“Good Afternoon Mr. Greenspon,
Who is this cartoonist you are giving space to in the editorial section? A fifteen-year-old redneck living in a shack in the middle of nowhere? That cartoon depicting a scene in an Afro-centric school is the kind of thing I expect to see in some racist white-supremacist navel-gazing adolescent ‘zine not a national newspaper that is trying to maintain a reputation for insightful, educated, thought-provoking commentaries on society. Maybe, like the typical adolescent ‘zine illustrator, this cartoonist thinks that by portraying something so obviously racist everyone will understand that he/she is being ironic. The fact is that the presentation of a racist stereotype enforces a racist stereotype. I expect more informed and sophisticated commentary from your paper. Or maybe this is a “shock jock” approach to newspaper illustration. Silly me! Of course, you’re not trying to get anyone to THINK about the issue. You’re just trying to illicit an emotional response!
In that case, you will have succeeded. Your paper’s illustration adds nothing to the rational debate around Afro-centric curricula/schools. It will only prompt a lot of emotionally charged ranting which is great if you want to live in a country controlled by uninformed mob rule. Thanks a lot. I was getting tired of all that thinking. And I guess I won’t need to buy your paper anymore if I don’t need to think about anything.
“Good Day Mr. Owen,I appreciate that you took the time to respond to my letter. I do not want this exchange to go on and on, but I must tell you that I was not fully satisfied by your response.
It doesn’t matter that the cartoonist did not see that his/her illustration was racist. If I had a nickel for every racist comment I’ve heard where the speaker then went on to explain why they were not racist and their comment was not racist, I’d be a millionaire. I have been astonished over my lifetime to hear what some people will say to me thinking I would sympathize with their views just because my skin colour is white.
The cartoon simply is racist because it depends on a stereotype to represent a black educator. It reduces the idea of a whole Afro-centric school program to a math class as though the neutrality of pure math were representative of the majority of subjects in a public school curriculum which is so absurd it is insulting. Finally it suggests that the only contribution an Afro-focused educator could make to teaching students would be to speak in a different way and this different way is street slang! This cartoon dismisses the whole Afro-centric world view as nothing but an affectation. If that is not the epitome of Euro-centric racism, I do not know what is.
The reality of public school education is that all subjects, even math, are taught within a cultural context. This context includes a selective history around the subjects taught such as mathematics and Africa certainly appears in the history of the development of mathematical concepts, however this is often ignored.
There are young people and children whose education, intellectual and emotional, continues to be seriously disadvantaged and discouraged by the kind of pervasive and casual racism presented by this cartoon. They think they will never acquire the skills to be able to make a useful contribution to society and moreover even if they could our society would not want their contribution. What these children need is a focused and engaging educational program that does what too many people in our society do not: treat them, their history and the countries to which they have cultural ties with value and respect. These children are not getting the encouragement they need in the current public school system, which is still only weakly multi-cultural in its curriculum.
The discussion around Afro-centric schools is about how to create a respectful environment conducive to learning in which these children and young people can succeed. In a public school system like ours that is so shamefully underfunded a simple solution is to gather a critical mass of people together who have the will and the energy to support each other and support these children. We will then have a valuable resource in these schools which will be able to pioneer additional alternative curriculum material which could be used to evolve one more part of a truly multi-cultural educational program for public schools in general.
I hope in the future your commentaries and editorials will give this issue the thoughtful attention it deserves. If you want to run comic illustrations of either side of this debate, or any other, in the future I hope that they will be more informed and thought provoking and not as simple-minded as this one was.
In the meantime, the Globe and Mail editors need to face up to the fact that they have, intentions aside, published a blatantly racist cartoon. Maybe, in light of this, they should re-think their newspaper’s position on the usefulness of opening a couple of Afro-centric public schools.
Regards,
Kristin.
p.s. – As an aside:
This type of mockery is like coming up with some cartoon about girl’s math to illustrate why private girls’ schools, like the one I attended, are a ridiculous idea.
Or maybe one about Catholic math. I don’t think we should still be funding a separate Catholic system now that Catholics don’t suffer the discrimination they used to. However the issue is not now and was not then any perceived difference between Catholic math and Protestant math.
There are even cultural differences evident between public French-immersion (which I also attended) and English schools in this country. These appear in history and social-studies lessons and of course the original French language literature that students read.
We are evolving a rich and diverse Canadian culture and this must include exploring and evolving a diverse public school system.”
[...] Letter from Kristin re: Racist Cartoon [...]
Below is a second response to me from the Gobe & Mail this time from the Deputy Editor with my final response.
Ms. Stead, thank you so much for your thoughtful response. Its greatly appreciated and certainly restores some faith for me in the Globe and Mail. I am glad of the acknowledgement that there was a degree of insensitivity in the caricature used, and intended or not, the impact was one that ultimately led to myself and other individuals within and outside of the black community, whether supportive of Afrocentric schools or not to respond to the feature.
I was not aware of the extent and degree of coverage that you had provided on this issue. In the interest of being equitable, as much as I was comfortable to challenge and criticize you, I am equally comfortable to say thank you for bringing attention to a topic, that as I have previously mentioned is complex, divisive, and does not have any obvious quick fixes.
I would respectfully suggest that some sort of apology/correction or editorial piece reflecting what you have so succinctly conveyed in this response, would go an awfully long way to to helping resolve this situation and providing some clarity on your intent as opposed to what might have been perceived.
Regards
Ray Williams
From: Stead, Sylvia [mailto:SStead@globeandmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2008 1:39 PM
To: raywilliams@sympatico.ca
Subject: Editorial Cartoon of Feb. 18, 08
Dear Mr. Williams,
We have read and considered the many complaints we have received about the editorial cartoon of Feb. 18, which referred to the debate about a proposed black-focused, or Afrocentric, school in Toronto.
While the intent of the cartoon was not racist, we acknowledge that the presentation of the idea in it may well have been insensitive and that it certainly gave offence to many readers. The cartoonist’s intention was simply to comment in the way editorial cartoonists do on the concept of Afrocentric schools. Intention is by no means everything; the effect is vitally important, too. It is particularly striking that we have received complaints from people on both sides of the black-focused school question.
We have great respect for the African-Canadian community. Specifically, we take very seriously the problems that the school proposal is designed to alleviate or to remedy.
We hope you will view this cartoon in the broader context of our reporting and opinion writing. We believe that our reporting on the black-focused schools debate has been a model of fairness, in news stories by Carolyn Abraham, Caroline Alphonso, James Bradshaw, Karen Howlett and Jill Mahoney. Of our columnists, Margaret Wente (twice) and John Barber have supported the proposal, while an editorial by the editorial board and columns by Jeffrey Simpson and Rick Salutin have opposed it. The Toronto editor, Gregory Boyd Bell, has led a Web discussion of the topic. Two relevant feature articles are one by Patrick White in the Life section, on the proposal, and one by James Bradshaw on David Watkins and his black history course at Weston Collegiate Institute.
Beyond this particular debate, our reporter Joe Friesen spent four months of 2006 in the Jane-Finch area of Toronto, and wrote a extensive series of stories titled The Neighbourhood, which presented its positive aspects, so often neglected in the media.
Anthony Reinhart has written several stories about the black community of Toronto and the racism it suffers from. As Mr. Reinhart is one of the best writers for the Globe’s Toronto pages, his assignments are regarded as high-priority stories. We have also written several features on the Pathways program and its successes in encouraging children to stay in school.
Editorial cartoons are meant to stir debate, and contribute to it. The visual style is one of exaggeration of features, which can be problematic, but is not intrinsically derogatory, and is routinely applied to establishment figures. The idea in this particular cartoon is that mathematics is universal, not variable with ethnicity or race, though language may so vary.
We also recognize that a phrase associated with a judge of the television show American Idol is not one that a black teacher would ever use to address a Canadian class.
Moreover, through a mistake in transcription, the equations on the blackboard were not quite correct. This was our mistake, and there was no intention to suggest that the imaginary teacher in the cartoon was not competent.
This debate will continue, and The Globe and Mail will continue, with renewed energy and greater insight to endeavour that our presentation of it, and of related issues that concern the African-Canadian community, will be fair, balanced, thorough and respectful.
Yours truly,
Sylvia Stead
Deputy editor