Pretty much the conservative argument against civil rights in a single panel. To be clear, I don’t think anyone is interested in “ruling” those poor stooges of the republican grift machine, but I think nothing scares them more than the idea of black folks (or women, or “the gays”) in positions of equality or authority.
They fear that their own transgressions will be revisited upon them. That they might actually reap what they have sown.
Conservative minds have never been capable of imagining a fair and equitable society. Hierarchy, to them, is necessary as a function of human existence. Therefore, they will always fight to be, or to be perceived as part of, the ruling class.
I don’t agree with that all hierarchy is bad; a tree structure allows scaling. But The Peter Principle book explained why they result in society being shit.
At the time this comic came out, it would have been Democrats, not Republicans, who were viewed as the party of conservative racists. This is pre-Nixon and his Southern Strategy
Yes yes, I knew someone would bring up the southern strategy. Thank you. Changes nothing. It’s the same sorts of people being shitty in the same sorts of ways. Where they congregate at any moment in history is independent of that. They are always conservatives, and today they own our republicans.
I am receiving reports that this comic is racist. Correct me if I am wrong. Although the story itself depicts an extremely racist and violent event, it seems more like a protest against the racism that was the norm in society at the time.
Southern chivalry is analogous to Southern hospitality; it is a specific set of manners that reflect the ideals of the region. It was called chivalry before women could vote, after which chivalry was seen as old fashioned and the phrase changed into hospitality.
Maybe, but I don’t think so, at least not directly. I can’t find a source, though.
I just think the concept of Knights and Arthurian stuff was popular, and they just both came from the same general popular ideas, instead of one coming from the other.
This also would have been the time period relatively shortly after the Civil war. The south is currently coming up with excuses to still not treat recently freed slaves very well, the KKK is rising in power and just recently the conservative Democrat party has taken over the south just a year or 2 ago by killing a large portion of the black Republican base and representatives.
Keeping them down to not risk having to be treated the same is absolutely all the rage in the south despite it causing a massive economic depression. This definitely feels like satire.
Yeah, reading comprehension has taken a nosedive in the past 5-10 years. You see it a lot with places like TikTok and Insta, where people are constantly adding “this is only about this one particular group” types of disclaimers.
Like if you make a joke about a certain disability you have, you also need to add a disclaimer that it’s only talking about that one specific disability and not others. Because if you don’t, you’ll get buried in “BuT mY disAbiLitY is dIffEreNt aNd tHiS shOulDn’T be tArgeTed aT Me” types of comments. Like yes, of course it’s not targeted at you. You’re not the intended audience. But you could likely still appreciate the joke from a distance, if you were able to discern who the intended audience is.
Like being able to interpret undertones and infer the intended audience is part of basic reading comprehension. You should be able to read a comic, and figure out both who the intended reader is, and what a joke is targeting. But that skill seems to be getting more and more rare as time goes on. It’s something all of my English teacher friends have separately complained about, because the majority of their students are missing basic reading comprehension skills like this.
This joke clearly isn’t punching down on the black baby. It’s making fun of racists and racism, not encouraging it.
Do what? The source you linked stated it was about a white (U.S.) southerner and a black child. What “indigenous” person do you think is depicted here…?
Edit: original comment said this was about a “colonist” and an “indigenous person”.
I’m being a little technical, but I think it’s important. He/she would have been either an ex-slave, or a child of slaves, or just in general an African most likely. But definitely not “a slave”.
People don’t know shit about nuance anymore. If your art isn’t obvious and the message isn’t directly in your face, young people now can’t process it and don’t know if they should be outraged, they do love to be outraged.
Add comment