Tennis

Page 148 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Apr 18, 2016
22
0
0
The dodgy bit is that they have clearly whitened Osaka and made her a blonde-haired Caucasian woman, in juxtaposition to the dummy-spitting monster on the other side.
 
Jan 11, 2018
130
0
0
Re:

QuickZulu said:
The dodgy bit is that they have clearly whitened Osaka and made her a blonde-haired Caucasian woman, in juxtaposition to the dummy-spitting monster on the other side.
There's a little bit of truth here. If you look closely at the cartoon you can see that Osaka's skin is actually a bit darker than the umpire's, and her hair is actually dyed dark blonde at the moment, so the depiction is not completely inaccurate. But I agree that she does look a little too Caucasian, creating a slightly awkward juxtaposition with Williams. But I'm comfortable that this was a mistake by Knight, rather than a deliberate contrast.

I've seen some people say that it's by definition racist, regardless of intent, to draw an African-American with features like fuller lips and a solid build, because of racist and stereotyped use of such features in the past, but if we were to accept that then it means that it is completely impossible to draw Williams with any degree of accuracy or recognisability without it being racist, which is absurd.
 
Re:

rick james said:
how is that cartoon racists?



snowflake generation really are taking over
Still angling for a spot on the wall of gammon, Rick?



You can’t even put on blackface and dance on tv any more! It’s political correctness gawrn maaad! I had golliwogs when I was a kid and there was nothing wrong with them! What are we supposed to call them if it’s suddenly bad to say “beloved patriot shop” eh?

It’s a racist caricature, with Williams drawn with exaggerated “African” features in order to mock and denigrate her, in the style of a long tradition of anti-black caricatures. Osaka meanwhile was turned into a white blond woman in order to emphasize her dignity and correct behaviour. You can only miss the racism if you are trying to do so or if, deep down, you think that there’s nothing really wrong with a bit of racism as long as it’s “just a joke”. The cartoon is racist, the cartoonist is racist with a record of producing racist cartoons and those who are defending him are mostly racists.
 
Mamil said:
Mark Knight has drawn a black person who looks like a black person. How else was he supposed to draw her?
You really lack imagination, don’t you? Let me help you:

https://www.google.com/search?q=ben+carson+cartoons&client=firefox-b&tbm=isch&source=iu&ictx=1&fir=HL5pDHv3r6Cg5M%253A%252CYd2-FFBbj3MB4M%252C_&usg=AFrqEzeTVha6WDVHOzc6bH0KOdg0woA1tg&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj5y-Lbh7PdAhUB7J8KHZBVBE4Q9QEwA3oECAQQCg#imgrc=HL5pDHv3r6Cg5M:

https://www.google.com/search?q=condoleezza+rice+cartoons&client=firefox-b&tbm=isch&source=iu&ictx=1&fir=Ya54Wyo3TPN-MM%253A%252CC5b_ZfTfTjdPGM%252C_&usg=AFrqEzdqkIWRn5yDJ0xjNfGrIoRGpGFl_Q&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiI8a3mibPdAhWFFXwKHVjQASMQ9QEwAXoECAYQBg#imgrc=Ya54Wyo3TPN-MM:

Knight, like most cartoonists drawing real life figures for public consumption, exaggerates certain features of his subjects, so that it is obvious to his audience who he is depicting without requiring verbal cues.
So if he had just shown a dark-skinned woman jumping on her racket while a lighter-skinned woman was talking to the ref, no one would have been able to figure out it was Serena? Serena does not look human in that cartoon. Certainly not as human as the other two figures. He could have exaggerated features to make her look angry, for example, with her mouth wide open in a baby howl (which would have fit better with what the ref was saying in the cartoon).

But since you see nothing wrong with that, I presume you wouldn’t have had a problem if Knight had drawn a larger, closer-up figure of Osaka, emphasizing her slant eyes. Because again, we can’t possibly figure out who’s who in a group of two people holding tennis rackets unless the cartoonist emphasizes their races.

It's not racism, it's conventional cartooning method. It would only be racism if he were drawing certain features only to denigrate or make fun of them, which he obviously isn't.
In the first place, you don’t know that. In the second place, if that’s your definition of racism, you really don’t understand the problem. Most of the history of racism, at least in the U.S., has been furthered not by making fun of African-Americans, but by doing exactly what the cartoonist was doing—emphasizing how they are superficially different from Caucasians. Believe it or not, most racists in the past—and plenty still today—didn’t/don’t know that they were/are racists.
 
Re: Re:

Zinoviev Letter said:
rick james said:
how is that cartoon racists?



snowflake generation really are taking over
Still angling for a spot on the wall of gammon, Rick?



You can’t even put on blackface and dance on tv any more! It’s political correctness gawrn maaad! I had golliwogs when I was a kid and there was nothing wrong with them! What are we supposed to call them if it’s suddenly bad to say “beloved patriot shop” eh?

It’s a racist caricature, with Williams drawn with exaggerated “African” features in order to mock and denigrate her, in the style of a long tradition of anti-black caricatures. Osaka meanwhile was turned into a white blond woman in order to emphasize her dignity and correct behaviour. You can only miss the racism if you are trying to do so or if, deep down, you think that there’s nothing really wrong with a bit of racism as long as it’s “just a joke”. The cartoon is racist, the cartoonist is racist with a record of producing racist cartoons and those who are defending him are mostly racists.
You seem more up set about a caricature than the fact that Williams ruined the whole moment for a young tennis player winning a grand slam...


And it’s a caricature, if it is a modern art master piece I doubt it would be funny, caricature are meant to be a piss take
 
Merckx index said:
In the first place, you don’t know that. In the second place, if that’s your definition of racism, you really don’t understand the problem. Most of the history of racism, at least in the U.S., has been furthered not by making fun of African-Americans, but by doing exactly what the cartoonist was doing—emphasizing how they are superficially different from Caucasians. Believe it or not, most racists in the past—and plenty still today—didn’t/don’t know that they were/are racists.
Off topic much but: if something can be considered racist in this cartoon, it's the display of Osaka as blonde and white woman, without cartoon-specific features. BUT the purpose of a cartoon still is to emphasizing on particular features of a persons look that stand out. You know at the first sight that this is Serena Williams. Thats clearly not racism for me but reality. Look at Nadal for example:

 
Re: Re:

rick james said:
Zinoviev Letter said:
rick james said:
how is that cartoon racists?



snowflake generation really are taking over
Still angling for a spot on the wall of gammon, Rick?



You can’t even put on blackface and dance on tv any more! It’s political correctness gawrn maaad! I had golliwogs when I was a kid and there was nothing wrong with them! What are we supposed to call them if it’s suddenly bad to say “beloved patriot shop” eh?

It’s a racist caricature, with Williams drawn with exaggerated “African” features in order to mock and denigrate her, in the style of a long tradition of anti-black caricatures. Osaka meanwhile was turned into a white blond woman in order to emphasize her dignity and correct behaviour. You can only miss the racism if you are trying to do so or if, deep down, you think that there’s nothing really wrong with a bit of racism as long as it’s “just a joke”. The cartoon is racist, the cartoonist is racist with a record of producing racist cartoons and those who are defending him are mostly racists.
You seem more up set about a caricature than the fact that Williams reunited the whole moment for a young tennis player winning a grand slam....


And it’s a caricature, if it’s was modern art master piece I doubt it would be funny, caricature are meant to be a piss take
The issue is what exactly about someone is being mocked. If you draw a caricature of a Jew with a hooked nose greedily grabbing bags of money, you may still be “taking the piss” but you are a racist. If your caricature of a black woman is part of a similarly long tradition of racist caricatures of black women, exaggerating the same features, portraying her as less than fully human, you are a racist. If you then hammer the point home by drawing another woman who you wish to portray as more admirable as white in the same cartoon, you really haven’t left much room for ambiguity. We don’t even need to take into account the cartoonist’s long record of racism. This one is completely obviously racist on its face.
 
Merckx index said:
A lot of tennis pros, male and female, have come out in support of Serena. Blake and Roddick both tweeted they’ve said far worse and not been penalized. Azarenka live-tweeted while this was going on, saying the penalty was BS and that it would never happen in a men’s match. Also, another male pro, forget who, said that if you watched the video, it was clear Serena was not paying any attention to her coach when he said he was trying to signal her.

Serena lost because she was outplayed. And she threw a tantrum because she knew she was being outplayed. There’s no way you can defend behavior like that. But the usual rule in sports is that when the stakes are high, in championships, you act conservatively in calling penalties. You don’t call that borderline pass interference when the Super Bowl may hinge on it; you don’t call a questionable foul at the end of a close NBA finals game. And this call was purely technical; even if she had been violating the rules, and even if other coaches and players didn’t get away with the same thing, it’s hard to argue it was really affecting the outcome of the match.

Also, racist cartoons don’t help:

https://sports.yahoo.com/australian-newspaper-prints-racist-cartoon-serena-williams-naomi-osaka-153447048.html

Shame on you, Herald Sun.
There is no way one can defend behavior like that, but you still decided to mention other players who allegedly got away with worse? Why would one do that unless it was to minimize Williams' actions.

And rule breaking is actually not a big deal as long as other people got away with it?

It's also hard to argue that a warning is not a disproportionate penalty for the offense.

And finally, I am not sure what the point of bringing up the cartoon was? Probably to illicit sympathy for a person who behaved absolutely unacceptably (regardless of others may or may not have done) and sidetrack the thread would be my guess.
 
ppanther92 said:
Off topic much but: if something can be considered racist in this cartoon, it's the display of Osaka as blonde and white woman, without cartoon-specific features. BUT the purpose of a cartoon still is to emphasizing on particular features of a persons look that stand out. You know at the first sight that this is Serena Williams. Thats clearly not racism for me but reality. Look at Nadal for example:
That’s faulty logic. The fact that a portrayal succeeds in identifying the subject does not mean that it isn’t racist. The two are not mutually exclusive. People have drawn Obama as a monkey. Everyone knows who they’re referring to.

You know it’s Serena because a large black woman is stomping on her racket. That’s all you need to know. Wouldn’t even have to emphasize her size to make that point, though I think that’s a fair target if one wants to make a point about why she is so big. I doubt that there’s a subtle she’s-a-doper message in this cartoon, though.

roundabout said:
There is no way one can defend behavior like that, but you still decided to mention other players who allegedly got away with worse? Why would one do that unless it was to minimize Williams' actions.
Is a lawyer acting illegally when he cites precedent to make the case that his client is innocent?

And rule breaking is actually not a big deal as long as other people got away with it?
Which rule-breaking are you referring to? If male players say worse things and aren’t penalized, it sounds to me that it’s not because they’re getting away with breaking a rule. It’s because whatever the rule is doesn’t apply to what they did, so shouldn’t to Williams, either.

If you’re referring to being coached from the sidelines, if this isn’t enforced evenly, then de facto it really isn’t a rule, either. It seems the only evidence the ref had of coaching is expressions or gestures by the coach. But anyone with an interest in a sport makes such expressions and gestures. When people watch a bike race, they shout advice to their favorites. Is that coaching? It’s only coaching if there are specific signals being used, and the athlete shows evidence of seeing them and changing her behavior accordingly. The point that pro was making was that there was no such evidence in this case. I didn’t watch the match and can’t say, but this was the point a pro who did watch was making.

It's also hard to argue that a warning is not a disproportionate penalty for the offense.
Want to try that again? I think the "not" doesn't belong there, but in any case, Williams got a penalty, not a warning, according to the pros I was referring to.

And finally, I am not sure what the point of bringing up the cartoon was? Probably to illicit sympathy for a person who behaved absolutely unacceptably (regardless of others may or may not have done) and sidetrack the thread would be my guess.
Sidetrack the thread from what? This is a thread about tennis. Nobody complained about sidetracking when posters commented on how much they disliked Williams. If it’s on topic to say you dislike a tennis player, why would it be off topic to point out that that tennis player is the subject of racist stereotypes? We’re allowed to express our personal opinions about an athlete, but not allowed to point out how that athlete is portrayed by the media?

Maybe you can suggest what we should and should be discussing here. Just the results of the match, plus an evaluation of how both players performed? Is that it? You have a lot of work ahead of you if you want to be consistent and apply that standard to every other thread in the Clinic. You can start with the LA threads. I’m pretty sure you will never finish them.
 
ppanther92 said:
Merckx index said:
In the first place, you don’t know that. In the second place, if that’s your definition of racism, you really don’t understand the problem. Most of the history of racism, at least in the U.S., has been furthered not by making fun of African-Americans, but by doing exactly what the cartoonist was doing—emphasizing how they are superficially different from Caucasians. Believe it or not, most racists in the past—and plenty still today—didn’t/don’t know that they were/are racists.
Off topic much but: if something can be considered racist in this cartoon, it's the display of Osaka as blonde and white woman, without cartoon-specific features. BUT the purpose of a cartoon still is to emphasizing on particular features of a persons look that stand out. You know at the first sight that this is Serena Williams. Thats clearly not racism for me but reality. Look at Nadal for example:

I miss those days of Nadal. Sleeveless tshirts, arms bulging, the 3/4 length shorts, the long hair with the pirate headband the huge wristbands wiping sweat after every point, him pointing for the towel every ten seconds, the famous ass pick, sprinting across the court like a possessed sprinter for each point, ripping forehands, fighting for every scrap and getting to every scrap. The absolute peak of tennis and the most devastating tennis I have ever seen.
 
Re:

rick james said:
As I said, it’s now a snowflake generation
Yet some people of an older generation never seem to stop whining that their feelings are hurt because younger people think that their attitudes, jokes or beliefs are racist. They don’t seem able to cope with the disapproving words of their successors. Who exactly are the snowflakes? The gammon element need to toughen up.
 
My biggest question regarding this cartoon would be - why was Osaka depicted as a white, big-tittied woman with some blonde hair when she is nothing like that?

Moreover - did Osaka cry foul even once during the match?
 
Merckx index said:
Is a lawyer acting illegally when he cites precedent to make the case that his client is innocent?
Should you be found innocent of speeding because other people speed?

Which rule-breaking are you referring to? If male players say worse things and aren’t penalized, it sounds to me that it’s not because they’re getting away with breaking a rule. It’s because whatever the rule is doesn’t apply to what they did, so shouldn’t to Williams, either
I've yet to see an example of a man saying something worse and getting away with it, happy to be proved wrong.

Its not just the "thief" comment, it was the threat of "You'll never...." as well.

When people watch a bike race, they shout advice to their favorites. Is that coaching?
Random fans shouting in tennis isn't coaching. Its the player's coach giving instructions. Is there a rule in cycling banning coaching from a coach during a race? Don't think so. So there is no rule to break. There is a rule in tennis.
 
wansteadimp said:
Should you be found innocent of speeding because other people speed?
There are precise speed limits the crossing of which constitutes a violation. I’m not aware of a precise list of words players aren’t allowed to use, nor a precise set of criteria that identify behavior as coaching. When rules are ambiguous, of course precedent matters.


I've yet to see an example of a man saying something worse and getting away with it, happy to be proved wrong.

Its not just the "thief" comment, it was the threat of "You'll never...." as well.
Roddick and Blake are on the record saying they've said worse. Won't even get into McEnroe.

Random fans shouting in tennis isn't coaching. Its the player's coach giving instructions. Is there a rule in cycling banning coaching from a coach during a race? Don't think so. So there is no rule to break. There is a rule in tennis.
The point is not whether cycling forbids coaching from the sidelines. The point is that spectators of every sport engage in activity that has the appearance of coaching. Therefore—see response above—it becomes critical to define just what coaching is. I'm pretty sure tennis hasn't done this, not only because Serena's coach says everyone does it, but because if they had a precise set of criteria, they could settle the argument unambiguously on the court.

And no one has responded to my links, because no one can. The difference between a competent cartoonist and Knight—who may be racist, incompetent and/or lazy, take your pick—is that competent cartoonists identify subjects by features that are specific to them as individuals, not to the entire race which they belong. That takes more work, more drawing skill. His depiction of Serena’s face doesn’t look like her at all. So much easier just to caricature an African-American in general. He couldn't be bothered to do even that much with Osaka, just portraying her as a generic Caucasian blonde.
 
Sep 17, 2013
79
0
0
Are there really still people supporting williams?
If anyone on that court was racist and sexist, it was williams.
Her opponent was a non-white female who benefitted from those rulings, remember. No sexism or racism on the other side of the net, oddly...
Anyway. It’s just pro sports. It’s a freak show all the time, so just move on.
 
Merckx index said:
wansteadimp said:
Should you be found innocent of speeding because other people speed?
There are precise speed limits the crossing of which constitutes a violation. I’m not aware of a precise list of words players aren’t allowed to use, nor a precise set of criteria that identify behavior as coaching. When rules are ambiguous, of course precedent matters.


I've yet to see an example of a man saying something worse and getting away with it, happy to be proved wrong.

Its not just the "thief" comment, it was the threat of "You'll never...." as well.
Roddick and Blake are on the record saying they've said worse. Won't even get into McEnroe.

Random fans shouting in tennis isn't coaching. Its the player's coach giving instructions. Is there a rule in cycling banning coaching from a coach during a race? Don't think so. So there is no rule to break. There is a rule in tennis.
The point is not whether cycling forbids coaching from the sidelines. The point is that spectators of every sport engage in activity that has the appearance of coaching. Therefore—see response above—it becomes critical to define just what coaching is. I'm pretty sure tennis hasn't done this, not only because Serena's coach says everyone does it, but because if they had a precise set of criteria, they could settle the argument unambiguously on the court.

And no one has responded to my links, because no one can. The difference between a competent cartoonist and Knight—who may be racist, incompetent and/or lazy, take your pick—is that competent cartoonists identify subjects by features that are specific to them as individuals, not to the entire race which they belong. That takes more work, more drawing skill. His depiction of Serena’s face doesn’t look like her at all. So much easier just to caricature an African-American in general. He couldn't be bothered to do even that much with Osaka, just portraying her as a generic Caucasian blonde.
From Wiki

Controversy was never far from McEnroe, however; in his fourth-round match against Mikael Pernfors at the 1990 Australian Open, McEnroe was ejected from the tournament for swearing at the umpire, supervisor, and referee.[14] He was warned by the umpire for intimidating a lineswoman, and then docked a point for smashing a racket. McEnroe was apparently unaware that a new Code of Conduct, which had been introduced just before the tournament, meant that a third code violation would not lead to the deduction of a game but instead would result in immediate disqualification; therefore, when McEnroe unleashed a volley of abuse at umpire Gerry Armstrong, he was defaulted. He was also fined $6,500 for the incidents.

Sound familiar? But he got away with it, men always do.... Oh no.

The coaching laws are pretty well defined (and explicit) they're just not enforced as they should be. From the ITF's website: -

Coaching is considered to be communication, advice or instruction of any kind and by any means to a player.

The point is code violations are given all the time, I can't remember the last time I saw a racket smashed without one being handed out. Audible obscenities is another favorite (not relevant here). What usually doesn't happen is a player ploughing ahead and racking more violations. They tone it down when they get to two rather than doubling down on the behaviour.

On the cartoons I agree.
 
Re:

veganrob said:
Good one rick james. first time I ever agreed with you
This newspaper doubles-down on the borderline-racist cartoon by pointing out that the artist makes particularly grotesque caricatures of everyone. And in the context of his "oeuvre" the Williams cartoon is not so bad, versus his comparisons of famous people to a sheep, toad, cannibal psychopath, etc
Herald Sun is a kind of least-common-denominator publication which is not necessarily trying to be classy, and it's also owned by News Corp, and used to be under the direct influence of Rupert Murdoch's son, therefore a lot of its content is in the News Corp vein.
Probably what the controversy is really about is:
- Australia has always had a duplicitous stance on aboriginal rights and a kind of apartheid racial situation
- Resurgence of far-right, populist, or anti-immigrant groups in Australia, which is not all that different from similar trends in Europe
- Therefore sensitivity to race-baiting in mass media. And somehow, that blew up within international commentary on a US sporting event
And Herald Sun pushes back, by asking whether this controversy is not a hypersensitive, "politically correct" overreaction to something that wasn't intended that way. Or even a form of censorship. And they are probably correct in betting that: most of their readership will agree with that response.
There is some history of racism in Australian sport which parallels the "race problem" in general. In the case of tennis, Lleyton Hewitt had some openly racist incidents, but that didn't detract much from his popularity in Australia. In the big picture, the Sydney Olympics were used as a kind of symbolic step toward "reconciliation", with the prominence of certain aboriginal athletes, etc. So nowadays people are wondering whether things are regressing from that point, or whether that was a kind of empty symbolism in the first place. The broader state of affairs about "multiculturalism" and immigration in Australia is a lot more important than the tiff over a US player
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

Latest posts