do the Peruvians perceive their society?
You're sure he's "White"?
Uh, yeah...blue eyes, straight hair, pointed nose. Looks like a Spaniard to me.
The black cat is there for a reason. It's a crystal clear reference for anyone who has spent a lot of time in, say, Miami or New Orleans.
It's a lot darker and more pointed than a reference to,say, fried chicken and watermelon. This is way beyond that.
Surprised no one seems to have noticed it though.
The black cat is there for a reason. It's a crystal clear reference for anyone who has spent a lot of time in, say, Miami or New Orleans.
It's a lot darker and more pointed than a reference to,say, fried chicken and watermelon. This is way beyond that.
Surprised no one seems to have noticed it though.
We all know there's no racism in Latin America.
So he's. Peruvian, eh?
Then whoever is excusing him on that basis is a fucking idiot. If you are tuned in to the South American racial and cultural pecking order, this is vile by our standards.
I kind of understand what Althouse is saying... but rh makes a good point.
The left gets to pick when something is racist and when its not, based on rules they make up as they go.
“Truth for us nowadays is not what is, but what others can be brought to accept.”
Goddamn Peruvians!!!!
How I fucking hate them!!!
What with their fucking beefsteak and their fucking "facónes" and their fucking horses and their fucking bolo string ties and their fucking bell-bottom trousers for women that are way too short and their . . .
Oh, wait.
Nevermind.
That's some other place.
(sorry.)
I have a dream....that one day...we will be able to mock looting, mooching Negroes and Mexicans, just as we would mock looting and mooching white folks.
I thought the cover characterized things fairly accurately.
It's not like he pictured Condoleezza Rice as “Aunt Jemima” or something.
Whites of Latin American origin can't be racist because the US has a legal category of Hispanic, and never mind traditions of 'limpieza de sangre' or 'casta' or the like.
Unless, of course, their last name is Zimmerman or Romney.
The progressive Jews running the NY Times have declared Peruvians and half Peruvians as "white hispanics".
Therefore, any Peruvian is a hating racist white oppressor who hates!
Ridiculous. It doesn't matter what Guzman intended or how Guzman feels about things
Wow, deja vu the Mohammed cartoons!
" Maybe we should have evolved to the point where our natural reading of such a cartoon would be generic, but Bloomberg Businessweek's choice of cover illustration took place in the real world that currently exists."
So if we have evolved past that knee-jerk reaction, then we are freaks in your racist real world. Where is the door to my world, because, believe it or not, I would not have noticed without the frantic pointing. Some of us don't live in lily-white enclaves where such a portrayal looks odd.
The time has come to point out the racism of constantly pointing out racism. It's not news, and often it's not even real. Either way, try and evolve, would you?
Only racists give a shit about the skin color of the rich and famous. Funny thing happened on the way the arena, when nobody noticed the color of the rich performers - except Nike perhaps.
Cedajewineveryproblem,
I did notice when in Chicago last week walking the snowed in streets like an eskimo, that there sure was a lot of white people. Coming from where I live and work in L.A. that did stand out. And also that the women were pretty hot, even all bundled up and standing in slush to their ankles. I really don't know how you people can stand that weather. It's not fit for human beings capable of interstate travel.
So, depicting minorities as an emerging homeowner class is racist.
Who knew?
If what comes in from the artist is going to strike readers as weirdly racial, the editors shouldn't run it.
Unfortunately this view is all too common in America and the White Western world at large.
We need more "weirdly racial" not less. We need more awareness both of race and the ways certain White people have decided to secularize the older White tradition of villifying, persecuting, bannishing and burning those (White) people who dare to have and express ideas deemed to be...unacceptable.
Steve Sailer makes an appropriate comparison here about the racial agenda of the Bush administration and others in their attempt to bring "hispanics" into the home owning population, and if Karl Rove's dream comes true, into the Republican party.
Now, it is interesting that we perceive a cartoonish image with 4 black and/or Hispanic caricatures to be saying something about minorities.
Well, maybe back when Fat Albert ran we didn't. But the 1970s were a more laid back time.
After the Repression Revolution of the 1980s, things got way more uptight. You couldn't trust anyone because the prevailing aim in life was to find the right box to fit each person into. Everyone had an agenda, and no one could trust anyone anymore.
But hopefully we can get back to the way it was before.
Here is thing about "minorities"... the time is fast approaching, if its not already here, when whites will be a numerical minority.
Will "tha man" switch sides, or will he become bi?
Wait... I'm getting my apples and oranges mixed up again.
So, depicting minorities as an emerging homeowner class is racist.
If you give them intentionally comical, exaggerated features, crazy looks and a title that associates them with an irresponsible, recession-creating credit spree, then it probably is.
But you go ahead and focus on the "skin color" component. Whatever helps you see the issue one-dimensionally. Why complicate the agenda, right?
Magazines give readers idealized visions of how their audiences perceive themselves.
Stray an inch from that some reader will scream.
What you never hear about is when advertisers raise Hell.
"Ridiculous. It doesn't matter what Guzman intended or how Guzman feels about things. Bloomberg Businessweek chose to run the illustration on the cover. They are responsible for that decision which had to include judgment about how it would be perceived by potential readers."
Maybe Bloomberg Businessweek is just being sensitive to the feelings of the artist. If he didn't think it is racist, isn't it racist for a bunch of gringo editors to substitute their prejudice on his innocent work?
I sense a vortex coming on...
Peru's minorities battle racism
pduggie said...
from this
http://www.andresguzman.com/09_10.html
You're sure he's "White"?
That's one of Guzman's paintings, not Guzman himself. It's the actor Cillian Murphy.
This is Guzman.
And he says there that he was born in Peru but spent most of his youth in Denver, Colorado. I think he now lives in Minneapolis.
I thought the cover was racist. I live in a town that is something like 35% Hispanic, and I thought the depictions of the two Hispanic women on the cover were the Latina equivalent of Mammys.
Not everyone at Columbia Journalism Review is brain dead. Another person there wrote this yesterday:
"The real problem is, as I wrote, that the picture made it through a BW editorial structure that is well familiar with American racial history and imagery, and onto the cover of the magazine. Part of the point of having an institution is to keep things like this from happening. This passed through too many editorial gatekeepers who missed the problem with the cover. It’s the whole machine that’s responsible for what it spits out."
Take that, Mr. Black Racism-Mongerer! Hahahaha!!!
That's pretty much what happened to Spike Lee when he tweeted some innocent old white couple's address callin' for a lynchin'
Rightly so.
I missed this:
Now, it is interesting that we perceive a cartoonish image with 4 black and/or Hispanic caricatures to be saying something about minorities.
Did you mean to say "caricatures" or "characters".
If you're caricaturing ethnic features, then it's an inherently suspect work.
I think you meant to say "characters", but the word choice was interesting, given the otherwise unsympathetic point being made. But to caricature means to create the following:
1: exaggeration by means of often ludicrous distortion of parts or characteristics
2: a representation especially in literature or art that has the qualities of caricature
3: a distortion so gross as to seem like caricature.
If we can't agree that those are inappropriate, racist things to do, then such concepts have no meaning at all.
That's pretty much what happened to Spike Lee...
Oh brother. I don't even have time to look up what this likely obscure bit of the typically Chickwellian equivocation is all about. Perhaps after I'm done with the groceries? I promise that by then we can go over all the evils and inequities suffered by whites through the institutionalized hatred of them throughout the course of American history. Starting with the native Americans for objecting to and retaliating against being thought too inferior to keep their lands. Such meanies!
If we can't agree that those are inappropriate, racist things to do, then such concepts have no meaning at all.
Was George Bush ever caricatured? How about Barack Obama? Is that right, wrong or inappropriate?
I've seen you caricature Bush in the most vile of terms. Are you down with yourself?
Oh brother. I don't even have time to look up what this likely obscure bit of the typically Chickwellian equivocation is all about.
Fight The Power!
@Ritmo: Just to connect the dots: I'm not saying that Spike Lee caricatured that Florida couple (who happened to have a nice Anglo-Saxon name), just that Lee is a "Mr. Black Racism-Mongerer!"
I don't know if this is racist to say... but my impression is that most "latinos" don't see themselves as a "minority" to the degree that blacks self identify as a "minority"... with the exceptions of government subsidies and the like, that compel one to fill in the appropriate box of course.
We just don't have the history blacks and whites have here in this country... so, the degrees to which you compel sensitivity from each other is somewhat perplexing to me at times.
I came to this country to be an American... not a fucking hyphenated American.
See that? - the term hyphenated American has a racist, all fucked up beyond recognition history... I meant to use it to mean, you know, this and that American.
Good thing I looked it up and not left myself open to idiotic charges.
It appears that the worst racists in the USA are such as Al Sharton, Jessie Jackson and Professor West/
This is why I have to hide my Aunt Jemima and Uncle Ben salt and pepper shakers away!
"I thought the depictions of the two Hispanic women on the cover were the Latina equivalent of Mammys."
I thought one of them looked like Honey Boo boo's mom (big fat white mommy) and the other one looked like a Kardashian (the unmammy).
Racist has no meaning anymore.
If everything is racist than nothing is racist.
"What difference at this point does it make?”
Why don't we talk about important stuff instead of this nonsense.
Ann Romano just croaked.
Attention must be paid.
Was she a big cheese or something?
I've seen you caricature Bush in the most vile of terms.
Oh, stop being such a bozo! When did I ever once caricature the ethnicity of George Bush, let alone in the "vilest" of terms?
Do we always have to play the "what Chickie can imagine Ritmo did" game?
Like others, I was initially shocked by the image because I thought it was racially insensitive. Oddly, it was the caricatures, more than the possibly unintended insinuation that minorities were the cause of the housing crisis, that was most disturbing. After thinking about that, I was offended by the thought that I have been programmed to react as I did; I would not have been disturbed by similar caricatures of white people.
It turns out that the reason that they are all minority looking is because the artist wanted to depict a family. I probably didn't get the family aspect because, like a good little politically correct automaton, I was "correctly" offended by what I perceived to be a negative portrayal of minorities.
Once I got over my "what were they thinking" knee-jerk response, I presumed it was a liberal magazine trying to mock what they believed was the conservative view of the housing crisis; similar in tone to the old "NewYorker" cover of Obama and wife as Muslims. So the cover was thought-provoking.
If what comes in from the artist is going to strike readers as weirdly racial, the editors shouldn't run it.
I agree that in our racially sensitive times, your statement is not unreasonable; however I don't feel comfortable completely agreeing with it. Are people so immature emotionally that they need to be protected from images that are "weirdly racial"? Plus, what seems weirdly racial to one person may be normal to someone else. If "Businessweek" was truly just trying to convey a family, they wouldn't find the artist's drawing weirdly racial.
I'd rather we be a society mature enough to deal with the fact that we may occasionally see images or ideas that "offend" us, than one that puts out only the PC images and ideas that are deemed acceptable by all the "right-thinking people".
The Spanish countries are not divided racially. They are divided based upon Aristocrats with wealth and the other 95% of the population that are shown very disparagingly for being uppity enough to want to own property.
The cartoon is unflattering, but it is not a racist caricature. The point of the story, as I understand it, is that minorities are buying homes they can't afford. The point is not to mock minorities but to mock those members of minorities who are making an unwise decision. Shouldn't the artist have leave to depict such people as stupid. Why do minorities always have to be depicted in neutral or flattering lights. Perhaps a cover such as this would inhibit some blacks from going ninja on their mortgages......At any rate, I repeat what a wise commenter pointed out yesterday: A housing market where a black cannot lose any money is properly described as a housing project.
Oh, stop being such a bozo! When did I ever once caricature the ethnicity of George Bush, let alone in the "vilest" of terms?
Would calling Bush a Forrest Gump character be ethnic caricature?
How about saying Hitler was smarter than Bush, even while deriding comparisons of Bush and Hitler?
Is it insufficiently "diverse"? I thought the [exploitable] issue was that "minorities" were the victims of disparate impact. Do images of such people holding fistfuls of [depreciated] dollars serve to prematurely undermine the narrative? Is that the problem?
I've been scrolling past this all day and I've finally got to say...
...what's wrong with the argument that the artist can't be racist because he's from Peru is that him being from Peru makes it far more likely that he really is racist. Other people in other countries are so refreshingly honest about their prejudices, don't you know. Somehow they get to be better than us, even when they're not.
And certainly, the editors should have known better, since they as Americans aren't refreshingly honest and are used to the need to keep an eye out for accidental offense.
traditionalguy: The Spanish countries are not divided racially. They are divided based upon Aristocrats with wealth...
...who happen to be disproportionately of European (and occasionally Asian) descent...
...and the other 95% of the population...
...who happen to be disproportionately of Indian or African descent.
And btw, that "95%" is a bit off. "Spanish" countries (including Mexico), do have a middle class. Also not exhibiting "equal representation" by race.
I'm still not getting why the illustrator is "racist" for not automatically using fat white trash in his caricatures of dumb greedy people with no financial foresight.
Would calling Bush a Forrest Gump character be ethnic caricature?
No.
Well, I suppose you could consider it one if you feel that white people are, for the most part, unnaturally lucky dupes, who achieve incredible success just by being uncommonly stupid and friendly.
But I don't think that's a commonly perpetuated way of thinking about white people. Or whatever ethnic category Forrest Gump and W. supposedly would have shared.
It's funny that you came up with this, though. Do you really feel that white people are often unfairly thought of or maligned in this way? Perhaps you feel that people sometimes think this way about you, and you projected that onto a larger group?
I'm not trying to be a jerk, but it does seem funny to me that you leapt to such a strange associative stereotype. I've never heard of any cultural venue where whites were largely depicted as Forrest Gumps. If anything, the stereotype is the opposite: Privileged, canny and crammed with (much less accidental) connections.
@Ritmo: I only brought it up because you did so years ago and you challenged me whether you had ever caricatured Bush. :)
I think the Gump thing was definitely a caricature of white people--albeit a mild one. It's not a physical one either, but rather one of intelligence. I think most white people would slough it off unless they were very thin-skinned.
This raises the question of what is a mild caricature of a black person. Certainly there must be something that is not offensive. And black people cannot be immune to caricature. It would be a double standard to allow it for one race but not another.
It's funny that you came up with this, though. Do you really feel that white people are often unfairly thought of or maligned in this way? Perhaps you feel that people sometimes think this way about you, and you projected that onto a larger group?
Do you honestly believe that black people don't malign white people?
I meant some black people, not all.
Chickie - you seem to be making some sweeping leaps with some minor points. Some people do some things. Yes. But this is a truism that is so general as to be meaningless. Persecution of whites is not a problem in America. I don't know why you seem so hell-bent on denying that it WAS and when it comes to certain problems - getting a cab, being followed by cops - still CAN BE a problem for blacks - but that's a denial that I can't seem to get very far with you on. I don't even know what your point is, though, half the time when it comes to things like this.
And you are being selective with the quote on Bush. I said caricature in an "ethnic" way. I specifically said this. There are many things to caricature about Bush. He is a bit of a strange, dopey guy. Doesn't mean I wouldn't like him. He seems fun, goofy, cocky and careless. But he's a frat-boy. There's your caricature. Is it specific to whites? Of course not.
Also, he talked in a weird Texan drawl, but most whites in America don't do that either. Nor are they accused of doing so.
I simply do not understand why some very basic social distinctions and observations seem to elude you so completely. It's ok that they do, but why you need to make strident points in defiance of those distinctions and observations is something that makes no sense at all.
I'm just looking for consistency and fairness, Ritmo. hailing a cab or even walking down a street could be problematic for a white guy in some cities.
Your view (and I think others would back me) is that discrimination and bigotry is a-okay for historically aggrieved minorities. You seem like the kind of person who condones visiting the sins of fathers upon subsequent generations. I don't buy that. At all.
I'm just looking for consistency and fairness, Ritmo.
History wasn't consistent or fair and therefore the way we've corrected for its inequities are not consistent or fair. Deal.
hailing a cab or even walking down a street could be problematic for a white guy in some cities.
This is a silly point. In the same cities in the same way? You are trying to deny away racism in order to achieve a false consistency that doesn't exist and couldn't exist in the way you want. You are pretending that fluorine and sodium should be treated the same way as table salt. Stop being ridiculous! This is not how history occurred. This is not how it becomes better.
Your view (and I think others would back me) is that discrimination and bigotry is a-okay for historically aggrieved minorities.
I get less upset when people with less power act more aggressively. That is normal. When blacks have the power to enslave me, deny me the right to vote, or force me to use public resources of poorer quality, on account of my skin color - and USE it, then I will complain. Not before.
Unless I was a whiny weasel.
You seem like the kind of person who condones visiting the sins of fathers upon subsequent generations. I don't buy that. At all.
No sins are being visited upon whites on account of the color of their skin, you ridiculously pompous false-consistency pretender. See above.
You are simply warping sociology, law, history and politics in order to meet a strange psychological need on your own part. Selfishly. You should ask yourself if your psychological needs are so important that they should be met at the expense of all those other things.
ALso, you should be mature enough to realize that this is what you are doing, and why it is unfair, unreasonable, and really, really ridiculous. We don't pretend that there are no curved lines in the universe just because straight lines might make some of us feel better. We don't pretend that odd numbers don't exist if we prefer even numbers. We don't pretend that non-prime numbers don't exist because prime numbers are "cooler" to some.
Just stop it already.
Sorry Ritmo, I'm unpersuaded on all points.
Which is precisely how I expect a socially disabled ignoramus of history to respond.
I'm sorry for hoping that you could try to be better than that. I'll try not to make that mistake in the future, ok?
Feel better?
If not, then I'm sure there is some non-human oriented, repetitive behavior that you can engage in.
All my points were reasonable, humane, knowledgeable and logical. Your inability to address any of them would offend me, if it didn't say how hopelessly isolated you choose to be from approaching any understanding of how people actually are.
I get less upset when people with less power act more aggressively. That is normal. When blacks have the power to enslave me, deny me the right to vote, or force me to use public resources of poorer quality, on account of my skin color - and USE it, then I will complain. Not before.
This is living in the past, Ritmo--a description of history. I know that you are an accomplished historian of sorts but I never realized that you were actually a reenacter. And the mere fact that you excuse on anyone's part in the present or "look the other way" is evidence of your vengeful nature. Really, I expected better from you.
Really Ritmo, I'm starting to see you as a mere character or caricature yourself--someone who in real life is just related to someone "oppressed."
Your mask is slipping again.
If you think that history is irrelevant to the present then I fully await your instructions to demolish Independence Hall, The Washington Monument, The Jefferson Memorial, The Lincoln Memorial, Valley Forge National Historic Park, and perhaps the original founding documents. "Living in the past" indeed! Your fellow history-deniers should really appreciate that.
This should allow us to pretend that Confederate Civil War "reenacters" (sic) don't exist and aren't obsessed with regaining Southern pride. (Pride in what, exactly...?)
What a stupid cocksucker you are!
Now go and complain to someone who cares about how you are denied taxis due to your skin color, are racially profiled, and exist one short generation away embedded closely in memory from a centuries-old regime of legal discrimination and abuse. Amazing how many facts you will deny away simply to assuage your psychological problem.
Now go rub your Sarah Palin keyring trinket for good luck and complain about the horrible problem of identifying more with the needs of the oppressed than those of the oppressor. Your neurotic ramblings are a travesty.
Ritmo accursed: What a stupid cocksucker you are!
I haven't heard that phrase around here since Cedarford called Palladian a "cocksucker"!
Are you trying to channel him? link
This thread gets a Ritmo channels Cedarford tag.
/total deep thought fail for Chickie
Here's the post I wrote for CJR that kicked off the whole BusinessWeek controversy. And here's my follow-up, which disagrees with our other post.
Post a Comment