Is there any kind of examples you can provide of a notion of a "chocolate touch" outside of this?
The Chocolate Touch - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"The Chocolate Touch covers roughly the same narrative as the myth of King Midas, but in changing the object of its protagonist's desire, modifies its target in significant ways. The myth of King Midas, who loved gold above all things, targets greed as its main theme, while The Chocolate Touch highlights another of the Seven Deadly Sins, gluttony. Both stories deal with self-centeredness vs. compassion, though The Chocolate Touch does so in a manner accessible to children. Although John's self-centeredness is unlike most other cases of self-centerdness that put other people at a disadvantage; in John's case he wants his family to stop telling him what he can and cannot eat. Towards the end of the story John comes to realize that his parents' and doctor's demand for healthy eating was for his own good. While people reading the myth of King Midas may not all have daughters of their own, almost all have mothers. In recasting the Midas story with a younger protagonist, author Catling hits on some of children's worst fears, albeit with a light touch.
Protagonists and Antagonists:
John Midas as the center character but antagonist
Mr. & Mrs. Midas, the candy shop owner as the protagonist."
Some time ago this cartoon appeared with a George Will column. Is this cartoon racist?
View attachment 67180002
I guess it depends on the cartoonist's intention. Did he mean it as just a joke or is there any deeper meaning. I'm not really familiar with the guy so I can't really say but I do know white chocolate sucks. Just way too sweet, I prefer milk chocolate.
There is an old joke that says if black is beautiful that my feces is a masterpiece.
The cartoon can be viewed as racist because it subtly plays on the notions of Obama's skin color, chocolate and feces.
How is it possible 1010 people voted yes in the poll but only one poster thinks it is racist?
Hey! Someone actually engaging in a back and forth conversation. Lovely!
Thanks for the link. Had never heard of the book, but glad to see it's not entirely an unheard of concept (though still seemingly significantly less historical usage than "everything I touch turns to ****"). It makes sense as a means of aging down the King Midas story a bit to a kid level.
Though again, given the context of the cartoon, the historical narrative behind the use of the idea of "everything I touch turns to ****" and the narrative behind this "chocolate touch", I think it's a large stretch to suggest the Cartoon was actually suggesting Obama's power was initially, or ever, the ability to turn things into chocolate as opposed to the ability to turn things into something bad.
And that's where I do not agree. I can't not possibly see how someone can claim it IS racist. Mildsteel is making an affirmative, definitive statement about something without any factual evidence to his statement.
The POTENTIAL for it to be racist does not inherently make it racist.
The statement "The pot calling the kettle black" is not inherently racist. It has the POTENTIAL to be stated in a racist fashion, but it would only be so with substantial surrounding context indicating it is. In and of itself, the statement is not inherently racist as it has a clear and direct meaning that has nothing to do with race. It is ONLY by adding additional assumptions and context that one could try and claim it's racist.
That particular cartoon, inherently sans any additional content, can not reasonably be stated as being racist. It has the POTENTIAL to be, at best. Sans additional context, the clear and direct meaning of that cartoon is plainly obvious and clear. It is only through additional assumptions and intent, done without ANY factual evidence suggesting they are present, that one could possibly claim that the cartoon is racist. That suggests then that the cartoon itself is not inherently racist, but rather in such a case that the individual creating it is and his intent behind the cartoon is.
It is impossible to claim that the cartoon is inherently "racist" WITHOUT piling additional assumptions on top of it, assumptions that at this point are completely baseless and unsupported by any actual connecting facts as it relates to this specific cartoon
If you log out, you can vote as many times as you like. Looks like someone didn't like the direction his poll question was taking.
To be fair MidSteel is saying it is racist if you think a certain way or if you assume certain things about the intent of the author, not that on it's face it is racist.
I sense some veiled racism there... who ever heard of a person with a chocolate touch? The golden touch? Yes. The Chocolate touch? No, and then to have it be from a black man?
As I said, I do not perceive the cartoon as racist so you don't really need to explain why you don't see it that way. We agree on that point. My thing is that I'm just not as passionate about declaring it "not racist" like you are. Perhaps MildSteel arguing that it is factually racist is going to far, but, to be honest, I think that you're going a bit far in the other direction. Like I said, modern racism is subtle and insidious. It capitalizes on plausible deniability and benefits from people passionately defending it as "just a coincidence." I'm not going to do that.And that's where I do not agree. I can't not possibly see how someone can claim it IS racist. Mildsteel is making an affirmative, definitive statement about something without any factual evidence to his statement.
The POTENTIAL for it to be racist does not inherently make it racist.
The statement "The pot calling the kettle black" is not inherently racist. It has the POTENTIAL to be stated in a racist fashion, but it would only be so with substantial surrounding context indicating it is. In and of itself, the statement is not inherently racist as it has a clear and direct meaning that has nothing to do with race. It is ONLY by adding additional assumptions and context that one could try and claim it's racist.
That particular cartoon, inherently sans any additional content, can not reasonably be stated as being racist. It has the POTENTIAL to be, at best. Sans additional context, the clear and direct meaning of that cartoon is plainly obvious and clear. It is only through additional assumptions and intent, done without ANY factual evidence suggesting they are present, that one could possibly claim that the cartoon is racist. That suggests then that the cartoon itself is not inherently racist, but rather in such a case that the individual creating it is and his intent behind the cartoon is.
It is impossible to claim that the cartoon is inherently "racist" WITHOUT piling additional assumptions on top of it, assumptions that at this point are completely baseless and unsupported by any actual connecting facts as it relates to this specific cartoon
How could it be?
Is chocolate a race now?
Where did you see anywhere in the cartoon any reference to Obama's skin color?
Well see, I don't know if that's the case, because that's basically what I've said and he was disagreeing with me.
I stated that absent any additional context OTHER than what was provided in the OP (Which was the cartoon, and that it was posted on a site that leans to the right) there was no realistic way to say this IS a racist cartoon.
I stated that if you wanted to make various assumptions and guesses and leaps in logic, one could craft a scenario where it could be racist, but only by adding in that additional context.
Mildsteel seemingly disagreed with me on that point.
As I said, I do not perceive the cartoon as racist so you don't really need to explain why you don't see it that way. We agree on that point. My thing is that I'm just not as passionate about declaring it "not racist" like you are. Perhaps MildSteel arguing that it is factually racist is going to far, but, to be honest, I think that you're going a bit far in the other direction. Like I said, modern racism is subtle and insidious. It capitalizes on plausible deniability and benefits from people passionately defending it as "just a coincidence." I'm not going to do that.
Have you followed the thread? I have explained it at length.
Yes I have followed it and none of what you say has any basis in reality.
I agree, you can contort pretty much anything into being racist. As evidenced by me using the same kind of logic Mildsteel used here to declare that a Hershey Chocolate Bar is racist because it's suggesting that Blacks (chocolate) are meant to be behind bars (the layout of the candy bar mimics the layout of jail cell bars).
It is accurate.Some time ago this cartoon appeared with a George Will column. Is this cartoon racist?
I disagree because there is ample reference to feces being used in a derogatory context with reference to blacks because of their skin color.
As such, someone such as me who comes from an environment where such usage was common could realistically conclude, WITHOUT ADDITIONAL CONTEXT, that the cartoon was indeed racist.
This flows from the fact that observers give meaning to such a cartoon based on their past experiences.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?