Which of these symbols incite racial hatred?

[Aldgarkalaughskel]

Which of these symbols incite racial hatred in your opinion?

1.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

2.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

[gambit]

Red herring.

[Aldgarkalaughskel]

Check definition of red herring before you use it.

[gambit]

Red Herring, distracting the argument with something irrelevant.

I think the blacks portrayed in the Tintin comics are unquestioningly skewed by steretypes, and yes I KNOW black people do have big lips but come on. They're obviously drawn to look like monkeys. But I'm looking past that since it's a simple stereotype in a time when culturally thats how it was. Comparing it to Nazi Germany is just.. tedious.

[Homeros]

There will always be people feeling offended.

They are only pictures, its what people feel and think when looking at them that matters. You can see whatever you like in them. I'm sure there're people who see racial hatred in a picture of flowers ...

[Tigrul]

The only "fault" that the swastika has is that it was used by idiots such as adolf hitler and the bunch of bigoted retards following his lead. There is nothing inherently wrong with that symbol.

There might be something inherently racial about tintin, but... that is stretching it... heavily. Just because a set of comics presents racial stereotype does not make it wrong in anyway. It's simply having fun. And the attitude of most people on this is incredibly hypocrite. No one condemns caucasian stereotypes. Why is Popeye less of a racial offense than the master of Tom in "Tom and Jerry"?

[Aldgarkalaughskel]

I believe Tintin comics were made to entertain children. The Congo episode can be simply taken as humour derived from stereotypes, not a mockery.

Whereas the Nazi Swastika was used as a symbol to rally millions of people to extend German "Lebensraum" by exterminating millions of Jews and other ethnic / religious groups.

There will always be people feeling offended.

They are only pictures, its what people feel and think when looking at them that matters. You can see whatever you like in them. I'm sure there're people who see racial hatred in a picture of flowers ...

I showed the TinTin image to a black friend of mine (he's from Jamaica) and he laughed at the notion that someone could interpret it as racist. He said if Tintin is racist, then Popeye is too, it shows that white people are incapable of doing anything without eating spinach. Not my words...

[Tigrul]

Whereas the Nazi Swastika was used as a symbol to rally millions of people to extend German "Lebensraum" by exterminating millions of Jews and other ethnic / religious groups.

That doesn't make the swastika wrong in any way. If you go to Northern India, and North and East of India, you'll see swastika all over the place. You'll also find the swastika in past cultures. Just because adolf hitler was insane and used that symbol for his highly condemnable actions should not reflect on the swastika. adolf hitler also used "gott mit uns", and yet I don't see any of you condemning the idea of "god" as being nazist.

And another example is the Iron Cross, which I have as a ring I used to wear on my finger. The Iron Cross was first handed out on March 13th 1810, and yet, people associate it with nazism. That's just stupid. Just because some humanoid scumbags did horrible things and used the Iron Cross, among other symbols, doesn't make that symbol a bad one. (I did stop wearing that ring, mostly because a lot of neo-legionary !$%s in my country used to greet me, and I really can't stand legionaries, and I condemn their ideas)

[Homeros]

I believe Tintin comics were made to entertain children. The Congo episode can be simply taken as humour derived from stereotypes, not a mockery.

I showed the TinTin image to a black friend of mine (he's from Jamaica) and he laughed at the notion that someone could interpret it as racist. He said if Tintin is racist, then Popeye is too, it shows that white people are incapable of doing anything without eating spinach. Not my words...

You can also look at the TinTin image and see a white servant driving his black master around.

[Manco]

I think the problem with TinTin image is that while other races are drawn stereotypically (Asians slant eyed, Native Americans' with very straight facial features and so on), the Congolese are purposefully drawn in a very caricatural way that is completely different from anything else in the comics. Couple this with the Belgian-Congolese history (which some people on the forums actually use as ameliorating circumstances; but I can't disagree more) and the very paternalistic adn oppressive attitude towards the Congolese, and I find the pictures slightly racist as well.

IMO the drawings being an example of the 30's Zeitgeist and accepted attitude towards Africans, doesn't change the fact that it was a racist Zeitgeist and attitude.

[Poach]

I find such arguments against Tin tin as pointless as the arguments against "racist" parts of Disney productions. Quite simply, they were created in a time when sensitivity about racism was far less prominent as it is today, and people judging these works by modern standards need to get a grip.

Yes, today they would qualify as racist, but the producers were not trying to spread a racist message by producing these works, and as such I disagree that they cause racial problems. It's idiots interpreting it as racist that cause the problems.

[Banana Jelly]

I dont think the svastica is anything racial. Really. Its just the sign of how many people the nazi's kill if i see it. I dont get offended. I think number 1 is a bit confusing there

[Watchman]

Tintin in the Congo was drawn back when everyone who had pretensions of being something had colonies, lexicons pretty much defined "plains negroes" and "mountain negroes" as two distinct species (though both cheerful and possessing an ear for music) and the British recruited their Indian soldiers from the "martial races" of the subcontinent.
The comic *is* sort of distasteful, but that's because of its patronising "white man's burden" colonial attitude and message only too typical of its times; IIRC it is very much devoid of any message of racial hate.
So meh.

More or less what everyone has said of the swastika, though I'll give you that particular black-on-white-on-red incarnation *was* the Nazi banner, the poseurs. Neither it nor the emblem of the Totenkopf division do much "inciting of racial hatred" by themselves though - I mean for starters you need to actually know the historical background of both to even understand their significance, and even then they're nothing more than fairly abstract images; by their lonesomes they do exactly nothing.

Inciting racial hatred requires words.

[magpie]

None of the above images are racist in themselves, They can be linked to certain era,s of our cultures and histories.
I could probably dig up images used to portray Irish people which were popular with certain leading publications in the early 20th century.
The thing is we are now living in what I would call the victim era, anyone can get on their high horse and shout racist and know they will receive backing for the most flimsy of cases.

[Trey]

The first one makes me not want to be around black people

[Pious Agnost]

None.

It's all about context.

[Claudius Gothicus]

None.

It's all about context.

Exactly +rep, plus people incite racial hatred not symbols, symbols are meaningless without people act upon what those symbols hold.

[edswarnok]

My disposition is not nearly weak enough to be affected in any way by images, sorry...

[Taxandrius]

the problem is most flamers fail to see any context, though it is the only thing that matters

[Habelo]

is this a serious thread or is everyone just joking and me not seeing it? :S