Effect of Dehumanization in Black Children
Decades after the classic 1940s experiment by psychologists Kenneth and Mamie Clarke, we meet a sobering reality. They published three major papers between 1939 and 1940 on children's self perception related to race. They found that black children often preferred to play with white dolls over black ones; that, asked to fill in a human figure with the color of their own skin, they frequently chose a lighter shade than was accurate; and that the children gave the color "white" attributes such as good and pretty, but "black" was qualified as bad and ugly. They viewed the results as evidence that the children had internalized racism caused by being discriminated against and stigmatized by segregation. This experiment was reproduced in 2008. The results have changed little since then, and the society's dehumanization of blacks, subconscious or not, clearly plays a key role.
Why is the "N Word" less offensive than the New York Post's chimp cartoon? The comparison of blacks and chimps is designed to dehumanize. It is an outright assertion that blacks are subhuman. That's why blacks don't call each other chimps. Though tasteless and very offensive, the "N Word" has no subhuman connotations, and does not imply one is an animal... but for a paper to compare a black man to an ape or chimp is to imply blacks have yet to evolve to humans.
That's why you hear the "N Word" so much in rap and why it is used in a form like one uses the term "redneck"; depending on who says it and in what context, it can be used inoffensively when applied to members of the same race. "He's my nigga" is a term of endearment in ghetto slang when used by, say, a couple of black kids who have been close friends for a long time. If a white man says "he's my nigga", no matter how close he is to the same black friend, it's offensive because there was a time not too long ago when whites owned blacks, and the same phrase was used in a literal form to denote ownership, with callous connotations.
Again, to compare a black man to an ape or chimp is to imply blacks have yet to evolve to humans. That is why it is no exaggeration to say the NY Post cartoon may as well have called President Obama a "nigger".
Incidentally, you often hear the argument, I call it the Pat Buchanan Gambit, which is particularly offered by slavery apologists like the latter, Klansmen and neo-Nazis alike: that if blacks call each other "nigger" then why is it so bad for whites to call them that too? Well, in answer to that, as someone who is not black but a fellow human being, if you really feel that bridging race relations is as simple as whites openly calling blacks niggers again I have a special little appellation you can wear with pride, as it seems you already do: Ignorant Motherfucker.
This is the world according to Rupert Murdoch's New York Post. And I contend it is even worse than calling President Obama a "nigger".
Even if blacks were denied schooling since slavery ended, an oral, archeological and photographic history would certainly remain to remind them of 300 plus years of slavery under white plantation owners. Blacks would still be rightfully outraged to hear a white man use the term "my nigga" when addressing them. And any man who has to ask why blacks should be offended also has to ask himself why it is any surprise no one likes him, and why people pretend they're not home when he comes over. But I digress.
Clearly, the double standard is there and no matter how you slice it, the prick who drew this cartoon, Sean Delonas, diddles himself to Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, or both. Could you imagine if a "liberal" published a cartoon like this to attack Michael Steele? Colin Powell? they would go nuts, and rightfully so.
It's racist to the core and a sad commentary on the conservative print media. The New York Post defended it as a "clear parody of current events". Seriously. By claiming it was a clear parody, they are insisting it was funny to them.
Hey, you know what else is a clear parody of events, if we're going to stoop to that level? The picture on the right.
The twat fungus who let this get published to sell more papers, at the expense of course, of what's left of his legitimacy: Rupert Murdoch. The latter is, in fact, a self-parody. Here he is in a gentle moment of quiet introspection with friend Lou Dobbs.
May Rupert Murdoch choke on a leper's necrotic penis and leave the schlongless, infected Dobbs one step closer to living out his transgender Minuteman fantasy.
The Myth of Objectivity
Do you know why it's bullshit to air or publish something controversial and then turn around and say that you do not necessarily share or condone any of the views expressed in the piece?
It's self-evident. Here at the Impious Digest, as obnoxious and tasteless as we advertise, we would never publish an unchallenged editorial piece by a Klansman or NAMBLA member, because men devoted to racism and man-on-boy child molestation are inherently prone to stain any platform given them with the blood and filth of their connotations.
If such an editorial were to be published, it would only be done so to be ridiculed piece by piece. It would never, ever go unchallenged. It is only then, with a counterpoint, that we can preface a controversial article with "the views expressed herein are not necessarily our own. In fact, the first is written by a complete moron that is about to get schooled, bloggy style."
You see disclaimers a lot before movies on cable or television, and its the only time when it is actually close to applying.
If the article or opinion is not unchallenged, and in line with the usual fare, then yes, it probably reflects the editorial consensus. That's why papers are categorized as alternative, liberal, moderate, conservative, etc. There is no such thing as a paper or news agency that doesn't fall into one of these categories at one point or another, depending on who owns them. A paper is defined by its typical content.
Let's say The New York Times published an editorial piece by Charles Manson on the need for a new race war to be headed by his Family. In it he describes using a Beatles tribute band to cover, say, a new back-masked "White Album" rife with new racist, subliminal messages you can only hear when played backwards. Among these absurd or offensive messages will be "ape man will rule the white man", "Folgers makes war pigs" and "Bush was the greatest economic genius in history." According to Manson, the race war will come due to several macroeconomic shortcomings in President Obama's stimulus package which plunges America into the greatest depression in its history. The Manson Economic Stimulus Plan is to offer even more tax cuts to billionaires, eliminate taxes for convicted serial killers and Rick Santelli's unibrow, mandate the carving of swastikas into the foreheads of every white child in America as well as shaving them all bald, and to play live gigs with the Beach Boys to help sell his economic package.
That's not to say Murdoch's NY Post can be compared to a real newspaper, or even a high school newsletter or gossip rag. Indeed, this is by no means an argument that the nation's number one choice for lining dog kennels gave legitimacy when it has none to offer. This is an argument over the claim they meant no offense, and that there was no overt racism in their cartoon.
Most people, I'm sure, recognize this hypocrisy inherently. That's why it's so insulting to hear Murdoch or his minions at the New York Post tell the world that no offense was intended, and that we're the sick ones for thinking Sean Delonas was linking President Obama to a mad chimp. But not just any mad chimp, try a mad chimp that had to be shot; and not because it ripped the eyes off a woman, bit off her nose and nearly tore off her jaw; but because the chimp's economic stimulus plan warranted the killing.