← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Gabrielle
Thread ID: 17673 | Posts: 6 | Started: 2005-04-07
2005-04-07 16:03 | User Profile
[url]http://www.tcj.com/messboard/ubb/Forum1/HTML/009477.html[/url]
"So there's a paper in Seattle called the Beacon Hill News & South District Journal. They run a "police blotter" column, which they have been hiring different cartoonists to illustrate, Rick and Johnny among them. Both artists were recently taken to task for their so-called "racist" illustrations, which they for some reason found perfectly appropriate for print (until someone complained). The editor offered a FRONT PAGE apology to his readers, which you can view here. A couple weeks ago Rick drew an illustration about a crazy lady going apeshit and having to be hauled off by cops. The lady (and one of the cops) was drawn as an African-American. Big deal, right? Crazies come in all colors. But apparently it was cause for some concern.
In a subsequent issue, Johnny was asked to illustrate an incident wherein a husband-and-wife robber team held a white guy up at knifepoint. The duo was still at large and Johnny was INSTRUCTED to draw them according to the police description-- a description which included their race (black).
From the get-go the editor seemed worried, telling Johnny he "only mentioned their race" because they were still at large. So when Johnny submitted his drawing, he freaked and asked Johnny to RE-draw them as white people. Johnny refused, since a) it was a lie, b) they were still at large, so drawing them white would be not only cowardly and disingenuous on the paper's part, but could even be dangerous to readers who might come across the thieves.
So apparently it's okay to write about black people holding up a white guy (a REAL INCIDENT), but to illustrate said incident goes over the line. Would it have been okay to print a photograph of the act? Should they be illustrating the police blotter in any form? "
[img]http://www.johnnyr.com/blog/south.jpg[/img]
2005-04-07 19:12 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Gabrielle]So apparently it's okay to write about black people holding up a white guy (a REAL INCIDENT), but to illustrate said incident goes over the line.[/QUOTE]
The difference is that you don't need to be literate to understand an illustration.
2005-04-08 08:42 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Happy Hacker]The difference is that you don't need to be literate to understand an illustration.[/QUOTE] :D What is it Boss Tweed was alleged to have said about satirical cartoons depicting his corruption?
"Stop them damned pictures. I don't care so much what the papers say about me. My constituents can't read. But, damn it, they can see pictures!"
2005-04-08 08:59 | User Profile
[img]http://www.gothamgazette.com/graphics/iotw.2003.09.01.tl.tweed.gif[/img]
2005-04-08 09:16 | User Profile
[img]http://resist.com/CARTOON%20GALLERY/NIGGERS/nig_image35.jpg[/img]
2005-04-10 16:46 | User Profile
Bet this practice gets the ax lickety-split now that the cat's out of the bag. How dare these White racists depict Blacks as criminals!
Just another frightening example of leftist censorship (omitting vital racial descriptions critical to their capture while these perps are on the loose) when it comes to "hiding" the criminal tendencies of poor innocents under their protection. Amazing, how the media can spin us into actually doubting what our very own eyes, ears, years of experience, and empirical facts tell us...
Blacks, taken as a whole, are much more prone to criminal activity than are White people. But, don't listen to what your inner self tells you, listen to your government -- it knows what's really good for you.