• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

OMG! German Newspaper Slammed for Racist Cover

GTaudiophile

GTaudiophile

Lifer
Newspaper cover picture...

The German newspaper Die Tageszeitung has a reputation for leftist social sensitivity. All the more bizarre then was its choice of a cover to mark Obama's victory in the race for the Democratic Party nomination: a photo of the White House under the headline "Uncle Barack's Cabin."

Full article.


I am not an Obama supporter. I like the Germans a lot. But this is NOT funny! Angie had better condemn the headline!


 
I thought it was kinda funny 😱

clearly, the newspaper isn't calling Obama an Uncle Tom, it seems more like a reflection on how far blacks have come in America -- from Uncle Tom's Cabin to being the almost-certain next president.
 
what's so funny is that ATOT leftists would be calling for boycotts if a "conservative" paper published that.
 
It's obviously a nod to the irony of a black man who would have been a slave 150 years ago now being a strong contender for the presidency.

But we love taking offense at things, it makes us feel important, so God Damn Nazis at it again!!!
 
Originally posted by: JS80
what's so funny is that ATOT leftists would be calling for boycotts if a "conservative" paper published that.
Click to expand...

So true. I think what is more funny is somebody would find offense to it.
 
I admit....I chuckled. Pretty clever but definitely can be interpreted to be racist.

I took it more along the lines of Loki's interpretation.
 
Originally posted by: JS80
what's so funny is that ATOT leftists would be calling for boycotts if a "conservative" paper published that.
Click to expand...

What's "funny" is that you don't see the difference in those two things.

Do you understand the meaning of "intent" and "motivation"? If the KKK ran the same exact title on their newsletter, do you think they'd mean it as an ironic nod towards how far blacks have come, or would it be a call to arms against the N**** taking over the damn country? One motivation is worthy of derision, the other is not.

Is there a difference between you spanking your kid for swearing and a stranger spanking your kid for swearing? Relationships and context matter in determining what is appropriate in every situation. So when a liberal paper says something, their intent would be different than that of a conservative paper, so the reactions to both should be different.
 
I've been saying that many Europeans would not accept a black American president. Many Europeans do not view non-whites as humans. This is only one of many bigoted acts... and remember that this is a left-wing newspaper. Even the European left makes the KKK look sane in terms of race, ethnicity, etc.

Obama's mere presence will continue the decay in American-European relations started under Bush.
 
Not only that, but the magazine might have been unintentionally right. The actual Uncle Tom in the book is a strong character who stands up for himself and his beliefs in awful circumstances. I'm not even really sure how the name became a pejorative.
 
Originally posted by: JS80
what's so funny is that ATOT leftists would be calling for boycotts if a "conservative" paper published that.
Click to expand...

Are you really that dumb? Does someone have to clarify this for you?

Originally posted by: jonks

What's "funny" is that you don't see the difference in those two things.

Do you understand the meaning of "intent" and "motivation"? If the KKK ran the same exact title on their newsletter, do you think they'd mean it as an ironic nod towards how far blacks have come, or would it be a call to arms against the N**** taking over the damn country? One motivation is worthy of derision, the other is not.

Is there a difference between you spanking your kid for swearing and a stranger spanking your kid for swearing? Relationships and context matter in determining what is appropriate in every situation. So when a liberal paper says something, their intent would be different than that of a conservative paper, so the reactions to both should be different.
Click to expand...

EDIT: Nevermind, I guess someone does have to clarify it for you
 
Originally posted by: bamacre
Originally posted by: Skoorb
I feel dumb. I don't get it.
Click to expand...

You're not dumb, just Canadian.
Click to expand...
I like that excuse, too.

I would conclude this is funny, then and probably in the vein of 'from cabin to whitehouse, how you like those apples?' 🙂

 
I am an Obama supporter and even I find it slightly amusing. Nothing to "boycott." Free speech is important you know, you fascists.
 
I, for one, am incredibly offended. That's not a cabin at all. And they spelled uncle wrong. No, this whole thing stinks to high himmel.
 
Originally posted by: jonks
Originally posted by: JS80
what's so funny is that ATOT leftists would be calling for boycotts if a "conservative" paper published that.
Click to expand...

What's "funny" is that you don't see the difference in those two things.

Do you understand the meaning of "intent" and "motivation"? If the KKK ran the same exact title on their newsletter, do you think they'd mean it as an ironic nod towards how far blacks have come, or would it be a call to arms against the N**** taking over the damn country? One motivation is worthy of derision, the other is not.

Is there a difference between you spanking your kid for swearing and a stranger spanking your kid for swearing? Relationships and context matter in determining what is appropriate in every situation. So when a liberal paper says something, their intent would be different than that of a conservative paper, so the reactions to both should be different.
Click to expand...

You think the leftist NYT could get away with printing that? Jesse Jackson would be calling for the head of the editor.
 
Originally posted by: JS80
Originally posted by: jonks
Originally posted by: JS80
what's so funny is that ATOT leftists would be calling for boycotts if a "conservative" paper published that.
Click to expand...

What's "funny" is that you don't see the difference in those two things.

Do you understand the meaning of "intent" and "motivation"? If the KKK ran the same exact title on their newsletter, do you think they'd mean it as an ironic nod towards how far blacks have come, or would it be a call to arms against the N**** taking over the damn country? One motivation is worthy of derision, the other is not.

Is there a difference between you spanking your kid for swearing and a stranger spanking your kid for swearing? Relationships and context matter in determining what is appropriate in every situation. So when a liberal paper says something, their intent would be different than that of a conservative paper, so the reactions to both should be different.
Click to expand...

You think the leftist NYT could get away with printing that? Jesse Jackson would be calling for the head of the editor.
Click to expand...

The NYT is the paper of record in this country. They don't do pun headlines. You're thinking of the Post or the Daily News, neither bastions of liberalism.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top