I hate this comparison between these two women.

A bit Tumblr? I'm not sure what that means, but it doesn't sound good!

From a couple of previous interactions with Olivia, I don't think she debates in good faith. I do find it quite tiresome and I don't find it easy to engage with her constructively. Dissenting views are great, but whataboutery and "oh, aren't you silly to get worked up over this" less so.

Nell Irvin Painter's book 'The History of White People' is very good at explaining how the concept of race was constructed around both the economics of slavery and ideals of feminine beauty. There are some videos of her speaking about it on YouTube. She's a very good speaker.

The cartoon follows those old racist tropes, as Vestal said.

I also agree with Lass that there is some horrific racism on the Internet. It can be a very depressing place.

Selkie, you're sounding a bit Tumblr. Olivia having a dissenting view is part of what creates discussion.

Agree Buffy. It cuts both ways.

YY buffy

Up to a point, FreshwaterSelkie. I agree that you'd be bone-headed to tell someone else how they feel or how they should feel. But in social exchanges, no one gets to unilaterally dictate all the terms of engagement. That said, I think quencher has been pretty reasonable throughout this thread. Meanwhile, Olivia seems to be living in a bubble without realising it. She may be to proud to admit that she has got it wrong, but over time, some of this may sink in and she may think before she opens her mouth in real life.

I don't disagree about free speech, 80K, I'm in broadly the same camp. I would rather that unpleasant views (that stop short of actual hate speech, by which I mean "Kill all the x" or "eliminate everyone who is y"), be aired so we can all get a good look at them and point and laugh if they're stupid. I don't hold with banning or no-platforming or twitter shaming-storms in general.

But I do think that the people who get to define if a thing is "ist" or not (racist, sexist etc) should be the people it's predominantly designed to be hateful towards. Shouldn't it?

I tend to be pretty extreme on free speech. I'd rather offend and be offended than to let bad ideas fester. Olivia is giving her point of view and the majority are rebutting it rather well.

It's also racist because it reuses old tropes about black women, that have little relevance to FLOTUS but that will understood by the type of person that sees racism as comedy. You will always get people who think that free speech means being able to say whatever you want regardless of other people, it's sad they still exist, but every generation has its throwbacks.

Ah. I was right, then.

Not sure why I'm comical, though. As it goes, I am a laugh riot, but that post wasn't one of my hilair ones.

Anyone with even the remotest sense of what free speech and honest, respectful debate is, will, I'm sure, find your post as comical as I do Fresh

I'm not 100% sure, because I don't know Olivia's ethnicity, but I'm pretty sure we just saw a white person tell a woman of colour not to make a fuss about racism

I'd LOVE to be wrong because that is messed up.

It's racist, not because it negatively portrays a black person, but because it draws on long-established racist tropes to do so. Showing a black woman as mannish and angry deliberately plays to racist stereotypes. Attacking her attractiveness is sexist because it's the kind of criticism that is largely reserved for women. If she were shown as money grabbing and crafty that would be unpleasant but not racist, whereas a similar portrayal of a Jewish person would be anti-Semitic. That's the point of stereotypes - they are group-specific. Making false equivalences with groups who wouldn't be offended by that, or insisting that all negative representations should be seen as just neutral critique misses the point.

And yes, freedom of speech is irrelevant to this debate. I don't want the cartoonist arrested. I just think his cartoon is a piece of shit.

First rule of comedy, Spike....

Shit has to be funny, yes? This has all the hallmarks of a 10 year old's work. Political cartoons can be ruthless, funny, cutting, shocking, controversial and sometimes even cruel. But there has to be an underlying truth, and the best ones manage all of this with a degree of intelligence. This ticks none of these boxes. It is shallow, childish and moronic. The fact that the cartoonist has to name the characters he is attempting to portray in big fuck-off letters tells you all you need to know about him and his intended audience.

That cartoon is rascist in the first instance and misogynist in the second. Fwiw I think Michelle Obama is a stunning and intelligent woman and I know nothing about Donald Trump's wife except that she has awful taste in men.

I dont see how this cartoon is drawing on racist stereotyping because Michelle's depicted as tall and muscular. She is both those things, and this is a flipping cartoon FGS, it's a mixture of absurdity and truth, aimed at the type of person with a rather shallow understanding.

It's in the nature of cartoons to be ruthless and to mock. Michelle is not exempt because she's black .. Sorry but that would be, er discriminatory.

In the late 18th cen', there was a move to ban Gilray's cartoons as he ruthlessly rendered in cartoons the monarch as fat, greedy, feckless and lazy etc. If you were a cartoonist sitting down to draw a cartoon depiction of Michelle OB, what angle would you take to 'get her' then? A black woman is not entitled to special, hands-off treatment from crude satire because of what her status, her gender, racial background or who her husband happens to be. This isn't Saudi Arabia or North Korea. The right to be insensitive, even about the way someone looks, in particular those with, or with an influence on power, comes with the freedom of expression that has been fought and died for.

Of course it is difficult to draw cartoon of someone black without someone getting offended, but I'm sure Michelle Obama isn't the type of sheltered cry baby who's going to get all indignant over this type of silliness....

In hindsight, what they are saying is for the First Lady to be great, she has to be sexual

Has this always been the case though, even recently? Previous first ladies did not suffer this (as far as I am aware, but I am a Brit - I might be wrong). Barbara Bush and Nancy Reagan were widely admired, weren't they? How much of this is widespread sexism/racism, and how much is just the toxicity of Trump and the kind of people he represents?

Quencher, thank you for such insightful posts. I knew that the cartoon bothered me for both its sexism and its racism, and you've helped me to articulate exactly why.

In your shoes, though, I would probably not waste any more wear and tear on my keyboard explaining it to Oliviaclottedcream. That she doesn't get it is because she seems heavily invested in not getting it - you've explained it as clearly as it can be explained. The cartoon is the visual counterpart to the horrific online abuse Malia Obama suffered for having the sheer bloody nerve to get a place at a prestigious college while being black. The number of mouth breathing knuckle draggers who would actually share this cartoon might be small, but this thread neatly illustrates that the population who would tacitly endorse it by refusing to admit that it's a problem is probably quite a bit larger.

Didn't Donald Trump previously make a similar comparison between Melania and Heidi Cruz? The man is a dangerous, grade A weapon who actively encourages this shit. How on earth can the American public not see what every other nation can?

Seriously bringing in something Joan Rivers said into your argument who didn't JR insult it was all done on the name of humour (not everyone's) no one took it seriously

The cartoon is a disgrace. Michelle Obama has suffered from horrendous racism hidden behind sexism

Both women are portrayed in a terribly negative sexist way but just because no blatantly obvious racist statement are being made doesn't mean they are not there and can't be seen