• a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one’s own race is superior and has the right to rule others.
• hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.

I don’t think either of those definitions apply here. Like I said, Oliphant wouldn’t “tend toward” Obama if he thought whites were superior to blacks or if he hated them. Period.

Furthermore, if Oliphant was insensitive to blacks then he would have included Obama, who identifies as a black man, in his stereotype. He didn’t because he doesn’t feel the stereotype applies to all blacks, which he would have to for him to even be characterized as an indiscriminate bigot.

The big lips, I will submit were unnecessary, but don’t cross the line of racism. Tacky, yes. As for the basketball and expensive-looking sneakers I don’t get your point. Are you claiming that the thug culture youths he (Obama) was lecturing don’t play basketball or buy expensive shoes. I assure you that he is not the first to point out their penchant for unnecessarily expensive shoes.

The “talking white” quip was not intended to imply that personal responsibility is alien to the black community. I would argue that it is more of a reference to the tendency for some blacks, again primarily in the thug culture, to lash out at fellow blacks whom they feel are too cozy with whites. This is often manifested in the form of calling them an “Uncle Tom.” One of my best friends growing up was a black guy who is one of the smartest guys I’ve ever known. The two of us constantly competed in academic competitions and what not (ok, that sounds pretty dorky). I distinctly remember other guys mocking him for being “too white.” Presumably they would have preferred him to languish in their studies as they did. (Fortunately he did not give in to their baiting and went on to get an engineering degree and work at a major corporation.) So Oliphant’s choice of words can’t be offensive, in my opinion, because I’ve seen similar language used by irresponsible kids before.

But, to hammer home a point, Oliphant cannot be considered racist since he clearly doesn’t hate black people and in his work, which is supposed to be provocative, does not exclusively (or even frequently) use black stereotypes when representing a black person.

As for Oliphant’s “need” to use stereotypes, there are degrees of charicature. Any political cartoonist is going to use readily identifiable “types” to a certain extent, in order to tell his readers what the subject of the cartoon is. But when you move past making an identifiably young black man and make him a black man with stereotypically large lips, holding a basketball and wearing expensive-looking sneakers, you are going beyond “necessary” character type-casting and venturing into overt racism. Further, one of the most offensive aspects of the cartoon was the reference to Obama “talking white”, as if the ideas of personal responsibility are intrinsically white and alien to the black community. That simply is not true, as can be seen by considering the setting of Obama’s speech: in an all-black church.

I welcome any and all debate on topics like this. Drop by the blog, leave a comment, tell me how wrong I am.

Incidentally, before anyone starts to see me as another “angry black guy”, you should know that I’m a white man with a professional degree (and it isn’t in sociology)

At least you understand that this is a free country - that is a start.

Oliphant has the right draw racist cartoons.

The Huntsville Times has the right to print racist cartoons.

People who object to the racist cartoon have the right to object.

People who like the racist cartoon have the right to like it.

God Bless America!