Newsflash to all you Morons and Grifter Apologists: just because something is a cartoon does NOT mean it's for kids, and just because something presents itself as a coloring page, does not mean that is it's actually intent.
If you Deplorables had bothered to check your facts before wasting everyone's time, you might have discovered that "Non Sequitur" is NOT a
children soldering corner, it's a social and political commentary and satire cartoon.
And yes, I'm looking at you Angela and Ginny and "Notachance".
And kids who are old enough to read, and smart enough to catch the wording, are fully capable of not imploding upon stumbling upon a naughty word.
The statue no more depicts a "caricature of an African American man" than it depicts a caricature of Foster.
The comments on implicit racism are wholly misinformed, and are even more reprehensible coming from academics who should know better. in particular, Kirk Savage's comments evince the logic, or lack thereof, of this twisting of truth.
The fact that "it was designed by a handful of civic elites who 'lived in a white supremacist, segregated society,' in no way, shape, or form proves it is racist, and the fact that he hangs his hat on this logical fallacy is telling. That he adds, The idea of the faithful slave dies so hard its a really, really powerful myth in our society, further underscores the lack of logical reasoning and factual history being employed here. While this sentiment might be appealing to some, being that the statue does NOT depict any such thing, what, exactly, is his point?
All that is being done here is a rather juvenile, superficial, and sophomoric level analysis of intent based almost solely on the topological relationship between the two figures in the piece. But that arrangement does NOT imply what the critics are claiming it implies. Rather, as the subject of the statue in the first place, Foster figures the most prominently. Why is this surprising? Nevertheless, the sculptor wished to acknowledge Foster's reliance and dependence for his popularity on the musical legacy that preceded him, and in particular that of African American slaves, in the art he later created (leaving aside the fact that Foster's music actually owed more structurally to his Irish roots than to the music of African American slaves).
Far from being racist, this is an expression of racial indebtedness, interconnectedness, and acknowledgment.
This knee-jerk reactionary nonsense is little different than the current blowup over the statue of J. Marion Sims, whose
misinformed, or uninformed detractors are slandering and libeling with charges of racism, when even a cursory examination of the claims on the one side show them to be vacuous at best, if not wholly erroneous.
Personally, this reminds me directly of criticism I received when wearing an old T-Shirt with a picture of BuckWheat from "Our Gang" with the caption "O-Tay!", as racist. Nothing could be further from the truth. People making this claim are wholly uninformed. In fact, the character of Buckwheat, far from being racist, was the first depiction of and African American in American mass media as an equal character, the first to receive any sort of speaking role, and the directors faced a rather large amount of resistance to even including him.
His speech was not as a result of making a mockery of African American speech, but rather to emphasize the fact that in the original short films, he was intended to be (and in fact was) a toddler.
But facts don't receive much attention in such emotion laden, reactionary, reason-free debates.
The statue no more depicts a "caricature of an African American man" than it depicts a caricature of Foster.
The comments on implicit racism are wholly misinformed, and are even more reprehensible coming from academics who should know better. in particular, Kirk Savage's comments evince the logic, or lack thereof, of this twisting of truth.
The fact that "it was designed by a handful of civic elites who 'lived in a white supremacist, segregated society,' in no way, shape, or form proves it is racist, and the fact that he hangs his hat on this logical fallacy is telling. That he adds, The idea of the faithful slave dies so hard its a really, really powerful myth in our society, further underscores the lack of logical reasoning and factual history being employed here. While this sentiment might be appealing to some, being that the statue does NOT depict any such thing, what, exactly, is his point?
All that is being done here is a rather juvenile, superficial, and sophomoric level analysis of intent based almost solely on the topological relationship between the two figures in the piece. But that arrangement does NOT imply what the critics are claiming it implies. Rather, as the subject of the statue in the first place, Foster figures the most prominently. Why is this surprising. Nevertheless, the sculptor wished to acknowledge Foster's reliance and dependence on the musical legacy that preceded him, and in particular that of African American slaves, in the art he later created.
Far from being racist, this is an expression of racial indebtedness, interconnectedness, and acknowledgment.
This know-jerk reactionary nonsense is little different than the current blowup over the statue of J. Marion Sims, whose
misinformed, or uninformed detractors are slandering and libeling with charges of racism, when even a cursory examination of the claims on the one side show them to be vacuous at best, if not wholly erroneous.
Personally, this reminds me directly of criticism I received when wearing an old T-Shirt with a picture of BuckWheat from "Our Gang" with the caption "O-Tay!", as racist. Nothing could be further from the truth. People making this claim are wholly uninformed. In fact, the character of Buckwheat, far from being racist, was the first depiction of and African American in American mass media as an equal character, the first to receive any sort of speaking role, and the directors faced a rather large amount of resistance to even including him.
His speech was not as a result of making a mockery of African American speech, but rather to emphasize the fact that in the original short films, he was intended to be (and in fact was) a toddler.
But facts don't receive much attention in such emotion laden, reactionary, reason-free debates.
Unfortunately for the other commenters, we live in a democracy, and the people who actually live in the city of Pittsburgh have made clear that this is NOT how we wish to operate as a city and as a people.
Furthermore, I highly suspect that if we went through the books, we could find numerous legal violations that the two other posters are in violation of. So how about we lock them up too?
Also, immigration law as a whole is decidedly unConstitutional. The federal government is given NO power over immigration in the Constitution. None.
And this is by design. The founders had no intent to bare free access and travel by ANYONE to this country.
Funny how people on the right like to cry "Consitution" this and "founding fathers" that, without having even the first clue what's actually in the document and where this country's founders actually stood on the issues.
"I worked for a long time with the community, immigrants and refugees on those bills. I am less concerned about the title versus the substance of those bills."
If he were truly "less concerned about the title", given that many of those affected ARE concerned about it, he would have no problem with accepting the title and all that goes with it.
His comment belies his true intent.
You're not fooling anyone Mr. Gilman
Being honked at from behind by a moving vehicle about to pass you is NOT a "minor" incident. But thanks for making clear you have never ridden a bike on any city street, ever.
Recent Comments
If you Deplorables had bothered to check your facts before wasting everyone's time, you might have discovered that "Non Sequitur" is NOT a
children soldering corner, it's a social and political commentary and satire cartoon.
And yes, I'm looking at you Angela and Ginny and "Notachance".
And kids who are old enough to read, and smart enough to catch the wording, are fully capable of not imploding upon stumbling upon a naughty word.
The comments on implicit racism are wholly misinformed, and are even more reprehensible coming from academics who should know better. in particular, Kirk Savage's comments evince the logic, or lack thereof, of this twisting of truth.
The fact that "it was designed by a handful of civic elites who 'lived in a white supremacist, segregated society,' in no way, shape, or form proves it is racist, and the fact that he hangs his hat on this logical fallacy is telling. That he adds, The idea of the faithful slave dies so hard its a really, really powerful myth in our society, further underscores the lack of logical reasoning and factual history being employed here. While this sentiment might be appealing to some, being that the statue does NOT depict any such thing, what, exactly, is his point?
All that is being done here is a rather juvenile, superficial, and sophomoric level analysis of intent based almost solely on the topological relationship between the two figures in the piece. But that arrangement does NOT imply what the critics are claiming it implies. Rather, as the subject of the statue in the first place, Foster figures the most prominently. Why is this surprising? Nevertheless, the sculptor wished to acknowledge Foster's reliance and dependence for his popularity on the musical legacy that preceded him, and in particular that of African American slaves, in the art he later created (leaving aside the fact that Foster's music actually owed more structurally to his Irish roots than to the music of African American slaves).
Far from being racist, this is an expression of racial indebtedness, interconnectedness, and acknowledgment.
This knee-jerk reactionary nonsense is little different than the current blowup over the statue of J. Marion Sims, whose
misinformed, or uninformed detractors are slandering and libeling with charges of racism, when even a cursory examination of the claims on the one side show them to be vacuous at best, if not wholly erroneous.
Personally, this reminds me directly of criticism I received when wearing an old T-Shirt with a picture of BuckWheat from "Our Gang" with the caption "O-Tay!", as racist. Nothing could be further from the truth. People making this claim are wholly uninformed. In fact, the character of Buckwheat, far from being racist, was the first depiction of and African American in American mass media as an equal character, the first to receive any sort of speaking role, and the directors faced a rather large amount of resistance to even including him.
His speech was not as a result of making a mockery of African American speech, but rather to emphasize the fact that in the original short films, he was intended to be (and in fact was) a toddler.
But facts don't receive much attention in such emotion laden, reactionary, reason-free debates.
The comments on implicit racism are wholly misinformed, and are even more reprehensible coming from academics who should know better. in particular, Kirk Savage's comments evince the logic, or lack thereof, of this twisting of truth.
The fact that "it was designed by a handful of civic elites who 'lived in a white supremacist, segregated society,' in no way, shape, or form proves it is racist, and the fact that he hangs his hat on this logical fallacy is telling. That he adds, The idea of the faithful slave dies so hard its a really, really powerful myth in our society, further underscores the lack of logical reasoning and factual history being employed here. While this sentiment might be appealing to some, being that the statue does NOT depict any such thing, what, exactly, is his point?
All that is being done here is a rather juvenile, superficial, and sophomoric level analysis of intent based almost solely on the topological relationship between the two figures in the piece. But that arrangement does NOT imply what the critics are claiming it implies. Rather, as the subject of the statue in the first place, Foster figures the most prominently. Why is this surprising. Nevertheless, the sculptor wished to acknowledge Foster's reliance and dependence on the musical legacy that preceded him, and in particular that of African American slaves, in the art he later created.
Far from being racist, this is an expression of racial indebtedness, interconnectedness, and acknowledgment.
This know-jerk reactionary nonsense is little different than the current blowup over the statue of J. Marion Sims, whose
misinformed, or uninformed detractors are slandering and libeling with charges of racism, when even a cursory examination of the claims on the one side show them to be vacuous at best, if not wholly erroneous.
Personally, this reminds me directly of criticism I received when wearing an old T-Shirt with a picture of BuckWheat from "Our Gang" with the caption "O-Tay!", as racist. Nothing could be further from the truth. People making this claim are wholly uninformed. In fact, the character of Buckwheat, far from being racist, was the first depiction of and African American in American mass media as an equal character, the first to receive any sort of speaking role, and the directors faced a rather large amount of resistance to even including him.
His speech was not as a result of making a mockery of African American speech, but rather to emphasize the fact that in the original short films, he was intended to be (and in fact was) a toddler.
But facts don't receive much attention in such emotion laden, reactionary, reason-free debates.
Furthermore, I highly suspect that if we went through the books, we could find numerous legal violations that the two other posters are in violation of. So how about we lock them up too?
Also, immigration law as a whole is decidedly unConstitutional. The federal government is given NO power over immigration in the Constitution. None.
And this is by design. The founders had no intent to bare free access and travel by ANYONE to this country.
Funny how people on the right like to cry "Consitution" this and "founding fathers" that, without having even the first clue what's actually in the document and where this country's founders actually stood on the issues.
If he were truly "less concerned about the title", given that many of those affected ARE concerned about it, he would have no problem with accepting the title and all that goes with it.
His comment belies his true intent.
You're not fooling anyone Mr. Gilman
-A resident in your district.