Will someone please explain the racism in these two scenarios to me?

[ZombieHorde]

Scenario one: Montana judge apologizes for sending racist joke about Obama and his mother

The joke:

The forwarded text reads:

“Normally I don’t send or forward a lot of these, but even by my standards, it was a bit touching. I want all of my friends to feel what I felt when I read this. Hope it touches your heart like it did mine.

“A little boy said to his mother; ‘Mommy, how come I’m black and you’re white?’” the e-mail joke reads. “His mother replied, ‘Don’t even go there Barack! From what I can remember about that party, you’re lucky you don’t bark!’”

DU Thread: http://www.democraticunderground.com/101464941

What is the joke's commentary on race? Which race is being targeted?

Scenario two: Atheist Billboard Offends Some African-Americans

The billboard:



DU Thread: http://www.democraticunderground.com/121813037

What is the billboard's commentary on race?

[peacebird]

1. The first "joke" is racially biased against white women who marry black men, and their children

It seems a page out of the Aryan racial purity bs Hitler espoused.

[elleng]

2. They're both stupid, imo.

Sure wish anthiests would quit advertising. We athiests/agnostics AND believers, either HAVE IT OR DON'T, and only anger others when we seek to intrude.

[Warren Stupidity]

3. The first one, seriously?

White woman goes to wild party where she is so drunk/high that not only did she get pregnant from a NEGRO, she also had sex with a DOG. The implication is that white women having sex with black men is just like having sex with animals, and is the result of severe intoxication.


The second example is not racist.

[ZombieHorde]

5. To be fair, the joke does not use the term "negro," but your explanation makes sense,

and I think I understand it better now. Thank you.

Many people seem to disagree with you on the second scenario, so perhaps someone will have a good explanation for that one.

[Warren Stupidity]

8. No they won't have a good explanation.

They might have a bad explanation.

However, the billboard is inaccurate in one respect- slavery, commonplace throughout history up until the modern era, was not racially defined until the plantation slavery of the European Conquest of the americas.

[Rex]

15. Very good point it was more like a non-racial caste system.

nt.

[Rex]

13. Does not need to use the term 'negro' it is implied.

Otherwise what would be the point of the question?

[WhoIsNumberNone]

21. The second one isn't racist- at least it's not intended to be-

-but it's easy to see how it could be misinterpreted.

It's funded by atheists and points out that the Bible condones slavery. The first thing Americans think of when they hear "slavery" is the Old South, and black people in bondage- hence the illustration. The message is that the Bible was used to justify slavery, and by extension racism, in the South.

I'm not trying to argue that they made a wise choice in presenting it this way, but it's clear to me what the message is meant to be. The Ku Klux Klan could probably have designed the exact same billboard, (minus the blurb about Bronze Age ethics) and it would have been racist.

[Brickbat]

7. Agree with both.

[Ruby the Liberal]

4. They are both disgusting.

[ZombieHorde]

6. Why is the second scenario disgusting? nt

[Ruby the Liberal]

23. I don't do militancy

Don't care if it is militant fundie or militant atheist. They are the same to me.

The references to slavery could have had the founding father's face on them and I still wouldn't spit on it if it was on fire.

I am all for separation of church and state (and do not like the whole 'year of the bible' thing any more than they do), but that sign is just racial flamebait.

[Warren Stupidity]

38. That would be a good billboard too.

A lot of people in this country haven't a clue that this nation was built with slave labor and that the Holy Founding Fathers were not only not particularly religious, but a lot of them were slave owners and that the original unamended version of the constituiton institutionalized the slave economy of the southern states.

[Ruby the Liberal]

39. Yes, I watched the Michele Bachmann debacle

on how the founding fathers "fought tirelessly" (decades after their deaths) to "end slavery". Why she never made it past Iowa.

But in all honesty - how many people in this country deny slavery was not only condoned, but lauded by the founding fathers? They may not know the whole 3/5 of a person detail, but the "south will rise again" folk damn sure know it is part of history - because they would have no problem going back to it.

(NOT south bashing - I am talking specifically about the "War of Northern Aggression" people with the "south will rise again" and secessionist bumper stickers and confederate flags)

[Kalidurga]

9. The second one is about the bible and it's condoning slavery.

My guess is they used that particular picture because it is the way people think about slavery in the US. But, today slaves come in all colors and ethnic groups. There are around a billion in China alone. I don't know how many on the Ivory Coast, South and Central America. I don't know how many are virtual slaves to their jobs in the US because they can't change jobs because they need the insurance they have or how many are wage slaves. Anyway, there are more slaves now than there were during the time this picture represents.

[Moonwalk]

10. Okay, here we go....

The first is racist, as said, because it implies that having sex with a black man is only a tiny step up from having sex with an animal. i.e. that Barak's mom lowered herself--in a drunken, ill-considered moment, by getting involved with a back man. She also, the joke implies, had sex with a dog, and what she produced--a black child--is, himself, barely above that dog.

That clear enough?

Now the second is meant to shock. It is not racist, but is being taken as racist thanks to its graphic image there. The Atheists are pointing out that the bible approves of slavery, which it does, and was used by pre-civil-war southerners to justify keeping blacks enslaved--which they did. The aim is to make people re-think the bible and their, often, unquestioning faith in it's commandments. Would a black person now agree that his ancestors ought to have held to that biblical command to obey his/her white masters? Ones who collared those ancestors in that barbaric fashion? Would a white person agree that what was done in the U.S. to blacks and justified by a bible passage was a good thing?

The image is suppose to point out that if the U.S. had held to the bible as the rule of law, no arguing with it, blacks might still be slaves now--and the bible would be used to urge them to stay in their place, that place being a collared slave. However, people looking at that billboard are seeing the image of a black man as a slave along with this quote and thinking that it says that black people should be slaves. i.e., that blacks should obey whites. This makes it appear racist, like something that would be posted by the Klan. Which means it's failing to get the message across and the group that posted it needs to take it down and try something else.

[ZombieHorde]

18. Very clear explanation for the first scenario. Thank you. nt

[TreasonousBastard]

11. I don't think either of them is racist, BUT...

they are both rude, insensitive, and just stupid enough to offend somebody.

The first one is about a drunk woman having sex with anything that walks or wags. Race is merely incidental to the joke.

The second is not promoting a return to slavery, which one would expect from your typical Klan member, but using the horror of slavery to illustrate the stupidity of religion.

Drunken woman, wanton sex, race, slavery, religion... what dumbass would think that sort of stuff would be well received these days?

[GopperStopper2680]

12. Nothing to explain Zombie..

Zombie-it's pretty much self explanatory. It's just simple hate mongering as usual from the bigots of the world. It is truly an apalling shame that any individual or group could get away with displaying such an abomination in broad daylight in this day and time. It only goes to show you the power of money over the minds and hearts of people. I would add that I am doubly offended by this foul and evil thing. It is not only a racist message but an atheist one. I am personally white but I abhor racism as evil. And I am also a Christian. To me this thing is a double monstrosity.

I would go as far as to say there's another agenda behind it-a secret message or double entendre: It's the world's power elite insinuating its will on the rest of us; 'slaves obey your masters'- obey the corporate task masters that keep you enthralled and in a state of peonage. Work work work, pay pay pay! All your lives through. Work, pay and die, for we own you all'. It's our task to bring these monsters down. unfortunately, it is a monumental one. But then again anything truly worthwhile comes with no small price.

[Moonwalk]

14. GopperStopper...you forgot the "sarcasm" emoticon...please don't do that, someone....

...might think you're being serious...or a republican.

[ZombieHorde]

19. Why are pro-atheist messages offensive? nt

[seabeyond]

16. they are both highly offensive. slap in the face. the purpose to shock and offend to

get an agenda past.

the first? you really cant see the offense in saying, might have even been fuckin a dog? you see nothing offensive there.

how about a poster of a woman being raped and putting up some bible quote? you think that might offend some. bother some. hurt some.

what right does anyone have to take something painful, shove it into a communities face, so they can win some damn argument.

i cannot believe anyone cant see what is offensive.

[ZombieHorde]

17. I can definately see why people would be offended, but offensive and racist are not always the same.

The first scenario has been well explained to me in this thread, and I believe I understand why people think it is racist.

The second scenario doesn't seem racist to me at this point in time. If the Christian Holy Bible advocated for women being raped, then I don't think pointing that out to people would be sexist.

[seabeyond]

20. i really dont care if one wants to say racist, or offensive, or plain disgusting....

if a black person says it is racist, that is good enough for me, because i clearly and easily see how a black person can see that sign and be hurt, or angry, feel attacked or past experienced used for agenda. i really dont care what label is put on it. i know that bottom line it is a cheap shot to get an agenda thru at a minority groups expense, and that disgusts me.

[seabeyond]

24. and another point about the masters comment. that mentality is still alive today

blacks are still battling that concept today. and really it is not just a religion that the black communtiy faces that mentality, but a white community as a whole. so again, it is making a point at the expense of people that are to an extent still living it and addressing it.

totally insensitive to a whole community. it makes no sense to me that anyone would be so stupid and insensitive to use this to push an agenda.

[BumRushDaShow]

26. The problem with the 2nd one is that

hypothetically (because none of us were there), at the time that this passage from the New Testament was written and sent off to a tiny church via letter by Paul to the Colossians (which was located in what is now present-day Turkey), there were no "enslaved Africans" in a colonial or post-colonial U .S. In that time, what was considered "slavery" was not the chattel vicious, multi-generational type that was practiced here and none of it had anything to do with the "New World".

So then why make the analogy using what is supposedly an African slave by citing this epistle? Why not depict those who were equally "enslaved" under a different system because they were debtors (the "indentured servant" - many of whom became share-croppers and were European-descended)? The issue here being this plays into the "Curse of Ham" (from Genesis), a story that has been similarly distorted to apply to blacks only and in reality, should historically have no relation to, bearing on, or analogy applicable to this nation and its people.

[Moonwalk]

33. You Ask: "So then why make the analogy using what is supposedly an African slave..." HELLO!

...Because that is the image that will remind people what quotes from the bible, used to maintain a certain position, can be used for. This sort of passage was used by slave owners in the south to keep blacks collared just like the one we see on the billboard. That is a fact! It doesn't matter what the original referred to or didn't refer to. They quoted that passage and others to maintain that slavery was fine by god and Christianity. To justify it.

Yet blacks and whites, who find this image of the collared man abhorrent, are still voting for lawmakers who quote the bible to justify laws against gay marriage or contraceptives. What better image to remind American Citizens that such quotes should not be used to create or determine laws?

Obviously, if it's not working, then it has to go. But just because the passage was made before black slaves and didn't refer to multi-general slaver, etc, etc, doesn't mean the point is somehow lost. The point is very clear: Using bible passages to argue what is ethical or right/wrong isn't and should not be good enough. In or out of context, the bible's commands should not be used to create or argue or justify laws.

[Boojatta]

34. When the Constitution was being written ...

Texas wasn't part of the United States. How did Eisenhower, who was born in Texas, become President of the United States?

Apparently, people have the power to decide that a document has application beyond what the people who wrote it had in mind.

Suppose that a situation arises and you want to deal with it in court. If it's a new situation, then people who wrote the existing laws weren't familiar with the fact situation of your particular case when they wrote those laws. You could argue, on that basis, that no currently existing laws apply to your case.

[Moonwalk]

27. Um, regarding the second, what right have people to uphold the bible....

...as the basis for laws in the U.S. if that book contains such passages? I'm afraid I can't agree that the second is equal to the first. The first is a stupid, thoughtless joke.

The second may not be getting the message across, but given that there are people who try, very hard, to pass laws allowing the posting of the 10 commandments in courthouses--given that a PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE wants to do away with the separation of church and state and make biblical laws the laws of the land, I think a rather shocking image indicating what this could lead to (what it has led to in the past) is a viable retort.

If it gets the message across that making the U.S. a "Christian" nation following biblical law is a bad idea, then I'm all for billboards showing rape or anything else. You've only to look at current attempts by certain Christian politicians to outlaw contraceptives and gay marriage (their rational for both coming from the bible) to see what damage it would do to have that wall between church and state crumble. To have the U.S. governed by biblical law. So, sorry, no, the Atheists are not equally offensive, nor are they racist. The second is not a slap in the face. It is a valid question to ask of anyone--especially lawmakers and presidential candidates, but also voters who vote such lawmakers in: What would it mean if the U.S. was governed by Christian, biblical laws rather than secular constitutional laws?

[seabeyond]

28. it is beyond a stupid thoughtless joke. there is nothing funny, and all about insulting

and if an org. cannot push an agenda, or educate a people, or fight a battle without living in the gutter, what good is the orgs point. that org is no better.

what an ugly way to go. no thank you

on edit... still shaking head. to have absolutely no conscience what so ever of hurting others... that is beyond my thinking by such an amount. if that is all a person has, that is pathetic

[Quantess]

29. The billboard isn't a "joke".

No of course it isn't funny. It wasn't intended to be. It was intended to make people uncomfortable about the bible, in case they weren't already.

Offensive? That is very possible. But it's not a joke.

[seabeyond]

30. the one about a woman fuckin a dog was labeled a joke. that is what i was referencing.

the board was meant to shock and offend. it did. now people are trying to defend the org that got exactly what they wanted. what is there to defend.

[Number23]

35. You just won this thread, seabeyond. I hadn't seen the OP on that billboard

but the second that image loaded on my computer, it was like a slap in the damn face. Your comments are right on the money.

SO fucking sick and tired of the incessant comparisons to slavery, Jim Crow, segregation etc. that are all UNIQUE components of the black experience that few other groups have any legitimate claim to (I do believe that Native Americans and interned Japanese would be the exceptions). So damn sick of it.

[seabeyond]

36. isnt that the obvious. what is not obvious to me are the many people

that dont get it.

i was asked to be on a jury and saw this. it was so very offensive to me. all for the purpose of pushing an agenda with no consideration to how it may effect others. and then to see a thread here in gd actually asking what is offensive. if i didnt know the people were sincere, i would not be able to believe it. but to know people are sincere, and see they do not get it, is even more disheartening.

[geckosfeet]

22. ru series?

They are both repugnant.

The first is outwardly racist.

The second is simply a disgusting exploitation of racism to make a point. A valid point, but a pretty disgusting means to an end.

[Cleita]

25. Really? You don't get the first one?

It seems to imply that the President's mother would mate with a dog or a black person when drunk. I mean it's really racist. As to the second one, as a nonbeliever myself, I don't feel that I or anyone else has a right to attack another's religion. The only time I would object is if they were trying to impose their religion on me. I think they could have picked on another quote also to make their point, not one about slavery. Also, the billboard is inaccurate. The letter by St. Paul to the Colossians was about 1000 years after the end of the Bronze Age and slaves in those days most likely would have been European or from the Mediterranean area so showing a black person in irons is pretty offensive I would say.

[longship]

31. The second image

I'll not address the first as it has already been dealt with. The guy who wrote it should be fired.

I will speak here as an atheist activist but from my own personal opinion.

First, in general I approve of these atheist billboards. I think as an atheist that it's about time that people of all philosophies and religions understand that many of your neighbors, relatives, and friends are like me -- they don't believe in God. Because of the lunatic right wing nut cases have apparently taken over one of the two political parties in the US, and since they all seem to express themselves in explicitly theocratic terms, and since they have gained sufficient power that many of see a real danger of them gaining control of all three branches of government, many of us see that the time has come to make ourselves known and organize against the threat, perceived or actual.

That's why the billboards make sense to me.

Now this specific billboard?

I think it sucks. Not only is it racially charged, but it's freaking ugly. I can't imagine what was going through American Atheists when they approved it. They were begging for specifically these questions.

I know that this is long winded but I wanted to clearly state my opinion and reasons.

Thanks for the opportunity.

[arely staircase]

32. other than equating a white woman having sex with a black man to bestiality?

i guess the first one isn't racist at all.

i actually don't consider the second one to be racist. poorly thought out because it might be interpreted that way and step on its actual message - perhaps.

[Starry Messenger]

37. The first one has been explained.

The second one too. I have also read that the billboards also went up in African American neighborhoods, which is a double helping of gross, tin-eared and totally self-absorbed on the part of the no-doubt white atheists. It makes me ashamed to be an atheist and hope no one thought they were doing that in my name.

If you want to get totally picky, they even fail to make their historical point, since the American Black slave trade had nothing to do with the Bronze Age. But honestly, just knowing that Black people had to come out of their homes one nice morning and see that crap in one- foot letters overhead just makes me want to barf.

Stick to "God Hates Shrimp" in the future, Americanatheists. Please.