The Tennis thread


If you just left the face I’d defy you to have identified her.

He’s not drawing ‘Williams’ here. That’s why it’s racist.
Not because she’s throwing a tantrum. Not because of the dummy in the corner.
Because he’s drawn her as a generic uncivilised savage.


hey guys is [herald sun content] racist?


I’ll let people who write letters to the Herald Sun decide.


It’s definitely unflattering, and I could easily see her being more upset at the “largeness” of the depiction, … but one is in the foreground, the others not, … so perspective and all that too.

But really,… a caricature is supposed to exaggerate features, … and I don’t see how doing so makes a cartoon suddenly racist dependent on race.

Gillards big bum, and big nose exaggerated way off the page,… not racist, but calls of sexist at the time, … John Howards eyebrows short stature, and wibbly mouth hugely exaggerated?? Nought?

I’m sure all were offended by the exaggerated depictions of themselves, and they have every right to be, … but I don’t see how justifiable arguments can be made for racism/sexism for some, and not others.


Again, . bulldust. Complete bulldust IMO, … but you see what you see I guess.


Well considering she has blond hair then maybe he does know how to depict her?


It’s pretty easy.
Draw a caricature of that person. Not a generalisation of that person’s background.
Don’t make them look like an ape.

Then again, I’m pretty sure you used the word “mongoloid” in serious conversation on this forum a few months back.
Maybe this is not your strong suit.



Yes I did, in an historical reference, which you completely misconstrued.

My creds are fine on this topic. Fk, … how can you be both a SJW/Hippie/Greeny and not be …

Some see Ape?? Some a what Savage?? I just see an exaggerated caricature of a tennis player called Serena. Perhaps how people see something is more telling of themselves?

Anyway, Knight got what he wanted, … contoversy & klix, … so well played to him I guess.


The old “out of context” excuse.
it wasn’t taken out of context. You said there were 3 subspecies of humans, as a defence for using it in some other context.

Mongoloid/negroid/caucasoid was 18th? 19th? century thinking, largely posited to support “the natural order of things” - ie slavery. Discredited a looooong time ago. At about the same time phrenology and “criminal types” went out the window.

If you still want to hold onto that as legit, I can’t help but imagine it’s informing what you’re posting here. ie there’s a “negroid type” or some other such bullshit.


Agreed. If we all choose to get uppity about the exaggeration of common features, parody & caracature will be be dumbed down to stick figures.


It was about Negro being racist or not, and that nearly all of the older Afro Americans self identify as such, and don’t find it offensive at all,… it’s only in recent decades (post MalcolmX) that it was now considered so by many, and was explaining where the term had come from - Negroid Mongoloid etc, … it was about terms that were perfectly acceptable, and in fact scientific, are then later considered offensive because of the perceptions of people, and or how those terms come to be used. I actually still find the term “Black” bristling, as it was not the done thing when I grew up, but is now perfectly acceptable, and was identifying how these things are generational.


“Recent decades” is post malcolm X? Ie post 1965?

How ■■■■■■■ old are you!!!



Good to see a gracious winner


Old enough to know better, and young enough to do it all again.


He died in the 60s. I’m not sure it’s relevant whatsoever. Much less some good old days. Lynchings were still happening, schools weren’t integrated. The whole issue has (thankfully) moved on a million miles since then, in the US and elsewhere.


I think your problems run deeper than questionable vision.


how can it be racist and fact?


won’t even thank america for the great time.

telling really.