Hello_Kittys wrote:They felt hurt, so it's racism.
Ok. I mean you no disrespect. But you need a little lesson From MrTwilliger about the difference between context and perceived meaning.
I pose to you a few situations.
Number One:A white man takes a picture of himself peeing on someone of ethnic decent. The background shows various pictures of ethnic abuse and the caption below the picture reads "You ethnic bastard, go rot in hell".
Now it is fair enough to say this is a clear act of racism. But we must ask ourselves
why this is racist. Is it racist because of the act commited? Or because of the intentions behind it? Lets make another example to help you figure out your answer.
Number Two:A White man takes a picture of him about to hit a man of ethnic decent. The White man is much taller than him and the person of ethnic decent is already bleeding and unarmed. Below the caption reads "A snapshot of 1876: the Aboriginal struggels against european settelors".
Now is it fair enough to say this photo is racist towards Aboriginals? Well lets take a closer look. As we can see this is a snapshot of our past, displaying acts which has once occurred in the past. It isn't statiing that black people should be hit, rather displaying what once occured. The
intent of the author is to display history, not to convery racism.
This is what you dont see. Both pictures display ethnic people being abused. Yet one artists intent is to display racism, the other is not. Racism isn't dependant upon whether or not someone
sees it as being offensive, rather the authors intent when they create it.
This is why your statement is incorrect and this is why the picture is not offensive that milly took. Her intent was, as quoted "to pull a silly face". If you can't see the difference yet then i honestly give up.