Gun Violence and Race

Michael de Adder, a freelance cartoonist, was under some fire --- especially via Twitter tonight.
He frequently appears in the Toronto Star, among other papers, and was under some scrutiny about his latest illustration (above).



From his tweets, I can conclude that he didn't "mean it" in a derogatory way, and his message was that before the age of two, children shouldn't be vulnerable to gunshot wounds... injuries that children SHOULD be susceptible to are scrapes on the knees and elbows from falling while playing, and as a daycare worker, I'm fully aware that two years olds know how to run but rarely know when to stop. They crash, often into each other. He added that he put "they" instead of "children" without thinking, but still holds ground that his cartoon is not derogatory, offensive or racist. This is a part of the main problem... he wasn't thinking. Why? He's never been a victim of or subject to racism, being that he belongs in a racially privileged group.
De Adder could claim that although he is privileged, he may be oppressed in other forms such as class, sexuality etc. BUT, he's NOT oppressed racially, and that's the main issue here. Race.

The problem is that he insensitively illustrated a black child in his cartoon along with a particular choice of words in the caption. Now, he, being white man, may not see a problem with this.
Tsk tsk...

But come on de Adder, I'm not black and I SEE A PROBLEM WITH IT.
I'm not black and I'm not white, but I'm still a racialized body wandering the streets of Toronto, and guess what? I'm over the age of two and still susceptible to being shot. With the string of what seems to be endless shootings in and around the city, who isn't a potential victim? Damn, de Adder is a potential victim. You are too. So is your neighbour. Even if he isn't black!

The implications of using a black child in the drawing along with the caption "INJURIES TO EXPECT BEFORE THEY ARE TWO" passed right over the illustrator's head and into the outrage of criticisms of the black community of Toronto. Of course, de Adder didn't have "they" in capital letters or in bold, but he still used the word THEY. THEY as in....?

Well let me spell a little bit of this out for you.

USING A BLACK CHILD IN THE ILLUSTRATION IMPLIES THAT SHOOTINGS ARE LIMIT TO, COMMITTED ONLY BY AND TARGETED ONLY TOWARD THE MEMBER(S) OF THE BLACK COMMUNITY. IT REITERATES THAT THE CAUSE OF GUN VIOLENCE IS AT THE FAULT OF THE BLACK COMMUNITY. EVEN IF YOU DIDN'T "MEAN IT" IN THAT WAY. IT SETTLES INTO READERS' MINDS THAT BLACK AND GUN VIOLENCE ARE ALWAYS INTERRELATED.

I hope you appreciate my use of caps lock above, as I rarely use it. If you don't, there is nothing more I can do for you.

For some members...the ignorant ones... of society, gun and black somehow go hand in hand. For those who even claimed to be educated, the ignorance overrides their Harvard degrees and fancy plaques on the walls.

Consider these:

1. Let's not forget that crimes that are actually unreported are overlooked--- crimes that involve black people that ARE reported and ARE broadcasted in the media are mostly when the perpetrator is black. NOT THE VICTIM. We see a lot more attention paid to victims when they are white, not black, not aboriginal etc. Remember Jane Creba? Yes.
Remember Pamela George? No.

2. If you've ever taken social psychology, you are sure to have heard of a study that measured prejudice. Matter of fact, you FOR SURE have. And guess what the results were when comparing white people, black people, gun and no gun. ... Just take a wiiiiild guess.

3. Black people and guns go together? ... Oh ok, was there always a black man that was declaring wars and bombing countries all this time and I had the wrong idea? Were colonizers equipped with guns, grenades, and other deadly weapons ... were they black? I think not, sir.

4. When there is a shooting involving a black person and that person is "suspected" to be a shooter or whatever, the police ALWAYS mention that the person was or was not gang affiliated. ALWAYS.

If you still can't see why this cartoon caused an outrage (AND you can't appreciate my use of caps lock above), as I said before, there is nothing I can do for you. Matter of fact, there isn't anything anyone can do for you. You're a lost cause.

But for those of you who understand, or at least my post doesn't fall within your region of non-commitement... Understand that cartoons like this just generates and maintains stereotypes and racism that probably kills people more than people with guns do.

Why didn't de Adder put a white child? Or just friggin change "they" to "children" like a smart person would do. He can claim that he didn't mean to be racist or derogatory in any way, but us racialized people understand that people with racial privilege often DON'T recognize when they ARE being racist, or insensitive or offensive... BECAUSE THEY'VE NEVER BEEN IN OUR SHOES. They probably wouldn't know how to walk in them even if they tried.

This can be the same as I, an able bodied and able minded person, describing a situation as "retarded", while an someone with Autism stands next to me.

But... I didn't mean it to be derogatory. Right?