Talking about this post, and bring you directly to the point-
Eric Olsen

Let me see if I get all of this straight: racism is fine as long as the object of the racism is "not on your side," which I assume is determined by political position.

Project 21 has "no credibility" because there are white people involved at some level, or because it is a conservative organization? Weren't white people involved in the founding of the NAACP?

Who determines legitimacy? And who determines who is and who isn't "politically aware"?

And when is "simple caricature" that includes "racist symbolism" okay? Is that also determined by political position?

I figured there were two comments there that could be responded to: the second and the fourth. The first is a spin that he would have to justify rather the me explain, defend or take any kind of responsibility for. The third is simple proof he did not get all of this straight. Mac was whacking any Project 21 references for the moment, so that left number four…in a less noisy environment I would simply have asked "where has anyone said that?" But I didn't have a less noisy environment so I wrote this instead.

And when is "simple caricature" that includes "racist symbolism" okay? Is that also determined by political position?

No, that is not the question I asked.

I asked how can you tell which is simple characature and which is racist symbolism.

I also make the point that none of this matters to those whining about civil rights organizations not defending Dr. Rice's honor except as an opportunity to excoriate a couple of Black folks.

And I'll go further.

You can't show me a genuinely racist portrayal in editorial cartoons…we ARE talking editorial cartoons, not something unimportant like employment, housing or education…that has not been rejected by the civil rights organizations.

To which Eric replied

I see, so symbolism only counts sometimes, as determined by .. whom, exactly?

What astonishes me is ANYONE having the gall to set themselves up as the arbiter of who is and who is not "legitmate" and worthy of being treated with simple human dignity, based upon, for all I have heard thus far, their political affiliation.

I guess the 10-15% (or whatever the exact number is) of African-Americans who happen to be Republican or conservative deserve whatever racism comes their way. After all, they asked for it by having the outrageous, automatically delegitimizing nerve, or lack or intelligence, or lack of "political awareness," or some other heinous crime not yet defined; but whatever IT is, it's their own fault and they deserve whatever racism comes their way, right?

…which I did NOT get to there, so I'll get to it her.

I see, so symbolism only counts sometimes, as determined by .. whom, exactly?

Symbolism counts when it's valid symbolism. But that has nothing to do with my question. In fact, I ask a question and Eric spins it into a statement I haven't and wouldn't make because he can't answer it…and without being able to clearly delineate what is objectionable the whole argument gets flushed.

A couple of folks tried to get all rational at this point, in particular jadester

er...just on the ponit of caricatures again, Eric, check out this definition from (funnily enough) dictionary.com:
"A representation, especially pictorial or literary, in which the subject's distinctive features or peculiarities are deliberately exaggerated to produce a comic or grotesque effect"
i would figure that, therefore, of course you can expect to see "racial" features present in a caricature of a coloured person. Exactly as you would in a caricature of a white person. Or a martian. Or a cat. That's the point of caricatures, they exaggerate identifiable features, most often to the ponit of absurdity. And i say again, i bet you've never complained about caricatures of white politicans.
Sure, caricatures are almost universally mean about their subjects, but if you're gonna complain about one you should complain about them all.

and Jon Sobel

I just checked out the Project 21 website. Its tone, at least, supports Mac Diva's claim that it's a "front," in the sense of being a right-wing propaganda machine aimed at black Americans rather than an organization specifically concerned with the well-being of African-Americans. Get this: they put out a press release about a website run by one of their members which "details ties between Saddam Hussein and terrorism" with, at the bottom, a description of themselves as a "nonpartisan organization." I'll skip making the usual criticisms of such propaganda and merely ask, What the hell does that subject have to do with black people, white people, or any color people?

Their stated mission is to "promote the views of African-Americans whose entrepreneurial spirit, dedication to family and commitment to individual responsibility has not traditionally been echoed by the nation's civil rights establishment." I'd like to know in what sense the civil rights establishment has not echoed these things. They think the civil rights movement was about anti-family and pro-welfare state? Is that what they're saying? Pretty darn partisan (and disingenuous) if you ask me.