Racist Cartoon in Rupert Murdoch's The Australian

sassy wrote:After the COP21 in Paris





What a disgusting man he is.

Ben_Reilly wrote:It's a dig saying the people of India may need food more than solar panels (in the short run; building energy infrastructure has certainly never led to starvation before) but the people in the cartoon are pretty hideously racist caricatures that seem more like they were drawn a century or two ago (by a very "Britain is civilising the world"-minded cartoonist).

Raggamuffin wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:It's a dig saying the people of India may need food more than solar panels (in the short run; building energy infrastructure has certainly never led to starvation before) but the people in the cartoon are pretty hideously racist caricatures that seem more like they were drawn a century or two ago (by a very "Britain is civilising the world"-minded cartoonist).

Nice try at attempting to associate the cartoon with the British.

Lord Foul wrote:yes of course ben only "sanitized" caricatures are allowed in your world,

perhaps he should have drawn them in suits sitting round a conference table?

no wonder you are always tired...it must be bloody hard work looking for racism in everything

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Nice try at attempting to associate the cartoon with the British.

Oh, are we trying to pretend that didn't happen too?

Amanda Wise, an associate professor of sociology at Macquarie University, said in her view the cartoon was shocking and would be unacceptable in the UK, the US or Canada.
"This cartoon is unequivocally racist and draws on very base stereotypes of third world, underdeveloped people who don't know what to do with technology," Wise told Guardian Australia.
"India is the technology centre of the world right now and has some of the most high-tech industries on the planet in that part of the world. The underlying message is that people in developing countries dont need all these technologies to do with climate change -- they need food," she said.
The cartoon was widely condemned on Twitter, with many users drawing attention to India's rapidly developing sustainable energy sector.
Deakin University Professor Yin Paradies, whose research includes the economic effects of racism, also took the view the cartoons message was clearly racist.
"The message ... is that India is too stupid to handle renewable energy and should stick to coal," Paradies was quoted as saying.
"Suggesting that developing nations are stupid is racist given that such nations are invariably associated with specific racial groups (i.e. non-whites)," he said.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Nice try at attempting to associate the cartoon with the British.

Oh, are we trying to pretend that didn't happen too?

Pretend what didn't happen? Are you about to start ranting about the British again? Try to stick to the point this time.

Cartoons are meant to offend but I don’t find this cartoon offensive. I don’t see racist tones in it either; it is just a continuation of the old colonial mindset. I would say that a cartoonist like Patrick Chappatte is truly an internationalist, but a large number of Western cartoonists have a totally neocolonial worldview. I remember an American cartoon in which one American is asking another, Is it ‘shit’ or Shiite? There are enough tasteless cartoons appearing in India as well.

Cartoons are meant to poke fun, push limits. At the most one can say Leak’s cartoon is uninformed. He is depicting India in a certain way; India is not like that anymore.

Richard The Lionheart wrote:I see ben is as thick as ever, as it is showing the plight of hunger and how in a nation they do not care for the civillians, by showing solar panels are of more importance. That is the message that it portrays, but Murdoch is doing this based on a stupid denial of global warming. So did he do it from a racisy view point?
No it was him displaying a view of how Indians are starving and only having such non-food items to eat.

Raggamuffin wrote:I knew Ben would find a way to blame anyone except the Australian person who drew it! lololololololololololol.

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:I knew Ben would find a way to blame anyone except the Australian person who drew it! lololololololololololol.

I'm not blaming anybody besides the cartoonist -- who is obviously drawing from racist, colonial traditions, as people who know more than we do about cartooning have pointed out.

Richard The Lionheart wrote:I see ben is as thick as ever, as it is showing the plight of hunger and how in a nation they do not care for the civillians, by showing solar panels are of more importance. That is the message that it portrays, but Murdoch is doing this based on a stupid denial of global warming. So did he do it from a racist view point?
No it was him displaying a view of how Indians are starving and only having such non-food items to eat.

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Richard The Lionheart wrote:I see ben is as thick as ever, as it is showing the plight of hunger and how in a nation they do not care for the civillians, by showing solar panels are of more importance. That is the message that it portrays, but Murdoch is doing this based on a stupid denial of global warming. So did he do it from a racist view point?
No it was him displaying a view of how Indians are starving and only having such non-food items to eat.

Which I also talked about, idiot -- read the thread. But the caricatures are pretty racist.

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Amanda Wise, an associate professor of sociology at Macquarie University, said in her view the cartoon was shocking and would be unacceptable in the UK, the US or Canada.
"This cartoon is unequivocally racist and draws on very base stereotypes of third world, underdeveloped people who don't know what to do with technology," Wise told Guardian Australia.
"India is the technology centre of the world right now and has some of the most high-tech industries on the planet in that part of the world. The underlying message is that people in developing countries dont need all these technologies to do with climate change -- they need food," she said.
The cartoon was widely condemned on Twitter, with many users drawing attention to India's rapidly developing sustainable energy sector.
Deakin University Professor Yin Paradies, whose research includes the economic effects of racism, also took the view the cartoons message was clearly racist.
"The message ... is that India is too stupid to handle renewable energy and should stick to coal," Paradies was quoted as saying.
"Suggesting that developing nations are stupid is racist given that such nations are invariably associated with specific racial groups (i.e. non-whites)," he said.

http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/racist-aus-cartoon-shows-indians-eating-solar-panels/1/546846.html

Richard The Lionheart wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Richard The Lionheart wrote:I see ben is as thick as ever, as it is showing the plight of hunger and how in a nation they do not care for the civillians, by showing solar panels are of more importance. That is the message that it portrays, but Murdoch is doing this based on a stupid denial of global warming. So did he do it from a racist view point?
No it was him displaying a view of how Indians are starving and only having such non-food items to eat.

Which I also talked about, idiot -- read the thread. But the caricatures are pretty racist.

No the point is lost on your head as usual apologist twat

Its shows the plight of hunger and desperation that people would have to eat such non-ffods because of the fact they are starving. I am not sure how you draw indians in a state of hunder if not scrawny.
When are you going to take your head out of the sand.
It was not done out of a view to be racist but out of a view of stupidity of denial of global warming.
That is why you fail to understand context.

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Richard The Lionheart wrote:


No the point is lost on your head as usual apologist twat

Its shows the plight of hunger and desperation that people would have to eat such non-ffods because of the fact they are starving. I am not sure how you draw indians in a state of hunder if not scrawny.
When are you going to take your head out of the sand.
It was not done out of a view to be racist but out of a view of stupidity of denial of global warming.
That is why you fail to understand context.

Kiss my ass. I'm done with you until you learn to have a civil debate.

Richard The Lionheart wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Richard The Lionheart wrote:


No the point is lost on your head as usual apologist twat

Its shows the plight of hunger and desperation that people would have to eat such non-ffods because of the fact they are starving. I am not sure how you draw indians in a state of hunder if not scrawny.
When are you going to take your head out of the sand.
It was not done out of a view to be racist but out of a view of stupidity of denial of global warming.
That is why you fail to understand context.

Kiss my ass. I'm done with you until you learn to have a civil debate.

Ah the old copout, I have no real response and instead claiming civility even when you have been rude yourself

Again double standards.

When you learn to earn respect, you will have civility, until then, when you continue to defend abhorant things as you do, then you deserve utterly no respect

Comprende?

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Richard The Lionheart wrote:


Ah the old copout, I have no real response and instead claiming civility even when you have been rude yourself

Again double standards.

When you learn to earn respect, you will have civility, until then, when you continue to defend abhorant things as you do, then you deserve utterly no respect

Comprende?

You're such a blowhard

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Richard The Lionheart wrote:


Ah the old copout, I have no real response and instead claiming civility even when you have been rude yourself

Again double standards.

When you learn to earn respect, you will have civility, until then, when you continue to defend abhorant things as you do, then you deserve utterly no respect

Comprende?

You're such a blowhard

sassy wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

You're such a blowhard

That's not quite the word I'd use lol

sassy wrote:I was doing the opposite and saying he wasn't using the right words. He was far too nice.

sassy wrote:Nothing nasty about speaking the truth.  Unfortunately there are people in this life who are so beyond the pale, bullies, racist, unjustified egos etc, that they should not be allowed out in decent company.  You fit that bill.

Raggamuffin wrote:It's the biggest-selling national newspaper in Australia apparently, and there was no need to bring another poster into it just to score a silly point.

Lord Foul wrote:is there anything particularly inherently wrong with caricaturing the third world though veya..
as I said its what cartoonists do

I think the message is actually quite powerful

whats te point of sending them solar tech...if they are starving???

veya_victaous wrote:

Lord Foul wrote:is there anything particularly inherently wrong with caricaturing the third world though veya..
as I said its what cartoonists do

I think the message is actually quite powerful

whats te point of sending them solar tech...if they are starving???

I did say there is some legitimacy to the commentary and i don't think the cartoonist meant it to be spiteful the to the 3rd world, but can see how it could be interpreted that way when you don't take into account it is immediately after an announcement that a a large portion of our overseas aide would now be linked to renewable energy targets.

I think there is a point to giving them Electricity even when starving, since we can also give them hydroponic setups and water purifiers that need electricity. and renewable power sources don't need fuel so are that much more effective for them.

Richard The Lionheart wrote:So even veya admits now its not racist

Some humble pie from the lefties?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Richard The Lionheart wrote:So even veya admits now its not racist

Some humble pie from the lefties?

Why is what Veya thinks so important? He claims he's not a leftie anyway.

Richard The Lionheart wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Why is what Veya thinks so important? He claims he's not a leftie anyway.

because Ben very much respects him and I bet now also sassy will back track also, now that hs has stated the artist has done many works that are hard hitting and not racist

Richard The Lionheart wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Why is what Veya thinks so important? He claims he's not a leftie anyway.

because Ben very much respects him and I bet now also sassy will back track also, now that hs has stated the artist has done many works that are hard hitting and not racist

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Richard The Lionheart wrote:


because Ben very much respects him and I bet now also sassy will back track also, now that hs has stated the artist has done many works that are hard hitting and not racist

Why is this board so important to you?

Lol! You need  to get a life.