Racist and Careless or Genuine Satire?

[Robert Toy]

http://www.nypost.com/delonas/delonas.htm


What’s your opinion?

[Kitty Pryde]

Best case scenario, it was a 'dumb president' joke that was made without thinking at all (remember that political cartoonists drew Bush as a monkey ALL the time because he was seen as stupid and a little bit monkey-looking) about the implications.

Worst case scenario, it's both racist AND president-killing themed. Double egregious fail.

I'm leaning towards the first scenario because I try to see the good in people...

[alleycat]

I would assume it's meant that we might as well have monkeys running the country as some of our current politicians (the old "room full of monkeys" joke). I don't see it aimed specifically at Obama, but I would have to go back and look at some of the other cartoons the artist has done to make an informed guess.

[Robert Toy]

Follow up

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/18/martin.cartoon/index.html?iref=mpstoryview

[blacbird]

Careless and stupid. Falls in the "shoulda thought that one out a little longer" category.

caw

[WendyNYC]

I would assume it's meant that we might as well have monkeys running the country as some of our current politicians (the old "room full of monkeys" joke). I don't see it aimed specifically at Obama, but I would have to go back and look at some of the other cartoons the artist has done to make an informed guess.

Here you go. (http://gawker.com/5155855/ten-vile-cartoons-from-sean-delonas)

[alleycat]

Here you go. (http://gawker.com/5155855/ten-vile-cartoons-from-sean-delonas)
I might have to change my initial opinion.

[James81]

Here you go. (http://gawker.com/5155855/ten-vile-cartoons-from-sean-delonas)

:roll: @ the sheep one and the rosie-o'donnel one

****

Yeah, the cartoon in the first post is in bad taste.

You can't make monkey jokes on black people, irregardless of how you mean it. It may be harmless, it may be racist...but either way it was kind of dumb.

[Kitty Pryde]

Here you go. (http://gawker.com/5155855/ten-vile-cartoons-from-sean-delonas)

EEK!

[Don]

Oh, I remember. We just had a thread about how political correctness is back in. I get so confused!

[Robert Toy]

Oh, I remember. We just had a thread about how political correctness is back in. I get so confused!
PC? No way, straight talk needed:

Holder: 'Nation of cowards' on race

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0209/18999.html

[Christine N.]

Originally I just thought it was implying that the rampaging chimp in Conn. wrote the stimulus bill - because a chimp is smarter than all the politicians in Washington DC and all that.

Then I looked deeper and found the racial overtones. I don't know how old this author is, or where he's from? Perhaps he's unfamiliar with the implications of the image?

I vote careless, possibly gormless as well.

[rugcat]

Originally I just thought it was implying that the rampaging chimp in Conn. wrote the stimulus bill - because a chimp is smarter than all the politicians in Washington DC and all that.
That was exactly my first reaction -- that the stim bill was written by a bunch of chimps. I thought Rev Al's reaction was typical sharptonology.

But then when I heard what he and others had to say, it did make me wonder. I didn't at first make make the connection between the stimulus bill and Obama as the "author" of it. Naive one that am, I never connected the chimp with Obama in any way.

After seeing his other cartoons though, I think he knew exactly what he was doing, but cleverly cloaked it in deniability.

The man has talent as an artist, though.

[DamaNegra]

So it is okay to paint a white man as a chimp but not okay to paint a black man as one? Aren't we all supposed to be equal and all that?

[blacbird]

So it is okay to paint a white man as a chimp but not okay to paint a black man as one? Aren't we all supposed to be equal and all that?

Well, there is that long-standing insulting racist image of black people as apes. With Bush, the satire, offensive to some as it may have been, didn't carry any historical racist baggage. In this instance, the baggage may have been inadvertent and unintentional, but it's there, nevertheless.

caw

[GirlWithPoisonPen]

It's REALLY stupid and naive on the part of the cartoonist and the editor.

There is a long history of portraying African Americans as monkeys as a way to demean them. Eugenics quacks would compare the skull of a black person with the skull of an ape to prove they were the same. Editorial cartoons during the Civil Rights era would portray blacks as apes or chimps who couldn't make heads or tails of the voting booth.

[poetinahat]

What’s your opinion?
It's poorly thought out and not funny.

Swingandamiss.

[donroc]

I am reminded of Charles Erskine Scott Wood's wonderful satire, Heavenly Discourses, ca. 1920s, in which a delagation of apes complains to God about Darwin's theory that they and man are related.

Yes, the history will always be there even if one has color-blind creds. Remember when Cosell in the excitement of broadcasting announced something like this: "That little monkey can run." And it got him in "racist" trouble despite his championing of Ali.

I was called a little monkey by my parents when I acted up -- no comments on my tail please.

[robeiae]

It's poorly thought out and not funny.

Swingandamiss.
Yep.

The cops shoulda been looking at the bullet-riddled body of Darwin...

[Shweta]

Study: Americans still linking blacks to apes (http://www.scienceblog.com/cms/americans-still-linking-blacks-apes-15428.html)


So, yes, it's fucking racist.
Because there is massive historical and ongoing cognitive baggage being used to dehumanize black people in America. And if you haven't noticed the death threats and assassination attempts from the white supremacists... meh.

[DamaNegra]

Well, there is that long-standing insulting racist image of black people as apes. With Bush, the satire, offensive to some as it may have been, didn't carry any historical racist baggage. In this instance, the baggage may have been inadvertent and unintentional, but it's there, nevertheless.

caw
I understand that. My point was that Bush was compared to apes to convey the exact same message people tried to convey when comparing blacks to apes. I was just pointing out the double standard, because suddenly being Bush and being white made it funny instead of shockingly offensive. Both comparations are absurd, stupid, and offensive, but I still don't like the double standard.

[poetinahat]

Study: Americans still linking blacks to apes

So, yes, it's fucking racist.

Because there is massive historical and ongoing cognitive baggage being used to dehumanize black people in America. And if you haven't noticed the death threats and assassination attempts from the white supremacists... meh.

Ain't just America, Shweta. Ask Australian cricketer Andrew Symonds (http://www.smh.com.au/news/cricket/the-race-of-our-lives/2007/10/19/1192301041827.html) about his experiences on the recent Test series in India (http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2007/10/17/1192300859647.html).

[blacbird]

I understand that. My point was that Bush was compared to apes to convey the exact same message people tried to convey when comparing blacks to apes.

Not quite. With Bush, it was the comparison of a particular individual to an ape. With the historical racial stereotype, it's the comparison of an entire ethnic group of people to apes. Quite a different meaning and intent involved, methinks.

caw

[Toothpaste]

It's about context. I wouldn't have found it offensive if I hadn't seen those other cartoons of his, I could have conceivably considered it a cartoon stating that "a monkey could write the stimulus package it's so poorly thought out". It is quite obvious this man does not shy away from obviously offensive slurs. Now, in this case he genuinely might have not been making such a statement, but it's really hard not to think that when the man draws terrorists celebrating when the Dems won the house, or images that consistently bash gays, I'm going to think he ain't a sweet innocent.

ETA: I'm with blacbird. This is not a case of double standard. It is a long held racial stereotype that some people still indulge in. It simply does not mean the same thing when attributed to Bush vs Obama. I'm not saying that there aren't real double standards out there with those two, but that isn't one of them. And by the way I'm not playing the race card, it's a very well known fact that African Americans have had to put up with that offensive comparison for forever.

[robeiae]

It simply does not mean the same thing when attributed to Bush vs Obama.
It means what it means, based on the intent of the artist.

Barring an actual explanation from the artist, we're all throwing darts.

But I agree: this guy's previous cartoons suggest the worst, in his case.

[Shweta]

Ain't just America, Shweta. Ask Australian cricketer Andrew Symonds (http://www.smh.com.au/news/cricket/the-race-of-our-lives/2007/10/19/1192301041827.html) about his experiences on the recent Test series in India (http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2007/10/17/1192300859647.html).

That study is only about Americans, though.
It would be overstating the case, and doing the researchers a disfavor, to draw conclusions beyond what the data support.

But given the data, it's entirely justified to claim to say there is a racial association (and justification for violence) evoked in the minds of a significant percentage of viewers by the association of a black man with a chimpanzee.

At which point, IMO, artist intent becomes as irrelevant as the intent of the person who yells FIRE in a movie theater. I call hate speech.

[poetinahat]

I'm not arguing your cited study. What I'm saying is that we saw this happen last year in India. I don't see how that independent fact is a disservice to the study; it's nothing to do with it.

In Symonds' case, there were people in the stands jumping up and down, swinging their arms and hooting like chimps when he came onto the pitch.

Moreover, it wasn't just the fans. In the prior series between the two teams, played in Australia, one of the Indian players - Harbhajan Singh - was banned for racial vilification (http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/01/07/2132696.htm). He called Symonds a monkey.

What's more, a group representing Australian-based Indians expressed surprise (http://www.smh.com.au/news/cricket/monkey-not-racist-indian-aussies/2008/01/07/1199554557741.html) that the term 'monkey' was deemed offensive:

"Considering that the Monkey God is one of the revered idols of Hindu mythology and worshipped by millions, it is surprising it was considered a racist term," Mr Natarajan said in a statement.

Yeah. I'm sure that how Harby meant it.

[robeiae]

At which point, IMO, artist intent becomes as irrelevant as the intent of the person who yells FIRE in a movie theater. I call hate speech.
Intent, imo, is always relevant. It doesn't excuse stupidity in the least. But it remains relevant. The degree of relevance is the issue.

[Shweta]

Intent, imo, is always relevant. It doesn't excuse stupidity in the least. But it remains relevant. The degree of relevance is the issue.

Sure, and the intent of the person who yells FIRE in the movi theater is also relevant. If they're hallucinating and think there's really fire, or, y'know, if there is, that changes things.

I'm using that as a scale, not to say it's not relevant at all.
Just not very relevant, or not relvant without extraordinary circumstances.

[Shweta]

I'm not arguing your cited study. What I'm saying is that we saw this happen last year in India. I don't see how that independent facts is a disservice to the study; it's nothing to do with it.

Sorry, no I don't mean you'd be doing it a disservice; I mean I would be if I generalized beyond the US. Not meaning to negate anything you said.

And that level of racism in India? Not surprising to me at all :(

What's more, a group representing Australian-based Indians expressed surprise (http://www.smh.com.au/news/cricket/monkey-not-racist-indian-aussies/2008/01/07/1199554557741.html) that the term 'monkey' was deemed offensive:



Yeah. I'm sure that how Harby meant it.

I'll go one level further and outright call bullshit.

[robeiae]

Sure, and the intent of the person who yells FIRE in the movi theater is also relevant. If they're hallucinating and think there's really fire, or, y'know, if there is, that changes things.

I'm using that as a scale, not to say it's not relevant at all.
Just not very relevant, or not relvant without extraordinary circumstances.
Well, I don't think the "fire!" thing is really comparable to this, at all.

All I am saying is that the intent of an artist--or anyone else in any other medium--is the source for meaning, first and foremost. In this particular case (the cartoon), I think we can get a pretty good idea of that intent, based on history and presentation.

But that's not always the case. And--imo--it's a mistake to automatically allow that how some might feel about a painting, a spoken word, or whatever, is more important/more relevent than what the artist/author intended to say.

I remember the eenie-meanie-miney-mo story on Southwest Airlines (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1065236/posts). There, you had a case of--imo--claiming that racism was on display when it really wasn't. At all. The intent of the speaker was more significant--re meaning--than the views of the listeners.

[Shweta]

Well, I don't think the "fire!" thing is really comparable to this, at all.

We'll have to agree to disagree.
It's not just portraying a public figure of color as a chimp, but as a marauding chimp that had to be shot in order to keep the country's peace.

If you don't see inciting to violence there, :Shrug:

[robeiae]

We'll have to agree to disagree.
It's not just portraying a public figure of color as a chimp, but as a marauding chimp that had to be shot in order to keep the country's peace.

If you don't see inciting to violence there, :Shrug:
No, you're misunderstanding me.

I'm not "okay" with the cartoon, at all. I've noted that twice.

Everything I've said re intent is generalized. Cartoons, paintings, stories, really anything that carries a message, mean what they mean primarily (in almost all cases) because of the intent behind them, not the response of the viewers/listeners/readers.

What I got from you--and correct me if I'm wrong--is that intent is irrelevant and something could be "racist" as a matter of course because of perception, alone.

[Joe270]

I don't see this as a racist cartoon.

The inspiring current event was the chimp shooting incident, not Obama.

Obama didn't write the stimulus package, he just signed it. So that interpretation doesn't fly. The target is the bunch of baboons in Congress, not Obama.

It takes a heck of a stretch to make this about Obama, much less racism.

Now the double-standard with Bush portrayed as a chimp is fine and dandy, but Obama can't be, that's a problem, IMHO. If it's unacceptable now for the POTUS, it should have been unacceptable then. I never considered the 'chimp' cartoons of Bush acceptable. They were disrespectful and asinine.

This one isn't targeting the POTUS. It has a different inspiration.

[robeiae]

I don't see this as a racist cartoon.

The inspiring current event was the chimp shooting incident, not Obama.

Obama didn't write the stimulus package, he just signed it. So that interpretation doesn't fly. The target is the bunch of baboons in Congress, not Obama.

It takes a heck of a stretch to make this about Obama, much less racism.

Now the double-standard with Bush portrayed as a chimp is fine and dandy, but Obama can't be, that's a problem, IMHO. If it's unacceptable now for the POTUS, it should have been unacceptable then. I never considered the 'chimp' cartoons of Bush acceptable. They were disrespectful and asinine.

This one isn't.
Joe, imo the guy drew this cartoon with what you have noted as an escape clause, as was noted upthread. I think--given his previous material and the standard of common sense--that he really wanted people to see it as about Obama (because it was), so he could then use his escape clause.

[Monkey]

My initial reaction was to think it referred to our current stimulus bill having been written by a bunch of chimps.

On the other hand, given this guy's other cartoons, and given the subliminal and not-so-subliminal comparisons of African Americans to monkeys in the US, I think there is an ugly subtext in the cartoon. Intended or not, some people are going to see this and picture Obama as the monkey, and maybe even see this as an incitement to violence.

So the next question is, is that allowed? Or do we censor potentially threatening political cartoons?

I don't like the idea of censoring political cartoons. I understand limiting incitements to violence and hate speech. But where does this fall, really?

Personally, I'd like the guy to be told, "Cut it out" and let that be the end of it. But that's just my opinion, and opinions are highly subjective and subject to change.

[robeiae]

My initial reaction was to think it referred to our current stimulus bill having been written by a bunch of chimps.

On the other hand, given this guy's other cartoons, and given the subliminal and not-so-subliminal comparisons of African Americans to monkeys in the US, I think there is an ugly subtext in the cartoon. Intended or not, some people are going to see this and picture Obama as the monkey, and maybe even see this as an incitement to violence.

So the next question is, is that allowed? Or do we censor potentially threatening political cartoons?

I don't like the idea of censoring political cartoons. I understand limiting incitements to violence and hate speech. But where does this fall, really?

Personally, I'd like the guy to be told, "Cut it out" and let that be the end of it. But that's just my opinion, and opinions are highly subjective and subject to change.
Good post, Monkey.

[Joe270]

Joe, imo the guy drew this cartoon with what you have noted as an escape clause, as was noted upthread. I think--given his previous material and the standard of common sense--that he really wanted people to see it as about Obama (because it was), so he could then use his escape clause.

I still don't see it that way. So the chimp was shot, not like he could change that to something non-primate and have people get the connection.

Two, I see the comment as directed, as I said, at congress, not the POTUS.

Third, the 'Bush' chimps had a face which resembled Bush, this one resembles a chimp.

I don't see the connection. I understand the outrage, but I wonder where that was before, when another POTUS was constantly portrayed as a chimp.

[Shweta]

Joe, are you even noticing every post that says that when a black man is drawn as a monkey, that's drawing on centuries of racially biased associations, and current studies showing those associations are still active in many Americans' minds?

The pokes at Bush were pokes at an individual. This particular type of poke at Obama is a poke at a whole race, drawing on history that was used to justify horrific violence. Which isn't to say one cannot poke at Obama -- just that there should be another way to do it. Surely there are plenty :)

The analogous outrage wasn't there before because it had no reason to be.

[DamaNegra]

So, when an insult is targeted at an individual it's somehow less wrong than an insult targeted at a demographic? Because, surely, the individual can't possibly have feelings of his own, can he?

That said, I saw the cartoon and didn't even think of Obama. I thought the chimp symbolized the congress of the US. I didn't even get why the caricature was supposed to be offensive or racist until I read the posts here. I'm going to have to be on Joe's side here.

[Shweta]

So, when an insult is targeted at an individual it's somehow less wrong than an insult targeted at a demographic? Because, surely, the individual can't possibly have feelings of his own, can he?

Public figures are targets of ridicule, earned and not. It's part of the whole freedom of speech thing. One of the things they accept whn running for office.

So yes, poking fun at a public figure is less wrong than insulting an entire group in a way that historically and currently, is considered an excuse for violence against that group. Your not making that link does not change the fact that it is a proven association among Americans. That part is not just my opinion. *points to the study cited above* (Any thoughts on artist intent and effect and such are opinion, of course, and mine is that it is a deliberate, deniable, despicable poke at a big race button.)

Having said that, anything that implies that it'd be a good thing to shoot any public figure is not okay. And if there were pictures of Bush as a chimp that had just been shot, I would most certainly be outraged.

[DamaNegra]

Well, the problem here seems to be how quickly people make the association between a monkey and Obama. I certainly didn't see any association until it was explained to me. Maybe racists aren't the only ones with prejudices, even if the rest of the people only hold it in a subconscious level?

Anyway, if Obama turned out to be as stupid as Bush, and he was portrayed as a monkey because of that particular trait, would it still be racist?

[MacAllister]

Dama, think of it another way: If someone stereotypes an Italian Pope as a mafia don in a cartoon, it's got a very different set of connotations than if the same cartoon was about a Polish Pope. Both are offensive, but the same cartoon would be making very different points, with the historical references and context, you know?

[poetinahat]

Dama, think of it this way. There's a stereotype among Americans of the lazy, dozy Mexican - think daylong siestas and the 'mañana' attitude.

Now, let's say, for example, a Mexican-American public figure has a particular reputation for being a lazy individual. This figure may be wealthy, handsome, well-dressed, the lot.

A cartoonist portrays him in a serape and sombrero, with a shaggy moustache, propped against a wall, taking a siesta.

Sure, there are other ways of portraying laziness, but this one was used in this case. Is it racist because the guy happens to be Mexican?

[eta: Jinx, Mac!]

[DamaNegra]

Dama, think of it this way. There's a stereotype among Americans of the lazy, dozy Mexican - think daylong siestas and the 'mañana' attitude.

Now, let's say, for example, a Mexican-American public figure has a particular reputation for being a lazy individual. This figure may be wealthy, handsome, well-dressed, the lot.

A cartoonist portrays him in a serape and sombrero, with a shaggy moustache, propped against a wall, taking a siesta.

Sure, there are other ways of portraying laziness, but this one was used in this case. Is it racist because the guy happens to be Mexican?

[eta: Jinx, Mac!]

Yes, it's already happened. It has to be one of the most overdone caricatures in mexican politics. No one's ever raised a fuss about that particular stereotype being used against a certain individual. They key here is that it is only a certain individual, not a whole race. Describing blacks as chimps, that is surely racist and offensive. Describing one single black individual as a chimp because of something he did that made him deserving of that comparison (like, in the example, passing a bill so badly written a monkey could make it better, if I understood correctly)is , in my opinion, a very different thing.

(BTW you should check some political caricatures by Paco Calderón. He's one of the most popular caricatursits (sp?) in Mexico, and his drawings are full of stereotypes. People here don't raise such a fuss about those things.)

[Bravo]

I don't see this as a racist cartoon.

The inspiring current event was the chimp shooting incident, not Obama.

Obama didn't write the stimulus package, he just signed it. So that interpretation doesn't fly. The target is the bunch of baboons in Congress, not Obama.

It takes a heck of a stretch to make this about Obama, much less racism.

Now the double-standard with Bush portrayed as a chimp is fine and dandy, but Obama can't be, that's a problem, IMHO. If it's unacceptable now for the POTUS, it should have been unacceptable then. I never considered the 'chimp' cartoons of Bush acceptable. They were disrespectful and asinine.

This one isn't targeting the POTUS. It has a different inspiration.

you also didnt think a noose hanged on a black man's doorknob was racist, remember?

[Bravo]

the NYP's response to this has been absolutely disgusting:

Civil rights activist Al Sharpton called the cartoon “troubling at best given the historic racist attacks of African-Americans as being synonymous with monkeys.”

But Sharpton said the Post should clarify the point it was trying to make with the cartoon, which was playing off Monday’s rampage by a pet chimpanzee in Stamford, Conn., that left a woman severely mauled. Police ended up killing the chimp.

In a statement, Post Editor-in-Chief Col Allan said: “The cartoon is a clear parody of a current news event, to wit the shooting of a violent chimpanzee in Connecticut. It broadly mocks Washington’s efforts to revive the economy. Again, Al Sharpton reveals himself as nothing more than a publicity opportunist.”

FU NYP.

they were already considered to be one of the worst rags in america, but they've now gone into the looney fringe territory.

[Shweta]

No, you're misunderstanding me.

We definitely have a miscommunication going :)
Also I missed this post somehow.

I'm not "okay" with the cartoon, at all. I've noted that twice.
That part we're on the same page about, and I didn't meant o imply I thought otherwise...

Everything I've said re intent is generalized. Cartoons, paintings, stories, really anything that carries a message, mean what they mean primarily (in almost all cases) because of the intent behind them, not the response of the viewers/listeners/readers.

Ah see, here I'd disagree -- I'd say meaning is an interaction between creator intent/action and receiver experience, which is always, partly, basd on coming up with implied creator intent, given context, including cultural context. I'd say the response ot the viewers is deeply relevant, especially when the artist "oughta have known" what that response would be.

What I got from you--and correct me if I'm wrong--is that intent is irrelevant and something could be "racist" as a matter of course because of perception, alone.

No, I'd say intent is relevant on a scale, as I think you did; I'd say that it becomes less relevant when a racially-associated image is coupled with implid violence, because then it heads into hate speech territory, and incitement to violence, and other similarly fun things.

And I'd say that regardless of intent, if a large number of people perceive something as hurtful or offensive, it's not okay to write them all off as oversensitive; and I'd bet real money that the intent here did involve knowing they'd react and not caring.


Yes, it's already happened. It has to be one of the most overdone caricatures in mexican politics. No one's ever raised a fuss about that particular stereotype being used against a certain individual.

Two questions.
1) Would people be just as okay with a white American caricaturist portraying a Mexican (Or American Hispanic) politician in such a light? Some cultural stereotypes, when used by that culture, lose their racist edge, but they keep it when used by another group.

2) Do you agree there's a difference between portraying a politician as a chimp (all racist baggage aside; in this case I think the artist only usd that baggage to get people to make the association at all) and portraying him as a crazy marauding dangerous chimp that had to be shot by the police for public safety?

[MacAllister]

It should go without saying, I think, that we are NOT discussing laws that would forbid this stuff, right? Because, at least for me, that's right out. I'll refuse to support the rag that prints it, I'll scoff, excoriate, ridicule, and otherwise make my displeasure and disapproval of this stuff clear -- but wouldn't, under any circumstances, want to live in a place where drawing or publishing the cartoon was a criminal offense.

[Bartholomew]

The original cartoon is gone; is anyone hosting it? I want to see what the buzz is about.

[Cyia]

Well, the problem here seems to be how quickly people make the association between a monkey and Obama. I certainly didn't see any association until it was explained to me. Maybe racists aren't the only ones with prejudices, even if the rest of the people only hold it in a subconscious level?

Anyway, if Obama turned out to be as stupid as Bush, and he was portrayed as a monkey because of that particular trait, would it still be racist?

When the chimp (not monkey, it's a pet peeve... sorry) in question is attached to a specific piece of legislature that a specific individual has signed then the association doesn't have to be made. It's designed into the cartoon.

And, IMO, any political cartoon depicting a representation of any current government official as the victim of a police shooting is in VERY poor taste.

[Shweta]

It should go without saying, I think, that we are NOT discussing laws that would forbid this stuff, right? Because, at least for me, that's right out. I'll refuse to support the rag that prints it, I'll scoff, excoriate, ridicule, and otherwise make my displeasure and disapproval of this stuff clear -- but wouldn't, under any circumstances, want to live in a place where drawing or publishing the cartoon was a criminal offense.
I want to agree with this without reservations, but the potential/implied incitement to violence gives me real reservations.

If the intent or likely effect is to encourage the white supremacists who think the black guy's ruining the country and needs shot, like the ones who already tried, at least twice, before he was elected? Then yes I think there should be restrictions on publishing and publicizing such speech.

[poetinahat]

Describing blacks as chimps, that is surely racist and offensive. Describing one single black individual as a chimp because of something he did that made him deserving of that comparison (like, in the example, passing a bill so badly written a monkey could make it better, if I understood correctly)is , in my opinion, a very different thing.
I'll agree to disagree here. You can't help but see that the individual is part of the group, especially when that individual is well known to be the first member of that group to be President of the United States.

Nope, you can't ignore that or call it chance. The cartoonist would be aware of the implications, even if not intended. "I didn't mean it that way" isn't a defense, because he'd HAVE to know that it would be seen that way.

(BTW you should check some political caricatures by Paco Calderón.
<clipped>
People here don't raise such a fuss about those things.)
What does *that* mean?

I'm not sure I think that's a good thing. But it's quite possible we're agreeing violently.

[Bartholomew]

Why do we care what some cynical little bigot thinks, again?

(Finally saw the cartoon, I did. Waste of bandwidth.)

[MacAllister]

I want to agree with this without reservations, but the potential/implied incitement to violence gives me real reservations.

If the intent or likely effect is to encourage the white supremacists who think the black guy's ruining the country and needs shot, like the ones who already tried, at least twice, before he was elected? Then yes I think there should be restrictions on publishing and publicizing such speech.The problem is, though, we DO have laws about threatening the life of the POTUS. But as soon as we start making laws restricting free press and/or free speech, and imposing a government censor on satire, we're suddenly in VERY deep. It's no more righteous for the left to make those laws than it would be for the right.

[Joe270]

you also didnt think a noose hanged on a black man doorknob was racist, remember?

Yeah, I remember that clearly. I also recall all the things I said then which described the many times I'd seen nooses which had nothing to do with racism. I've never seen a noose with 'racial ties'.

This stupid cartoon has no racial ties, either.

This numbnut cartoonist is offensive, and was while portraying Bush, but all the liberals were just fine with that. So why isn't what is fine for the goose is fine for the gander?

So we have a black POTUS, great and fine, but I was hoping all this 'oh, racist!' cries would go away. The instant anything which can be, in the most remotest link, be construed as 'racism' is instantly put onto the national stage.

Why didn't black Americans bitch about the stereotype aimed at Bush? Where was the outrage then?

Perhaps it's time for them to understand that everything isn't always directed at them. Perhaps they are overly sensitive and looking for something to bitch about.

If they want to appear like they want to obliterate insensitive crap, then perhaps they should show some outrage when it is directed at other races, instead of just when it affects them.

[Shweta]

The problem is, though, we DO have laws about threatening the life of the POTUS. But as soon as we start making laws restricting free press and/or free speech, and imposing a government censor on satire, we're suddenly in VERY deep. It's no more righteous for the left to make those laws than it would be for the right.

That, I agree.
But there are also hate speech/incitement to violence laws. They have nothing to do with being righteous; they have to do with trying to stop fatal violence. Do you think it would also be fine to publish a picture in which cops were (let's make this 300% more blatant) standing over Obama's bullet-riddled body, saying "That'll teach 'im for beating a white woman"?

Mind, while I don't think it's as simple as "Censorship is bad", I'm not screaming for new laws here. What I'd really like to see is the entire country so fucking disgusted by this cowardly hiding-behind-deniability racism that it wouldn't gain any traction. But I'd also like a 6 figure advance. World doesn't care what I want. :Shrug:

The question might not even boil down to whether this is, as I think it is, hate speech rather than satire. Because it does have deniability, so it couldn't be restricted under any law you or I would accept without taking to the streets. So maybe we're actually in agreement over the practicalities of the matter...

[Joe270]

I just can't get over the fact that this outrage is over a percieved insult to Obama when the same folks giggled and laughed with glee over the obvious insults to the white Bush.

So it's different for the black folks in the country? It's more of an insult, somehow? How is that? I see no difference whatsoever. You call someone subhuman, that's an insult, no matter your race. Why the outcry now?

I think they should start trying to stop all the crap, not just when it's directed at them. If it's so degrading and outrageous, then it was before, not just now.

[Shweta]

I just can't get over the fact that this outrage is over a percieved insult to Obama when the same folks giggled and laughed with glee over the obvious insults to the white Bush.

Because it is more than an insult.
Because the perception of subhumanity causes Americans to justify violence against black people (cf the study above).
Because the chimp in this case is dead, after going on a rampage, put down by the police.


Even if you take out the history of racial bias (and I do not at all think it is valid to do so), these situations are not analogous. I do not think this one is simply poking fun.

[MacAllister]

Joe, you're on a slippery slope here, my friend -- and framing the issue with a "them" vs. a perceived "us" isn't going to lead you anywhere defensible, just in terms of logic. You're already talking about "black folks" as some kind of monolithic "them" and THAT sort of framing is part of the problem with the cartoon, as well.

Yes, it's insulting if a cartoonist draws Bush as a monkey--but it's not a stereotype. There is, in fact, a difference, and I'll do what I can to talk through this if you'd like to take it to PM. I'm not wanting to argue, so if you're not interested in the semantics and rhetorical dynamics that do make this a different situation, you're under no obligation to discuss it privately.

Just realize that the "them" thing? That's gonna trip you up pretty hard.

[Cyia]

I just can't get over the fact that this outrage is over a percieved insult to Obama when the same folks giggled and laughed with glee over the obvious insults to the white Bush.

So it's different for the black folks in the country? It's more of an insult, somehow? How is that? I see no difference whatsoever. You call someone subhuman, that's an insult, no matter your race. Why the outcry now?

I think they should start trying to stop all the crap, not just when it's directed at them. If it's so degrading and outrageous, then it was before, not just now.


I don't remember ever seeing a Bush related cartoon where the chimp was shot by the police. Again, I know a chimp getting shot was in the news, but the tone of the cartoon is totally different.

Draw a humanized cartoon with human facial features on a goofy ape doing something goofy and it's satire. Draw an actual ape, give enough details to paint him as a real person and then show the ape getting killed because of a decision the cartoonist evidently didn't agree with as justification, and it's not so funny anymore.

[donroc]

It was not amusing to me in any context.

I initially saw both interpretations given my post on another thread, before the assault that disfigured the woman, saying a million chimps could type and would come up with a better stimulus bill than Congress.

And if I were Black, I probably would have had a gut reaction that said "racist cartoon" as I had to some of the consistently vile anti-Jewish cartoons of Conrad in the L.A. Times decades ago.

[robeiae]

you also didnt think a noose hanged on a black man's doorknob was racist, remember?
It's not, as a matter of course. And it's really a different sort of thing, insofar as such an act can have a specific target.

[Shweta]

It's not, as a matter of course. And it's really a different sort of thing, insofar as such an act can have a specific target.
How is a black man supposed to interpret that, Rob, except as a threat/reminder of lynching? They haven't really used nooses for anything else in this country lately.

[robeiae]

How is a black man supposed to interpret that, Rob, except as a threat/reminder of lynching? They haven't really used nooses for anything else in this country lately.Well, execution by hanging was a reality well into the twentieth century in the USA.

How is ANYONE supposed to interpret such an act (putting a noose on a door)?

ETA: Look, there's nothing "nice" about doing such a thing. It's a threat of violence. It's an attempt to intimidate. It's wrong. But there is not--imo--an automatic addition of "racism" to the act. It depends on the circumstances, imo.

[cethklein]

So it is okay to paint a white man as a chimp but not okay to paint a black man as one? Aren't we all supposed to be equal and all that?

That's what I'm saying. I never understood that logic either. Same thing with fried chicken. When did eating fried chicken become synonymous with being black? If the amount of fried chicken one consumes determined how black a person is, I would make Deon Sanders look like a Keebler elf.

[blacbird]

It's not, as a matter of course. And it's really a different sort of thing, insofar as such an act can have a specific target.

Disingenuous, Robs, and you know it. The symbol of the noose was commonly used (along with things like cross-burning) as a threat to intimidate black people as a group, and not aimed at specific individuals. That's history, not philosophic navel-lint picking.

caw

[robeiae]

The symbol of the noose was commonly used (along with things like cross-burning) as a threat to intimidate black people as a group, and not aimed at specific individuals. That's history, not philosophic navel-lint picking.

cawIf a noose is placed on someone's door--which is what we are talking about, here--it is likely to be a specific target, a personal target. It may or may not have anything to do with skin color.

If a noose is, say, hung from a tree that is a gathering spot for a group of whites at a high school, after some black students had begun to hang out there, I'd say that would be a pretty fucking racist thing to do.

[cethklein]

That,

Mind, while I don't think it's as simple as "Censorship is bad", I'm not screaming for new laws here. What I'd really like to see is the entire country so fucking disgusted by this cowardly hiding-behind-deniability racism that it wouldn't gain any traction. But I'd also like a 6 figure advance. World doesn't care what I want. :Shrug:


They damn well should care Shweta,. They damn well should!! :D

But I agree, if there's one thing that's worse than racist rhetoric, it's people who use said rhetoric and then try to pass it off as an honest mistake or "you're just misinterpreting me". (not saying that's what happened in the original situation Toy linked to, but we all know it does happen.) If someone is so ignorant as to be racist, they should at least have the stones to own up to it and admit it.

[cethklein]

If a noose is placed on someone's door--which is what we are talking about, here--it is likely to be a specific target, a personal target. It may or may not have anything to do with skin color.

If a noose is, say, hung from a tree that is a gathering spot for a group of whites at a high school, after some black students had begun to hang out there, I'd say that would be a pretty fucking racist thing to do.

But in either case it's still wrong. I can think of no legitimate reason to hang a noose anywhere.

[DamaNegra]

Okay, maybe I didn't make myself clear. So I'll start with a disclaimer:

- Portraying anyone as a chimp, with the implication that the person is unevolved, incapable, and stupid, is offensive in ANY context. Sure, I've laughed at some of the Bush/chimp comparisons, and I probably would laugh at any Obama/chimp comparison that was clever enough (which is not the case)
- I do not agree with the cartoon. It's stupid and horrible.
- I was talking about the comparison to a chimp. The part about being shot dead is a completely different matter from what I'm talking about here.

That being said, I really thought people would be over racism by now. But all people are doing is searching for racism everywhere and pointing out racism when they can. Racism is still alive because people won't let it die. So when will the day come when we can see a cartoon about a black man portrayed as a chimp because of a particular action he did that made him deserving of that comparison (i.e. the passing of a stupid bill), and see it as only the correlation between the man and his actions, instead of a generic insult? That, to me, is keeping racism very much alive.

There is another thing that bothers me. I don't believe that word (or images) have more power than what we as individuals give to them. If some people (white supremacists, for example) see this cartoon and make the racist connection, or are incited to violence by it, then the blame lies exclusively on the cartoon reader. The real problem here would not be careless cartooners, but a stupid, uneducated readership with anger issues. Blaming the artist would be entering into the murky waters of free speech. However, when we start understanding that the real blame lies on the readership, we enter into the more constructive territory of personal responsibility.

I hope I made myself a little bit more clear. I do see and understand the racist implications of comparing a black man with a chimp, I do. And I get why people are offended by it. I just wish people were bigger than that.

[blacbird]

If a noose is placed on someone's door--which is what we are talking about, here--it is likely to be a specific target, a personal target. It may or may not have anything to do with skin color.

If a noose is, say, hung from a tree that is a gathering spot for a group of whites at a high school, after some black students had begun to hang out there, I'd say that would be a pretty fucking racist thing to do.

First, I know of no instance where a noose has been hung at the door (or in a tree in a specific yard, etc.) of anyone other than a black person. It's as much a threat symbol of specifically racist content as spray-painting a swastika on the house of a Jew. And even if it has some level of threat against an individual, it's akin to a letter left in a mailbox saying something like "We're gonna burn down your house, niggah." In other words, the racist motivation is clearly there. Or, in yet other words, there are ways of threatening individuals that do not carry racist overtones, and there or those that do. And the ones that do are clearly intended to do so, IMO, for reasons that drift into group threat territory. There's too much history behind the noose symbol to dismiss it as a simple threat against an individual, for individual reasons.

caw

[robeiae]

But in either case it's still wrong. I can think of no legitimate reason to hang a noose anywhere.
Yes. And I already said as much:
Well, execution by hanging was a reality well into the twentieth century in the USA.

How is ANYONE supposed to interpret such an act (putting a noose on a door)?

ETA: Look, there's nothing "nice" about doing such a thing. It's a threat of violence. It's an attempt to intimidate. It's wrong. But there is not--imo--an automatic addition of "racism" to the act. It depends on the circumstances, imo.

[robeiae]

First, I know of no instance where a noose has been hung at the door (or in a tree in a specific yard, etc.) of anyone other than a black person.Oh, then it must have never happened...
It's as much a threat symbol of specifically racist content as spray-painting a swastika on the house of a Jew. And even if it has some level of threat against an individual, it's akin to a letter left in a mailbox saying something like "We're gonna burn down your house, niggah." In other words, the racist motivation is clearly there.Disagree. They may be clearly there in YOUR mind, but that doesn't make it a fact. Or, in yet other words, there are ways of threatening individuals that do not carry racist overtones, and there or those that do. And the ones that do are clearly intended to do so, IMO, for reasons that drift into group threat territory. There's too much history behind the noose symbol to dismiss it as a simple threat against an individual, for individual reasons.
Well, let me pose a hypothetical, to see if I understand your position:

Hanging Sarah Palin in effigy would be wrong, since it implies the threat of violence and/or intimidation.

Hanging Barack Obama in effigy would be wrong for the same reasons, and also be racist...as a matter of course.


Look, you're hung up (get it?) on the noose as a symbol, but I submit that the symbol is not so pervasive as you are claiming...or at least it wasn't til people started realizing the mileage they could get from it, re "being offended."

And what about the Southwest Airlines incident I noted upthread? Surely, you would have to view it in the same way the plaintives did, right? So, do you?

[cethklein]

Yes. And I already said as much:

I wasn't even referring to what you said Rob. I didn't even know you were the one who started the noose subject, it was a generalized statement. Don't flatter yourself.

[Toothpaste]

Ignoring the fact that racism exists doesn't make it go away. A cartoon that purposefully pushes racism is racist even if you'd rather it wasn't. I'm not saying this cartoon IS racist, I'm not saying the artist intended it as such. I can speculate, especially considering his other cartoons, but I can't say for sure.

What I can say is, Dama, you might think racism should be all over and done with, but it isn't. And pointing out genuine moments of racism is not creating more racism. It is letting those a-holes out there know that we do not accept this, will not accept this, and you will be punished for this.

Robeiae - If someone painted a swastika on my door, I would pretty much assume that person was anti-semetic, and not that he just wanted to paint a cool symbol. If I was black and someone put a noose in the tree in my front yard, I'd pretty much think they didn't like me because of my race. You can pretend like each individual act using such symbols comes with its own unique intentions, but then you'd have to do away with the concept of symbols altogether. Symbols represent something, they mean something. That's why they exist. You might not personally see some of them as that meaningful anymore, but I can assure you many many other people do. You aren't the be all and end all in opinions on symbols. And just because we might be sick of seeing the race card pulled maybe a little too often and inappropriately, doesn't mean there aren't times where it is still perfectly valid to say, "That is racist."

[robeiae]

I wasn't even referring to what you said Rob. I didn't even know you were the one who started the noose subject, it was a generalized statement. Don't flatter yourself.
Flatter myself? WTF are you talking about?

You quoted me and said this:
But in either case it's still wrong. I can think of no legitimate reason to hang a noose anywhere.
That implies--to me--that I was missing/ignoring that point (that it's wrong). So, I responded to your post--THAT QUOTED ME--by pointing out that I already said I thought it was wrong.

How utterly inapproapriate of me...

[robeiae]

Robeiae - If someone painted a swastika on my door, I would pretty much assume that person was anti-semetic, and not that he just wanted to paint a cool symbol. If I was black and someone put a noose in the tree in my front yard, I'd pretty much think they didn't like me because of my race. You can pretend like each individual act using such symbols comes with its own unique intentions, but then you'd have to do away with the concept of symbols altogether.Well no, I wouldn't. Since you opened the door, what are you gonna do about satutues with Swastikas on them...that hapen to be Hundu in origin?

Symbols represent something, they mean something. That's why they exist. You might not personally see some of them as that meaningful anymore, but I can assure you many many other people do. You aren't the be all and end all in opinions on symbols.NOR ARE YOU. What I am saying--and what everyone disagreeing with me seems unable to grasp, apparently because they like to have their world in neat little boxes--is that intent matters. And specifics matter. I'm not looking to excuse anyone, at all. I've already noted that I think the cartoon was racist. And I've already noted a use of a noose--as a symbol--that I think is racist.

And just because we might be sick of seeing the race card pulled maybe a little too often and inappropriately, doesn't mean there aren't times where it is still perfectly valid to say, "That is racist."I agree.



I'm tellin ya..."wormhole" seems to be the only possible explanation.

[Cyia]

Robeiae - If someone painted a swastika on my door, I would pretty much assume that person was anti-semetic, and not that he just wanted to paint a cool symbol.

Exactly. Since the cartoonist has a history of drawing inflammatory (controversial, whatever you want to call them) cartoons, it's a valid assumption that he knew what he was doing. And that he knew how people would react to it.

If he'd been new cartoonist, or at the very least issued an instant 'mea culpa' because he honestly meant the chimp only to represent the one who was actually put down, it would be different. People make dumb - and sometimes insensitive - mistakes. Others just like to create controversy.

And ... just to be difficult.

In 1998, floor 8 of the main freshman dorm for Tulane University had nooses hung on every door for every incoming freshman. They were tied to the necks of personalized voodoo dolls. That is a case of a noose not being racist. When a person is singled out and ONLY their door is hung with a noose, then it's something else all together.

[Kaiser-Kun]

I can't think of the stimulus package without thinking about Obama. I doubt the cartoonist could, either. So odds are against a genuine, naive, and thoughtless coincidence.

[Toothpaste]

Well no, I wouldn't. Since you opened the door, what are you gonna do about satutues with Swastikas on them...that hapen to be Hundu in origin?

NOR ARE YOU. What I am saying--and what everyone disagreeing with me seems unable to grasp, apparently because they like to have their world in neat little boxes--is that intent matters. And specifics matter. I'm not looking to excuse anyone, at all. I've already noted that I think the cartoon was racist. And I've already noted a use of a noose--as a symbol--that I think is racist.

I agree.



I'm tellin ya..."wormhole" seems to be the only possible explanation.


Yes we are talking intent. Thus a person who paints a swastika on my door (as I am jewish) is most likely anti-semetic. A person who puts a noose in the yard of an African American is most likely racist. I am sure there are the rarest of exceptions in those particular cases, but not often. These are very famous symbols used for decades to incite hatred, to see them as anything else in this context, is naive.

The swastika carved into a Buddhist sculpture clearly has nothing to do with Nazi germany again due to context. No one is arguing that context doesn't matter, but you seem to be saying that even if there is obvious context . . .it still . . .doesn't matter. The whole point about context is that George Bush drawn as a monkey, IN CONTEXT, has to do with him either being stupid, or just a pawn in the administration. Obama drawn as a monkey is more likely to have to do with the very famous racist statements that were (and still) are made about blacks being like chimps. Because anyone with half a brain would find another way to mock Obama as stupid or a pawn because they would know the offensive nature of such an image due to its extensive history.

Again, I am not saying that the cartoon is saying that, but IN CONTEXT, it seems compared with the artist's other work, that this guy is pretty intolerant and so it seems a reasonable suggestion to consider his work as such.

I don't see why you are so determined to prove a point that most people actually agree with you about. Yes it is about intent, that's the whole debate, did the artist intend on making a racist cartoon. Some say yes, some say no, some say they don't know. No one is saying it isn't about intention.

[robeiae]

Yes we are talking intent. Thus a person who paints a swastika on my door (as I am jewish) is most likely anti-semetic. A person who puts a noose in the yard of an African American is most likely racist. I am sure there are the rarest of exceptions in those particular cases, but not often. These are very famous symbols used for decades to incite hatred, to see them as anything else in this context, is naive.

The swastika carved into a Buddhist sculpture clearly has nothing to do with Nazi germany again due to context. No one is arguing that context doesn't matter, but you seem to be saying that even if there is obvious context . . .it still . . .doesn't matter. The whole point about context is that George Bush drawn as a monkey, IN CONTEXT, has to do with him either being stupid, or just a pawn in the administration. Obama drawn as a monkey is more likely to have to do with the very famous racist statements that were (and still) are made about blacks being like chimps. Because anyone with half a brain would find another way to mock Obama as stupid or a pawn because they would know the offensive nature of such an image due to its extensive history.

Again, I am not saying that the cartoon is saying that, but IN CONTEXT, it seems compared with the artist's other work, that this guy is pretty intolerant and so it seems a reasonable suggestion to consider his work as such.

I don't see why you are so determined to prove a point that most people actually agree with you about. Yes it is about intent, that's the whole debate, did the artist intend on making a racist cartoon. Some say yes, some say no, some say they don't know. No one is saying it isn't about intention.
See, I'm not talking about the cartoon. You addressed my comments in a tangential discussion re symbols and intent.

As I've already noted, I think the cartoon was racist. I can't be any clearer than that.

My problem is the idea that "x action is racist, as a matter of course."

Specifically, I was commenting on the idea that a noose is automatically a racist symbol sans intent and context. I disagree.

[Prawn]

I feel pretty sure the cartoon was racist, both in intent, and in the way it was perceived. In the US, the expression of even stupid opinions is protected. The way to protest this nastiness is to boycott the newspaper, and notify those companies which advertize in the paper of how you feel about their choice of advertizing space.

[blacbird]

Hanging Sarah Palin in effigy would be wrong, since it implies the threat of violence and/or intimidation.

Hanging Barack Obama in effigy would be wrong for the same reasons, and also be racist...as a matter of course.

Nope. Didn't say that. But I'd venture that hanging an effigy of an ape with a sign bearing Barack Obama's name attached to it would imply a racist motivation.

Oddly, in this discussion, you think the cartoon originally addressed is directly racist, and I've given the cartoonist some benefit of doubt, regarding it as primarily just stupid and ill-thought-out. I could be wrong, but in either case the cartoonist deserves some flak. As for Al Sharpton's response, what else should anyone expect from Al Sharpton? He ever and always has his radar out for the slightest bleep of something he can call racist, and use it to garner attention. Which tends to make his responses to things like this pretty meaningless.

caw

[billythrilly7th]

All clear minded people realize that the intent of the cartoon was to lampoon the morons we have "writing" bills in Washington and the very risky stimulus bill. And it worked perfectly with the crazy ass Monkey. Obama had nothing to do with it.

Anyone who wants to make a bigger deal of it than that has way too much time on their hands.

The same rabble rousers who protest everything.

Yawn.

Go NY Post.

Stand strong.

All clear minded NYC'ers are with you.

[Williebee]

I remember a recent post in a thread here in the 'Cooler, referencing the old "monkeys producing Shakespeare" adage, and how the poster would rather trust the monkeys. That's where my mind went when I saw the cartoon. five pages and a half dozen "pay attention to me!" columnists later, I think the Poet nailed it:
It's poorly thought out and not funny.

As evidenced by all the people arguing over what it really meant. The cartoonist didn't get his point across, and didn't make the joke work. On the other hand, maybe the point was to accomplish the "pay attention to me!"


pfffft. Vote with your feet. Or, in this case, mouse clicks.

[Bravo]

it's really the NYP's response that i find the most annoying, the snide dismissal of the racist undertones, the refusal to see how this might be offensive and potentially dangerous to the president.

[Dommo]

I think it's offensive, but at the same time I saw enough George Bush is a chimp stuff that I can't help but think this is protected for the same reason.

[blacbird]

I think it's offensive, but at the same time I saw enough George Bush is a chimp stuff that I can't help but think this is protected for the same reason.

Maybe I missed it, but I don't think anybody has suggested that the cartoon isn't "protected speech." "Protected" just means you can't be prosecuted for it; it doesn't protect you from criticism.

caw

[Monkey]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29290684

After two days of protests, the paper posted an editorial on its Web site Thursday saying the cartoon was meant to mock the federal economic stimulus bill, but "to those who were offended by the image, we apologize."

The editorial also says some people who have long-standing differences with the paper saw the cartoon "as an opportunity for payback."

[DamaNegra]

You know what's the really sad thing about this thread? Now, when I see monkeys, I think of black people. I never made the connection before, and it's not really racist of my part, but I can't really see monkeys anymore without thinking of this thread.

[benbradley]

At least they didn't have to say "We apologize for running this cartoon, and feel great sorrow and remorse for the riots and deaths prompted by it."


(still reading Sam Harris' "The End of Faith")

[Toothpaste]

You know what's the really sad thing about this thread? Now, when I see monkeys, I think of black people. I never made the connection before, and it's not really racist of my part, but I can't really see monkeys anymore without thinking of this thread.

While this is unfortunate, you do realise it in actuality has nothing to do with this thread right? It simply happened that you learned of this racist stereotype in this thread. We didn't introduce the image into society or anything. We were commenting on a topic that was receiving the same speculation all over the internet.

I will agree that it is a shame that you are now aware of the negative connotation, maybe ignorance truly is bliss, but I don't think this is a further example of how discussing racial stereotypes makes racism worse. It might be an unfortunate side effect for some people (me personally I don't think black people when I see monkeys, and I've known about this unfortunate comparison for forever), but I still think it is worthwhile pointing these things out and having an intelligent discussion over it, than pretending it doesn't exist.

[cethklein]

Flatter myself? WTF are you talking about?

You quoted me and said this:

That implies--to me--that I was missing/ignoring that point (that it's wrong). So, I responded to your post--THAT QUOTED ME--by pointing out that I already said I thought it was wrong.

How utterly inapproapriate of me...

As always Rob, my perceived attack on you is all in your head. I'll say it yet again "and for the last time) It was a generalized statement. You want to get your panties in a twist ad pull the paranoid "you're out to get me" shit, more power to you. But that's not what happened. Facts be damned I guess. Carry on.

[cethklein]

Maybe I missed it, but I don't think anybody has suggested that the cartoon isn't "protected speech." "Protected" just means you can't be prosecuted for it; it doesn't protect you from criticism.

caw

Amen. People really need to read the friggin Constitution before citing it.

[Robert Toy]

UPDATE:

http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/02/19/chimp.cartoon.apology/index.html

[Kaiser-Kun]

While this is unfortunate, you do realise it in actuality has nothing to do with this thread right? It simply happened that you learned of this racist stereotype in this thread. We didn't introduce the image into society or anything. We were commenting on a topic that was receiving the same speculation all over the internet.

I will agree that it is a shame that you are now aware of the negative connotation, maybe ignorance truly is bliss, but I don't think this is a further example of how discussing racial stereotypes makes racism worse. It might be an unfortunate side effect for some people (me personally I don't think black people when I see monkeys, and I've known about this unfortunate comparison for forever), but I still think it is worthwhile pointing these things out and having an intelligent discussion over it, than pretending it doesn't exist.

A good side-effect would be that now he's aware that a reference to monkeys could be offensive to african-americans, and therefore will be less likely to offend them unintentionally.

I think the newspaper's stance of "but we didn't thought relating a monkey with the stimulus bill could be seen as racist!" makes them look stupid instead of racist. Do they really want us to believe that the possible connotation, intentional or not, passed unnoticed from the cartoonist to the print?

[veinglory]

It looks to me like there is a lot of dichotomisng going on here. No-one can 100% know the artists intent. I, personally, don;t think it was intended as an Obama reference. That doesn change the fact that it should have been foreseeable that it would be read that way. Saying that I believe the artists did not intent a racial slur is not denying that this reading of it is clear and predictable, and should have been avoided. I would suggest that newspaper needs to work on their hiring diversity and/or cultural awareness.

http://failblog.org/2009/02/20/wal-mart-super-bowl-display-fail/

[Kaiser-Kun]

It looks to me like there is a lot of dichotomisng going on here. No-one can 100% know the artists intent. I, personally, don;t think it was intended as an Obama reference. That doesn change the fact that it should have been foreseeable that it would be read that way. Saying that I believe the artists did not intent a racial slur is not denying that this reading of it is clear and predictable, and should have been avoided. I would suggest that newspaper needs to work on their hiring diversity and/or cultural awareness.

Precisely. I'm unsure about the artist's intent, but either way, someone in the newspaper oughta have said "Hey, this could be seen wrong by a lot of people". They obviously replied "Nobody'll notice."

Perhaps he could've edited the dialogue to "Awwe, he was going to vote yes to the stimulus package."?

[nighttimer]

This cartoon didn't tick me off as much as The New Yorker's "terrorist fist-bump" piece of shit.

Still, it is a badly drawn, totally insipid, heavy-handed attempt at satire.

So it's a piece of shit too.

On the National Association of Black Journalists listserve this topic is being discussed hot and heavy, but with insights that might be useful to this thread:

The real problem is that the New York Post is essentially a newspaper run by Australians. They don't understand the racial subtext in America and they have never indicated an interest in learning about it. This is not the first racist cartoon in the paper. When they portray black people in their cartoons, the images tend to be crude and exaggerate the worst stereotypes.

The rampaging chimp story may well have been a legitimate event to illustrate, but the caption about finding someone else to write the next stimulus bill clearly equates Obama with the dead chimp. There is no logic in the caption other than Obama=chimp. Such conclusions shouldn't be surprising when you have a paper run by people from a country that barred black immigration for 40 years and committed genocide against its aborigines.

The question is, what can be done beyond protesting. As far as I know the number of blacks in the newsroom at the NYPost varies between 0 and 1. When I worked there in its "liberal" days, some 35 years ago, the number was 3 or 4 at any time and those of us in the newsroom did not hesitate to point out offensive content. But that was a different time and the ownership was American.

---------------------------------
I beg to differ with that. Australians KNOW about the racial subtext about comparing Blacks with apes because it is a common epithet in England and Australia and most parts of the world. If an Australian was directly involved then there's no mistake. It's a deliberate racist act.

In the US, the N-word is used predominantly; however, in other countries like England and Australia (which has plenty of folk that moved there from the UK in the last 50 years, and not to mention it's earlier British penal colonies) there are other words that are as equally effective as the N-word. So please, don't put insult to injury by stating that the Australians didn't know because they've come to NY from down under. Core blimey!
They know the implications of comparing a Black person to an ape.

I'll ask again where were the gatekeepers? No reporter, editorial writer/cartoonist does a piece and it instantaneously goes into print. Where was the page editor? The copy editor? Do you really think that publication of the graphic was an cultural oversight? By the way did you hear that the Brooklyn Bridge is for sale?

One of the beauties of the English language is the varied definition of words. In this instance it was graphic. The chimp story can be subjected to another conversation on our racial construct here in the US, but let's just deal with the NYPost graphic. It was blatant overture and it is ludicrous to think its publication is due to a lack of understanding the American cultural subtext by a bunch of warbled-speaking English-penal colony descendants.

History has a way of repeating itself, remember that the Nazi Party went about dehumanizing Germany's Jewish citizenry long before the death camps. They did it effectively via propaganda in the newspapers by depicting Jews in a bad way. Essentially, the Nazi Party stirred the psych of Germans to despise "the Jude" as being less than human via caricatures that are not so far different from what was published in the NYPost.

Today, this is the sort of filth is what one expects to find in a some right-wing, Aryan Neo-Nazi hate publication. It is NOT what one expects from 21-Century mainstream newspaper in America -- in NYC of all places -- regardless of its Republican ideology.

Or is it because of it?

The "Australian" excuse is unacceptable because there is no excuse for such an action.

:rant:

[veinglory]

So the answer to bigotry is to imply all Australians are racist?

Somehow I doubt that all the people in the newsroom are Aussies anyway, unless they spend half their budget on immigration lawyers.

[nighttimer]

So the answer to bigotry is to imply all Australians are racist?

Somehow I doubt that all the people in the newsroom are Aussies anyway, unless they spend half their budget on immigration lawyers.

The New York Post is owned by Rupert Murdoch and its editorial board is largely Australian.

Which doesn't mean being Australian makes anyone a racist. I think it's more an indictment of what happens in newspaper editorial meetings when there isn't a conscious person of color at the table to say, "There might be a problem with this..."

[veinglory]

[quote=nighttimer;3310234]The New York Post is owned by Rupert Murdoch and its editorial board is largely Australian.[quote]

In my experience most of the decision aren't made in the editorial board as such, but by the salaried sub-board editorial staff. Certainly they should be locals or naturalised for the most part?

[Joe270]

It doesn't matter a bit if the NYP is owned by Australians or Martians.

The NYP has survived by making itself distinctly New York in style and character. That takes local talent, which it has in droves.

[robeiae]

As always Rob, my perceived attack on you is all in your head. I'll say it yet again "and for the last time) It was a generalized statement. You want to get your panties in a twist ad pull the paranoid "you're out to get me" shit, more power to you. But that's not what happened. Facts be damned I guess. Carry on.
Really, it's you that's imagining things. My reply clarified that I had already said as much: that both were "bad." There was no attack in that reply, just a statement. You came back with nonsense about "flattering" myself. Which was why I asked wtf you were talking about.

So, don't try to jump off now and put this on me. YOU made something out of it by taking a personal shot. As you are doing, yet again.

[KikiteNeko]

Just so the OP knows: that link now refers to today's comic, not the one mentioned in this thread.

[benbradley]

Precisely. I'm unsure about the artist's intent, but either way, someone in the newspaper oughta have said "Hey, this could be seen wrong by a lot of people". They obviously replied "Nobody'll notice."
I'm thinking someone sensed this wasn't appropriate, and was ignored or didn't feel comfortable speaking up.

On the other hand, this paper seems to be one to push the envelope. This isn't the first time the NY Post has compared people to animals in a disparaging way. Here's an infamous example on the first page:

http://www.preventtruthdecay.com/mainmiscweasels.htm

[Sheryl Nantus]

The New York Post is owned by Rupert Murdoch and its editorial board is largely Australian.

Which doesn't mean being Australian makes anyone a racist. I think it's more an indictment of what happens in newspaper editorial meetings when there isn't a conscious person of color at the table to say, "There might be a problem with this..."

what's "a conscious person of color"?

define, please.

thank you!

[robeiae]

One that's awake?

[aka eraser]

Since I was unaware of the chimp-attacking-woman story, I first interpreted the cartoon as a spin on the 100-monkeys-typing-Shakespeare thing. But I can definitely see how it might be interpreted as a racist poke at Obama. Not being a mind reader, I won't presume to know the artist's actual intent.

But editorial cartoonists are paid to lampoon, skewer, outrage and above all - provoke comment. This dude earned his paycheque.

[robeiae]

This dude earned his paycheque.
Yeah, there's no doubt about that.

[justsomeguy]

It doesn't matter a bit if the NYP is owned by Australians or Martians.

The NYP has survived by making itself distinctly New York in style and character. That takes local talent, which it has in droves.

No, the Post has survived because Murdoch wants to continue using it as a mouthpiece for himself and those he agrees with.

My understanding is that it has not once turned a profit as long as he has owned it.

I'm not saying there's anything wrong with someone using their wealth to push their opinions.

I just don't want anyone thinking that enough New Yorkers support this rag to make it profitable.

They don't.

Never have.

[veinglory]

Well, estimates are that it is read by 12% of adults living in the NY area, with average circulation for the weekday edition of over 1 million. That's not too bad for any newspaper.

[robeiae]

I don't know whether or not it's profitable, but I think it's in the top ten for circulation in the U.S.

[robeiae]

Well, estimates are that it is read by 12% of adults living in the NY area, with average circulation for the weekday edition of over 1 million. That's not too bad for any newspaper.
Wow. I didn't think the US literacy rates were that high...













Joke! Joke!

[WendyNYC]

Well, estimates are that it is read by 12% of adults living in the NY area, with average circulation for the weekday edition of over 1 million. That's not too bad for any newspaper.


A lot of people buy it for the gossip. Not me or anything. I'd never. What? Stop looking at me that way.

[robeiae]

I saw you reading it in a Starbucks on Broadway, Wendy.

Not that I'm watching you, or anything.

[nighttimer]

what's "a conscious person of color"?

define, please.

thank you!

My definition of "a conscious person of color" is a Asian, Latino, Hispanic, Black or First American in a position where he or she can provide a perspective that otherwise might not be included in a decision-making process.

A conscious person of color can speak out when the organization is about to enter a area that might be considered racially troublesome.

In newspapers where there are no minorities in positions of authority there are stories that go unreported, communities that are not covered, and offensive images that go unchallenged. A conscious person of color can say, "We've done ten stories in a row about Black teenagers committing crimes. Aren't there any stories of Black teenagers challenging the stereotypes and doing something positive for themselves and the community?"

Sometimes it takes a person of color to point out where something that seems innocent may accidentally be offensive.

Remember the drama over Don Imus and his "nappy-headed 'hos" remark a few years ago. For those who never see anything as racially offensive, no offensive was taken. For others who knew how disgusting and hurtful that remark was, plenty of offense was taken.

How many times does something have to happen before it's not just a random coincidence, but a deliberate pattern? The New York Post has had a difficult relationship with the Black community in NYC. Maybe if a Black editor who was aware enough and grown enough of a spine had been in the room when the decision was made to go with that cartoon, he or she could have set off a warning bell.

Hope that helps as far as a explanation goes.

[blacbird]

The New York Post has had a difficult relationship with the Black community in NYC. Maybe if a Black editor who was aware enough and grown enough of a spine had been in the room when the decision was made to go with that cartoon, he or she could have set off a warning bell.

Fat chance. Isn't the Post owned by Rupert Murdoch, the epitome of "fair and balanced"?

caw

[Joe270]

First, I know of no instance where a noose has been hung at the door (or in a tree in a specific yard, etc.) of anyone other than a black person. It's as much a threat symbol of specifically racist content as spray-painting a swastika on the house of a Jew.

So this is racist, too, then:

http://i222.photobucket.com/albums/dd136/Joe270/foreclosure.jpg

Because the one thing we have learned in all these threads is that the noose is specifically targeted to intimidate black Americans.

[Prawn]

So this is racist, too, then:

http://i222.photobucket.com/albums/dd136/Joe270/foreclosure.jpg

Because the one thing we have learned in all these threads is that the noose is specifically targeted to intimidate black Americans.


Words and symbols only have meaning when they are embedded in a context. The idea of a noose by itself is not racist.

If a white person sees a black person and thinks get a noose, that seems racist. If a person sees a foreclosure sign and thinks noose, it is probably not racist.

But we all know the context.

In this country people have been killed with nooses. Hanging a noose on someone's door seems like a threat. Hanging a noose on the door of a black person in the US is likely to be interpreted as a racist threat. Even if later the black person finds out their own kid did it, or a cowboy did it, or another black person did it, with in the context of this country, a noose is usually a threatening image.

In this image, the artist brought out the threat of a noose, linking it to a threat of foreclosure.

[JJ Cooper]

Snip
---------------------------------
I beg to differ with that. Australians KNOW about the racial subtext about comparing Blacks with apes because it is a common epithet in England and Australia and most parts of the world. If an Australian was directly involved then there's no mistake. It's a deliberate racist act.

In the US, the N-word is used predominantly; however, in other countries like England and Australia (which has plenty of folk that moved there from the UK in the last 50 years, and not to mention it's earlier British penal colonies) there are other words that are as equally effective as the N-word. So please, don't put insult to injury by stating that the Australians didn't know because they've come to NY from down under. Core blimey!
They know the implications of comparing a Black person to an ape.

I'll ask again where were the gatekeepers? No reporter, editorial writer/cartoonist does a piece and it instantaneously goes into print. Where was the page editor? The copy editor? Do you really think that publication of the graphic was an cultural oversight? By the way did you hear that the Brooklyn Bridge is for sale?

One of the beauties of the English language is the varied definition of words. In this instance it was graphic. The chimp story can be subjected to another conversation on our racial construct here in the US, but let's just deal with the NYPost graphic. It was blatant overture and it is ludicrous to think its publication is due to a lack of understanding the American cultural subtext by a bunch of warbled-speaking English-penal colony descendants.

History has a way of repeating itself, remember that the Nazi Party went about dehumanizing Germany's Jewish citizenry long before the death camps. They did it effectively via propaganda in the newspapers by depicting Jews in a bad way. Essentially, the Nazi Party stirred the psych of Germans to despise "the Jude" as being less than human via caricatures that are not so far different from what was published in the NYPost.

Today, this is the sort of filth is what one expects to find in a some right-wing, Aryan Neo-Nazi hate publication. It is NOT what one expects from 21-Century mainstream newspaper in America -- in NYC of all places -- regardless of its Republican ideology.

Or is it because of it?

The "Australian" excuse is unacceptable because there is no excuse for such an action.

:rant:

I don't know. Sometimes what we (Australians) say may be misinterpreted. For example: if someone was to refer to me as a 'warbled-speaking English penal-colony decendant' because I'm Australian, I may refer to that person as a goose. Over here, in the colony, when we refer to someone as a goose it really means that the person in question is an idiot/fool/wanker/moron etc. Maybe that term has a different meaning over there.

And, we really don't say 'core blimey'.

JJ

[rugcat]

I don't know. Sometimes what we (Australians) say may be misinterpreted. For example: if someone was to refer to me as a 'warbled-speaking English penal-colony decendant' because I'm Australian, I may refer to that person as a goose. Over here, in the colony, when we refer to someone as a goose it really means that the person in question is an idiot/fool/wanker/moron etc. Maybe that term has a different meaning over there.It means the same here, except that it's outdated slang from fifty or sixty years ago.

But in this country, anyone who insists that hanging a noose on the door of a black person is not necessarily a racist threat is just being willfully contrarian.

[donroc]

Silly goose is the term once used more prolifically here. Twit is a Brit word I like although some may intepret it as present tense. ;)

Had a frat brother with last name of Schatz, whose neck name was Past Tense.

Back on topic, context is all.

[Joe270]

But in this country, anyone who insists that hanging a noose on the door of a black person is not necessarily a racist threat is just being willfully contrarian.

Read this statement again, it is similar to many others posted on a noose being specifically racist and only aimed at black Americans:

First, I know of no instance where a noose has been hung at the door (or in a tree in a specific yard, etc.) of anyone other than a black person. It's as much a threat symbol of specifically racist content as spray-painting a swastika on the house of a Jew.

My point is that a noose doesn't carry racist overtones in all situations.

It may carry a sense of impending doom, as in the cartoon noted. 'Get a rope' has been used in movies and even tv comercials without racist implications.

It certainly implies a threat when directed at an individual or group. It is, in that context, no doubt a death threat. But that use has that death threat no matter the race.

Yes, it is a vile threat, no, it's not a racist threat. If it was, it wouldn't be a threat to other people.

I rest my case.

[rugcat]

It certainly implies a threat when directed at an individual or group. It is, in that context, no doubt a death threat. But that use has that death threat no matter the race.

Yes, it is a vile threat, no, it's not a racist threat. If it was, it wouldn't be a threat to other people.

I rest my case.If you want to say that a noose, in and of itself, with no context, is not solely a racial intimidator because cowboys used to hang rustlers, technically I can give you that.

But what you're refusing to see, or acknowledge, is that because of the long history of lynching of black people in this country, not for stealing cattle, but for being black and "not knowing their place," the noose carries a special and unique connotation for them.

When one ignores the cultural baggage and says that a noose on a black person's door isn't necessarily racially charged, I think that's being willfully blind to reality.

[Robert Toy]

UPDATE

NEW YORK (CNN) -- Leaders of the NAACP on Saturday called for the firing of the New York Post cartoonist whose drawing lampooning the federal stimulus bill has drawn charges that it's racist and encourages violence toward President Obama.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/02/21/chimp.cartoon/index.html

[Joe270]

When one ignores the cultural baggage and says that a noose on a black person's door isn't necessarily racially charged, I think that's being willfully blind to reality.

A noose on anyone's door is a death threat to be taken very seriously. It's no different a threat on a black person's door or a white, green, yellow, or blue person's door.

[Prawn]

A noose on anyone's door is a death threat to be taken very seriously. It's no different a threat on a black person's door or a white, green, yellow, or blue person's door.

No. I am white. If I find a noose on my door, I know someone may be threatening my life. I don't think they are doing it because I am white.

A noose on a black person's door is also a threat. The difference is that the person could be being threatened because he is black.

The threat is the same, the reason behind it may be very different.

[SirBiatch]

Coming from a black man, I didn't feel 'attacked' by the cartoon. I looked at it and thought "meh. not funny."

I realized a long time ago that racists hate people, period. A white supremacist hates other white people, and will turn on other white people once the group he/she hates most (e.g. blacks) are gone. Same thing for black supremacists, asian, whatever.

Therefore blatant displays of racism don't bother me. I refuse to evaluate the opinion of a self-and-people hater, so why get angry about it?

It's the politically-correct, subversive stuff that's annoying. And I think this cartoon doesn't fall into that category. Subversive racism is a lot less obvious than this.