Since when is the phrase "monkey business" racist ? ...

[dogtag]

If it is indeed considered racist by the man's black opponent,
then are we to assume that blacks liken themselves to monkeys ?
Why would he be offended otherwise ?
I remember some years back a man, can't recall who, was pilloried
for talking about the River Niger.
Things really are getting ridiculous with this racist nonsense, but
I suppose people like Sharpton and that reverend who talks like
he's got a mouthful of marbles will milk it for all it's worth and
for as long as they can.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ed-racism.html

[togor]

Seriously, DT?





The guy didn't waste any time either. Also reported outside of your bubble: the robocalls.

[Roadkingtrax]

Togor, what do you expect from a bellend like Dogtag? Someone that complains so much about everything can't be expected to understand history of racist undertones.

[clintonhater]

Quick, somebody call TCM to give them a warning--they're showing a movie of that name tonight!

Where does this leave "apish"?

[togor]

Quick, somebody call TCM to give them a warning--they're showing a movie of that name tonight!

Where does this leave "apish"?

Well if you mean Orangutans and a certain politician, that word is still in play.

[Vern Humphrey]

Here's how it is -- the man who says "monkey business" is not a racist. The man who gets outraged because HE thinks Blacks look like monkeys IS a racist.

[togor]

Yes, the first image is complex, so let's talk about it and completely ignore the second. How clever!!

The Vogue cover by itself is fine. Everyone knows that, even Red. The real message is in the juxtapositioning of images, by author unknown, pairing a vintage representation of a snarling simian beast holding a helpless white woman in a green dress to a modern photo of a game-faced and muscular LeBron holding a tousled Gisele Bundchen in similar green attire. The message: then-and-now, the black remains a beast.

To the poster. WW1 saw some pretty raw propaganda in the west. Here we have the Hun, stepping onto American shores, portrayed as a dark-skinned half-man, half-beast, holding a white woman in obvious distress. That was an image already established in racist thought here. The tweak was to cast the Hun in the roll of the villain.

By pairing the poster up to the Vogue cover, the image of the beast reverts to its original purpose. The Pickelhaube and club labeled Kultur are scarcely noticed.

What makes me sad is that it actually took some brains for someone to recognize all of that and pull it all together.

[togor]

Here's how it is -- the man who says "monkey business" is not a racist. The man who gets outraged because HE thinks Blacks look like monkeys IS a racist.

What??????

So if I put up a cartoon of a fat toothless redneck in dirty rags picking his nose and put the caption under it "Red in a Contemplative Moment", and anyone objects, then this means that they are objecting because they agree that Red looks like a fat toothless redneck with poor hygiene?

The oblique references, the so-called "dog whistle" stuff. Everyone gets it now, knows what is going on. Except you, apparently.

[clintonhater]

The Vogue cover by itself is fine. Everyone knows that, even Red.

Maybe Red knows it, but I don't. It's LOATHSOME without any juxtaposition. The radical left-wing editors of Vogue wouldn't agree that it's loathsome, but they'd have to agree that it's shocking--THAT, jaw-dropping shock-value, was the whole point of the cover! But how sad the left-wing readers of this trash were denied the enlightenment of seeing that brilliant pairing of the two matched images!

[dryheat]

Maybe Red knows it, but I don't. It's LOATHSOME without any juxtaposition. The radical left-wing editors of Vogue wouldn't agree that it's loathsome, but they'd have to agree that it's shocking--THAT, jaw-dropping shock-value, was the whole point of the cover! But how sad the left-wing readers of this trash were denied the enlightenment of seeing that brilliant pairing of the two matched images!

Togor has stepped in it, but I'm sure he mistakenly stole that thinking it proved something else. Or, per Boggs, it is a subliminal kind of thing. Anyhow, brilliant pairing. Framable. I'm sure the basketball/football player is a great guy. Not all that enlightening. There are plenty of little guys out there that are nasty.

[free1954]

despite all opinions and everything said and done.
that's a great ww1 poster. where can I get a copy of one of those?

[clintonhater]

I'm sure the basketball/football player is a great guy.

You are? Why, I'd like to know. Because he's paid hundreds of millions to bounce a basketball?

[togor]

Maybe Red knows it, but I don't. It's LOATHSOME without any juxtaposition. The radical left-wing editors of Vogue wouldn't agree that it's loathsome, but they'd have to agree that it's shocking--THAT, jaw-dropping shock-value, was the whole point of the cover! But how sad the left-wing readers of this trash were denied the enlightenment of seeing that brilliant pairing of the two matched images!

That's an interesting point, actually. I suppose it goes to intent, that LeBron is not the beast, and read the article inside. But I think you're onto something, that someone at Vogue saw the poster and paralleled the shot to it for it's visual (subliminal?) shock value, and someone else figured out the original poster and made the comparison explicit.

Anyhow it goes to the OPs question, about blacks and simians in the culture: Yes, it's a thing.

[Vern Humphrey]

despite all opinions and everything said and done.
that's a great ww1 poster. where can I get a copy of one of those?

It is -- and the irony is it is NOT a Black who is portrayed as an ape, but a German!

[clintonhater]

It is -- and the irony is it is NOT a Black who is portrayed as an ape, but a German!

Or, to get the German complication out of the way, King Kong posters depict the same thing in a pure simian format.