Image impact
May. 2nd, 2008 10:27 pmHaving a very interesting conversation with Foxtrot comparing a couple of images. Rather than recreating the discussion here, I'll post the two images and see what y'all think of them.

Edit: Some people weren't seeing the proper image on the left before. I replaced it with a different version of the image, should work now.

Edit: Some people weren't seeing the proper image on the left before. I replaced it with a different version of the image, should work now.
no subject
Date: 2008-05-03 03:04 am (UTC)The second one is pretty offensive. It sort of looks like the guy in center is giving like some sort of white power salute (which is reinforced by the fact that the comic is called "American Power"), and is surrounded by evil threatening or dying Arabs. Egh.
no subject
Date: 2008-05-03 03:17 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-05-03 03:21 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-05-03 03:27 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-05-03 03:26 am (UTC)Captain America is one of my favorite superheroes, but I'm not a fan of how he (or other superheroes) were used as propaganda during WW2. The infamous Superman "You can slap a Jap!" cover comes to mind.
no subject
Date: 2008-05-03 03:27 am (UTC)Yeah, that's also pretty fucked up.
I guess the point is that when they punch out Hitler, it's at least not racist.
no subject
Date: 2008-05-03 03:33 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-05-03 04:22 am (UTC)I do remember someone arguing that at some pointin US history, various kinds of Europeans, like Italians and Irish and Germans, weren't thought of as actually "white" in some sense. But I think by that point Germans were.
no subject
Date: 2008-05-03 05:02 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-05-03 05:13 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-05-03 05:15 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-05-03 01:34 pm (UTC)1) My father (Jewish) is "racist" (or at least biased) against Germans. He calls it "racial guilt" - he feels that they are all still guilty of what they perpetrated in the Holocaust, and he feels that the culture of the country today is still the same as it was during WW2. He of course has no evidence for this. I wouldn't be surprised if he interacts differently with Aryan-looking people, though I haven't observed it personally, making the "race" part more noticeable. I do not think he assigns any racial guilt to white Americans for enslaving blacks.
2) various kinds of Europeans, like Italians and Irish and Germans, weren't thought of as actually "white" in some sense
I've heard that too. What are Jews considered? And Arabic/Middle Eastern (whatever's the appropriate PC word) peoples?
no subject
Date: 2008-05-03 04:55 pm (UTC)Then again there was also a certain kind of anti-German racism in Europe that was different. After WWII, Czechoslovakia expelled most ethnic Germans from the country (as did a number of other countries), and in the wake of the war there was widespread violence against Czechs who had German or Austrian surnames. This, as far as I can tell, never quite existed in the same way in America. We honestly can't even tell the difference, visually, between Germans and non-Germans, nor are we even that good at telling German surnames from Dutch. We probably had prejudice against German speakers, though. People with "Aryan" features are just as likely, or more, to be Norse or Swedish or Swiss (and there are plenty of dark-haired Germans). I guess it's almost as hard for me to conceive of American racism against Germans as it is for me to conceive of American racism against Nigerians - we wouldn't know the difference between a Nigerian and any other North African.
2) I think the same source claimed Jews weren't "white" until a while into the 20th Century, but are now (except, of course, for sephardic Jews, who look African or Arabic). Arabs used to be considered "caucasian" but clearly are not currently considered "white." They seem to have turned into a racial category in people's minds.
no subject
Date: 2008-05-05 02:30 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-05-05 05:00 pm (UTC)Second, look at the effects: during WWII, America rounded up and imprisoned every ethnically Japanese person (and, I think, many other Asians) in America, including citizens whose families had been living in the US for generations. They didn't round up and imprison Herbert Hoover, or any other ethnic Germans in the US. The prejudice against Japanese was completely different because it had to do with race: people were more likely to think that Japanese were somehow fundamentally, naturally different, and more likely to claim that they just "couldn't tell" the difference among Japanese people in some fundamental way (I mean, just think how silly it is to imprison Japanese people who were born here because, among other things, people couldn't tell the difference between them and newly-landed spies).
It's also different because the xenophobia against Germans was completely tied to the war: people were actually quite pro-German until WWI, and in the inter-war period they were also relatively pro-German; people in the US were praising Hitler's leadership almost right until we declared war on Germany. We elected an ethnically German president in 1928. Nobody made a big deal out of the fact that he was German. It basically didn't matter in any way. After WWII, American hostility to Germans lingered for maybe a few decades and has since almost completely evaporated except for a few tasteless jokes. In terms of the scale of social oppression that American anti-German sentiment caused, it's just nowhere near the kinds of pervasive, centuries-long discrimination based on physical features that I'd refer to as "racism."
no subject
Date: 2008-05-03 04:45 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-05-03 04:44 am (UTC)1) I don't read it as bin Ladin, I read it as Arabs. Therefore it is condemning a class of people not based upon their beliefs regarding the US, but upon their religion (and religion and politics are not a one-to-one relationship). The first is about the individual Hitler, not a group of people, and if it was a group it'd be Nazis, which *is* a political belief.
2) The second one reads as hateful, the first reads as mocking. This may be primarily b/c of the color choice, and in the first one they had a restricted palette of colors that were acceptable, so that's part of why I posted this w/o commentary at first, to see if others agreed with this assessment. I read the first one as mocking and as taking power away from Hitler by making him an absurdity, while the second is all about hate and fear.
no subject
Date: 2008-05-03 04:54 am (UTC)I think part of the tone difference is the freedom comics have at the moment. The WW2 comics were under the oversight of the CCA (and primarily directed at kids), I don't think they were allowed to show deaths (other than that of the main villain sometimes). Now, comics are treated as any other form of work, and thus there's a bit more realism, a good bit more violence.
I don't know. To me, both look like propaganda pieces, and so I feel the same about both.
no subject
Date: 2008-05-04 12:33 am (UTC)*cough* Um, either you mean "ethnicity" instead of "religion" or you mean "Muslims" instead of "Arabs". Which?
no subject
Date: 2008-05-04 12:54 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-05-03 04:29 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-05-03 04:47 am (UTC)just asmore evil to me than the man he's punching. Even the fact that his face is covered makes it less wholesome looking than it could be, than Captain America's half-mask.no subject
Date: 2008-05-03 05:07 am (UTC)Not like I have a problem with BDSM, but I do sort of have a problem with enacting that kind of role in real life