The reality of life in Australia is that, if you are Aboriginal, you are vastly more likely to be abused as a child, you will die on average a decade earlier than the rest of the country, and as far as anyone can tell, much the same will be true for your children - life could be a little better for them, because the gaps seem to be narrowing, but they aren't narrowing fast enough to reach parity before those children reach adulthood. This is an uncomfortable truth for most Australians to hear, but at least it's talked about. What isn't widely talked about, and what is even more uncomfortable to a lot of people, is that poverty/abuse/anti-social behaviour can be passed down to kids by parents, and that this is why they are cycles.
It's hard to draw a line between pointing out uncomfortable truths in an effort to help, which I consider the role of a political cartoonist, and just slandering the Aboriginal people, which I consider racism. I give Bill Leak the benefit of the doubt because the policeman is Aboriginal. If the policeman was white, I would see the cartoon as blatantly racist, but I believe Leak deliberately made the policeman Aboriginal to contrast the two men: the successful policeman futilely trying to pull a kid out of a downwards spiral, the alcoholic absentee father unable to help, and the son who's already begun to inherit the problems of his father and might one day be in his father's position.
Even if I've read the cartoon correctly, I don't think it was very good, since it clearly failed to communicate its message. What I think of when I see it, though, is one of the Koori kids I went to primary school with, who we'll call Eli. Eli's father was jailed for drug trafficking when we were young, and didn't come back to Eli's mother when he got out. Eli himself grew up to be jailed when he was in his early twenties, after an assault related to drug trafficking, and Eli has a kid on the outside just like his dad did. Racist or not, effective or not, the cartoon accurately shows the process by which Eli ended up in jail.
I find it interesting that you choose to go into fine detail, again, about the facts of life and social problems in the Northern Territory as you understand them and to share your own personal anecdotes, as if these have some impact on the cartoon been grotesquely racist (or not).
Please understand that even as a johnny-foreigner I'm perfectly well aware of the state of affairs in the NT. You'll note that your not the only Australian that reacts to this cartoon by earnestly explaining their understanding of the social problems of indigenous communities (though the other responding to me is also perfectly comfortable stating the cartoon is racist, but strangely chooses to respond to me, rather than any of the comments claiming the cartoon is not racist, go figure).
I'll posit that everything you mention, to some degree, is common knowledge in Australia. I don't accept that Bill Leak was genuinely trying to play an informative role here. We are also plainly ignoring the fact that this cartoon came in response to reports of aboriginal children being tear-gassed in Don Dale, so it's obviously an attempt to re-apportion blame, no?
If you'll humour me one more time. Imagine that the police-officer is out of frame, just a hand. Can you suggest anything that would make the cartoon of the two remaining aboriginal men racist? Let me help you, perhaps you could exaggerate some physical features, or include some negative stereotype? Has the author missed anything? What would you add to change their representation to be a racist one? It's fascinating that your only suggestion to turn the original cartoon from "not racist" to "blatantly racist" is the ethnicity of one character. Is it true (and it's hard I guess not to deliver this without the tone of an insult, so apologies) that you're perfectly aware that the caricature of the two remaining characters is deeply, deeply racist, it's just that you're comfortable with all the stereotypes they contain? It is racist, but it's ok, in short.
In case you're considering explaining further fine details about aboriginal life, let's say the cartoon was of three greedy hook-nosed sinister jew bankers. I've put literally every trope in I can, exaggerated every physical characteristic, every negative stereotype. Would that cartoon become not-racist because there's some element of truth the idea that Jewish people are a merchant class? And would your time be spent well explaining that to me in fine detail?
Thanks again for the conversation, this has been a fine example in my experience of discussing racial issues with Australians.
In the case of Jewish stereotypes, consider two fictional cartoonists in 1938. One is in Nazi Germany, and uses the most stereotypical Jewish caricature possible sitting on a train next to a pile of gold bars, to justify confiscating the possessions of Jewish emigrants. The other is in Britain, and uses the exact same stereotypes and the exact same caricature of a Jewish man, this time standing in front of a locked door and menaced by a dog with Hitler's face, to shame the British government over its pitiful intake of refugees. The first is an attack on the Jewish people. The second is an attempt to help them, and I believe a cartoonist would be justified in having drawn it.
Which role did Bill Leak try to play? I believe he bungled an attempt to get the rest of Australia to talk about and fix a problem, but I'm open to the idea that he may have been throwing bigotry around blindly, or trying to shift blame with no intention of doing any good.
I appreciate the contrast you are drawing with that comparison, it's a clever one.
It seems that we agree that, in isolation, the caricature of two bare-footed, slack-jawed, slovenly, drunk, ignorant, impoverished indigenous Australians is racist. At least neither of us can think of anything we would add to exacerbate it.
In my example of the hook-nosed Jew, the Jew is the hate-figure. In your counter-example Hitler is the hate figure.
Who is the hate figure in this cartoon? The racist generalisation of the indigenous man. Surely that's problematic?
You're aware that the cartoon was posted in a paper that has history of writing articles titled "Blacks find ways to get high", the cartoonist has a library of similar content where the hate-figure is indigenous, and that this particular cartoon was aimed (and succeeded comfortably) to shift attention from the case of indigenous children being tear gassed.
I'm comfortable that it is racist dross, I'm hoping that I've managed to at least raise that thought with you in a compelling way.
It's hard to draw a line between pointing out uncomfortable truths in an effort to help, which I consider the role of a political cartoonist, and just slandering the Aboriginal people, which I consider racism. I give Bill Leak the benefit of the doubt because the policeman is Aboriginal. If the policeman was white, I would see the cartoon as blatantly racist, but I believe Leak deliberately made the policeman Aboriginal to contrast the two men: the successful policeman futilely trying to pull a kid out of a downwards spiral, the alcoholic absentee father unable to help, and the son who's already begun to inherit the problems of his father and might one day be in his father's position.
Even if I've read the cartoon correctly, I don't think it was very good, since it clearly failed to communicate its message. What I think of when I see it, though, is one of the Koori kids I went to primary school with, who we'll call Eli. Eli's father was jailed for drug trafficking when we were young, and didn't come back to Eli's mother when he got out. Eli himself grew up to be jailed when he was in his early twenties, after an assault related to drug trafficking, and Eli has a kid on the outside just like his dad did. Racist or not, effective or not, the cartoon accurately shows the process by which Eli ended up in jail.