……Really? do you REALLY think another kid is going to look at that crap and think it’s funny? I assume you don’t believe your own argument, because I don’t know anyone that stupid.

Anyway… here we go….

“We are not talking about “the media” as a general, nebulous enemy — we are talking about specific, hurtful imagery. ”

I was. I don’t know who this “we” is you’re referring to. The person who wrote the entry of the link you so kindly offered was as well. Because comics is a medium and a video tape of cartoons is a medium, I cited media to cover both instead of writing them out. Media isn’t a general nebulous anything. It’s a specific grouping of various forms of audio and visual creations which distribute ideas to the masses.

“specific, hurtful imagery” may be what you’re focused on, but when I read that article in the link two things immediately popped out at me:

1. The parent put on a program and immediately left the room to the care of the television. If you don’t know what’s going into your child’s head, then it’s your fault when they cry about something they don’t understand.

2. The child watching the video tape never explained what the problem was so that it could have been addressed rationally, educationally, culturally, and with a nod to historical context.

This leads me to conclude that the problems within this scenario don’t result from the content of the video tape but with the behavior and minds of the individuals exposed to said content.

All people don’t react the same way to the same content. The kid in the article was upset, but some other kid from the same ethnic background could find it hilarious and silly. The content is the content. The person viewing the content is the variable, and changing the content to suit the variable is an exercise in futility because no matter what you do anyone can find an offense in anything if they look hard enough. Some people play Grand Theft Auto and want to go out and shoot people and steal cars afterward, and some people play that same game and then decide to order a pizza before going to bed. You can only control the content that enters your brain or the brains of those in your care, and if something upsetting gets through, it’s not the fault of the upsetting content. Blaming content is puritanical-american religious-right-nonsense thinking.

I don’t want to live in a world of historical revisionism. This type of content and all other content that the revisionists want to censor needs to stay out there as an example of past stupidity because if you let the world forget, new stupidity will run in to take its place.

To bring this back to the actual topic of the original post, I clearly stated that I did not approve of the depiction of the black kid in the strip. It’s very likely that education yet again is at fault for it showing up in the first place. The creator probably never found a need to learn any other way to draw a black person until that strip was published, and it’s appearance was suitably met with disapproval and also unjustifiably met with cries of offense from the over-sensitive types–individuals who probably never bothered to look for the meaning (an anti-racist meaning, I might add) of the strip. It brings levity to an important issue of the times, and it’s very unfortunate that the cartoonist did such a great job of derailing his message by never learning a better way to depict a black person.

That’s what I see when I see that cartoon, and I wish more people were able to see it that way instead of the standard shock and awe followed by the throwing of stones. The only reason this post is so lenghty is because the provided link opened up a whole new level of debate (which you knew would happen, so I can only assume you wanted to increase the number of comments attached to this article and this potential motive is further supported by the shameless effort at “calling me out” by saying “Anyway, I see you are not interested in an actual debate.”)

“specific, hurtful imagery” exists and will always exist. An emphasis on education and active parenting in an effort to help those hurt by such imagery should be the main focus in order to help them understand, address, and move on instead of hiding the content away somewhere it cannot be seen.

“Wisdom is preferable to ignorance”, The Greatest of Evils: Urban Poverty and the American Underclass By Joel A. Devine, James D. Wright.

We are not talking about “the media” as a general, nebulous enemy — we are talking about specific, hurtful imagery.

Big difference.

Anyway, I see you are not interested in an actual debate.

The television is not a babysitter.

It’s time to stop blaming the media for the shortcomings of education and parenting. It’s like blaming the bullet for a gunshot wound.

The easily offended are a nuisance. Why would you be offended that I don’t find it offensive? or was that a joke? If it’s not a joke, then that makes you part of the group that needs to stop being so easily offended.

Just because someone is offended doesn’t mean it’s justified. Also, one can state a feeling of disapproval without being offended. While I disapprove of the depiction of the black kid, I do not believe it warrants the term “offensive”.

However, disapproval seldom warrants the tabloid-like headlines and attention which news outlets (and blogs) benefit from.

Everyone go read about Edward Bernays and some back in a week.

One can find an offense in everything if one is looking hard enough.

The world would be a better place if everyone stopped looking so hard and so often for things that aren’t really there.

I bought “Backstage from the Strips” back then, and remember this being in there (and I still have it somewhere). There might be more on that in this book; I’ll have to find my copy. I seem to recall that Ketcham was surprised at the reaction of this strip, and decided to avoid the issue by not drawing black characters any longer. I think he did do one earlier (or was it later?) portrayal of Jackson that was much more realistic.

If he was living abroad in 1970 (and I don’t recall when he returned), then the caricature of the African-American child would not necessarily have been considered racist or derogatory where he was living.

But, man, it is offensive looking…

Did you really not know that there really was an Archie comic called FAST WILLIE JACKSON? Just takes a moment to google it…

Granted, I can’t take credit for the Dennis cartoon’s doubtless-coincidental association of “speed” and “a Presidential name” in making the joke, and I don’t think the Archie book meant “fast” in the same way.

Maybe for the joke to work, you had to be from the era when the Archie comic was around, but I had the impression you were…

Well, we know if he DIDN’T mean it. But we don’t know if he DID. I love how some people immediately assume the worst.

The cartoon is pretty tasteless, but most people probably don’t read the caption before going into “offended” mode. Maybe the joke is supposed to be that Dennis, being a kid, doesn’t know or understand the world around him. He hears “race riot” and assumes it’s a race.

That said, Ketcham could have drawn him to resemble a black kid, rather than this strange ebony creature. I never could figure out why some thought black people looked like those caricatures, or why they thought those caricatures were funny.

It’s funnier if I explain it, though, Gene. Thanks!