Film, Media & TV1 min ago
Have We All Become Too Sensitive?
40 Answers
http://
Can anyone please explain how they consider the first illustration as a racist image, well on the part of black people at least?
/// Some of the crackers of the day would now be seen as offensively racist, using such terms as ‘sambo’ – while a Black And White collection for another company, Batger & Co, features an exaggerated minstrel-style entertainer. ///
Admittedly that 'S' term is no longer acceptable, but regarding the Black and White collection all one sees is a white person dressed as a 'clown' and the black person dressed as a 'toff'.
Can anyone please explain how they consider the first illustration as a racist image, well on the part of black people at least?
/// Some of the crackers of the day would now be seen as offensively racist, using such terms as ‘sambo’ – while a Black And White collection for another company, Batger & Co, features an exaggerated minstrel-style entertainer. ///
Admittedly that 'S' term is no longer acceptable, but regarding the Black and White collection all one sees is a white person dressed as a 'clown' and the black person dressed as a 'toff'.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Zacs-Master
/// Here we go again. The B&W minstrels debate in a slightly different format. ///
No, nothing like the Black & White Minstrel debate, and neither do I wish it to be.
If you wish to debate, please answer the question, do you consider this particular illustration racist, if yes, why? and if no, also why?
Although to me personally the second option is obvious.
/// Here we go again. The B&W minstrels debate in a slightly different format. ///
No, nothing like the Black & White Minstrel debate, and neither do I wish it to be.
If you wish to debate, please answer the question, do you consider this particular illustration racist, if yes, why? and if no, also why?
Although to me personally the second option is obvious.
The point of historical study is to understand the context of the material - such as the lampoon against suffragettes ( crackers - geddit ? )
and not to hold our noses and say " ughh we dont do that now!"
so are we too sensitive is inviting us to make a subjective judgement ( again - yawn ) and we should be asking - do we view things differently in the light of subsequent events ? ( answer: yes )
and not to hold our noses and say " ughh we dont do that now!"
so are we too sensitive is inviting us to make a subjective judgement ( again - yawn ) and we should be asking - do we view things differently in the light of subsequent events ? ( answer: yes )
No. I don't find it offensive.I am adult. I have a sense of humour and it wasn't deemed offensive when it was first illustrated and it isn't now either IMO. The wilting flowers who make an occupation of looking for offence should be the ones parodied.
The tinypic looks like a Tory propaganda leaflet. "Labour in Vain"
The tinypic looks like a Tory propaganda leaflet. "Labour in Vain"
Mamyalynne
/// I found the article interesting and there are some great examples of social history within. ///
Yes Mam I can remember as a boy, looking forward to my regular Christmas stocking filler, a 'SMOKING SET' this comprised of a box with the following contents within, packets of sweet cigarettes, chocolate cigars, sweet brown toffee chewing tobacco and liquorice pipes.
/// I found the article interesting and there are some great examples of social history within. ///
Yes Mam I can remember as a boy, looking forward to my regular Christmas stocking filler, a 'SMOKING SET' this comprised of a box with the following contents within, packets of sweet cigarettes, chocolate cigars, sweet brown toffee chewing tobacco and liquorice pipes.
