Google Apologizes For "Michelle Obama" Results 783
theodp writes "CNN reports that for most of the past week, when someone did a Google image search for 'Michelle Obama,' one of the first images that came up was a picture of the First Lady altered to resemble a monkey. After being hit with a firestorm of criticism over the episode, Google first banned the site that posted the photo, saying it could spread malware. Then, when the image appeared on another site, Google displayed the photo in its search results, but displayed an apologetic Google ad above it. On Wednesday morning, the racially offensive image appeared to have been removed from any Google Image searches for 'Michelle Obama.' Google officials could not immediately be reached for comment."
Update — 15:38 GMT by SS: A reader pointed out that this article from the Guardian says the image was de-listed simply because it was removed from the blog where it was hosted rather than by any "deliberate" action from Google.
First post (Score:5, Insightful)
No one complained when Bush was made to look a monkey
Well, something *has* changed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Well, something *has* changed (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course, that comparison wasn't racially charged.
Bad move Google... (Score:3, Insightful)
Though not terribly surprising, I suppose.
Google did not act when there were images of the prophet in its search results, or offensive images from shock sites, or when Bush was made to look like a chimp. Bowing to pressure like this only re-inforces the belief that "new" media, as well as "old" media, has a liberal bias.
Re:Well, something *has* changed (Score:1, Insightful)
Yeah, Its called freedom of speech, and it looks like someone in the administration got buddy buddy with google and had it removed, stepping all over the creators freedom of speech.
Sure it may be offensive, but its still the creators right (for now) to be able to have something like that online. for google to purposely alter their search results is just wrong.
Scares me even more about google, all the info they collect, and im sure they have no problem handing it over to the Govt if the right person in the govt asks, or the govt asks the right person within google who will bend the rules a bit.
This will even more so keep me away from google's "cloud computing" and other services. I still use their search, but will in no way EVER use their services for my day to day communication.
Responsible (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Well, something *has* changed (Score:5, Insightful)
Why would a racially charged comparisson fall into a different category? And for that matter, IF a racially charged comparisson does fall into a special category why do Michele Obama images get removed and not the images that compare Robert Mugabe with a chimp?
Are some people more equal than others?
That said, I think stooping to doing something like this, or the Bush chimp images are in bad taste. The idiots who make images like these are the ones who should apologize, google is a gateway to the internet and not responsible for how other people use the internet.
On that point, slippery slope time - will it be possible in future that "offensive" websites are removed from google search results on demand from groups such as governments in the future? I mean google does something similar for China wrt search results, how long before it spreads worldwide?
Re:First post (Score:5, Insightful)
In Soviet America, Google censors you. (Score:1, Insightful)
"In Soviet America, Google censors you." If only it were a joke.
I'm not sure what bothers me more, that we're following China's lead or that one company gets final say on what is or is not acceptable for the world to see.
Re:Well, something *has* changed (Score:1, Insightful)
This thing called "common sense" makes everyone sure who has it.
RIDICULOUS... (Score:5, Insightful)
Google *should* just index what it finds, and thats what originally happened here...
There are thousands of sites out there hosting insulting pictures of george bush, some where he looks like a monkey or is compared to one and some where he's likened to adolf hitler... If you're going to do something that makes you famous, then you will attract a huge amount of attention and inevitably some of it will be bad. That is well known up front and you can't go crying about it when it happens. Noone forced obama to stand, and now that he's won there will be a lot of attention given to him and his family, if he doesn't like that he should have thought about it before.
Incidentally, when i woke up this morning i had no plans whatsoever to look for pictures of michelle obama on the internet, but having read this story i went looking for the picture in question and i'm sure a lot of other people will do the same. Had i stumbled across such pictures by accident without having read this story i probably wouldn't have thought anything of it because there are countless other derogatory pictures of famous people out there.
I side with Google (Score:5, Insightful)
When Google said that it wouldn't remove the picture I was quite annoyed with them, but then it suddenly dawned on me that if they removed that picture, the very next thing that would happen is that some bright spark would speak up and say "Great, now take this one down too, because it's just as bad" and before you know it, the whole situation's lost control.
It wasn't particularly fair on Google and they had to make a tough decision and I think in this instance they made the right one.
Re:Well, something *has* changed (Score:4, Insightful)
Yeah, it's called freedom of speech. It's the reason Google is allowed to filter its own speech, or Fox News is allowed to filter its own speech, or Walmart is allowed to filter its own speech/product lines. Besides, it's not like you can't pick a different search engine if you don't like it. Obviously, if they filter too much, they're bound to lose a significant part of their marketshare. The internet is incredibly self-regulating that way.
Re:Bad move Google... (Score:2, Insightful)
I totally agree. I'm sick of people on the Left trying to tell me that I need to be protected from people who want to burn flags. And it enrages me when those goddamn Lefties keep on pushing those constitutional amendments that ban gay marriage as if somehow I need to be protected from 2 adult men or 2 adult women expressing their commitment to each other! I also probably don't need to tell you about how it sickens me that people on the Left want to stop teaching sex education and safer sex practices that might help our kids not get pregnant or STIs! And you know, I actually hear that those goddamn Lefties want to keep out homosexuals from serving in the military because they think that somehow grown men and women - trained soldiers and people who've volunteered to put their country before themselves - can't handle it! Can you imagine?
Stupid Lefties, with their attempts to protect us from things that aren't remotely dangerous! No wonder they're always going into churches to shoot up people who don't agree with them, amiright?
"racially offensive"? (Score:5, Insightful)
because the portrayed person is black?
what if it was made by a black person?
do we know it wasn't made by a black person?
would it be racially offensive it it portrayed a white person and was made by a black person?
if we want to reach REAL equality between all races, this also means we mustn't go nuts about an insult to a person from one race while not caring about the same insult to a person from another race (remember the bush/chimpanzee pictures?)
This is disgusting (Score:4, Insightful)
and frightening.
If you care about freedom of speech you have to be willing (and you should be proud) to let people say stuff you don't agree with.
That includes racist bullshit too. Even if it is directed at the world's favorite US president's wife.
Christ on a stick you guys are fail.
Re:First post (Score:5, Insightful)
Monkey jokes aside, why ban it?
My thoughts exactly. I fully agree the image is in bad taste, but Google can't be held responsible for it, and they shouldn't feel responsible for it. Go blame the guy who put it on his website.
Re:"racially offensive"? (Score:2, Insightful)
if we want to reach REAL equality between all races, this also means we mustn't go nuts about an insult to a person from one race while not caring about the same insult to a person from another race (remember the bush/chimpanzee pictures?)
Quite right. I find this distinguishing between "apples" and "oranges" to be horrendously offensive.
Re:In Soviet America, Google censors you. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Well, something *has* changed (Score:3, Insightful)
Because Robert Mugabe deserves it.
He turned Zimbabwe from a large exporter of food to the rest of southern africa to a net importer. When you make people eat grass so you can line your own pockets and the pockets of your friends and give farms through "land reform" to people who don't know how to farm (train them? hogwash!), you deserve every bit of criticism aimed your way.
In my heart of hearts, I believe Mugabe is guilty of crimes against humanity for what he's done to Zimbabwe.
Michelle Obama on the other hand, does not deserve the same treatment.
Yes, Google is *a* gateway (for some people). But they are also a private company. They can index what they wish. Don't like it? Use another index. You don't own their servers and they are not a branch of government. Use Bing if you want. Nobody's forcing you to type google.com into the address bar.
--
BMO
Re:RIDICULOUS... (Score:2, Insightful)
There are thousands of sites out there hosting insulting pictures of george bush, some where he looks like a monkey or is compared to one and some where he's likened to adolf hitler...
And all of them are able to be taken down under Google's "offensive images" policy. Go to http://images.google.com/ [google.com] and search for anything. Now scroll down to the bottom - note the "Report Offensive Image" button? This allows people to report images which they consider offensive - such as pictures of Michelle Obama as a monkey, or George Bush as Adolph Hitler.
In all honesty, when I first saw this story I thought "What? How can they justify doing that - surely it's against free speech?". That was before I actually went to Google's site, saw their offensive images button and read the policy. Now I agree with their decision, but unfortunately it seems that this is one more issue that will be blown up beyond belief simply because it involves two famous 'people' - Michelle Obama, and Google.
Re:Well, something *has* changed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:First post (Score:1, Insightful)
That's because he's an idiot who behaves like a monkey. It wasn't racist, which is very different. If you think that Michelle Obama is an idiot, fine, but find another way to express that can't be misinterpreted along racial grounds.
Re:"racially offensive"? (Score:3, Insightful)
a)Why is that picture racially offensive?
b)Would it be racially offensive it it portrayed a white person and was made by a black person?
a) because black people have often *racially* abused in terms comparing them to monkeys. Examples: in UK until *relatively* recently people at soccer matches would wave bananas and shout 'monkey' at black players. This still happens a lot in eastern and some parts of southern Europe. In India and Pakistan black cricketers (i.e African/African-Carribean, usually those from UK, West Indies, South Africa, Zimbabwe) are routinely subjected to shouts of 'bandar' from the crowd, bandar being the Hindi word for monkey. Historically people have misrepresented Darwin's theory and presented Africans as being less evolved and closer to the apes than white people and used this to justify racial discrimination.
b) No, it would just be offensive. There would not the *well known and widely understood* racial context.
These points are so obvious as to be almost self evident. To claim not to be aware of them or to understand them is perverse.
Re:Well, something *has* changed (Score:5, Insightful)
They never did that for the "Bush chimp" pictures.
That's political satire - not racism.
Racism won't be truly a thing of the past until we can make fun of black and white politicians alike.
Re:Well, something *has* changed (Score:3, Insightful)
Michelle Obama on the other hand, does not deserve the same treatment.
That's your political determination, then, and if comparing Mugabe to a chimp is not inherently racist then comparing any of the Obamas to a chimp is not necessarily racist by the same line of logic.
Re:First post (Score:1, Insightful)
Isn't it just as racist that some insults are ok towards whites and off-limits towards blacks? The whole PR/racist discussion (pro AND con) is racist. It doesn't matter which side you are on. If you see the need to take either side, you discriminate people by race.
Yes, "alike" (Score:5, Insightful)
I think the Google apology link was a good idea, since it explained to the uninitiated how Google works, rather than making Google responsible for everything on the Internet.
Further, I agree with this statement: "Racism won't be truly a thing of the past until we can make fun of black and white politicians alike."
However, this is not "alike". We make fun of white politicians--and their wives, at times--without reference to their race. That's not the same as dehumanizing Michelle Obama for being black.
Re:Well, something *has* changed (Score:3, Insightful)
Why would a racially charged comparisson fall into a different category?
If some guy gets beaten up in an argument between those two people, it's between them.
If some guy gets beat up over his race, it's also a warning/threat to all others of his race.
Racism is more like terrorism light, trying to dehumanize them, segregate them, make them fear walking the street because they're not safe for "their kind", vandalizing and destroying property to scare them way. We don't all like each other, but the world has many, many bad experiences creating classes of people, be it masters and slaves, believers and heretics, über- and untermenschen and so on. Intent is crucial in many crimes, and "because he's not an equal human being" has been singled out as a very bad intent, worse then "I was mad at him". I tend to agree.
Re:"racially offensive"? (Score:3, Insightful)
I know, right? It's really awful when just because there has been a history of comparing black people to monkeys in the US as a way of denying their intelligence and humanity that some oversensitive people leap to the absurd conclusion that a picture of a black person being portrayed as a monkey is somehow race-baiting.
I'm sure it was probably drawn because the artist felt that monkeys are cute, Michelle Obama is cute, and a Michelle Obama monkey is probably even cuter, right? Because it's just stupid to imagine that there would be any racial component to it. This is the 21st century! We don't do that stuff any more!
Re:Special Treatment for Kenyan in the White House (Score:2, Insightful)
Voting on the basis of skin color is quite acceptable by today's moral standard.
No. This is the "he hit first"-argument, and it doesn't work in kindergarten either.
(Actually, it's the "he said some bad things back after I killed his brother and tortured him, so it's ok that I say bad things too"...)
It is not OK to vote racist. No matter who you are. Voting based on skin colour is undermining the entire idea of egalitarianism and democracy - we cannot outlaw it, but we can definitely cry foul. So I find your post informative and interesting, but I do not agree with your conclusion (or was it just a provocation?)
Re:First post (Score:2, Insightful)
Yes, because comparing a president's intellect to that of a monkey is exactly the same as a racist comparison of the president's wife to the physical appearance of a monkey. I know it might be nice to live in a little vacuum world in which nothing has any context, but certain things in our society are very loaded, even if when broken down, they should not be.
I think the truly sad thing here is how the first lady gets something like this wiped from the internet (more or less) while every other person who isn't rich or famous or powerful has to simply accept Google indexing (even prominently) very slanderous, libelous, offensive, repulsive, wrong, insulting things by other people (for example, see how Google is perhaps the only search engine to not only avoid hampering the Rip Off Report's libelous and unchecked content that the owner uses as a method of extortion against businesses and individuals under the guise of a consumer activist service, but actually prominently ranks and displays content) -- if you're not the president's wife, it's just tough shit for you. If you *are*, then boy howdy, we'll jump right on that!
Re:First post (Score:5, Insightful)
I see, so we should change what we say and how we express ourselves depending on the racial composition of the group we are in.
Sounds wonderfully progressive. Perhaps, some day, we may even set up separate facilities for those of different racial backgrounds, so that all may feel free and comfortable amongst those to whom they can express themselves freely!
Re:First post (Score:3, Insightful)
I agree that as incredibly offensive as it is, it is absolutely a protected form of political speech in as much as it is commentary (no matter how obscene and juvenile) about a celebrity, public figure, de facto political figure. Meanwhile, the every day person has to put up with actual libel on the internet that is not in any way merely a form of "free speech" or "political commentary" and there's no recourse for them - through Google or otherwise.
It seems to me, then, that the best thing they could have done is left it alone. The algorithm essentially culls the pulse of the internet for good or bad and when you start tweaking that (for instance, to promote google affiliates to the top two or three results), then you are essentially devaluing the entire worth of your index.
Re:Well, something *has* changed (Score:1, Insightful)
I draw the line at having a go at the families of the world leaders. By all means, show Obama, Bush and Mugabe as animals all you like, but leave their wives and children alone.
No. That would be hypocrisy. Michelle Obama is actively working to create positive publicity. She made herself an active public figure.
Presidents in countries like the US and France treat their families as PR assets, therefor they are fair game.
In other countries, like Germany for example, the chancellor's spouse is of little interest. They almost never appear in the news; nobody would even get satire involving them because they stay out of the spotlight and are mostly unknown.
My point? She chose to make herself a target for satire.
Re:Bad move Google... (Score:2, Insightful)
I agree with you on all your points except your implicit overall one, that nannyism on the Right makes nannyism on the Left less bad.
Re:Special Treatment for Kenyan in the White House (Score:1, Insightful)
It is not OK to vote racist. No matter who you are. Voting based on skin colour is undermining the entire idea of egalitarianism and democracy - we cannot outlaw it, but we can definitely cry foul.
The last I checked, neither egalitarianism or democracy is mentioned in our constitution. And how I vote and why I vote is none of your goddamned business.
Re:First post (Score:3, Insightful)
Isn't it just as racist that some insults are ok towards whites and off-limits towards blacks?
No, obviously not. Likening Michelle Obama to a monkey is insulting her because she is black, and is therefore racist. Likening Bush to a monkey is not insulting him because he is white, and so is not racist.
If you see the need to take either side, you discriminate people by race.
This is, of course, bullshit. Being aware that people are assigned to different races, and treated differently because of this, is not racism, it's the first step in getting rid of racism. Pretending race doesn't exist, on the other hand, is just a way of pretending that racism doesn't exist, and so will inevitably perpetuate it.
Re:First post (Score:3, Insightful)
Stupidity is not color-blind. (Score:5, Insightful)
Google's conduct in cowing to politically motivated whiners is reprehensible. It is apparently acceptable to compare George W Bush or Steve Ballmer to monkeys (or chimps, or whatever) in words or pictures as social or political comment. Tony Blair mostly got poodle comparisons, but there's probably a few monkey ones around also. RMS would be fair game as an ape, too, although he typically gets cave-man or neanderthal comparisons. The US cannot consider itself color-blind or non-racist until the same gamut of insults can be levelled at any public figure without fear of censorship or witch-hunting.
Re:Well, something *has* changed (Score:2, Insightful)
Michelle Obama is not a politician. Attacking family members of a politician is a No-no.
Tell that to Sarah Palin.
Re:Good Job guys (Score:5, Insightful)
But where's the picture? "Michelle Obama monkey" doesn't find it. Why can't we link to it in the summary if it's clear that the whole discussion will be about a picture 99% didn't see?
Re:First post (Score:5, Insightful)
Wow.
Likening a person to a monkey is insulting, I don't care what race you are. Likening Bush to a monkey isn't racism, I'll agree to that, but likening Michelle Obama to a monkey isn't either. Likening Michelle Obama because she is black to a monkey because people think black people look like monkeys is racist. It's the intent of the portrayal, not the portrayal itself. This isn't uncommon in thought or in law. If I accidentally hit someone with my car and they die, I can be charged with manslaughter. If I intentionally stalk someone and wait for that person to cross the street just so I can hit them with my car, that's murder. Same thing here. I can portray anyone I choose as a monkey, if it's done because they look like a monkey, or I'm making a comparison to something overly simian in their character or actions. If Michelle Obama throws her arm over her head and scratches herself and goes 'ook ook', am I allowed to photoshop her as a monkey then? At what point does it go from immediately racist to people thinking "Wait, maybe everyone ISN'T as racist as I am, and not everything done with a minority as a subject is racist?"
Your second statement is just utterly ridiculous. To paraphrase: "It's not racist to define different protections in the categories of freedom of speech based on people's skin color. Segregation of discrimination is the first step in getting rid of racism. Everyone getting along and realizing race doesn't matter at all will perpetuate racism forever." I wanted to put the word 'pretending' in the last sentence, but sarcasm-deficient people probably would pounce on me for it. Brilliant word there, imagine this sentence: "Pretending everyone can get along and race just doesn't matter at all will perpetuate racism forever." It's true, pretending that will keep racism around, since you're just pretending. Believing it and acting like it is really the final step to getting rid of racism. Perhaps some of us are doing better than you are at not lying to ourselves, and actually aren't racist, instead of your "first amendment separate but equal, segregated zones of thought and criticism" brand of "non-racism".
Re:First post (Score:3, Insightful)
No, obviously not. Likening Michelle Obama to a monkey is insulting her because she is black, and is therefore racist. Likening Bush to a monkey is not insulting him because he is white, and so is not racist.
So, what you are saying is that because Michelle Obama is black, she is closer to being a monkey than a non-black? That in itself sounds quite racist.
You Cannot Give Offense (Score:5, Insightful)
You can only take it.
Say what you want about the Right (and being an equal opportunity center-of-the-aisle kind of snark, I've said a lot...), they have much thicker skins than the Left, I've noticed. Every joke made about the current administration can never really be just a joke about the current administration, it's either borne of "racism" or a "disturbing indication of a growing violence and unrest." The recent SNL stuff is making my leftie friends apoplectic; when the same show skewered Bush and Cheney, my rightie friends were, like, "SNL? Is that still on?"
Sure, it's all anecdotal, but you know I'm correct.
I think that righties don't mind being un-hip. Many even carry it as a "badge of honor." (I am reminded here of bowtie-wearing Conservative pundit Tucker Carlson.) The lefties are mortified that they might somehow be un-cool, and that the Stewarts/Colberts/SNLs/Lettermans will turn on them. They need to be "in" on the joke, and not the butt of it, and if they ARE the butt of it, well, it can't really be a joke then, can it? It must be sedition and racism...
double standard? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:"racially offensive"? (Score:4, Insightful)
So being black protects you from certain insults even though the content is exactly the same? Isn't that in and of itself racist?
Re:Special Treatment for Kenyan in the White House (Score:2, Insightful)
Looking at US politics from the outside, one thing I simply can't understand is this.
You have an entire group of people who were brought to the country as slaves and even after slavery was abolished were terribly discriminated against (eg kept under control by lynching) within living memory. Even after reform you still have serious discrimination going on into the present day.
Then you act surprised that they vote as a block for one of their own to be head of state the first time they have a real chance! Seriously what the fuck did you expect? That isn't racism, its human nature.
Re:Special Treatment for Kenyan in the White House (Score:5, Insightful)
It is morally reprehensible to vote racist.
But, clearly, not reprehensible in the United States of America to campaign on a platform of your ethnicity as was evidenced in the last major presidential election?
If you are a racist, then you cannot, by definition, be a democrat
Clearly your definition of racism is different from mine. I view racism as any act that distinguishes somebody on their race. By that definition I would say nearly all democrats are "racist" as they use race as one of their election platforms (a truly non-racist party would not need to promote equality legislation that distinguishes race as a factor). Neither would they feel the need to denigrate anyone in opposition to their candidate as "morally reprehensible racists". The fact is that if both Republicans and Democrats put up candidates of identical race there would still be votes for both. It is clear that Democrats, therefore, are an extremely racist party by any definition.
As a foreign viewer of the American presidential race I was astounded to the extent that self-promotion based on race was a factor.
Re:Stupidity is not color-blind. (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:First post (Score:5, Insightful)
This is, of course, bullshit. Being aware that people are assigned to different races, and treated differently because of this, is not racism, it's the first step in getting rid of racism. Pretending race doesn't exist, on the other hand, is just a way of pretending that racism doesn't exist, and so will inevitably perpetuate it.
Picking and choosing what racism is leads to situations whereby innocent people are attacked, lose their jobs, and are branded pariahs because of a popularist opinion. Intent doesn't matter.
Let's consider the act of children. Often they tease one another. They tease about your funny-sounding last name. They tease about your father's profession. They tease about your weight or lack of weight. They tease about your private body parts or the way you move. They tease about your intelligence or lack thereof. They tease about your hair style. They tease about your skin colour (even when you're burnt or pale).
Now let's consider the act of adults. They can tease about stupidity. They can tease about money. They can tease about weight. They can tease about accents and behaviour. They can tease about looks. They can tease about names. Except if that person is from a racial background that refuses to accept criticism.
So what's the resulting behaviour? Avoid certain races in the workplace. They might sue you for racism regardless of the intent. Avoid certain races in the street. They might attack you then claim you incited racial hatred.
At the end of the day anybody who says that one person is entitled to being treated differently to another on the base of race is a racist.
There comes a time when society as a whole should become sick of popularist definitions of racism and just embrace the title.
Re:Special Treatment for Kenyan in the White House (Score:5, Insightful)
That isn't racism, its human nature.
Just because something is part of human nature, does not mean it's not racist.. in fact it's the natural human "us/them" mentality that causes racism, sports related violence, religious wars and all that good stuff :/ I suppose it also drives things like capitalism.
Basically we are social animals, and need to feel we belong. On top of that, a lot of people like to believe that what they belong to is better than everything else.
It will be nice when everyone can think of "us" as the whole of humanity. Until we as a species have a more natural enemy (whether real or imagined) than other humans, things will probably continue to suck.
Re:"racially offensive"? (Score:3, Insightful)
I shrugged my shoulders when I saw that picture, just like I shrugged my shoulders when I saw the bush/chimpanzee pictures and you know why? because I deeply believe that we should get rid of discrimination. The meaning of that word is "making differences between races/genders/etc" in any way, but I think many people believe that "putting an end to discrimination" meant something like "taking revenge for what happened"
When you tell me I should go nuts about that picture, but not about the bush/chimpanzee pictures, you are telling me to discriminate (agains white people). Its people like you, who just can't stop using the skincolor to classify a human being, that keep discrimination alive, so go and f... yourself!
Re:Stupidity is not color-blind. (Score:5, Insightful)
You can ignore America's shameful history of racism. Yours is a circle argument. We can't act normally because in the past people didn't act normally? Come on.
The original poster was right. And even if these people are doing what they are doing because they are racists, I don't get what the Big Fucking Deal (TM) is. Let them be racist, it doesn't mean censorship is the answer. Censoring racism will force it underground and thus strengthen it.
To answer Jon Stewart's question "Is blackface ever acceptable?": Hell yes. Just as whiteface, or any "face". It's only racist if we let it affect ourselves in that way. Otherwise it's just something to shrug your shoulders at, or potentially laugh.
Re:Stupidity is not color-blind. (Score:5, Insightful)
The hypocrisy and faux outrage of the left wing in the US is more than a little disturbing and starting to become a little overwhelming to the point that it's truly starting to taint my view of the entire movement. It's not like they don't remember 18 months ago when they were still doing the *exact same things* to the bush admin as is being done here. Calling them Nazi's, the underlying racism against Rice and Powell, calling Powell a pet, token black, etc (until he changed to their "side" that is), the photoshop fridays, etc.
So where was this fake outrage and Googles swift action when the internet hoardes were photoshopping Condoleezza Rice to look like an http://images.google.com.au/images?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=com.ubuntu:en-US:official&um=1&q=Condoleezza+Rice&sa=N&start=105&ndsp=21 [google.com.au] african native ?
Absolute hypocrites.
Re:Good Job guys (Score:5, Insightful)
The irony is that the joke is boring no matter who it's pointed at.
Re:First post (Score:2, Insightful)
No, but racism is stupid (Score:3, Insightful)
Calling Michelle Obama a monkey is more offensive than calling George Bush a monkey because in her case it is because of her race, not because of her person. In Bush's case it is a personal insult because of certain people's perception of him, personally, being clumsy and lacking intelligence.
There is a difference
Re:"racially offensive"? (Score:3, Insightful)
I disagree... because I'm not a racist like you...
I want discrimination to end, you are one of the people who keep it alive, because you just can't stop classifying people based on their skincolor...
Re:Good Job guys (Score:5, Insightful)
They're both racist slurs. One shows ignorance of African Americans and the other shows ignorance of Monkeys.
If this isn't censorship and racist (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't know what is Where was this response when the 'bush monkey' pictures were all the rage? Oh, that's right, he's white.
Re:If this isn't censorship and racist (Score:3, Insightful)
and not a democrat
Bing and Pixsy (Score:3, Insightful)
Just trying to be prepared for when Tiananmen happens in the U.S.
Bush & Clinton Monkey, Bush as Hitler etc?? (Score:3, Insightful)
I presume this means that Google will be removing the images - or at least apologizing for the images - that show Bush and Clinton as a monkey (e.g. among others http://doctorbulldog.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/8130george-w-bush-monkey-posters.jpg [wordpress.com], http://www.buttmonkeycentral.com/album/Funny%20Stuff/images/90576096af1be680a4643139f000e6db_11439207240/image.jpg [buttmonkeycentral.com]), Bush as hitler etc.
Re:Understandable (Score:4, Insightful)
Google is not the government, it is a private company with no legal or moral requirement to remove links to something that clearly offends some of its customers.
Re:Stupidity is not color-blind. (Score:5, Insightful)
So racism is dead in America right? Until that happens of course it is still unacceptable to apply monkey parody to black public figures. You cannot ignore America's (or much of the West's) shameful history of racism. Do not imagine for a second that the people who create images of Michelle Obama that make her look more monkey like are doing it simply because they noticed the striking similarity between humans and monkeys. They are doing it because they are racists.
So it's a sick hate crime to compare a black man or woman with a monkey. Yet it's fine to compare a white man to a monkey?
If you don't like racism then you should start by treating all races identically. If you want one set of rules for whites and one set for blacks it's clear who is being the racist here.
Re:Special Treatment for Kenyan in the White House (Score:3, Insightful)
It absolutely /is/ racism. It's /the/ definition of racism. Regardless of whether or not you consider it human nature.
Re:No, but racism is stupid (Score:5, Insightful)
Calling Michelle Obama a monkey is more offensive than calling George Bush a monkey because in her case it is because of her race, not because of her person. In Bush's case it is a personal insult because of certain people's perception of him, personally, being clumsy and lacking intelligence.
There is a difference
The difference is in your mind. You are claiming she is some special case due to her race and needs special protection. You are saying the rules that applied to Bush don't apply to her because Bush was a big strong white man and she is something less than that.
This woman you are talking about has likely archived more in her life than you ever well so why is it you believe she needs your protection from people making photo shop mash-ups out of her face?
Re:Stupidity is not color-blind. (Score:3, Insightful)
They did it to George W Bush as well. That would suggest they are not racist - they do it to everyone regardless of race.
Someone explain this to me (Score:4, Insightful)
Someone please explain to me how this is in any way a "racial slur". As far as I can tell, it's a political statement, and people are pulling the race card because they don't want to see the first lady criticized.
The other comments all suggest that a monkey is somehow a racial slur, but I have never, ever heard it as a racial slur before today, so if it has been one in the past, it sure hasn't been very common. So yeah, someone please explain to me on what grounds people are calling this a racial slur, because it isn't and never has been as far as I've ever been aware.
Re:Someone explain this to me (Score:3, Insightful)
But part of me knows where you're going. The monkey has long been a symbol of foolery or incompetence too. So when we see a commercial with a bunch of monkeys dressed in suits running around trashing a board room are we suppose to assume that they mean that Africans can't run a business or is it simply a joke against all corporate idiots at large?
That's the real shame about the race card; you can't make an honest statement about another person or group of people without feeling that something can be taken out of context and used to make you look like a racist.
I don't get it... (Score:3, Insightful)
Why is Google trying to censor its results? Presumably results are returned in page rank order, and sticking their fingers into this mess is going to open up a whole can of censorship/regulation woes.
Why is this offensive (Score:2, Insightful)
Why is this offensive? Because certain viewers attach a negative connotation to it? Give me a break. Ask my 6yo son what the image 'means' and he will just think it is funny. The only reason this is offensive is because the race baiters of the world in concert with the criminal liberal media continue to educate the uneducated that an image of a monkey is (more correctly was) racist - at one time. Get over it and quit propagating your own hate and blaming others for it.
Politics aside, I am against Google altering search results for most any reason. If it is a result and relevant, display it.
On the other side, if the site was using a clever google bomb to bait malware - then he!! yeah shut em down!
Re:Well, something *has* changed (Score:3, Insightful)
Racism won't be truly a thing of the past until people stop being racist. The person who made that image of Michelle Obama, did so because he/she wanted to make a racist statement.
Re:Well, something *has* changed (Score:1, Insightful)
If some guy gets beaten up in an argument between those two people, it's between them.
If some guy gets beaten up in an argument between two people over a rude word, it's a warning/threat to all who value freedom of speech.
If some guy gets beaten up in an argument between two people over infidelity, it's a warning/threat to all who value the right to do as you please with your own body.
If some guy gets beaten up in an argument between two people over accidentally knocking someone's drink, it's a warning/threat to all who may be slightly less physically well-coordinated.
If some guy gets beaten up in an argument between two people over football teams, it's a warning/threat to all who may support or not support either of the fighters' teams.
If some guy gets beaten up in an argument between two people resulting from one stronger man feeling like letting out his aggression on a weaker man, it's a warning/threat to all men who appear weaker than that man.
Every argument is based on some principle which could be violated by anyone in some way like the victim. Race is not special in this regard, and the argument for race crime is purely one of self-interest lobbying (primarily helping the rich white guy who knows that such laws only serve to entrench racist sentiment).
Racism is more like terrorism light
Terrorism is the new communism. It has no useful objective definition, certainly not one suitable for discussions about law.
Re:Someone explain this to me (Score:1, Insightful)
The most racist thing in the world is a person yelling "Racism!". White, black, red, yellow, green...meh whatever. We are all HUMANS underneath that slim layer of pigmented dead skin cells. The ONLY way we can eliminate racism is to quit fuckin using it ...... PERIOD.
Disclaimer: I have been assigned to that group noted as Caucasian. I still usually fill in the race section on forms that I fill out as HUMAN.
Did Google acted likewise with George Bush? (Score:2, Insightful)
I remember that I saw some pics resebling former President Bush to a monkey, even in the New Yorker Magazine!... Any actions then?
Re:Someone explain this to me (Score:2, Insightful)
Oh those double standards. (Score:4, Insightful)
Everyone knows you can only do tasteless jokes about a black woman or man when they are a conservative.
Remember Condoleezza Rice?
http://images.google.com/images?gbv=1&sa=1&q=condoleezza+rice+monkey&btnG=Search+images [google.com]
Remember Michael Steele?
http://images.google.com/images?gbv=1&hl=en&safe=off&sa=1&q=michael+steele+blackface&btnG=Search+images [google.com]
What colour? (Score:3, Insightful)
Racism is in YOUR head. The people making this picture have been making it for ALL public figures, white or black.
Maybe it's bad taste, not funny. But perhaps some people even find it funny. It's not racism though, that is only your projection (which if you read the article, but this is /. after all ;-), you wouldn't make this mistake.
Racism dies the day you decide it isn't real (and you can still fight for equal rights and opportunities for ALL people in society).
Re:What colour? (Score:5, Insightful)
Exactly. There are how many monkey pictures of Bush out there? I recall seeing one in a newspaper's politics section once, and no one even bats an eye. then one comes out about Michelle Obama and suddenly it's horribly offensive and racist. No, it's a joke, the same one that's been made about dozens of presidents and other important people before her. Somehow just because her skin contains more melatonin the joke is now horribly offensive.
Come on people, at least be consistent. If comparing people to monkeys is horribly offensive then where were you when Bush was getting this treatment? Probably sitting at home laughing about it.
Re:Special Treatment for Kenyan in the White House (Score:3, Insightful)
You have no idea what you're talking about.
Racism: "a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others."
"hatred or intolerance of another race or other races."
Any discrimination based on differences in race (which is kind of a silly concept anyways IMHO) is racism. Period.
Re:First post (Score:1, Insightful)
That said, it wasn't a very good search result. If I'm searching for "Michelle Obama" I don't want to doctored photos of Michelle Obama, I want actual photos. I'll search for "Michelle Obama photoshop" or "Michelle Obama ape" if that is the result I want.
Re:Special Treatment for Kenyan in the White House (Score:3, Insightful)
But, clearly, not reprehensible in the United States of America to campaign on a platform of your ethnicity as was evidenced in the last major presidential election?
[..]
As a foreign viewer of the American presidential race I was astounded to the extent that self-promotion based on race was a factor.
Examples? Obama did everything possible to downplay ethnicity during the campaign and only brought it up when opponents tried to use his race/ethnicity (usually vis-à-vis his associations) to make political hay. There's a reason why "post-racial" was such a buzzword here last year.
Re:Stupidity is not color-blind. (Score:3, Insightful)
What has this got to do with the left wing?
Hypocrisy is using something like this, which is really bipartisan in treatment and trying to blame it on a particular political movement and then inferring from that that they are somehow the hypocrits.
The reason there was no uproar when it was done to Bush and Rice is because they were almost universally hated by the majority of the media at that point, whilst Michelle Obama has managed to maintain her place as a media darling just as many others have before her for some time.
Really, the reason people like Michelle Obama become media sweathearts nearly always has fuck all to do with her political stance and more to do with how she's been growing lettuce in the Whitehouse garden and what dresses she wears and other dumb shit like that.
I agree it stinks, why is it racist when they turn Michell Obama into a monkey and not George Bush? But blame media idiocy for creating Saint Michelle, partisan politics frankly has fuck all to do with it. It's little different to the media creating Saint Dianna after Princess Dianna died in a car crash despite the fact for months prior she'd been pointed out as a slut who had literally sworn at small children who ran up to her to get the chance to meet a real princess. If the media brings politics into it to defend their latest Saint then realise it for what it is- the media just using whatever it can to defend said Saint because it sells, don't stoop to their level of idiocy though and blame that whole political wing else you become the hypocrit.
To put it in another, more simplistic way, if this had been about a black actress, would you still have brought political leaning into it?
Re:Stupidity is not color-blind. (Score:4, Insightful)
What has this got to do with the left wing?
Here's the left wing bias: We never saw anything like this when Condolezza Rice was photoshopped (any of the numerous times). Another example is the "Joker Face" images. Do it to Obama and it's some sort of crazy Racist propaganda. Do it to Bush, and you get published in magazines for clever political satire. The bias is obviously there, since it seems any time it happens to the left, there's some huge controversy and stuff gets censored.
Re:Special Treatment for Kenyan in the White House (Score:3, Insightful)
A republic (in the modern sense) is just a state without a monarch as head of state. There is nothing special about a republic, and you can have perfectly democratic and/or representative monarchies (ie. monarchies with powers bound by a constitution such as Great Britain) with a high amount of liberty for most citizens, and yet have have quite oppressive republics with little liberty for most citizens.
What the US constitution (and others like it) really espouses is Liberty. Liberty is closely tied to Rights and how Rights are structured as to permit an individual to do anything according to his will as long as it does not infringe on the Rights of others. This idea is also related to the "pursuit of happiness", but be aware that Liberty is not to maximise happiness, but to enable its pursuit.
Britain, instead of rejecting the Monarchy, bound the Crown by setting up, using legal and political means, a structure (the unwritten constitution) that enabled representation for the aristocracy and gentry through Parliament. This was gradually expanded to universal suffrage in the 20th century and correspondingly the power of the Crown gradually contracted to the ceremonial role it plays today.
The reason I point this out is because in your post, you seem to have some sort of implicit admiration for anarchy. This I feel is misguided. Order is important in a society as it establishes what is acceptable and what is not (and how this is enforced). This threshold, however, is dynamic and multi-dimensional and there are many factors at play in any given society.
Without order and a power structure, society will break down, and new forms of authority will fill the power vacuum and the cycle repeats ad infinitum. Most humans need order, whether because of genetics, social conditioning or individual experience. They need a society that can give them the framework for security and production as these are linked directly to the most primal human instinct - survival.
The nature of power (in the human sense) is neither good or evil, it is just the measure of adherence of the Many to the will of the Few. A fundamental idea of the US constitution is the "balance of power" which was actually heavily influenced by the ideas of a Frenchman (Montesquieu) who admired the British system of checks on the power of the Crown through a legal framework and a body of elected representatives.
In short, the balance of power is not to limit the amount of power, yet that may be a side effect that brings many benefits; the essence of the idea is to prevent the corruption of power through institutional vigilance within government. As such, it is not about big government or small government, it is about good government.
Re:Stupidity is not color-blind. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Well, something *has* changed (Score:3, Insightful)
The person who made that image of Michelle Obama, did so because he/she wanted to make a racist statement
And all of the pictures of white celebrities made to look like apes, on the same site, by the same person, were also racist? The same person has been making people of varying ethnicities look like apes since 2007 (according to archive.org; the earliest index they have of the site is December 16 2007, the earliest post visible on the front page from that copy is December 6). But now, suddenly, because it's Micelle Obama, receiving exactly the same treatment as several hundred other celebrities over the last two years it's a racist statement?
Somehow, I get the feeling that you're projecting.
Re:Good Job guys (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:What colour? (Score:2, Insightful)
Is it really hard to understand that comparing black people to monkeys is racist because it wasn't very long ago that that was a common claim by rascists.
Sure the person doing it mightn't be being rascist, I might burn a cross on a black guys lawn because I thought it made a nice Christmas display without any knowledge of the historic significance.
But due to the history it is treated as rascist, and will be interpreted as rascist by most people.
Re:Understandable (Score:2, Insightful)
I agree, while I find comparing a first lady to a monkey, or anyone for that matter beyond tasteless,
Ridiculous. Comparing things to things is just communication. If you're inarticulate and fling poo...
What if I called George Bush a monkey?
You'd be right in more ways than one.
You can be proud of your race sure,
Only if you're a festering fucking imbecile.
How you can be proud of anything that happened to you by chance and is coincidentally shared with others, is amazing.
White pride is the new KKK and both need to suck dynamite.
In conclusion, the best thing to do would be for Michelle or the President himself to ask Google to return the images.
Yup. That'd certainly strip their effectiveness and boost the Obama's standing. Good idea.
That would make me even more proud to be an American
Yeah, because you and him coincidentally share a country you'd be proud.
and have considerably more faith in my President about his confidence of his own actions and merits.
GW Bush had great confidence in his actions... That's what faith gets you, idiocy.
I am a Christian and don't necessarily believe in all of the "mainstream" theory of evolution
I see.
Re:Special Treatment for Kenyan in the White House (Score:3, Insightful)
95% of black Americans always vote for the Democrat. 19 out of 20 black Americans voted for John Kerry. That's not a racial issue directly, it's more of a racial issue indirectly, because Dems like to make government programs that help black people. In that way, it is really a simple matter of voting for the policies out of self interest.
Moreover, affinity groups always gravitate toward their own representatives: Catholics liked Kennedy; Jews like Liberman. Considering this, it's surprising that more blacks didn't vote for Obama; but also, it's hard to improve on a base of 95%.
Finally, despite you being wrong about all your facts, I think you are right about your conclusion: you can vote for or against candidates any way you want, even for racial reasons. If your conscience says that black people are in some way bad, then you should not vote for black people. The grand effort of a liberal society should be to convince racists, bigots, haters, and the ignorant to change their ways; and if that's not possible, to convince their children to be different, and wait for the bigots to die. So as much as I hate to do it, I give you my personal blessing to continue voting your conscience, even as I vainly encourage you to stop being a bigot.
Re:Stupidity is not color-blind. (Score:3, Insightful)
So it's a sick hate crime to compare a black man or woman with a monkey. Yet it's fine to compare a white man to a monkey?
Well, I don't know if it's "fine", but it's certainly not racist.
The term that describes your argument is "false equivalence". Specifically, you said this:
If you want one set of rules for whites and one set for blacks it's clear who is being the racist here.
There aren't two sets of rules here, there is only one. The rule is: it's racist to use racial stereotypes against members of that race. It's not possible to make a racist depiction of Bush as a monkey, because Bush isn't a member of a race commonly stereotyped as monkeys. However, it is not impossible to make an offensive depiction of Bush as a monkey, with the offense based on something other than race. If you want racist images of Bush, you would have to use stereotypes of his race, perhaps with pictures of crackers or something.
Really, that false equivalence is very, very common, and I often wonder whether or not the people making it believe it. I ask this seriously: do you honestly, really, deep down in your heart, think that a monkey-Bush picture is equivalent in all ways to a monkey-Obama picture? Do you also have trouble in other areas of your life making distinctions between two very different things that share a shallow commonality?
Re:What colour? (Score:3, Insightful)
It's not more offensive because of the melanin in her skin, it's more offensive because of the historical context of comparing members of her race to monkeys -- a context which does not apply to members of other races.
I hope that clears it all up for you. I'm actually a little surprised that you weren't aware of the deep history of racist monkey/negro comparisons.