I worked with Newsweek again on an Asian Credit Union article and found that to be much more successful. I like the illustration very much and will stand by it. Hopefully it will be viewed as a positive representation of China’s Growing dominance in the global market place. I am not racist nor did I intend on having the piece look this way. However, I agree it does look that way and there should have been a better illustration/concept. all apologies. – Joel

Its simple math. 1 billion Indian — 60% literate (this is generous assumption) = 600 million.

According to my assumption college accesibility in India is about 15% (for those who count in educated) and if you want “English education” than it drops to about 5%.

5% of 600 million = 30 million

US population = 300 million US literacy rate 92% = 276 million Even if you consider 15% college availability

15% of 276 million = 41.4 million

there you have it…. by making education in English India can never compete.

Earlier, Newsweek relased an article criticizing the ‘American Dream’ in all the editions. The European and Japanese edition coverpage showed the U.S. flag on a trash can. But it was absent in the U.S. edition. http://ridingsun.blogspot.com/2005/05/newsweek-america-is-dead.html

It clearly describes the content of the article and the artist has used quite simple and obvious symbols to identify each protagonist – the Chinese man has yellow skin and a red background (for communism/Chinese flag) and the Indian is not only brown but to differentiate from other S.Asians (all brown) he has a bindi. He could have had eight arms for that matter or many heads or a turban – all symbols that people identify with India.

The background is yellow as there is yellow/saffron in the Indian flag and it contrasts well with the red and brown, had it been green it could’ve indicated Islam/Pakistan/Bangladesh.

The illustrator has to make use of the cultural/political symbols to get the message across very quickly. Why these symbols exist and their veracity is another question altogether and these are not necessarily racist.

Joe – there really isn’t anything to refute in what you have to say – yes Chinese have various shades of yellow skin, S.Asians various shades of brown &etc &act. Brilliant, you win!

However, as to being not aware that there is a racial hierarchy based on skin colour – understood and adhered to for various economic, cultural and racist reasons, then here is a basic and very touching introduction: http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1046035,00.html – and that again is a very different matter altogether.

• Not necessarily racism in my book, but definitely misrepresenting the facts. The squeeze is on the traditional ‘safe’ white collar jobs. Not white americans only. Representing the United States as the ‘white man’ is where this cartoon is incorrect.

Plenty of my brown friends got laid off in the downturn of 2002. Not just white guys. Most of the layoffs in the economy did not even have to do with outsourcing. It is just that outsourcing is a convinient culprit to blame.

Also the idea that jobs are ‘stolen’ is probably the biggest oxymoron in a culture that considers capitalism its bread and butter. Jobs are delegated, not stolen. Stealing a job means one has ownership over it, which is not the truth. This idea that your ‘entitled’ job is not yours anymore is what scares people who are not prepared.

This is no different that the scare in the 80s when people were running around thinking Japan was taking over everything.

Just more reactionary journalism that fails to explain or comprehend the fundamentals of economics. Folks like Lou Dobbs who harps on about how India and China are stealing America’s wealth are misguided and frankly dumb. This cartoon only perpetuates the myth.

The jobs Britain stole from the Asian subcontinent 200 years ago are now being returned

I didn’t know there was a race heirarchy of colors based on the “White Oppressor’s” color scheme. Maybe theyre trying to call all East Asians cowards because yellow is symbolic of cowardice, or maybe E. Asians just wanna be friends. If someone called you brown and it hurt you b/c of the white man’s derogatory subtext behind that word, it doesn’t change the fact your skin is browner than Scandinavians and the same w/ E. Asians who are yellower than the pure, good white man. Obviously its a simplistic and generalized classification, but I am saying that b/c the chinese man is depicted as a yellow skinned individual is not in itself patently oppressive or offensive, imho.

Vurd…ok you don’t have to concede my points about whites’ ‘ownership’, but i feel in the sense i stated above its true and you havent stated anything to the contrary.

Secondly, I agree with you the red dot is ignorance on the part of the artist, and is somewhat questionable. But, other than that, I don’t find anything racist re this cartoon and i don’t think the artist was trying to be racist about it, just incorrectly trying to identify the brown man as Indian.

This cartoon is using a yellow skinned person and a brown skinned person to symbolize China and India; these two giants of the third world are putting the squeeze on America (represented by a diminshed white man). Where’s the racism people?