Censorship I Don’t Understand
Cidu Bill on Jan 16th 2012
Ed Rush reports that the Cleveland Plain Dealer last Thursday printed this:
“Editor’s Note: Today’s ‘Non Sequitur’ strip was withheld because it was deemed objectionable by Plain Dealer editors. A replacement strip was unavailable by press time.”
in place of this:
Filed in Bill Bickel, Non Sequitur, Wiley Miller, censorship, comic strips, comics, humor | 28 responses so far
Cidu Bill Jan 16th 2012 at 10:22 am 1
Oh, and let’s stipulate that this is not technically “censorship” since the government is not involved, and move on from there…
Daniel J. Drazen Jan 16th 2012 at 10:32 am 2
Well, they’re all predators, so as far as the rabbit is concerned….
mitch4 Jan 16th 2012 at 10:40 am 3
Are we puzzling out what the editors could have considered objectionable?
I suppose it’s because the cartoon can be taken to be supporting as normal, factual, or understandable the “they all look alike [to me]” statement, which to many is a hallmark of the speaker’s distance and unfamiliarity with people of other races, and thus perhaps an attempt at justifying discriminatory behavior.
It is hard to pin down where the cartoon means to go with this. Maybe it is alluding to some actual psych studies about the weakness of cross-racial eyewitness identifications. In that case, it is perhaps supporting the witness and his (its?) confused comment, but on the basis of research, not just a sort of excess latitude to prejudice.
OTOH, maybe it is meant to attack the witness and reject his apologetic confusion, since the extras in the lineup are not just a different species from the witness but differ from each other, and differ so much that the protest of being perceived as similar becomes ridiculous.
Mark M Jan 16th 2012 at 10:46 am 4
It’s objectionable to some because that phrase, or some variation to it, has been said about specific races. A visitor to China may say that about Asians. Whether it’s racist or not could be debated. That said, it seems like the comic would have been better if all the suspects were the same type, like all bears.
Judge Mental Jan 16th 2012 at 11:20 am 5
I think we all get “they all look alike” phrase has been said about specific races, But presuming that the rabbit is “racist”, (or a reasonable cartoon animal kingdom substitute) isn’t the whole point that his perception is unfounded? That is, those animals look nothing alike. Any perception that they do look alike is based on his bias. If anything, this one seems to be an indictment on a racism.
I’m with Bill on this one. I would like to know how the editors interpreted this one to find it objectionable.
Blinky the Wonder Wombat Jan 16th 2012 at 11:33 am 6
Of course they all look alike to the rabbit- they are all predators and he’s prey. He would never hang around any predator long enough to differentiate one from the other.
On a deeper level, if all the predators have the same objective (eating the prey) does it really matter if they are different species? To the prey, they are basically all the same.
Elyrest Jan 16th 2012 at 11:36 am 7
I saw on GoComics that some papers had pulled the comic. I don’t really understand why because they print many things that are much more objectionable. I don’t find this objectionable at all though. Daniel J. Drazen is right - all the animals in the line-up look the same because they are all enemies. The rabbit looks like dinner to them.
There is truth to the notion that all people of a different race, ethnic group, sex, country, and even neighborhood can look the same. They start looking different once they become familiar. When I moved to the San Francisco area, after being raised in rural Pennsylvania, most people of Asian ethnicity looked similar to me. Very soon I could tell the difference between nationalities and then after I grew to know them they just looked like people.
Winter Wallaby Jan 16th 2012 at 11:40 am 8
Mark M #4: I don’t think it would have been better if the suspects were all bears. The joke is that they look nothing like each other, to the point of actually being different species, but look the same to the rabbit.
Mark M Jan 16th 2012 at 11:51 am 9
If it’s all about the fact that the rabbit is prey and the predators all look alike because the rabbit doesn’t stick around long enough to see the criminal, then that kind of takes away the racial stereotype theory as the joke because the animals are not the same “race”. And if that’s the case, why preface his statement with “I know how bad it sounds”?
Steffen Jan 16th 2012 at 12:03 pm 10
Asians and blacks all look alike to me.
But then, I’m bad with faces in general so I generally use hair as my cue - and hair is generally more homogeneous among blacks and Asians. I’ve worked with a good number of Asians in my university studies but damn if I can recognize them. No racism, just bad social skills.
Come to think of it, young children are a problem too, often being very blond.
Man, I’m just bad at this.
scott Jan 16th 2012 at 12:18 pm 11
I think Judge Mental nailed what the cartoonist was shooting for. This seems like one that a newspaper editor should look forward to defending, but maybe they’re worried about offending people who think like the rabbit.
Judge Mental Jan 16th 2012 at 12:20 pm 12
I see a lot of re-explaining the joke here, but that is not the question on the table. The question is what made it objectionable enough to pull. If it is indeed merely that the phrase “they all really do look alike to me” was used, then that seems to be a pretty dubious reason.
Trying to read the minds of the editors, maybe they thought Wiley was suggesting that “they all look alike” = “they all ARE alike” (or at least feared people could interpret it that way) Just like all predators are alike from the standpoint of the bunny, all Muslims (for example) are alike from the standpoint of a Christian. :shrug
fuzzmaster Jan 16th 2012 at 12:42 pm 13
I’d imagine that combining “they all look alike” with a police lineup was the step too far for the paper. Regardless of what Wiley intended, that context for a joke about how they all look alike because they’re all vicious predators does have some troubling aspects. Throw in the facts that calling African-Americans animals is another commonplace of racists and you can see where the editor’s thoughts were going.
George P Jan 16th 2012 at 01:01 pm 14
It is censorship, whether it’s done by the government or a newspaper.
Censorship by the government is the only kind that runs afoul of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, but it’s not the only kind that exists.
As for why this was censored, I think it was just the trigger phrase “they all … look alike”. If it had included “I wouldn’t want my sister to marry one” it would have had the same effect, regardless of context.
mitch4 Jan 16th 2012 at 01:28 pm 15
I think George P’s first point @14 is well taken, and Bill’s stipulation was probably unnecessary — this is pretty clearly a case of censorship, though not by government. OTOH, you do have to think about whether it’s state action before bringing in the 1st Amendment.
We’ve already collected numerous explanations of why the cartoon need not be taken as endorsing the “they all look alike” comment — as applied among humans anyway — so it seems the newspaper was just not delving in that much depth and it likely was the use of that phrase in and of itself that set them off, wthout much consideration of context. (So this is further in agreement with George P @14, plus others taking this view. Judge Mental @12, you seem to be taking this position, but then saying there must be more to it. I don’t see the need to credit the newspaper with more subtlety than that.)
Greg Jan 16th 2012 at 05:02 pm 16
I am amazed that nobody has figured out that today is Martin Luther King’s birthday. No doubt the editor was a bit more aware than the rest of you.
ja Jan 16th 2012 at 05:12 pm 17
I assume the editor’s objection was the likelihood that someone could take this joke as attempting to justify racist “they all look a like to me” statements. After all, the rabbit does have a point (they all look scary and hungry). I’m sure that’s not the cartoonist’s goal, but the editor was just probably being overly sensitive about trying to be politically correct. (Which, ironically enough, is what I think the cartoonist was attempting to lampoon.)
ja Jan 16th 2012 at 05:14 pm 18
@16, except that the strip was from last Thrusday…
Elyrest Jan 16th 2012 at 05:19 pm 19
Greg - Since this comic appeared on Friday I don’t think it has anything to do w/ Martin Luther King’s birthday. I won’t comment on being aware.
James Pollock Jan 16th 2012 at 05:25 pm 20
The “they all look alike to me” statement is typically associated with the dominant racial group’s inability to recognize individuals from other races (although the underlying difficulty seems to apply equally between any two racial groups) and the unspoken implication is “… and I can’t be troubled to learn to tell them apart.”
ANY reference to race or race relations draws angry comments, either from the people who complain about racism (which exists but not nearly as much as its proponents claim), or the people who complain about “reverse racism” (which exists but not nearly as much as its proponents claim)… and features editors don’t like angry phone calls. The editorial page staff are used to it, but not the features page editors… which is why they are so hesitant to drop a comic no matter how boring its become… the strip’s 15 fans will ALL call to complain.
Mark in Boston Jan 16th 2012 at 07:32 pm 21
OK, if it were 1902 and the animals in the lineup were all raccoons, then it would be a reference to Ernest Hogan’s hit song and it would be funny.
But it’s not and they’re not and it’s not so it’s not.
AMC Jan 16th 2012 at 07:48 pm 22
It was pulled because they are all taking a dump on a porch, instead of in the woods, as God intended.
Ian Osmond Jan 16th 2012 at 08:19 pm 23
For what it’s worth, there were a couple weeks in college where, for no good reason except random chance, most of the people I was hanging out with, studying with, and stuff, were mainly non-white.
After a week or so, all whites started looking alike to me. Mind you, I was REALLY sleep-deprived by that point.
Kilby Jan 17th 2012 at 12:03 am 24
“Hey, carnivores aren’t all that bad. Heck, some of my best friends are carnivores.”
The Ploughman Jan 17th 2012 at 05:04 pm 25
It seems like the decision might betray a bit of prejudice on the part of the editors. If the rabbit is supposed to represent one race and the predators a single other, what races are they representing? And if they don’t represent specific races, why is the comic offensive, rather than a comment on racism? Methinks the Plain Dealer had an answer in mind for the first question.
turquoisecow Jan 17th 2012 at 07:13 pm 26
While this strip could certainly be considered objectionable, it’s far from the most objectionable strip ever done by Non Sequitur. I wonder if the Plain Dealer has pulled them in the past.
AmazingThor Jan 17th 2012 at 08:33 pm 27
Just taking a stab at what the joke could be…Is this a reference to Uncle Remus’ Brer Rabbit? I know those featured a Brer Fox and Brer Bear, not sure about snake and cat(?) Maybe because they all share the same identifying “Brer” in their names he can’t distinguish them. Also could be why it was banned. Uncle Remus’ stories (made famous in Disney’s “Song of the South”) have been criticized as racist. Disney has never released that movie on video and IIRC the story featured one tale of a “tar baby”, just to cite one example of its racism.
Matthew Jan 18th 2012 at 07:56 am 28
It was a good cartoon, making a trenchant point wittily. That is the reason that the PLAIN DEALER didn’t print it.