NY Post cartoon of Obama-chimp

Remove all ads!

yeah like robin williams said "You could fly to Guam on those things."

 

You get no argument from me that the piece in question is totally beyond the bounds of good taste. I can even see "not standing for such 'humor'" if by that you mean writing a letter to the editors of the Post and to the companies that advertise therein informing them of your moral outrage. But it still isn't criminal.

In addition, it's funny that to some people, when touching on a particular topic offends someone else, the offended parties are just a bunch of whining jerks who are secretly out to stifle free speech, but when WE are the offended ones it's a whole different story.

Fortunately, though, despite the number of offended people, I have not heard of any death threats of acts of violence against either the cartoonist or the newspaper. That, to me, shows that we still have a vestige of civilization.

 

This explains it just perfectly
http://stuckinmassachusetts.blogspot.com/2009/02/let-me-get-this-straight.html

 

I told you guys.

 

The problem here is that, while the cartoon may have been intended as racist, there are about 100 other implications that an association with monkeys brings up in modern literature and art that no other symbol does. A monkey-man is stupid, foolish, curiously cute, but not to be taken seriously. It is something easily trained to do simple tasks (like signing his name, or giving pontificating speaches that mean nothing), yet is never trusted with 'real work'. This also means that any work the monkey is portrayed as doing (whether it be starting a war, ending a war, or writing a bill) could just as easily be done by a 5-year old child, and probably better and in less time. I see traces of all these things in this cartoon, but most substantially the belittling of work and the association with a trained animal acting on command.

 

No, it doesn't. What it does is completely ignore that comparing a black man to a chimp invokes an age-old racial epithet while doing the same with a white man does not. Bush-Chimp comparisons insult Bush's intelligence. If you find that offensive, feel free. An Obama-Chimp comparison insults Obama's race. Since you aren't an idiot, I know that you are capable of seeing the difference.

I have no problem if you choose to argue that the cartoon did not, in fact, compare Obama to a chimp -- and is therefore simply the subject of a sad misunderstanding. Given the artist's history of trying to cause a greater degree of controversy than your typical political cartoonist, I can't fully agree with it, but I concede that such an argument carries a degree of validity. On the other hand, an argument that comparing a big-eared white man who is, to put it mildly, not exactly known for his intelligence to a chimp is somehow equal to comparing a black man to a chimp is beyond ridiculous.

If someone were to call me a nigger, I'd be more bemused than offended -- because I'm not black. My assailant wouldn't be invoking hundreds of years of racial iniquity -- slavery, lynchings, segregation, discrimination -- against me. I would see the remark as being in very bad taste (and I'd surely remove the speaker from my Christmas card list and distance my family from him), but I wouldn't be terribly offended. A black man, on the other hand, would have every right to take offense -- and for obvious reasons. The Chimp comparison invokes all the same iniquities as the N-word.

You'll have to forgive me, but I refuse to accept such a generalization. Most liberals -- as can be demonstrated by simply looking at the liberals on this board -- are fervent defenders of free speech even when they find it offensive. There are voices who may argue that religious conservatives are secretly out to stifle free speech, but there are voices out saying much the same thing about liberals. To lump all liberals in with such voices carries as much validity as lumping all religious conservatives in with the others.

 

Thats just it Drew, nowhere in the cartoon is the monkey shown to depict a black person(male or female) simply someone that helped draft the stimulus bill.
Since a majority of those were caucasian it can be argued(quite easily) that the cartoon is making fun of certain white folk in washington.
So the only difference between this & the bush ones is the subject of the insult, democrats(you just knew i was gonna get around to it eventually) who are notoriously thin-skinned.

 

Ah, martaug, how you love to over-simplify things. As I mentioned before in this thread, the author of the cartoon and the editor that authorized it were almost certainly aware of how this would be interpreted by the black community. They had every right to print it, to be sure, but since they knew how the black community would interpret the cartoon -- and the Obama-Chimp comparison is a very clear possible interpretation* -- they were clearly race baiting.

* Obama needn't write the stimulus bill directly to be considered a contributor or, indeed, even the key contributor as the bill follows guidelines that he, himself, has set. It may not have been his pen, but it damn well is his bill. Any argument to the contrary is pure semantics.

EDIT: It also shouldn't be forgotten that the cartoon was published the day after Obama signed the legislation.

 

Occam's razor, the simplest solution is often the correct one.

 

I wasn't targetting only liberals, Drew. There's plenty of conservatives who can dish it out and can't take it. I know some of them.

Bottom line is, if you insult the last President using a particular image, and then use the same damn image to insult the present President, you can't say the one insult is valid and the other one isn't, regardless of the races involved.

I realize that race is the "third rail" of American politics (as someone put it), and I personally believe that people should be a lot more respectful of it. But to have huge honking double standards and cloak them under a shield of racial stuff is silly. Race baiting is bad, but it's no worse than religion baiting or socio-econimic status baiting (don't know of a term for that one!)

 

What you fail to see, here, is that calling a white man a chimp is a completely different insult than calling a black man a chimp. The Bush/Chimp comparisons attacked one thing -- his intelligence. Calling Obama a chimp attacks his race. There is a long history of white supremacist assumptions that black people are related to apes and monkeys -- because of their low intelligence, dark skin, big lips, nappy hair and other "ape-like features" -- where "pure" white people share no such similarities (and are hence superior to blacks in every way). These assumptions are not some long foregone artifact of history, either, and are sadly still widely held even today. When calling a black man an ape, this exact sentiment is being invoked. Comparing a black man to a chimp carries a layer that doesn't exist when comparing a white man to a chimp. Don't tell me that you are incapable of seeing this.

 

And again NOTHING in the cartoon indicated a black man.
It was 2 officers shooting a chimp & talking about needing someone to write the next stimulus bill. Since the overwhelming majority of the stimulus framers were not black, it is an extreme stretch to try to paint it as racial.
Only those who see EVERYTHING as racial would take it as such. Which just proves their own racism, not the artists.

 

If last month a pair of zookeepers had shot and killed a two-toed sloth – an animal also known for simplistic intellect – or, say, a pair of hamsters in a hamster wheel, and the NY Post published an editorial cartoon comparing the framers of the stimulus bill to the slain sloth or hamster*, the gag would have been equally as effective and there would not have been a problem since, last time I checked, we don't live in a country where "two-toed sloth" is considered a highly-offensive racial slur by a significant part of our population. However, because "monkey" or "chimp" is, whether you like it or not, the reality here is certainly a different matter. While I concede the author may not have intended it to be interpreted negatively by blacks, that is irrelevant because it was, in fact, interpreted negatively by blacks, and he should have known better. Obviously this was interpreted negatively by more than "only those who see EVERYTHING as racial."

I don't expect you to be offended by it because you are white. I'm not offended personally by it either. I do however expect you to use your head a little bit and at least attempt to see why blacks might feel a little differently about it. Which is, of course, what this dust-up is all about. I mean come on...even Rupert Murdock realized it was tasteless and offensive and issued an apology, and Rupert Murdock isn't exactly the apologizing type, is he. You're arguing the losing side of this one, martaug.

* I know picturing a hamster being gunned down is a little silly, but just go with me on this one.

 

I don't know now, have you ever seen an adolescent radioactive kung-fu hamster? Them little buggers are down right scary.

But honestly, you have to be intentionally looking to be offended to see anything racial about that cartoon.

 

I see the difference very clearly, Drew. I just don't think it's as important as some people are making it out to be. Of course I understand that a person of African-American ancestry who is melanin saturated would see things differently than a melanin deprived European like myself, but my position still stays that unless we are willing to drop the hammer on all inflammatory insults / comments, we have to deal with stuff that offends us deeply.

 

Ok, whatever - don't listen. Repeating this over and over isn't making it any truer.

 

There's little doubt that there was a racist and violent intent in this cartoon, directed at Obama and his supporters. As Martaug, and others, have pointed out there is so much "hatred" towards Obama by the radical right in this country, atm, that one should not expect less from them. The racist overtones are apparent, but it is the call for violence that is the more covert, and the much more dangerous intent in the meaning.

While some have been trying to explain away the racial component, no one has been able to explain why two cops are "shooting" the people who crafted the stimulus bill. The obvious amount of hatred towards Barack is apparent in the imagery being used. I'm sure those in the radical right understand the more cryptic code that is in use. The imagery speaks for itself.

 

Yes, that's primarily what I object to. No one should ever portray, commend, or suggest (even in jest) violence againt the President, and I'm a little iffy about it toward members of Congress.

 

So unless we stop using all inflammatory insults, racial epithets are OK? Does that mean we can start using the N-word again, too?

 

Here is an example of that, taken to extremes. http://www.newsok.com/okc-officer-p...article/3347038?custom_click=headlines_widget

Now did they investigate these people?
"Abort Bush" t=shirt http://www.cafepress.com/timefordrinking.14389130
"Abort Bush" banner http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P3-769151401.html
"Abort Sarah Palin" bumper stick http://bumperstickers.cafepress.com/item/abort-palin-sticker-bumper/305510100
"Abort Palin" sign at protest http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mayhill-fowler/protesting-palin-down-the_b_134776.html?page=4
http://www.flickr.com/photos/willpwillp/249679356/