I’m not sure I understand the premise.
I have pretty much always thought Elliott was a boorish tool.
Not trying to be difficult.
For my own part, I’ve been trying to think of black people that I don’t really think of as black.
Eddie Murphy. Bill Cosby. Ummm…
May mean something, may mean nothing.
Edit: Oh! You mean did I still think of Elliott as rich when he went bankrupt?
Of course. Rich people go bankrupt and it doesn’t affect them. Bond, Trump, Skase.
Bankruptcy is just a rich persons get out of jail free card.
Edit: edit: Heh. That was supposed to be a euphemism, but…no, literally.
A friend of mine grew up on the northern beaches of sydney. Very very much old money. Daughter of a professor at USyd.
Some other girl at her (very exclusive) high school said “my daddy isn’t rich, he’s only got a 3 series”.
a picture, description, or imitation of a person in which certain striking characteristics are exaggerated in order to create a comic or grotesque effect.
Nothing in that caricature has been added to make her look more racial stereotyped or anything other than normal style as described in the definition. Yes there is a history in caricature of depicting blacks like that just as there is a history of depicting all races, genders & creeds. Its the style of drawing FFS. It would be like calling sepia photos racist because they don’t show a persons true colour or saying cubism is offensive to people who suffer facial deformations.
Yep. That’s what I was trying to get at. To try and work out whether privilege ever really goes away - cos I don’t think it does. It’s a part of your person. How much would John Elliott have to ■■■■ the bed before he really stopped getting opportunities, invitations and investors? He went bankrupt at least once, and the tap seems to be going.
And if that’s the case, I think being underprivileged might be the same. Or at least it may well feel like that.
Then why did you post an example of a cartoon as a counter point? That highlighted pretty clearly to me that you didn’t understand the difference. Can you point out a single feature of the particular caricature that you believe is race based as opposed to subject based? Can you suggest a way to separate a persons race from their appearance in order to keep with the style of caricature?
Again you show no understanding of what caricature is. No that is not Serena Williams - its a caricature of her just as the examples I poster earlier are. All have similar features & exaggerations in keeping with the style of drawing. If it was simply a portrait of her as accurately as possible it wouldn’t be a caricature.
Btw this is not Serena Williams either but I’m going to assume you know who it is even though its got similar exxagerations
Take the tennis gear and the headband away and I might struggle.
Might.
jfc…I know what caricature is.
My point, one of them, is that this cartoon does Not exagerate Serena’s features.
It is Not a caricature of her.
It is unfuckingrecognisable as her.
It’s a savage put in a tennis setting.
And it’s offensive and it’s as ugly as ■■■■ and it is Not Serena Williams.
