Black man silenced by watermelon - culturally contingent meaning

[Camikaze]

Spoiler :

This cartoon appeared in the Herald Sun (I think) yesterday. Is it racist? Most Australians appear to think not.

Two big cricket stories (or more specifically, BBL stories) in the last week were a kid (depicted on the left) eating a watermelon with the skin on at a game, and the West Indian (Jamaican, more specifically) cricketer Chris Gayle (depicted on the right) making inappropriate remarks to a female reporter in a live mid-game interview, for which he was fined $10k by Cricket Australia (CA). The latter has illuminated a division between those who think his conduct was appropriate v those who don't (or perhaps less charitably, between those who think sexual harassment in a male-dominated workplace is just a bit of fun v those who don't), and it has been highlighted that Chris Gayle has a bit of a history of making inappropriate comments. So the comic combines the stories to suggest that CA would like Gayle, a major draw-card for the tournament, to stay silent rather than make a spectacle of himself.

Of course, Americans may look at the comic and think it's terribly racist, and the answer to this is that 'black people and watermelons' is a specifically American trope that simply doesn't exist in Australia, and the 'black people' referred to in that trope are African-Americans, not Jamaicans such as Chris Gayle.

However, there is a sufficient awareness in Australia of this specifically American trope that people feel the need to explicitly point out how the comic is apparently not racist, and I suspect the artist intends to subtly reference that trope. This awareness could be influenced by a KFC ad shown a few years ago during the cricket season and the West Indian tour of Australia which depicted rowdy West Indian fans being placated by buckets of fried chicken - no-one in Australia was aware that this could be considered racist until some Americans objected, and American tropes became a subject of discussion at the time. The general consensus is still probably that the ads were not offensive, and their removal was simply the result of over-sensitive Americans imposing their own guilt on the other side of the world.

What I want to discuss is whether Australian awareness of the American watermelon trope, despite the trope's irrelevance in Australia, makes the Australian comic unacceptable. In an increasingly interconnected world, how necessary is it to pay attention to the racist or other negative meanings present in other cultures, and is cultural ignorance bliss in this regard? The US is, arguably but notoriously, a fairly insular place, and it's probably safe to say that American racial tropes are more known outside of America than non-American racial tropes are known inside America. If awareness of external racial tropes constrains the extent to which certain images or words can be acceptably used, does this in practice mean that non-Americans must avoid what Americans view as racist, but Americans need not avoid what non-Americans view as racist?

More broadly, meaning can differ between participants in a discourse even within the one country (the US is not monolithic). To what extent is it acceptable for people to stubbornly retain their own understanding of words or images despite knowledge of other existing meanings, and is the difference in understanding something that should always be acknowledged by the other side of an argument? This is an issue which came up when discussing the Confederate flag - it apparently means different things for different people, so who gets to claim ownership over the meaning?

 

[Kyriakos]

Well, as you presented this has relevance to two current stories there. That said, since Australia doesn't have this trope in the first place, it is rather extreme to view it under US light (regardless what one thinks of tropes talk-- which i view as dumb and diverting attention from the issue of racism rather than help combat it).

Sort of analogous with those east asian blackface tv stuff, which can seem more racist than bizarre to some western people. The US has a particularly difficult issue with this kind of racial tension, and i hope it can be resolved.

 

[Tee Kay]

The cartoonist obviously intended to reference the "black people go mad for watermelons" trope.

Is it racist? Mildly yeah. Is it unacceptable? I don't think it is, at least not in the Australian context. Black people like watermelons, so what? Outside a specifically American context there's nothing to suggest that it's egregiously offensive in anyway (unless you're of the persuasion that any stereotyping is a Bad Thing).

It's different when we're talking about the Confederate flag issue within the United States. It might mean different things to black and white Southerners (or liberals and conservatives, or whatever) but each group knows perfectly well what the other feels about the symbol.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Interesting. In a lot of ways.

One question is just how "unknown" the trope actually is. There is "huh, what?" level unknown, and there is "few people outside the media know" unknown. Generally speaking, people in the media are far more savvy about what is or isn't going on in other cultures. So you get down to whether the artist knowingly played an 'I can get away with this here even though I nominally know better' card? That was almost certainly in play in the KFC ad situation, since that was done by a US based company and knowledge of the US connotations has to be assumed.

 

[Tee Kay]

One question is just how "unknown" the trope actually is. There is "huh, what?" level unknown, and there is "few people outside the media know" unknown. Generally speaking, people in the media are far more savvy about what is or isn't going on in other cultures. So you get down to whether the artist knowingly played an 'I can get away with this here even though I nominally know better' card? That was almost certainly in play in the KFC ad situation, since that was done by a US based company and knowledge of the US connotations has to be assumed.

I think most likely the cartoonist knows the trope but because he's Strayan, with the casual attitude to racism that comes with the culture, just didn't think it would offend any in his audience.

Another example would be the use of Hitler imagery in advertising in East Asia. Asians know that Hitler was a Bad Guy and so on, but he's also a hilariously over-the-top bombastic character, and the thought that using him to spice up ads for laxative (say) could be offensive just never occurred to them.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I think most likely the cartoonist knows the trope but because he's Strayan, with the casual attitude to racism that comes with the culture, just didn't think it would offend any in his audience.

Another example would be the use of Hitler imagery in advertising in East Asia. Asians know that Hitler was a Bad Guy and so on, but he's also a hilariously over-the-top bombastic character, and the thought that using him to spice up ads for laxative (say) could be offensive just never occurred to them.

I have to say that I am now stuck with a mental image I could do without, but if that's how they used Hitler in a laxative ad I would probably be too amused to take offense.

 

[BvBPL]

What I want to discuss is whether Australian awareness of the American watermelon trope, despite the trope's irrelevance in Australia, makes the Australian comic unacceptable.

In an increasingly interconnected world, how necessary is it to pay attention to the racist or other negative meanings present in other cultures, and is cultural ignorance bliss in this regard? The US is, arguably but notoriously, a fairly insular place, and it's probably safe to say that American racial tropes are more known outside of America than non-American racial tropes are known inside America. If awareness of external racial tropes constrains the extent to which certain images or words can be acceptably used, does this in practice mean that non-Americans must avoid what Americans view as racist, but Americans need not avoid what non-Americans view as racist?

Frankly, writers outside of America should be more attentive to American symbols of insensitivity than they need be to insensitive symbols in other countries. You can take that as the callous opinion of an American forcing cultural imperialism upon you, which it totally is. However, the fact is that America won a cultural victory. Across the world, people emulate and aspire to American cultural touchstones far more than they do to the touchstones of other nations. The wide familiarity of American symbols means that cultural producers in other nations have to account for how their products would be perceived by an American sensibility. That's not because the US, as a nation, is so important but because American culture has become the cultural lingua franca of contemporary life. You can transpose American cultural icons much more readily than you could most icons from other nations. American isn't the only culture in the world, but people are more likely to view something through an American lens than through the lens of another nation.

As I said, the above paragraph is callous. I apologize for that. There's likely a kinder, gentler means to say that, but I fear I do not, at present, have the energy or patience to convey it in a nicer way. CFC deserves that better way, but I just can't deliver it right now in the my current state. Sorry.

To what extent is it acceptable for people to stubbornly retain their own understanding of words or images despite knowledge of other existing meanings, and is the difference in understanding something that should always be acknowledged by the other side of an argument? This is an issue which came up when discussing the Confederate flag - it apparently means different things for different people, so who gets to claim ownership over the meaning?

The Franco-German resolution to this question is state control over the symbols. Champagne can only come from Champagne, and no body gets to use the swastika. That sets forth clear boundaries but impedes free speech. The Anglo resolution is to not set forth official boundaries at all but to instead let the marketplace of ideas resolve itself through public discourse. Which leads to discrepancies in meaning as seen in the Confederate flag. I'm not sure either resolution is ideal. I'm inclined to the latter based largely upon my support of free speech, but I recognize its limitations.

 

[Kyriakos]

Frankly, writers outside of America should be more attentive to American symbols of insensitivity than they need be to insensitive symbols in other countries. You can take that as the callous opinion of an American forcing cultural imperialism upon you, which it totally is. However, the fact is that America won a cultural victory. Across the world, people emulate and aspire to American cultural touchstones far more than they do to the touchstones of other nations. The wide familiarity of American symbols means that cultural producers in other nations have to account for how their products would be perceived by an American sensibility. That's not because the US, as a nation, is so important but because American culture has become the cultural lingua franca of contemporary life. You can transpose American cultural icons much more readily than you could most icons from other nations. American isn't the only culture in the world, but people are more likely to view something through an American lens than through the lens of another nation.

As I said, the above paragraph is callous. I apologize for that. There's likely a kinder, gentler means to say that, but I fear I do not, at present, have the energy or patience to convey it in a nicer way. CFC deserves that better way, but I just can't deliver it right now in the my current state. Sorry.



The Franco-German resolution to this question is state control over the symbols. Champagne can only come from Champagne, and no body gets to use the swastika. That sets forth clear boundaries but impedes free speech. The Anglo resolution is to not set forth official boundaries at all but to instead let the marketplace of ideas resolve itself through public discourse. Which leads to discrepancies in meaning as seen in the Confederate flag. I'm not sure either resolution is ideal. I'm inclined to the latter based largely upon my support of free speech, but I recognize its limitations.

That is indeed way too callous (and false), but also callous is that you did not read why the watermellon is there in the first place (kid eating a watermellon, player silenced by that while borrowed by the cricket fan kid)

And no, it is irrational to ask that other countries must care about tropes not in their country.

 

[BvBPL]

And no, it is irrational to ask that other countries must care about tropes not in their country.

No, it is not. The use of symbols in one nation can very much affect other nations. Just look at how Akie Abe's visit to the Yasukuni war shrine has offended South Koreans. The perception of the Yasunkuni war shrine is very different between Japanese and South Koreans and Japan's first lady should have been more attentive to that.

 

[Kyriakos]

Sure, but that is a state visit, not a cartoon. Somewhat different, no? (let alone that you are talking about two countries tied by one's imperialism and massacres in the past against also the other, while Australia isn't a part of the US white/black racism).

Also, did you ninja your post? If so, you are guilty of cultural appropriation, cause ninjas are/were a culture, not a costume.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

You missed the point. Knowledge of "American" tropes is far more widespread because American culture (or lack of it, but whatever) is far more widespread. So an Australian cartoonist gets to use Star Trek references in his cartoons with an expectation that they will be understood, but is also accountable when he uses a watermelon stuffed in a black man's mouth reference, because he should have an equal expectation that it will be understood.

 

[Daw]

However, the fact is that America won a cultural victory. Across the world, people emulate and aspire to American cultural touchstones far more than they do to the touchstones of other nations.

No, I don't think it's callous, just inaccurate. I do wear jeans and T-shirts because they are convenient, I do drive a locally made Korean car that was sold here under a US brand, and I use MS Windows in my laptops. But hey, when I bought all that stuff, I didn't know it was supposed to come in a package with all that cultural weirdness.

If it is really "all or nothing" deal, then you can have all those things back and go home.

 

[Tee Kay]

(let alone that you are talking about two countries tied by one's imperialism and massacres in the past against also the other, while Australia isn't a part of the US white/black racism).

Yeah we have our own black/white racism thank you very much.

Imported racism is driving local racism out of business.

 

[Kyriakos]

You missed the point. Knowledge of "American" tropes is far more widespread because American culture (or lack of it, but whatever) is far more widespread. So an Australian cartoonist gets to use Star Trek references in his cartoons with an expectation that they will be understood, but is also accountable when he uses a watermelon stuffed in a black man's mouth reference, because he should have an equal expectation that it will be understood.

Hm, i knew of Star Trek far before i knew of all those tropes-things in the US. And i don't even like Star Trek (or the tropes). Generally you shouldn't be of the view that US culture (?) is dominating something, to the degree it exists in the first place. While high culture can be argued to be transcending borders (and it doesn't matter as much where you are if you have it), pop culture is usually seen as a trashy undercurrent. And surely when i think of US culture i don't think of tropes; i think of stuff i like such as some writers, or some movies, etc. That is what really makes sense to circulate and what foreign people will pick up..

 

[Camikaze]

(Like 7 crossposts or something)

No other fruit than the watermelon would've worked, because of the other story of the week - the kid eating the watermelon. But it could be questioned why those two stories were connected in this cartoon - was there any other purpose than referencing the trope? I'm not really sure the existence of the 'kid eating a watermelon' story sufficiently explains the use of the watermelon in the cartoon.

I would agree with the cultural imperialism point to the extent that it is describing the current state of affairs. It does indeed appear to be the case that non-American writers must be more aware of American sensitivities than the other way around. I'm not so sure I would use the word 'should', however. It's one thing to observe cultural imperialism, but it's another to defend it.

On the other hand, if we start with the assumption that acceptable use is constrained by what is subjectively known, then of course it's the natural result of the world being more aware of American culture than Americans being aware of non-American culture that the world should avoid using American tropes. That is, if we're saying that the acceptability of the cartoon in the OP depends upon the subjective awareness of the author as to the trope it's referencing, then of course non-American authors aware of American tropes will have to avoid them, whilst American authors unaware of non-American tropes will not have to avoid them, and this says nothing about the rightness or wrongness of the distribution of culture around the world.

I'm sceptical as to whether subjective knowledge is what it turns on, though. We can't possibly know whether the cartoonist in the OP actually knows of the trope - we're looking at it objectively, taking into account the cultural context in which the cartoonist exists. Whether he's fully aware of the American trope or completely unaware of it seems pretty much beside the point.

Yeah we have our own black/white racism thank you very much.

Imported racism is driving local racism out of business.

This is kinda true though to the extent that importing America's racial problems obscures our own - 'black/white' issues here are presumably much more in line with Native American issues in the US, and confusing that for specifically American 'black/white' racial issues could lead to misinformed priorities and solutions.

 

[Flying Pig]

If you're going to see it in the light of the (quote) 'black people go mad for watermelon' trope, you have to factor in that the black person, well, isn't going mad for the watermelon. The point of that stereotype was to present black people as lazy people ruled by appetite, who would rather sit in the sun and eat watermelon than do an honest day's work. Gayle in the cartoon isn't being played to that stereotype at all: he looks pretty unhappy with what is happening.

 

[EgonSpengler]

My question is, why did the cartoonist choose a watermelon, of all things, with which to muzzle a black man? The trope doesn't exist in Australia? So we're supposed to think it's just one heck of a coincidence? Do watermelons have some connotation about keeping one's mouth shut in Australia?

Anyway, this isn't the first racist thing I've seen in Australian media. I'm reminded of the blackface performance by some white guys doing a Jackson 5 routine on an Australian television show, with Harry Connick Jr as a guest judge. Connick's not black himself, but he's a jazz musician from New Orleans, for crissakes. I also watched an Australian television series, about a navy crew, and its take on the various ethnic groups was pretty unsubtle. So they're now 0-for-3 in my limited experience.

I mean, whatever. We've got our own well-publicized issues to deal with, and I'm not going to get too exorcised about other countries' race relations, but the next European or Australian who tells me racism isn't a problem in their country can just talk to the hand.

Spoiler :

 

[BvBPL]

No, I don't think it's callous, just inaccurate. I do wear jeans and T-shirts because they are convenient, I do drive a locally made Korean car that was sold here under a US brand, and I use MS Windows in my laptops. But hey, when I bought all that stuff, I didn't know it was supposed to come in a package with all that cultural weirdness.

If it is really "all or nothing" deal, then you can have all those things back and go home.

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to expand upon my earlier point.

As you say, it is not an all or nothing prospect. Instead, American culture is so widespread that one can assume an audience is more familiar with American culture than any other culture from a third party nation.

Let me see if I can put it this way. People around the world are familiar with Mickey Mouse. Fewer people are familiar with Rasta Mouse. If you were reaching out to an audience in, say, Romania, you would be better positioned to tie your communication to Mickey Mouse than to Rasta Mouse. Better still would be Romanian Mouse, but that requires a specificity that global communications can't necessarily gear themselves towards. It isn't that American culture is totally dominating other cultures, but that is prevalence is so great that you will find an audience that understands American culture nearly everywhere on Earth in a manner that you wouldn't find for, say, French culture.

 

[Flying Pig]

My question is, why did the cartoonist choose a watermelon, of all things, with which to muzzle a black man? The trope doesn't exist in Australia? So we're supposed to think it's just one heck of a coincidence? Do watermelons have some connotation about keeping one's mouth shut in Australia

Read the OP: the other cricketing story of the week was that a boy (pictured in the cartoon) had been filmed eating an entire watermelon at a cricket match. I'm willing to believe that the trope doesn't exist in Australia, where the definition (Aboriginal Australian vs. African American) and history of blackness is completely different.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Hm, i knew of Star Trek far before i knew of all those tropes-things in the US. And i don't even like Star Trek (or the tropes). Generally you shouldn't be of the view that US culture (?) is dominating something, to the degree it exists in the first place. While high culture can be argued to be transcending borders (and it doesn't matter as much where you are if you have it), pop culture is usually seen as a trashy undercurrent. And surely when i think of US culture i don't think of tropes; i think of stuff i like such as some writers, or some movies, etc. That is what really makes sense to circulate and what foreign people will pick up..

Again you didn't really get it, so I didn't make it clearly. It isn't a question of quality, and it isn't a question of "America superior so our culture rulz." It is strictly the utility in being understood. If I am drawing a political cartoon in almost any country I can show the mayor/prime minister/chairman for life/whatever donning a Darth Vader mask and my point is made. Now, I'm sure there is some Greek universal figure of villainy that I could use if I were Greek and drawing in Greece, but it is possible (you tell me) that the point is actually more reliably made, even in Greece, by using an icon from American culture (or as I said before, lack thereof).

So it is harder to get away with the "oh, I didn't know this was a thing in America," because it is almost a certainty that if we look through this cartoonist's collected work we will find him referencing numerous icons of American origin. It is also a certainty that his audience could probably fare reasonably well on an examination if the subject were US culture icons, mores, and tropes.