I was surprised and disappointed by one of Sebastian Conley's recent political cartoons (Opinion, Nov. 14, 1994).

While Conley did display the breadth of his historical and archaeological knowledge with his allusion to the terra cotta army buried with a third century B.C.E. emperor near Xi'an, China, the imagery he used in his portrayal ironically combined this monument of ancient civilization with a stero typical Charlie Chan-type caricature of the Chinese face.

I am not disturbed by the content of what Conley intends (I assume) to say in his cartoon, but by the meaning contained in the images of over-slanted eyes and buckteeth. Perhaps Conley meant only to capture the Chinese face, as he perceives it. Even if this is so, however, he misses out on the negative semiological connotation not of the Chinese face itself, but of the Chinese face portrayed in this way.

Just as the word "Negro" is defined by the dictionary in the same way as the now preferable term "African-American," it projects an extra meaning due to its association with racial segregation and oppression. In the same way, over-slanted eyes and buckteeth dredge up negative associations with early Hollywood depictions of Chinese-Americans.

While I do not think dialogue should be constrained by externally imposed limitations on the vocabulary we are allowed to use, I do think all of us, especially those privileged with a public media outlet, bear the responsibility to choose our words and images carefully.

Words and images can perpetuate racial stereotypes, even if that is not the intent of the speaker, writer or cartoonist. Michael K. Ng '95'