The unintentional racist.

[BvBPL]

The intent was to poke fun at the White House's security breach by Omar Gonzales on September 19th.

You may not know why the above cartoon is racially offensive, but it is. Trust me.

This thread isn't about offense or why the above cartoon is offensive. It is about the response by the publishing paper and the resulting commentary by others on the response.

In response to the appropriate backlash against the cartoon, the paper that ran the couched their response by saying it "sincerely regret if [it] inadvertently offended anyone." The cartoonist himself took the airways to say that he had "no intention at all of offending anyone."

These responses have been criticized as non-apologies. Do you think that characterization is fair? What should a party do if it offends others without intent to do so? How can parties who offend others by delivering material that is inadvertently offensive both demonstrate their lack of offensive intent and avoid a backlash for a non-apology.

Had the paper released the following statement (or something similar) would there be the same backlash about the insufficiency of the apology?

From: The Paper
Re: That Cartoon the Other Day

The Paper is sorry about the cartoon it ran the other day. The Paper will not let it happen again.

Edited to include a better picture.

 

[Senethro]

Is there a joke here beyond "Obama is black"? Like, is the guy in the bathtub a republican known for stupid gaffes or what? Not that that would make it better but I'm not sure I'm seeing whats unintentional here.

 

[Gori the Grey]

The supposed joke is clearer if you see the caption, which is omitted from the picture above:

White House Invader Got Further Than Originally Thought.

As to the OP, yeah, just apologize. None of the "to anyone who may have been offended," "inadvertently." None of that stuff.

 

[Kennigit]

If all the other comics run are equally as terrible comedically I'll fully believe they had no idea it could be seen as offensive

Otherwise yeah it's a pretty sizeable oversight by the paper but people need to not get their knickers in a knot, as they say

this joke was at best only 1/20th as good as the New Yorker cover, and people got "upset" over sarcasm!

edit: image not showing

 

[Tigranes]

I fail to see ANYTHING racist even without caption. What is offensive here? Big ears?

 

[Light Cleric]

Yeah I had to google for context on it because it made absolutely not god damn sense in addition to being racist. I think it's possible that, say, this guy just picked some weird toothpaste flavor and it just didn't click because he was chugging away at 2 AM to get it done or whatever. If this is his only screwup, I can see that. If he's done things like this before, though...yeah.

I agree with Gori, dropping the "if" is really all that's needed. You felt the need to apologize because people were offended, not because they might be. Say that.

 

[Light Cleric]

What is offensive here?

I'll just link to this and leave it at that. If you aren't American then I can see not knowing about it.

 

[nc-1701]

So yeah... The cartoon is pretty bad (though much less so after seeing the whole thing with the caption), I think it's obvious that the simple succinct apology already offered would be the best. Also it doesn't give a lot of foothold for further criticism the way some other versions of apologies do, especially over apologies.

That comic was weak though, not funny, doesn't make a political point of any kind, literally just offensive.

 

[Tigranes]

I'll just link to this and leave it at that. If you aren't American then I can see not knowing about it.

Good grief! After so many years and so many different states/circles never ever did I came across with watermelon stereotype. "This stereotype has remained prevalent into the 21st century" -- where? Rural Alabama?

 

[BvBPL]

Please stay on point about the response to the cartoon, rather than the cartoon itself or why it is offensive.

 

[Tigranes]

But why? I needed to understand first, right? It is offensive to imply that everyone has to know what average American knows. CFC is American website, but has many international users.

After reading wikipedia I can see now what is wrong, and what went wrong while apologizing. So yeah, I think "if" was wrong. What else can we possibly discuss? Does this really deserve a thread?
We have special place for questions which do not deserve their own thread, questions which can have only 1 right answer 90% of the time at least.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

The paper needs to apologize to racists for implying that the breacher of white house security was a racist.

 

[luiz]

The paper needs to apologize to racists for implying that the breacher of white house security was a racist.

And also to breachers of the White House for suggesting they are racist.

 

[Bootstoots]

The paper needs to apologize to racists for implying that the breacher of white house security was a racist.

I'm kind of reading the same thing into it - Gonzalez slips past the Secret Service, gets into the White House bathtub, and when Obama comes in to brush his teeth, Gonzalez makes an off-the-cuff racist remark and startles Obama. Although the apology may be due to Gonzalez instead; he probably invaded with no racist agenda. Just garden-variety, president-threatening insanity.

 

[BvBPL]

But why?

Because I didn't make the thread to talk about what is offensive or whether or not the instant case was offensive but rather to talk about how people deal with offensive things.

Personal experience has taught me that open-ended questions about dealing with offensive material rapidly splinter into discussions of what is and what is not offensive. That's not what I'm interested in here so I am trying to limn the discussion early on.

I appreciate you raising the issue early because it gives me a chance to address this earlier in the thread rather than when the thread is larger and less wieldy.

 

[Phrossack]

Generally, we Americans follow a bizarre ritual during such events. Person makes remark, in public or even in private, that is perceived, justly or not, as racist/racially insensitive/it's more fun to pretend there is no difference and make the least charitable interpretation. Person makes ritual apology. People still angry. Person stripped of job.

 

[metatron]

These responses have been criticized as non-apologies. Do you think that characterization is fair? What should a party do if it offends others without intent to do so? How can parties who offend others by delivering material that is inadvertently offensive both demonstrate their lack of offensive intent and avoid a backlash for a non-apology.

Ok, i can easily see how the comment made by the character in the cartoon is offensive.
And i'm like an ocean and half a continent away, culturally. So, yeah...

However. Had you just shown me this cartoon i would have expected that this offensiveness is supposed to be a part of the cartoon.
I.e. the point made would be: "During every presidency some nutters try to break into the White House. During this presidency most of those nutters are dumb racists."

I'm still not sure that this was not supposed to be the point. If it was there's no need for an apology. If it was Americans have to get better at reading cartoons.

 

[Perfection]

LINKS PLZ, op

 

[gay_Aleks]

God, political cartoons are insane.

 

[Borachio]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-29427843

Well, I don't know. I don't hold with perpetuating racial stereotypes, of course. But if a cartoonist is, or was, unintentionally racist, said cartoonist issues an apology (and I'm not sure the "if" really matters one way or another, I mean what's the point in apologizing to someone who isn't offended?), and we all "move on".

What else can be done? A public prosecution? Denying the cartoonist the possibility of future employment? I'm not sure either of those would be productive.