This one took forever to draw, much longer than I expected even given the number of panels. That I kept on having to interrupt drawing so I could go to “work” definitely didn’t help. ((I was originally going to have all of last week off, but then the Unitarian Church’s wedding coordinator got sick so they asked me to substitute for her for a few weddings. Yes, that’s right, I’m a wedding coordinator for a living.))
Probably I should color this cartoon, and maybe I will someday; but that would be at least another day’s work, and right now I can’t face that. :-P Anyhow, I think it looks good in black and white. ((Although, as regular “Alas” readers know by now, I always like my cartoons for the first few days after I draw them; the horror and “oh my god, what was I on when I drew that?” will come later.))
I’m gonna put off posting this on ZNet for a day or two, since once a cartoon’s up on ZNet there’s no way for me to modify or correct it. So if you notice any misspellings please let me know.
UPDATE: Livejournal discussion of “White Lies” here.
I love your faces in this one.
And the sentiment, of course.
—Myca
Assuming that the sports fan in #7 is wearing “42” because it was Jackie Robinson’s number, I’d re-examine what 1947 Brooklyn Dodgers’ uniforms looked like.
Actually, it was a reference to Douglas Adams. I had no idea that Jackie Robinson’s number was 42. :-p
Another good one Amp, and the facial expressions are priceless.
So I was at this party in college and a couple of nights later I met up with one of the fellas I had met there. I remembered that he was smart and funny, but I didn’t remember his name. “Yeah” I said, “You were the black guy at the party.”
He said, “Oh yeah, you’re the Irish guy.”
My first thought was that I’m not Irish. My second thought stays with me for the rest of my life.
A little baseball history, then:
Jackie Robinson wore #42 for the Brooklyn Dodgers for his entire integrated-baseball career (1947-1957).
In 1997 — the 50th anniversary of Jackie Robinson entering Major League baseball — his number was officially retired by every team (the only number to be retired by every team, instead of just the one he played for), allowing only players who currently wore the number (as a tribute to Jackie Robinson) to continue. All of the “grandfathered” #42s were Black (or Black/Hispanic.) As of today, Yankees pitcher Mariano Rivera is the only active player still wearing #42 (because he’s the only one still active who wore the number in 1997). Younger players often wear #24 (42 reversed) to honor Jackie Robinson now.
So, you might want to consider the “double meaning” and whether you want it. A sports jersey with #42 on it will certainly read (to a baseball fan at least) “My favorite baseball player is Jackie Robinson, the first black Major Leaguer.”) Maybe you want that for Racist #7, maybe not.
A sports jersey with #42 on it will certainly read (to a baseball fan at least) “My favorite baseball player is Jackie Robinson, the first black Major Leaguer.”)
A couple of things about this, Rich B. First, I am a huuuuuge baseball fan. However, I look at that panel and I see a football jersey. Secondly, there are many racists whose favorite baseball player is Jackie Robinson. The two things are not mutually exclusive.
Jake, a white person liking a ‘safe’ black person would make it funnier. Sort of like the joke: all country clubs will integrate as soon as Colin Powel finds the time to join. Forget where I heard that first.
I hate white guilt
Guilt is sort of pointless. I mean, why feel personally guilty about historical inequities I did not choose?
Ahhhh, but responsibility! There’s the meat of it. As someone with privilege in our system, it is my responsibility to work towards a more fair, less racist system.
There’s no point in self-flagellating while doing it, just do it.
—Myca
#5: ‘Conciously ‘ should be ‘consciously’.
:-)
I love what you’ve done with this, especially ‘Can I have my medal now?’
Great cartoon. #5 drives me stark-raving insane!
Aww… was there no room for “I’m not racist, I have many black friends (spotlight on random black person), but… “?
Great cartoon, though.
Throw in a panel randomizer, and you could get a 3×3 bingo card…
Thank you so much for this post! I’m sure you (or someone) could do another 10 or 20 “top white lies” without any trouble at all.
I like the variety of backgrounds as well as the variety of clothing, hair color & styles, and age groups. And the expressions on their faces are priceless.
Thanks for the effort – it’s really good!
P.S. This isn’t a criticism – just an observation -I think the #42 shirt looks like a football jersey, too.
Pingback: Loganotron » Racism
Pingback: Ally Work » White Lies: a cartoon
Sylphhead: D’oh! You’re right, I should have included that. I can’t believe I didn’t think of that one.
Lis, good idea. :-P
Daisy, Matttbastard, Myca, and Ren, thank you. :-)
Eva, you’re right, it is a football jersey. I know I wanted some sort of sports-number shirt, and the first image I found online was a football jersey. (I didn’t have any symbolism in mind, I just wanted a diverse range of clothing, and a sports jersey didn’t seem too hard to draw).
I have no problem with the character wearing Jackie Robinson’s number, however. It fits in well with his dialog, actually.
(Updated to add: Spelling of “consciously” has been fixed. Thanks, Matttbastard!)
I’m especially fond of #4.
(And #3. And #8. But especially #4.)
I would just like to make it clear that this comic is meaningless. Amp has no idea what he’s talking about because he’s fat.
Whoa. Somebody having a bad night?
Jake’s making fun of some of the responses I got to a cartoon I posted a couple of weeks ago. :-)
Oh, good. Well, in that case I hope everybody’s having a good night.
::Wanders off…::
Wow. Good one. There’s so much going on. Every time I look at it, I pick up on another great detail.
let me put in a vote for #9, which seems to be (once you include the very apt newspaper) the theme of the last year or two . . .
HA! “Daily Opiate” in #9! I missed that.
It’s so good I hate to say anything, but yes, “White guilt is stupid” and “You’re just trying to make me feel guilty!” could definitely be in the sequel.
Is it OK to link to this?
What percentage of white people in this country would anyone here consider not to be racist?
I’d rephrase that as, “What percentage of _people_ in this country would anyone here consider not to be racist?”
My answer would be, 0%.
I think it is impossible to not think, at least a little bit, in terms of “them” vs “us”, and race is one (but only one) of the differentiators. I’d like to think the key to avoiding racist acts and racial bias is to become aware of it in oneself, and consciously work to ignore it. Maybe this is easy for some people, but for me it requires vigilance.
It would be a _whole_ lot easier to just decide to myself that I don’t have any prejudices against others. But self-honesty prohibits that.
Of course it’s okay to link, Mythago! (I love it when people link to cartoons.)
I’m not sure that “white guilt is stupid” would fit in, for me, because I agree that white guilt is stupid. (I agree with what Myca wrote in comment #10.)
But I feel like slapping myself for forgetting “You just want me to feel guilty!”
Okay, so we have at least two more: “You just want me to feel guilty!” and “Let me first point out that I have black friends, so that what I’m about to say, which you’d normally find very racist, isn’t racist at all.” (My rephrasing of Sylphead’s suggestion).
Once we have an addition eight ones I missed, I can draw a sequel. :-D
DBB, I have no idea — I guess I’d have to see a decent representative-sample survey of racial attitudes of white americans, designed to catch subtle as well as overt racism, to be able to address that question.
My guess is that it’s pretty high. But I don’t have an exact figure.
But that’s just my opinion. I would encourage you, however, to avoid the “anyone here” formulation, which (perhaps unintentionally) implies that you think everyone here must share the same opinions on these matters. In fact, we are individuals, and our opinions vary.
alright, I’ll bite, even if trolling troll is troll.
What percentage of white people in this country would anyone here consider not to be racist?
The overwhelming majority of people are not consciously racist. but there are multiple layers of racism.
There’s the “Send the darkies back to africa” layer, which has more than you would probably guess right off, but still very very few.
there’s the layer of deliberate acts, that are possibly, maybe probably but not necessarily consciously racist. This is the source of illegal traffic stops, clerks following people in stores, and educational double standards. much more common. utterly mundane, even. It’s banal.
Then there’s the layer of simply operating without interaction. Suburban flight is racist, but the overwhelming majority of participants would never think of it in terms of race.
Then there’s one last kind of racism, which is basically “not noticing that the cops never pull you over for speeding, or the teacher gives you a better grade than the black kids, etc etc.”
point is: Racists are people who actively believe in a philosophy of racial supremacy. Racism, on the other hand, is a systemic problem that can manifest in people who are perfectly nice people, and who actually genuinely believe in racial equality.
Amp – I phrased it that way to invite a response from anyone reading it, as opposed to implying that everyone here would agree to an answer. Sorry I did not make that clearer.
Karpad – so you think there are degrees of racism, but that really doesn’t answer my question. How many whites fit none of your definitions of racism? Obviously, I’m not asking for an exact number, but one could take a ball park guess. Perhaps you could start by saying if you know any whites who are not racist.
I suppose it would also be interesting to see what percentage of the entire country is racist, broken down by race, to see if whites are more or less racist than other races. And it would be interesting to do a country by country comparison as well.
I like how the first and last panel ties it together, personally. And I think I’ve stumbled upon another possible panel idea to add but I’m not sure how to articulate it. I’ll tentatively call it the ‘I went through that, too’ deal.
DBB, why do you think that would be interesting? This seems to me to be veering close to the fallacy I refer to in #6 of the cartoon. Racism in whites matters much more, because whites (as a class, not as individuals) have far more ability to limit what other folks can do with their lives.
I do think that prejudice among non-whites matters (to avoid the usual argument about what the word “racism” means, I’m switching to “prejudice”). And keep in mind that “prejudice among non-whites” isn’t the same as so-called “reverse prejudice”; it’s quite possible for non-whites to have internalized prejudice against themselves, for instance, or to be prejudiced against other non-white groups.
However, I’m extremely leery of the frequent habit of people saying “what about non-white racism?” during a discussion of white racism; in this context, it feels like a diversion. Yes, that might be a worthwhile topic of discussion, in the right context (and if we could agree on what the word “racism” means). No, it’s not a reasonable thing to get brought up EVERY SINGLE TIME white racism is the subject (and believe me, someone does bring it up virtually every time).
Thanks, Arrogantworm! It’s nice that people notice stuff like that. :-)
I’m not getting your panel suggestion, but if you get a brainstorm about articulating it come back and let me know. :)
DBB, do you mean ‘new definition’ racism or ‘old definition’ racism?
the ‘old’ definition is what a lot of kids were taught in school in, say, the 60s-90s. It’s basically ‘prejudice put into practice’, i.e. treating someone differently because of race.
the ‘new’ definition adds on, among other things, a requirement that the racist be of the dominant class or dominant majority. This essentially limits racism to whites, at least in the U.S.
the ‘new’ definition also includes, in many uses, other concepts:
1) focus on results, not process (see here for why this is quite relevant.)
2) linking of privilege to racism; i.e. the concept that having privilege that results from racism in general is inherently racist. this is pretty much like original sin for whites, and is quite similar to other privilege-to-ism discussions. (this isn’t limited to racism and whiteness by any means. If you’ve been following the cartoon threads, you’ll see examples of radfems talking about what amounts to original sin for males. And of course we all know about the fundie original sin for females, a.k.a. Genesis.)
Anyway, under either definition most whites are probably racist. But with the old definition you pretty much started at 0% and counted up. With the new definition you pretty much start at 100% and count down. So under the new definition I’d say ‘almost all’ whites are racist.
Amp, I like the cartoon drawings. Like many political cartoons I think that it’s difficult to put complex arguments into a short cartoon. It’s sort of like a political sound bite or an ad outside a church: it may make your audience nod its head, but it’s not conveying as much.
Take #4. Are some people who are anti-illegal-immigration that way because they’re racist? Yup.
But is it unfair to start throwing accusations of racism at all people opposed to illegal immigration, as many pro-illegal-immigration folks do? Yup. Not really sure how that one’s a lie, white or otherwise.
I said nothing about the relative importance of racism for a given race, I just thought it would be interesting to see the statistics. But you are right, that is a diversion from the question at hand.
I truly want to know what others think the overal prevalence of white racism is today. Would it be easier to answer if it were a multiple choice question as to how many whites were not racist? Pick a number, 0 to 100, in increments of 10, add a %, and that’s the guess? It might also be interesting to break it down by geography. For instance, I suspect that number is a lot closer to 100 in the extraordinarily liberal city I grew up in than it would be in, say, some small rural town in Mississippi.
One thing I have to ask, looking back at karpad wrote – not noticing you are not getting pulled over makes one a racist? That seems a rather low threshold. More like not noticing that other people are being racist. It seems a bit of a stretch, though, to turn someone’s density at not noticing other people being racist as being racist. Dense or clueless, sure, but not racist. Especially in a school setting. From my own experience, I know that when you are a kid, usually you are too busy worrying about how everyone thinks about you to worry too much about anyone else (or even to notice that everyone else has the same worries, even the people who don’t seem to worry about anything).
Sailorman – just missed your post. I have seen that new definition of racism, though it is still somewhat unclear to me exactly how it is supposed to work.
For instance, it almost sounds like it just defines 100% of whites as racist and 0% of everybody else as racist, and that is that. But that seems to be a somewhat useless definition then – more of a tautology. If you are white, you are racist, end of discussion, don’t bother changing your behavior, because no matter what you do you are still white so you’re still a racist.
But if it is not 100% (or not 0% according to the way I phrased the question), then what makes those X% of whites not racist? Wouldn’t that be a worthwhile thing to explore – so as to increase X so it approaches 100 (as in 100% not racist)?
And sorry for the drift – I wonder what panel you could add to the cartoon if Barrack Obama is elected president, or how that changes the concept for those who define racism as only possible for those in power. (Given how Bush has defined the president now as having ultimate power over all of us poor peons).
And getting back to the cartoon – do you think this cartoon will help increase the numbers of non-racist whites through self-reflection?
oops, link: http://moderatelyinsane.blogspot.com/2007/06/my-equality-is-not-your-equality.html
DBB: Try here
http://allywork.solidaritydesign.net/
or here
http://www.rachelstavern.com/
as a starting point; I won’t bother pointing out more, as you’ll easily find hundreds off those sites’ blog links. Those two sites are relatively tolerant of 101 questions; the first one even has a 101 section. I’m not sure if there’s a race equivalent to the feminism 101 blog.
Yeah, the facial expressions in this and the “easy mistake” one are great.
Pingback: Hungry Tumblin
the ‘new’ definition adds on, among other things, a requirement that the racist be of the dominant class or dominant majority. This essentially limits racism to whites, at least in the U.S.
Funny, I seem to remember a lot of the “new” discussion of racism going beyond black vs. white–for example, about internalized racism (preference for lighter skin) among blacks, racism between African-Americans and Asians in urban areas, and so on.
But, again, diverting the issue of the major issue–white racism–by concern-trolling is…well, a diversion. The same “but you can’t say that or they’ll all give up” arguments get made in feminist threads about feminism. Dunno about DBB, but I’m more interested in talking about Amp’s cartoon than worrying about percentages of “racist” people, or whether they will feel bad having stupid things they say pointed out.
Pingback: Feminism Without Clothes » Blog Archive » Racial Profiling: It’s Not Just for Blacks Anymore!
I think when comparing racism in a white v. non-white, it’s not only essential to look at it from the white->non-white angle, but from the non-white->white angle. It is also possible for minority groups to hold a bais against the majority group that normalitively acts to limit their own abilities.
mythago, I was just trying to answer the question and then steer dgg to other blogs. I tried to make it short (thus limited…) Why did you think that answer was concern trolling? (or were you not talking about that?)
The art of the cartoon looks good but I am not sure I understand the point of it.
Myca:
and
DBB:
Ya I thought that was a little odd too. I smacks of: ” If your not a cop or in a neighborhood watch program then you are part of the criminality”
Sailorman:
Though I think this new definition is dubious (or rather the attempt to redefine it) if one accepts the idea that there is such a thing as “white privilege” then using similar criteria one might have to accept the existence of:
“tall privilege”
“good looking privilege”
“smart privilege”
“thin/athletic privilege”
“extrovert privilege”
“good posture privilege”
“healthy/non-cripple privilege”
“full head of hair privilege” (Possibly good-looking Sub-privilege)
“well spoken privilege”
etc… there might even be a “snappy dresser privilege”
So how do we stack privileges? Tall athletic handsome snappily dressed black male vs. short fat ugly bad dressing white male: who has more privilege? Jessie Jackson or his bald freckled janitor with a bad lisp? In a world so much more complex than simply black & white maybe we need a point system so sort it all out?
Anyway, IMHO We have to stop this archaic tribal/clan mentality and start seeing people as individuals.
ok, I am *really* sorry about my earlier post. Stupid definition. Will some mod please delete it? I’ve gotta learn not to feed trolls. My bad.
LarryFromExile, I think Amp covered that all in panel #6.
Sailor,
It’s okay. The trolls are here; the moderators can step in if they want a particular conversation topic avoided. In this case, it seems to me (though Amp could correct me) that he’s okay with a discussion of why his cartoon is valid.
FWIW, though I’m not mythago, I read her as saying DBB was being a concern troll — not you.
Amp, I just thought of a suggestion for your sequel:
“We have to stop this archaic tribal/clan mentality and start seeing people as individuals.”
My other suggestion was going to be: “Actually, the black slaves were kidnapped by other black tribes in Africa, the white slave traders just bought them.”
To be fair, I have not heard that one for a couple of decades, but then again a couple of decades is how long ago I was in the South. I do not know if it still pops up there.
The best response I have heard to that point btw was from Thomas Paine, who claimed that the black African farmers were living in peace until Europeans started paying them to make war on each other to take each other as slaves. That was probably a bit of an exageration, but to the extent the issue matters at all, which admittedly is a function approaching zero, it nicely shows where the responsibility lay in the economics of slavery.
Amp, you forgot “I have black friends!!!11eleventyone”
^.^
http://www.blackpeopleloveus.com/
Regarding how many whites are not racist, I think what might be easier to track (and more interesting) is the percentage of whites who are consciously anti-racist (I do believe whites, whether we want to admit it or not, are all racist).
Amp – I think the “But I’ve been through that, too” idea might come from someone who is white, but has experienced classism, sexism, religious bigotry, ablism, agism, etc, and is trying to squirm out of being responsible for their racism.
To be aware of the possibility of being stopped (driving, walking, standing still, or most egregiously questioned for NO REASON in the privacy one’s own home) is quite an everyday reality for way too many people of color.
It’s a specific kind of signifier of racism that people of color routinely get stopped by police in this way. If white people weren’t so afraid of people of color rising up and retaliating for all the harm we’ve done over the past 500 (or so) years, this type of policing wouldn’t exist. So being unaware of it is white priviledge, which is a result of institutional racism. The only way to combat it is to admit one experiences white priviledge (benefits from racism) and wants to be consciously anti-racist.
OMG! This is terrific. Do you have a larger, hi-rest, print-ready version? and if so, can I buy a copy? I’m thinking that this would be perfect if was framed and hanging on my office wall! :-)
mythago
I don’t see how “To be fair we should be talking about racism against whites too” covered it at all since I haven’t remotely mentioned any such thing.
decnavda
Do you mean to say that it is a good thing to see people as mainly members of tribe/clan rather than as individuals or that its not archaic?
There’s another one, Amp–“Can’t we just all see people as individuals?”
Larry, you admit you missed the point of the cartoon. It’s not about seeing past differences, which is a Good Thing. It’s about recognizing that people do have privilege and disadvantage, and that people with privilege may deny, lie about or otherwise refuse to acknowledge their privilege, either because it’s uncomfortable to do so or because they don’t like the implications of giving up that privilege.
for Larry and DBB, you missed the point:
First, DBB, I DID answer your question. You asked “how many whites are racist?” the answer is “not many, based on little to none scientific evidence.”
being racist, and suffering from racism are not the same thing.
a white person who drives 10 miles over the speed limit and never gets pulled over who has any awareness of racial profiling (like knowing the phrase is enough) who doesn’t reflect on that privilege is benefiting from, and exhibiting racism.
that entire category is “ignoring your own privilege,” which is racism.
you’re still treating racism like it’s inherently conscious and evil. it CAN be. it’s a behavior pattern, to be sure, but if often develops unconsciously. accusations of racism are NOT invective. They’re statements of perception of your behavior. “You’re racist” for the most part, and certainly within the context I’m talking about, is no more an ad hominem than “You’re mispronouncing (word X).” The proper response is to consider why the accusation was made, and amend behavior as necessary.
but again, Trolling troll is troll.
Well, I don’t know about you, but I don’t stack privileges, there’s really no order to it that I can find. Privilege depends on what qualities are valued, but the privilege a single person receives for not being something depends on the decisions of others to let you have that privilege, your own decision to use that privilege, time and place. Also, the term is able-bodied, not healthy/non-cripple.
I realize it says how to edit my comment, Amp, but I can’t figure it out, it isn’t letting me click anything.
I forgot to add that I was talking about overt use of privilege, not subtle use, where it’s ingrained and no thought is given to it. Also, Larry, I can’t tell if your clueless or trolling, so I’ll not respond anymore.
Eva,
Close enough for gov’mint work.
Pingback: mythago performs a blog dance for your amusement - White Lies
I don’t like “sin-based” logic, incl. original-sin-based logic, as a framework for talking about privilege and responsibility, because it leads people down the road of thinking “well I must give up my privilege” (which isn’t really possible and leads to things like white college kids trying to imitate minority groups in search of ‘authenticity’) and not down the road of “how can I increase the radius of this privilege to include people it’s not currently including?” I really, really need to make the post about this. Maybe I can use wi-fi for an analogy or something.
By using it deliberately, I don’t mean it’s able to be given up. I mean that if someone is in a specific situation and sees a chance to use, say, someone’s racism for the benefit of themselves, and they don’t it doesn’t cancel out that they can, if they want to.
I think A.J. makes a good analogy re: wi-fi, though I’m not quite sure how to phrase my agreement. I’m somehow thinking of an article I read a while back about a Brazilian tribe that has one computer on one island, hooked up to wi-fi, simply so that they can receive news of incoming storms & report local poachers.
Now that I’ve moved back to the midwest (as opposed to the ultra-white Pacific NW – no offense meant towards its residents!), I’ve noticed a great deal of dirty looks directed towards “that white lady” walking down the street. [I also get a little bit of ye olde “Don’t walk around like you own the place,” fwiw, and it doesn’t matter how I walk.]
At the end of the day, it doesn’t matter what I wear or how I speak: I’m white, and I can’t help but be white. It’s neither my fault nor anyone else’s that I was born into this skin color, but it’s still my responsibility (as a white folk) to “pay it forward,” suck it up, and just frickin’ deal with it. Which is kind of why I love this comic, and why I find the comments here so interesting.
(Chances are none of that made sense. Sorry ’bout that, if that’s the case.)
Mythago
No, you’re right. As I have said I don’t get it. A couple of examples relating to the cartoon and what I said about privilege.
Take #10 in the cartoon for instance: Lets stipulate just for the purpose of the discussion that we live in racist society. Lets also say that those two people in #10 immigrated from, say, Finland 20 years ago. Using the spirit of the text in the cartoon: what exactly does racism and/or the racist society have to do with them? Are they assumed to have some role simply because of their skin color? Or is it simply my earlier example of “if your not a cop or in the neighborhood watch your part of the criminality”?
Next lets assume there is a guy with “tall privilege”. (In fact I have read somewhere that tall people earn more, live longer and healthier lives than short people) Exactly what things should he do to not benefit from his privilege in our heightist society? Should he reject occasional pay raises? Stoop when he goes into a job interview? What should he do?
Yes, but isn’t being white under subtle instead of overt, or am I classifying into a corner?
I’m not sure what you mean, arrogantworm.
Next lets assume there is a guy with “tall privilege”. (In fact I have read somewhere that tall people earn more, live longer and healthier lives than short people) Exactly what things should he do to not benefit from his privilege in our heightist society? Should he reject occasional pay raises? Stoop when he goes into a job interview? What should he do?
You don’t seem to get how the privilege thing works. There isn’t a magic button for making everything better. It’s a statement of things as they are.
And you fake analogues to white privilege don’t hold up. A tall man has the advantage of height to reach the stuff on the top shelf. He is aware that the reason he can reach is that he’s taller. He doesn’t think “Everyone’s the same height, I just wanted that cereal more and was willing to work harder to get it.”
White privilege means, no matter how rough things have been for you, no matter how hard you worked, there was that difference where you didn’t have to overcome being black, or latino, or whatever in addition to being born in poverty, dyslexia, whatever other hurdles you crossed. A poor white guy who’s left handed, short, and suffers from cardiac arrhythmia as it rough. but a poor black guy (or gay guy, or immigrant) who is left handed, short, and suffers from arrhythmia has it worse.
But I’m done with this, because you’ve demonstrated you have no interest in arguing in good faith.
Amp, just thought you’d like to know (if you’re not already aware of it) that this is being used as a rather effective Bingo card in a few discussions on Livejournal – specifically, there’s a big conversation going on about unintentional racism in one of the Harry Potter fandom communities, and your cartoon has been used to illustrate a few points. (I think it was posted on Debunking White by someone who got it from Racewire, and spread from there.)
Karpad – I’d kindly ask you to follow the moderation policy here and not attack me personally (i.e. your trolling troll comment). It does not foster communication.
I don’t wish to derail this further, this being mostly a thread about a cartoon, though I suppose anything related to white racism is related to the cartoon – that is what it is about, after all. I do have more I’d like to ask and say, but I may just post on my own blog about that, unless I just can’t resist the temptationt to ask more questions here. I could not help but think about various issues related tot he discussion here last night and several things occurred to me that are flaws in the way racism is redefined by some. But in the interests of interblogy harmony, I’ll just leave that for my blog.
No, you’re right. As I have said I don’t get it.
What don’t you get, since it’s been explained at length? The cartoon is about people with privilege denying they have it. You seem to be doing your best to imitate the people in the cartoon.
Coming in way, way late to this discussion, I think that it would be interesting to see a similar cartoon on gender, with lines like “How come no one talks about men who are beaten up by their wives?” and “Don’t people know that judges discriminate against men in custody cases?”
Of course, you may have already drawn such a cartoon and I just don’t know about it.
Actually, as much as I despise the use of scare quotes when discussing privilege, I think Larry’s analogy to height privilege was reasonably accurate in spirit, if not in scale. Tall people earn more and tend to be preferred by romantic partners, among other benefits. However, the point behind his comparison wasn’t so much to compare racism to heightism as it was to ask the question, “So someone benefits from privilege. What are they supposed to do about it?” It’s a question I’ve heard from a lot of my male friends when I discuss male privilege with them. Of course, the answer is along the lines of what Karpad wrote in #68, but to be honest, getting people seems even harder than getting them to acknowlege their own privilege.
I don’t think he’s done a cartoon like this on gender that I can recall, but I know Amp did a very good (and oft revised) list of male privilege items a while back, and that could probably be turned into a cartoon similar to this one.
Were I not such a lazy ass, I would even find and provide a link to the list.
;-)
—Myca
Okay, my lasy-ass-ness has reached a temporary end!
The original Male Privilege Checklist is here, along with 400 or so comments.
The updated Male Privilege Checklist, filtered down from about 3 years of discussion is here.
Done. Let the laziness continue.
—Myca
“So someone benefits from privilege. What are they supposed to do about it?” It’s a question I’ve heard from a lot of my male friends when I discuss male privilege with them
If what they’re really saying is “Unless you can give me a checklist that I am unable to pick apart, I’ll go on my merry, privileged way” — and sometimes they are — turn it around. “What do YOU think you can do to end this unfairness?”
Who knows, they may brainstorm some good ideas. And perhaps they might clue in that being able to sit on your ass and say “I’ll fix it if you tell me what to do, but only then” it itself something you get as a result of privilege.
But what would you call it? If the cartoon about race privilege is called “White Lies” (Gotta give it up for the title!), maybe Amp could do a cartoon about tall people privilege called “Height Lies.” But whadaya label the cartoon regarding male privilege?
“Man Is The Mismeasure of All Things”?
“The Error Sex”?
“Offender Gender”?
“Denial on Trial”?
“The Ignore Corps”?
“Member Privileges”?
“Sticking Your Head In”? (Referring to ostriches!)
…dunno….
“Actually, as much as I despise the use of scare quotes when discussing privilege, I think Larry’s analogy to height privilege was reasonably accurate in spirit, if not in scale. Tall people earn more and tend to be preferred by romantic partners, among other benefits. However, the point behind his comparison wasn’t so much to compare racism to heightism as it was to ask the question, “So someone benefits from privilege. What are they supposed to do about it?” It’s a question I’ve heard from a lot of my male friends when I discuss male privilege with them. Of course, the answer is along the lines of what Karpad wrote in #68, but to be honest, getting people seems even harder than getting them to acknowlege their own privilege.”
I was thinking the same thing. But I think reversing the question, as mythago suggested, is a good all purpose response, whether they’re the ‘good’ sort or the ‘bad’.
Most white people and most men truly understand that racism and sexism are morally wrong – they* just may have trouble taking that away from the abstract, especially as it pertains to their own lives. They wouldn’t be able to counter the “what do YOU think you can do about it?” reversal with, say, “dammit, that’s not MY JOB!” without at least hearing themselves talk. That would make them uncomfortable with themselves, and that’s better than nothing.
*Actually, speaking as a non-white man, I am dumbfounded as to which pronoun I should use here. Yes, yes, har-dee-har-har.
Mythago
Actually in my post #65 I gave an example of one the reasons I didn’t get the cartoon where I referenced the #10 (pane? panel? section? whatever you would the numerical divisions). You didn’t respond with any comments or attempt to answer any questions. Maybe there is some uncertainty principle at work here with regards to analyzing the cartoon. Or it could be that you aren’t supposed to really think about what it is actually saying or implying.
Mythago
and
sylphhead
Well I can’t expect Mr. Tall to stoop during job interviews, sales meetings, etc. It would also be unreasonable to expect him to refuse every fourth raise, or to take vows of celibacy in order to remove himself from the dating pool, etc. My answer would be: “I don’t know.” So now where are we? You have no answers and I have no answers. With no reasonable suggestions forthcoming on what actions Mr. Tall can do to both fight heightism generally and also to not take advantage of his privilege perhaps he bears no responsibility for heightism. Since there is no responsibility without authority it seems that Mr. Tall can now simply acknowledge his privilege, gain absolution, and get on with the rest of his life never having to worry about it again.
LarryfromExile – Regarding #10 panel.
This one’s been dogging me for a long time. I’m a light skinned (aka white) 2nd generation Jewish American. I used to think this way. Seriously. It was like some kind of racist mental arithmetic – since I’m Jewish, and my family moved here after the Civil War, and I was born in the ’60’s, I’m not responsible for racism.
Well, I may not be responsible for institutional racism that was created before I was born, but I’m certainly responsible for white priviledge (the invisible leg-up I will always have). I’m also responsible for dismantling institutional racism wherever I find it, in whatever way I can. Maybe that means intervening when I see a cop randomly questioning a person of color (or reporting it to higher ups). Maybe that means not letting racist comments go unchallenged, because it’s the right thing to do – not because there’s a person of color nearby I’m trying to impress or because “some of my best friends are people of color”.
Is this making any sense, Larry? If a tall person sees a short person reaching for the top shelf, asking if holding the step ladder for the short person so they can reach the Cheerios box might be the right thing to do. Or helping build shelves so more people can reach the cereal when they’re hungry. If tall people feel inconvenienced by stooping in doorways, that could be an opportunity to reflect on the inconvenience short people feel when they can’t reach the top (or only) shelf.
Eva – I find it interesting that you frame the tall person as seeing short doorways as times to reflect on the inconvenience short people feel with tall shelves without noting that you could just as easily reverse it, and say that short people who are inconvenienced by tall shelves should use as an opportunity to relfect on the invoncenience tall people feel by stooping in doorways. (Or in small, cramped cars, etc.)
In other words, for every tall shelf or poorly designed movie theater (without enough slope so short people have trouble seeing), there’s a cramped doorway or car – in some situations it pays to be tall, in others, it pays to be short, and so it really depends on context which is advantageous and which is disadvantageous. This is something that I think is too often left out of discussions of privilege – that what is privileged in one situation could be the opposite in another. That the unprivileged may be privileged, and vice versa, depending on the context. So it behooves one to find out the context and to find out one’s individual circumstances before one starts slapping around labels based on single characteristics, like race or gender.
DBB – This could be another “white lie” for Amp to illustrate: “In certain contexts as a white person I am at a disadvantage…”
Being at a disadvantage as a white person in some contexts does not negate white priviledge in general, and certainly does not negate being racist.
Being at a disadvantage as a tall person in some contexts does not negate tall priviledge in general.
In my previous post I was addressing institutional priviledges, which may be overshadowed by a particular context, but are always there, whether one wants to accept it, or not.
Well I can’t expect Mr. Tall to stoop during job interviews, sales meetings, etc.
Actually, I remember an interesting article about a tall salesman who did just that. His height was a disadvantage when he was a subordinate and trying to sell people on things, so he stooped.
As for what Mr. (or Ms.) Tall can do, there are hundreds of posts from hundreds of people on racism which cover just this. From educating oneself on the nuances, to speaking up against prejudice, to even just noting in unrelated conversation where a bias exists and trying to correct for it.
The most basic thing one can do, however, is not expect other people to lay out a powerpoint presentation on what one specifically should do, tooled for the individual asking the question, in order for one to show even the most basic interest.
Eva – I am not talking about “white privilege in general” I’m talking when you are speaking to a specific individual and telling them they are privileged (or not). You should not confuse or conflate the general with the specific.
Just like pointing out that a white man, in a given situation, is less privileged than an African-American man in the same situation does not prove that white people in general are not privileged over African-Americans – the reverse is also true – white men being more privileged in general does NOT mean that a specific individual white man is privileged, any more than you could conclude that an individual is tall just because he’s a man just because, in general, men are tall. You need to look at individual circumstances before you call AN INDIVIDUAL privileged or not.
And as for the tall vs short, you are still making an assumption that tall is better based on nothing but an assertion. What if I say short is better. I can think of dozens of examples of “short privilege” to back it up. Who is right?
DBB – Of course I’m going to treat individuals as individuals, when I meet them.
But until you introduced the topic of individuals the whole post was about white people, as a class, and their delusions, and cartoons about that. So, I’m gonna go back to addressing that issue, and I’m probably not going to respond to any more assertions about individuals, or for that matter the tall/short binary.
I read the cartoon (and this blog generally) to focus on undermining the Myth of Meritocracy: the idea that our circumstances depend entirely on our own efforts.
Are tall people more privileged than short people? Perhaps. Does this dynamic change under changing circumstances? Perhaps. We could argue about it.
But are tall people influenced by the fact they are tall AND THERE’S DAMN LITTLE THEY CAN DO ABOUT THEIR HEIGHT? Yes. Are short people influenced by the fact that they are short AND THERE’S DAMN LITTLE THEY CAN DO ABOUT THEIR HEIGHT? Yes; there’s not much to argue about here. We are each subject to physical and social dynamics beyond our powers to control. None of our successes is entirely a function of our efforts; none of our failures is, either. This ain’t no pure meritocracy.
I believe that individual white people are harmed by Affirmative Action programs in a manner that the individual white person’s efforts cannot control. And that would be a real tragedy in the context of a perfectly-functioning meritocracy. Outside the context of a perfectly-functioning meritocracy, however, Affirmative Action is merely one more uncontrollable dynamic – and hopefully an ameliorating dynamic – in a sea of uncontrollable dynamics.
The little White Lie of meritocracy focuses on certain dynamics of human interaction while ignoring others. Amp’s cartoon illustrates the hypocrisy of focusing on one aspect of race relations outside of the larger context.
Ha! Funny that I was just reading over a previous discussion entitled Privilege Is Driving a Smooth Road And Not Even Knowing It. Amp kicks off that discussion by remarking, “The more privileged you are, the easier it is to envision human beings as pure individuals, unconnected to other individuals in any way that matters….”
I’ve grown to share this view. Yes, not noticing the problems faced by members of other races IS racist. Satanic? Demonic? No. I’m merely saying that the things I focus on are, in part, a function of my race. That’s all.
Yes, that is a low threshold. Yes, a lot of people suffer from racism. No, racism is not extraordinary. You don’t have to don a sheet and lynch anyone to suffer from racism.
And you don’t need to feel like you’ve donned a sheet or lynched anyone to admit that you suffer from racism.
I’ve grown to see racism as akin to the common cold: It’s everywhere. It’s mostly invisible. The collective harm it does is huge. The harm it does is mostly inadvertent. You almost certainly have some of it in you right now. But the appropriate response isn’t guilt and shame; it’s a frank acknowledgment combined with an earnest effort to control the damage.
Hi, I’m nobody.really, and I suffer from racism. And I’ve found a lot of really gentle, supportive souls here who have helped me broaden my understanding. No, I don’t share everyone’s point of view here. Yet. (Of course, this thread isn’t over yet….)
I read this to say that Amp believes that white people ARE justified in challenging prejudice against white people, but that many white people bring up this point merely to avoid confronting the issue of prejudice against non-white people.
I wonder about the best strategy for dealing with this problem. Amp suggests the optimal strategy is to dismiss or minimize the concern. I wonder if a better strategy is to acknowledge and embrace the concern. By acknowledging that white people are both perpetrators and victims of racism, it might help them overcome the paralyzing sense of guilt. And by helping white people identify with being victims of racism, it might promote solidarity with victims of racism and a sense of self-interest in opposing it.
Attack the racism, embrace the racist. Just a thought.
nobody really, welcome to the conversation. You get it and have stated so quite well. kudos. I will not let your pseudonym impact negatively on my image of you.
“Eva – I am not talking about “white privilege in general” I’m talking when you are speaking to a specific individual and telling them they are privileged (or not). You should not confuse or conflate the general with the specific.”
DBB, this line of argument is bullshit, simply because conservatives never seem to apply this to any situation where they see themselves as disadvantaged. By this standard, we can’t talk of liberal bias in the social sciences – we can only talk of individual social scientists and individual theories and their effect on individual students in any given circumstance. Neither can we talk of liberal Hollywoood – we can only talk of individual movies, individual actors, and individual producers, and their impact on individual audience members and individual fans at any one decimal point in time. Neither can we talk of the ‘liberal media’ – we can only talk of individual journalists and individual editors, and their impact on individual subscribers in any single instance.
Perhaps you’re saying ‘white privilege’ is valid as a concept, just that we should not be speaking of it right now. Exactly when should we talk about it then?
Nobody.Really
I think I understand your point of view. From a slightly different perspective: Its like we are all soldiers, who at some point have signed away some our individual rights, and in a war where some have to be sacrificed for your greater good. Metaphorically speaking of course. So if Mr. White doesn’t get the job because of his skin color he is just an unfortunate casualty. Though he didn’t exactly volunteer, the sacrifice nonetheless serves the greater good.
The flaw in that analogy is that people have paid their taxes and fees in order to drive on a smooth road. Its really no more of a privilege than expecting my roof to not leak after paying someone to fix it.
That could be true. Or it could only be that some people have a personal perspective more aligned with tribalism and collectivism.
Nobody.Really
No its not a pure meritocracy. If you are tall, good-looking, nicely-dressed, out-going, and well spoken your probably more likely to get that job than someone who doesn’t have those advantages. The problem lies in responsibility. Mr. Tall R. Handsome isn’t responsible for the fact that people are drawn to or admire him, etc. is he? That being the case, one shouldn’t really begrudge Mr. Tall of his privileges, right?
That’s the rational aspect, the emotional aspect is a little harder. For instance, I really dislike the idea of families like the Kennedys, the Bushes, the Hiltons, etc. where subsequent multiple generations of children have their entire lives virtually handed to them on a silver platter. Jealousy, or simple contempt? I don’t know. I am not that introspective. All that said though, it would be hard to me to expect Paris Hilton to reject her trust fund and the other benefits of her cushy life.
More or less on the mark, except for “Whites are the only group left that it’s still ok to criticize.” I defy you to find an article in the MSM that says “Arabs are dangerous.” At best, it’ll say “Islamists are dangerous,” and if it makes any reference to race at all, it’ll be sure to qualify it with “of course, not ALL Arabs…”
Meanwhile, you can draw a cartoon called “White Lies,” with no qualification, and no normal person seems to care.
Try drawing a cartoon called “Black Lies” (the crack epidemic is the white man’s fault), “Jewish Lies” (the only reason people criticize Israel is because they’re anti-semitic), or “Mexican Lies” (Mexico would be as successful of the US if whitey hadn’t stolen Texas). See what happens.
The comic is good, the backgrounds are not in the way this time – they’re more used to frame the characters, which is nice. Also, the little corner box you have for affect fits this time and I can read the text without squinting :D
The White Lies font is kind of weird though.
My answer would be: “I don’t know.”
Is your answer “I can’t imagine anything”? Or “I guess I could think of a reducto ad absurdam so that I can argue that white privilege doesn’t exist”?
That being the case, one shouldn’t really begrudge Mr. Tall of his privileges, right?
Brown people shouldn’t begrudge me my white privilege; after all, if a store owner fawns over me but follows them around the store like they were going to shoplift any second, that’s hardly MY fault is it? Poor, poor me, being accused of having privilege. Next thing you know somebody might tell me that I didn’t get where I am today on pure merit.
Reductio ad absurdum is our friend. When done properly it is an excellent analytical tool. But for the purposes of this thread I have assumed the privilege exists and tried to explore the “OK, now what” by using Mr Tall (and other less emotionally charged privileges). The answer to the question was really “I don’t know.”
Are you implying that it is? Think about this for a moment. How much direct control does Mr. White have over how Mr. ShopKeeper views him when he stops in to buy a bag of Chex Mix? Isnt the problem with Mr. Shopkeeper rather than Mr. White?
Sylphhead – talk about anything you like. I’m not stopping you.
My point isn’t to say that one can’t talk about general trends. I just hope that everyone keeps in mind that general trends don’t apply to individuals. Such that you don’t just point your finger at a white male, for instance, and say to that individual “you are privileged” or “you are a racist” or “you are a sexist” without knowing more about that person, like for instance, all of his relevant circumstances. I see that happen way too often. Thus, I thought it would be good to point out the difference between the general and the individual.
I also think there are general problems with the new definition of racism made up by some (and expressed to a certain degree here), but that is a separate issue that I took back to my own blog.
Yeah, kinda.
Imagine the US started drafting people to go fight in Iraq. If I were drafted, I might feel mighty put-upon, having to risk my life and all. Maybe I and those other soldiers who had been seeing combat for the past four years could agree that it’s terrible having to risk our lives. But when I start complaining about the injustice suffered by us draftees, we poor draftees, and how terrible it is that we draftees are being called upon to sacrifice because the regular duty troops just seem incapable of getting the job done themselves …. well, you can imagine the reception I’ll get.
The point is not that racial dynamics do not impose a cost on Mr. White. The point is that racial dynamics impose a cost on EVERYBODY. To the extent Mr. White implies that he is the only one bearing a cost for racial dynamics, he’s living another little White Lie.
I don’t dispute this perspective. (Although there is literary precedent for beautiful people intentionally making themselves plain in the interest of fairness – or, at least, to avoid a curse.)
Yes, I feel jealousy toward other people’s circumstances. Sometimes even contempt. Maybe these feelings are wrongful; maybe these feelings are natural. Maybe they’re both. But mostly, these feelings – and my judgements about them – obscure the larger point.
The larger point, as I understand it, is the need to explore – and re-explore, and re-re-explore – my unstated and unacknowledged assumption that EVERYONE is tall. That tall people are the norm, the archetype. That other people, to the extent I acknowledge them at all, I regard as trivial deviation from this archetype. To what extent do I expect public policies to meet the needs of the tall, to the exclusion of everyone else? And when short people object to those policies, do I find myself rolling my eyes and grumble about how those short people are always wanting “special privileges”? I mean, *I* never needed such accommodations. You know, if you make life easy on short people, they’ll just keep on being short. Why can’t they just pull themselves up by their own bootstraps? (Or pull themselves up by any other means? Har har!) Yadda yadda.
I love the idea of treating each person as an individual; I just haven’t been able to do it. I live in a city. There is simply no possible way that I could register and react to each person I encounter as an individual; I’d be in sensory overload. And I’m not the only one who has this problem. People often remark that in small towns people on the sidewalk will look you in the eye, smile, greet you by name, whereas in New York City they don’t. It is perhaps no coincidence that the population density of New York City is greater than in small towns. A moment’s reflection should convince you that the idyllic behavior that might seem appropriate to a small town would be impossible in a large city.
I wonder if this insight about city living applies to the rest of my life as well. The world is too complex, and my attention too limited, for me to take in every detail. I have to screen things out, triage, and focus on those things that are most relevant to me. And what is relevant to me depends irreducibly on, well, me. Anaïïs Nin said, “We don’t see things as they are; we see them as we are.” I might not go that far, but I agree that my own circumstances heavily influence what I focus on.
(I don’t mean to suggest my own limitations on processing the world apply to everyone. I’m told that people with autism lack, to varying degrees, the ability to screen sensory input and focus on select parts. Arguably such people can truly treat every person and thing as an “individual” without imposing their own filters on them. I wonder if there is any relationship between the strategies New Yorkers adopt for coping with sensory overload and the strategies adopted by people with autism. Another thread, I guess.)
Now, I could tell myself that “I treat everyone as an individual,” but that’s just another one of those little White Lies. It would simply amount to denying (or being ignorant of) the extent to which my filters influence the way I see the world. As a post-pubescent male, I notice the gender of other post-pubescent people. “Who was it at the fair that had the Cavalier King Charles Spaniel?” Don’t remember the face, don’t remember the name, but I remember it was a woman. Now, did I fail to treat that woman as an individual? I am not aware that I did. But this merely reflects the lack of my self-awareness; the fact that all I can recall about her is her gender demonstrates that I regarded her – as I regard everyone – as a member of a category.
Consequently, I now consciously strive to see people in categories. Not because it helps me see something about THEM, but because it helps me see something about ME. Only when I acknowledge my own filters can I cope with them. I can’t interpret the data accurately until I understand the lense through which the data is passing. And only when I understand the lense can I make the appropriate adjustments.
I wasn’t happy when I finally had to admit that I needed glasses. But I did. And I do. And I wear them. Some people will say that only a deep-seated sense of inadequacy and insecurity would have driven me to adopt such patently artificial means to distort my view of the world. And, ya know, why deny it? They’re right.
But trees don’t care. With glasses, I’m better able to avoid driving into them. In retrospect, admitting my nearsightedness was a small price to pay. Indeed, every time I pass the tree next to the driveway, I shudder to think what would have happened if I hadn’t.
Try on the glasses. Who knows what you’ve been missing? Or what you’re about to hit?
Well, he’s the one bearing a DIRECT cost of racial dynamics RELATED TO AA.
I think it’s important to view affirmative action honestly:
First, it’s a necessary and justified program. I fully support it.
Second, the benefits of AA accrue to groups differently:
-The particular POCs who are hired/admitted/paid/etc as a result get a disproportionally large benefit
-POC as a whole benefit both from the anti-racism effects of AA, and from the increased chance that they will be one of the people who gets personal benefit.
-Whites benefit from the anti-racism effect of AA, just like POC do. But unlike POC, whites face the detrimental possibility that they will get personally hurt by it.
To use the draft example: If we started drafting 18-24 year old boys, then I’d get the country-wide security benefit of the draft, but I would be in no danger of getting drafted. If I were 22, I’d get the benefit and also some added risk to me personally.
But (in this hypothetical) the draft would still be a good idea. And returning to AA, the reality of different benefits/harms doesn’t change the fact that AA is still a good idea.
And (just like with AA) the fact that the draft WAS a good idea wouldn’t change the fact that 18-24 year old boys were paying for it.
Overall Benefits.
Specific Detriments.
Two. Different. Things.
So: the fact that whites may get hurt by AA is true. But it is NOT DETERMINATIVE on whether AA is a good thing. People (usually whites) who claim AA is an “overall problem” because it penalizes whites are missing the point–or, if you prefer, lying.
And the fact that AA is a good thing is true. But it is NOT DETERMINATIVE on whether whites get disproportionately hurt by it. People (usually POC) who claim AA “doesn’t hurt whites” because AA is a good thing overall are also missing the point–or, if you prefer, “lying.”
If you point this out to conservative anti-AA folks they get pissed off. If you point this out to liberal pro-AA folks, they get pissed off. Which is why being a highly literal moderate is often a pain in the ass :D
LarryFromExile write:
Why is establishing the innocence of Mr. White your focus, rather than the inconvenience and discrimination experienced by people of color?
White people frequently talk about racism this way; as if the important thing isn’t that some classes of people are persistently discriminated against in a myriad of ways, but instead establishing the purity of white people’s motives.
I don’t give a crap about if Mr. White is a racist or not. Seriously, it doesn’t matter to me at all. I give a crap about if Mr. White is systematically given unfair advantages, and everyone else unfair disadvantages, because of the color of their skin. And if so, then it’s important to try and change how society functions — not because I think Mr. White is bad and needs to be punished, but because the system as a whole is unjust.
c23 writes:
You may not realize this, but cartoons sometimes do this thing called “ironic exaggeration” for humorous effect. It’s true that real-life mainstream news sources are subtler than the headlines in my cartoon; but the undercurrent of race in much of the reporting is, imo, pretty clear.
You mean other than you, and several others on this thread. Not to mention the comments I haven’t let through because they were too angry or overtly racist, not to mention the hate email I’ve gotten. Other than that, no one seems to object.
I really get tired of the “draw this cartoon with fill-in-the-blank instead of X” mode of criticism, by the way. I encounter it a lot, and it’s always pretty lame.
I think your analysis here lacks any appreciation of power dynamics. Yes, some members of all groups lie, including black people and Mexican people and Jewish people. But I’m mainly interested in questioning and criticizing people who society favors, not people who society discriminates against. Why the hell would I do a cartoon attacking black people?
Also, the lies of blacks and Mexicans you mention are conspiracy theories; they’re in fact pretty rare among those groups, in my experience. In contrast, I think many of the “white lies” this cartoon talks about are extremely common, probably majority views. Which makes my cartoon a much better and more relevant cartoon than the cartoons you’re suggesting.
(And by the way, I’ve done several cartoons criticizing Israel, and one or two criticizing knee-jerk Jewish support of Israel.)