Is the New York Post cartoon racist or racially insensitive?

[rahdam]

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Is the above racist? Was it intended to be rascist?

If not racist, would you deem it racially insensitive?

[Liquid]

I can't even figure out what the message is supposed to be, let alone why the supposed 'stimulus bill writer' is portrayed as a monkey. I'm hesitant to call racism, as I think that's an overplayed card to call in today's society, but beyond the obvious connotations being represented here, Its difficult to imagine it being anything else. Does this comic relate to the monkey shooting incident a few days back? If it does, that's a relatively obscure way to reference it in the context of politics.

Maybe the author of the comic simply stirred the shit pot as they say, for controversy and dialogue on racism in politics and how it's especially relevant in 2009, but my personal opinion is that it's more a call for attention; one without any particular substance.

[towith]

As President Obama does not have the power to write bills, I believe, I would find it very odd if this were directed toward either him or his race. Occam's razor would seem to suggest it is the simple linking of two news stories, with no other intent involved.

[LaoTzu]

On the one hand, I've heard the author say that he "didn't equate monkey's with a derogatory name for blacks".... (I guess porch monkey never passed his ear.... :/ )
GWB was often portrayed as a chimp as well.

I do think this was racially motivated, and I'm usually not one to say that kind of thing...

But I bet it's selling papers....

The target audience for this paper is (R) too.... (I believe it's a Murdoch property... FauxNews watcher material....)

[SeaCzar]

I think this cartoon has obvious racial overtones, but I cannot imagine it was intentional. It has had the effect of inflamming the race issue. NYC police are not known for their tolerance to begin with. Murdoch himself has apoligised for this. Will we ever live in a completely non-raciest society? If I had to answer that question, sadly, it would be No.

[rahdam]

NYC police are not known for their tolerance to begin with.

To clarify, Connecticut police were involved. The cartoon does not specify the origin of the police officers shown.

[rara avis]

It didn't occur to me that this might be a racial slur. To me, it seemed to reference something closer the the Infinite Monkey Theorem. Or just that the bill may have been written by a Xanax-addled chimp; the House and Senate are full of them. I didn't grow up around racial slurs and divisions so much, though.

I was fascinated to hear an expert on african american culture on NPR the other day say something to the point that the association between black people and monkeys is so very, very obvious that no one could miss it. Taken out of context... or maybe even in... wtf??

A better question may be, what does it say about someone who assumes that because there's an ape in it, it refers to Obama? Because as far as the political process of bill-writing aspect is concerned, isn't that a stretch?

On a semi-related note, my dad reminds me of a giant orangutan when he loses his temper. And Bush II looks waaay more like a chimp than Obama does.

[ElstonGunn]

I suggest a fifth poll option: "The cartoon is probably either over my head, or it just stupid, because, for the life of me, I can't figure out what the author was trying to say. Or maybe he just wanted to draw an ape."

[Liquid]

Anyone remember these?

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Imagine the controversy this website would endow if instead of Bush, it was Obama.

[rara avis]

The only thing that initially bothered me about the cartoon was that the original chimpanzee story plucked at my shrivelled and frozen INTJ heartstrings... animal trauma is never all that funny, to me. Though maybe that was a better way to go than wasting away in a lab cage once he grew up. Blaze of glory, etc.

Also, apparently he reacted unexpectedly ...poorly to psych meds. I can totally identify with that.

[Hatsumomo1]

People are so quick to play the racist card nowadays. It sickens me. And I'm pretty sure it's Congress that writes bills, not the president?

[Peripeteia]

Anyone remember these?

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Imagine the controversy this website would endow if instead of Bush, it was Obama.

Interesting point there.

[boldbidder]

The cartoon isn't racist; it's bigoted. Racism is probably most grossly misused term in America.

race - competitive event of some kind
ism - a state of being

Racism - the current state of the/a competitive race. In most cases people mean this to refer to the race between different races of the ethnic variety. So in order for someone to be a racist they need to be engaged in activity that substantially changes the landscape of the current 'race' between the races e.g. discriminatory hiring practices, subjugation through police brutality, etc... Unless someone is engaging in one of these (or similar) types of activities they aren't a racist, calling a person a <insert racial epithet of choice> doesn't make one a racist.

Anywho, taken in total the cartoon is so grossly bigoted you'd have a hard time convincing me that it wasn't intentional, but morons are abound so I guess anything is possible. Any element taken separately wouldn't be a big deal, but the combination of a primate and cops killing said primate while simultaneously making light of the situation, positively drips of bigotry.

With that said, who really gives frak (forgive the BSG reference), it's a cartoon in a newspaper.

[BallentineChen]

People are so quick to play the racist card nowadays. It sickens me. And I'm pretty sure it's Congress that writes bills, not the president?

Yeah, but you can't expect a paper like the New York Post to know that. And even though Obama obviously couldn't write the bill, he was obviously for it. If you think of the target demographic of the Post, it's hard to imagine that the cartoonist didn't know what she was doing.

[firebee]

I suggest a fifth poll option: "The cartoon is probably either over my head, or it just stupid, because, for the life of me, I can't figure out what the author was trying to say. Or maybe he just wanted to draw an ape."

Haha, yes. My impression is that it's an absurdly bad cartoon that started with a cartoonist thinking "angry monkeys are intrinsically funny" and going downhill from there. As a result, there's not a really clear intended meaning to hang one's hat on, which leaves one with "monkey, shot by the police, somehow associated with stimulus package". And monkeys, unfortunately, have a strongly established historical meaning in editorial cartoons... Plus which, there's something else in the cartoonist's style that I can't put my finger on, that gives me a vaguely nasty vibe.

My suspicion is that the cartoonist cranked out a marginal cartoon, and that everyone whose hands it passed through prior to publication either didn't look at it or was blind to the monkey business. Possibly noticing that sort of thing is more common for people from the South?

In any event, it smells to me of the sort of thing where you say something witty and once it comes out of your mouth you realize you've made a horrible, horrible gaffe, the sort that the only way to redeem yourself is to fall on your sword on the spot. And you don't have a sword...

[jesse]

This caricature is satire and I am sure that the original intent was to strike a nerve or two from readers. There is little point in denying that this was certainly achieved and does so by playing on people's fears and their sense of political correctness.

Of course this can be seen as outright bigotry or insentitive depending on the viewer. I see this as combining two seemingly unrelated subjects and turning them into an absurd coincidence. The monkey might simply represent a bill drafter, an apparatchik trying to come up with the legalese for the stimulus package. It's not an every day occurrence to have police put down a crazed monkey and a big political decision in the pipeline. Put two and two together, you get an attention grabbing headline and a provoking cartoon in one go.

[Lycurgus]

It was satirizing a horribly written bill, (one that... a monkey could've penned, like the '94 AWB, when the same desciptor was used) and the fact that they shot 'an incredibly smart chimpanzee' in the zoo a few days before.

[Valiyn]

It was satirizing a horribly written bill, (one that... a monkey could've penned, like the '94 AWB, when the same desciptor was used) and the fact that they shot 'an incredibly smart chimpanzee' in the zoo a few days before.

Exactly,
I can't think of anything else it might be. Racism as far as I'm concerned is something people are making a random connection to.

Racist drawing or not, nothing should be done about it.

[rwyatt365]

Basically, I think that readers - not knowing the true intent of the author's meaning - instill their own prejudices or guilt on the cartoon. Is it intrinsically racist/bigoted? I would say not, but that's just me.

[SeaCzar]

I am interested in what the OP thinks of this.

[Functianalyst]

For those who would wonder why such an outcry about this cartoon, only shows a lack of knowledge of history. Clearly this is not a Black thing, but a lesson in ignorance of people who choose to forget or never knew why we should infer the term monkey to be offensive to Blacks and other minorities. Start with Charles Darwin’s (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) theory on evolution in purporting Blacks and other minorities to be inferior and having ape-like tendencies. Even those like Howard Cosell (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) who most Black’s consider a friend and advocate of the race, suffered from monkey similarities. The inference of killing a monkey combined with the statement being made by the police was quite clear if you had an inkling of what has transpired in American history.

[MaleVolentworld]

The stimulus bill was so bad that it could not have been written by a human? it was a stupid bill, so an animal must have written it. By why a monkey? because they closely resemble humans and could get away with it since they have hands, rather than a snail which is absurd.??? :)

I've seen elephants and some other animal in political cartoons that represent the main political parties. I don't know what they refer to, but I'm not American or living in America so don't laugh if it's obvious to you.

[Lycurgus]

For those who would wonder why such an outcry about this cartoon, only shows a lack of knowledge of history. Clearly this is not a Black thing, but a lesson in ignorance of people who choose to forget or never knew why we should infer the term monkey to be offensive to Blacks and other minorities. Start with Charles Darwin’s (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) theory on evolution in purporting Blacks and other minorities to be inferior and having ape-like tendencies. Even those like Howard Cosell (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) who most Black’s consider a friend and advocate of the race, suffered from monkey similarities. The inference of killing a monkey combined with the statement being made by the police was quite clear if you had an inkling of what has transpired in American history.What you're doing is trying to mix your personal creationist views (look at the first link, hah!) with a political cartoon.

This is offensive to those of us with the capacity for critical thought.

[towith]

For those who would wonder why such an outcry about this cartoon, only shows a lack of knowledge of history.

If the cartoon were of a rat being shot, we should consider first that the rat is a symbol of corruption. Thus communicating that the writer of the bill is corrupt. We should not instantly jump to the next point that Hitler saw a link between Jews and rats. It may be interesting in a pop-psychology sense, but I do not think heads should roll as the result of a hunch. If heads should roll at all.

[Functianalyst]

What you're doing is trying to mix your personal creationist views (look at the first link, hah!) with a political cartoon.

This is offensive to those of us with the capacity for critical thought.This is not my personal creationist. You're asking why people were offended and saw the cartoon as racism. Next you will be asking why a Black man would get offended by being called a "Boy". It's in the history of this country and the monkey matter started with Darwin's theory.





Functianalyst added to this post, 0 minutes and 50 seconds later...

If the cartoon were of a rat being shot, we should consider first that the rat is a symbol of corruption. Thus communicating that the writer of the bill is corrupt. We should not instantly jump to the next point that Hitler saw a link between Jews and rats. It may be interesting in a pop-psychology sense, but I do not think heads should roll as the result of a hunch. If heads should roll at all.No, but maybe it is a Black thing since clearly no one here seems to have a since of history behind the terminology.

[Lycurgus]

This is not my personal creationist.Of course not, it's just a chance for you to stealthily slide in your unscientific beliefs.... of course, how could I have made that mistake.:rolleyes:

You're asking why people were offended and saw the cartoon as racism. First: I asked no such thing. I know why pretty well why the cartoon was taken as racist.

For some people, it was taken as racist because they wanted to stir up shit. For some, they're genuinely over-sensitive about race.

Next you will be asking why a Black man would get offended by being called a "Boy". Over sensitivity. There's nothing, and I mean nothing, racially derogatory about the term boy.

I know men who refer to anyone they're in a disagreement with as "Boy," black, white, Asian or otherwise.

It's in the history of this country and the monkey matter started with Darwin's theory.And now you're showing your ignorance of history in this particular subject matter.... your ignorance is really profound.

The comparison between people of darker skin tones and great apes/monkeys has dated back well before 1800 (1809 being the year of Darwin's Birth).

This comparison is still used ("Porch Monkey" for Black people or children of any race sitting on a porch,) and Monkey is sometimes used by whites in South-East Asia to describe the local peoples.

For you to imply it was coined by Darwin shows a hilarious lack of understanding for the vernacular, and a genuine ignorance or urge to convey false information.


All of this still doesn't make the cartoon racist or bigoted, as it was just a poorly designed play on events that occurred slightly before its publication.

[boldbidder]

If the cartoon were of a rat being shot, we should consider first that the rat is a symbol of corruption. Thus communicating that the writer of the bill is corrupt. We should not instantly jump to the next point that Hitler saw a link between Jews and rats. It may be interesting in a pop-psychology sense, but I do not think heads should roll as the result of a hunch. If heads should roll at all.

Once again, the key in this case is the confluence of events. Does the monkey, the cops, or the a monkey being shot individually equal bigotry; no they don't. However, when you combine the imagine of a monkey, then you shoot said monkey, then you have cops shooting said monkey, then you have cops shoot said monkey and making light of it then you have a bigoted cartoon. Perhaps its good that many in here don't see it, maybe we're getting closer to that whole Eutopia Planecia thing, but it's probably more an indicator of an extremely sheltered existence.

Now with all that ranting aside, I reiterate it's a fraking cartoon in a newspaper, who gives a flying frak. No, no apology is needed, and no one needs to be fired. If anyone is offended by said cartoon, it's simple don't by the New York Post.

[thod]

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Clearly a flying angelic Obama, but why does he have a female child hanging on to his penis? Clinton may have established a new democrat tradition.

[Lycurgus]

Once again, the key in this case is the confluence of events. Does the monkey, the cops, or the a monkey being shot individually equal bigotry; no they don't. However, when you combine the imagine of a monkey, then you shoot said monkey, then you have cops shooting said monkey, then you have cops shoot said monkey and making light of it then you have a bigoted cartoon. Perhaps its good that many in here don't see it, maybe we're getting closer to that whole Eutopia Planecia thing, but it's probably more an indicator of an extremely sheltered existence.

Now with all that ranting aside, I reiterate it's a fraking cartoon in a newspaper, who gives a flying frak. No, no apology is needed, and no one needs to be fired. If anyone is offended by said cartoon, it's simple don't by the New York Post.This part I especially agree with.

But, boldbidder, you do realize that it was, at least partially, influenced by an actual shooting of a monkey, right?

[Zombicide]

I didn't know chimps counted as a race, though I do recall during a documentary about that chimp named Oliver who was trained to walk upright, people questioned whether they should be given rights because of Oliver and such.

Why the hell do people keep bringing up Obama? I don't recall it being the job of a president to write bills. Is it that the cartoonist is suppose to be an idiot?

Man, the liberals who started calling this cartoon racist sure are racist for considering it racist. What a disgusting and annoying thing for them to bring up. . .in regards to every single thing under the sun. What is this suppose to be like when Hitler called Jews monkeys, so now there's paranoia?

The cartoon isn't racist; it's bigoted. Racism is probably most grossly misused term in America.

race - competitive event of some kind

Maybe you're aware of something of the etymology that I'm simply unaware of but I'm fairly certain it's just a homonym, dude.

[boldbidder]

But, boldbidder, you do realize that it was, at least partially, influenced by an actual shooting of a monkey, right?

Agreed. I'll even buy that maybe the first moments of inspiration for the artist contained no bigoted sentiment, but it's a pretty long street from inspiration to the funnies page. It should of taken all of .08 seconds for a reasonably well seasoned person to realize the deeper implications.





boldbidder added to this post, 1 minutes and 54 seconds later...


Maybe you're aware of something of the etymology that I'm simply unaware of but I'm fairly certain it's just a homonym, dude.

So you're saying that the label(s) racism, racist, et al.... aren't overused in America? Or just disagreeing with which homonym of race I used in my post? ;)

[Functianalyst]

Of course not, it's just a chance for you to stealthily slide in your unscientific beliefs.... of course, how could I have made that mistake.:rolleyes:.I don't know but you did a damn good job throughout your whole response. Don't pretend to know history or claim some bullshit cause in the name of science if you have never been subject to racism, gender bias or other discriminatory adverse action.

[Lycurgus]

I don't know but you did a damn good job throughout your whole response. Don't pretend to know history or claim some bullshit cause in the name of science if you have never been subject to racism, gender bias or other discriminatory adverse action.I'm sorry, but that's a non-sequiter.

"Don't claim you know history if you've never been discriminated against."

What? :huh:


I know history because I've studied it. Whether or not I know what it's like to be discriminated against is a separate issue -- although I do. I have, however, dealt with it like any mature person does. You move on and laugh to yourself at their ignorance. Yeah, it hurts a bit, but no -- it's not the end of the world, and it usually hurts them more than you.

[SeaCzar]

I think the overarching issue is this: Can American have an open and honest discussion on race, racism and racial relations? An interesting article in the Washington Post (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)poses this very question.

Discussion and/or comments?

[firebee]

Over sensitivity. There's nothing, and I mean nothing, racially derogatory about the term boy.

I know men who refer to anyone they're in a disagreement with as "Boy," black, white, Asian or otherwise.


The fact that some people use the word without racial implications doesn't mean that it always lacks racial implications. Possibly again, this issue is one of background? A white person addressing a black man as "boy" has a strong air of pre-civil-rights open and flagrant racism, although maybe the usage is archaic enough that some people won't pick up on it. But I sure as hell wouldn't gamble on that, if I was in an argument with a black man. And I'd be mind-boggled to hear someone say it.

[HeyZeus]

I can't make the connection between gorilla on a rampage, and the "SOMEONE ELSE" [read INDIVIDUAL] who will now have to write the stimulus bills since the gorilla was killed. A group of do-gooders wrote the stimulus bill, not an individual. How does a single rampaging, murderous gorilla represent a group of policy-makers? I think the cartoon fails to illustrate the now dead gorilla as a group of people. If it had done that, shown a group of rampaging, drooling politicians (gorillas), foaming at the mouth writing a stimulus bill, then the racial connection might not be an issue.

It's a terrible cartoon. Had the cartoon shown a gorilla ripping America's collective face off and beating America to a pulp, in light of the murder of a woman by an adorable pet gorilla, that probably isn't a better cartoon. The brutal killing of a person by a gorilla is just not great subject matter for lampooning with me. I hope the gorilla owners get what they deserve. The owner should be thrown in a cage with the hungry gorilla while the victim's family agitates the gorilla with a taser from outside the cage. Pay-per-view proceeds to the victim's family, hosted by Richard Dawson from The Running Man. We'll see how warm the bond is between gorilla and master. I know...not feasible until our laws totally break down.

The link of a rampaging gorilla to the rampaging stimulus bill construction was not intuitively captured. The cartoon requires non-intuitive leaps from the audience. Poorly planned and executed. Look out! Newspaper job cuts means less oversight.

[Trenchant1]

I think the main shortcoming of this cartoon is that it is not funny. That is unforgivable.

[firebee]

The link of a rampaging gorilla to the rampaging stimulus bill construction was not intuitively captured.


Well said -- and this, I think, is the cause of the racial problem. There is no clearly dominant note of humorous meaning, so people are forced to search -- making the unclear racist interpretation more or less equally probable with the unclear intended interpretation.

I think the main shortcoming of this cartoon is that it is not funny. That is unforgivable.

This.

[zibber]

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Is the above racist? Was it intended to be rascist?

If not racist, would you deem it racially insensitive?

Not at all. It's just bitterly partisan, race has nothing to do with it. In popular discourse ("discourse"), monkey equals dumb. It's not even a reference to Obama. It's like when someone jokes that a newspaper or TV show was written by chimps, it's not a specific personal attack.

(If anyone disagrees, I'll gladly appeal to my own authority as cartoonist :laugh:)


I know men who refer to anyone they're in a disagreement with as "Boy," black, white, Asian or otherwise.

Ahhh.. the old "I am pointing out that I view you as someone of lower age/status, because I feel my argument isn't strong enough to succeed by its own merit".

[jesse]

I think the overarching issue is this: Can American have an open and honest discussion on race, racism and racial relations? An interesting article in the Washington Post (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)poses this very question.

Discussion and/or comments?

Bringing up the topic of race and origin has the sour tendency to always bring out a couple of fools who take any excuse to shout RACISM at the slightest hint of disadvantage. I also get the impression that whenever race or racism is discussed, there's always some undertone about racial privileges or entitlements simply due to the color of one's skin.

Even if race relations in the US have come leaps and bounds ahead of what they used to be two centuries ago, racial prejudices are alive and well just about everywhere. You might not hear this outright because that would be politically incorrect until someone manages to scratch the surface and crack the façade.

The omnipresent issue of race and origin has been taken too far if you ask me. I simply do not understand how society revolves around these non issues which one does not have control over in the first place. While the election of President Obama showed that it is becoming less and less important on physical traits of an individual, there still is the cesspool which refuses to move ahead. Instead this group of people who cannot breathe without boiling it all down to race entrench themselves in the only thing they know: petty differences such as the color of your skin and the past.

Big deal, STFU, relax and move on. Not too difficult, folks.

[cereza]

Over sensitivity. There's nothing, and I mean nothing, racially derogatory about the term boy.

I know men who refer to anyone they're in a disagreement with as "Boy," black, white, Asian or otherwise.


Just because its used frequently in discourse now doesn`t erase the negative connotation it has and the purpose in which the term "boy" was utilized.

[Lycurgus]

Just because its used frequently in discourse now doesn`t erase the negative connotation it has and the purpose in which the term "boy" was utilized.No, but because it's used in frequent discourse, assuming it has negative connotations simply because someone uses it is foolish.

[The Irish Lands]

it might be offensive, but it it still the freedom of speech.

also, I do not consider it racist.

[Feral]

It's definitely racist, and I'm not one that blames someone of being racist lightly.

Of all of the images of things dying that you could put that caption to, a chimp? Really?

Someone would have to be incredibly, INCREDIBLY stupid to not see the implication of that while sitting there and drawing it, or they would have to be giggling inside, saying to themselves 'hehehe, I just compared Obama to a chimp!'

If it's not racist, why the chimp at all? People get shot and die all the time. Animals get killed all the time. There's a connection there, and it's not an innocent one.

[towith]

It's definitely racist, and I'm not one that blames someone of being racist lightly.

Of all of the images of things dying that you could put that caption to, a chimp? Really?

Someone would have to be incredibly, INCREDIBLY stupid to not see the implication of that while sitting there and drawing it, or they would have to be giggling inside, saying to themselves 'hehehe, I just compared Obama to a chimp!'

If it's not racist, why the chimp at all? People get shot and die all the time. Animals get killed all the time. There's a connection there, and it's not an innocent one.

Perhaps the confusion here is in what came first, the stimulus or the chimp?

I would not be surprised if the artist began with the story of a chimp attacking a woman and threw in a cheap line about the efficacy of the stimulus. I therefore do not find it racist. Perhaps if you consider that Obama came first, then the artist worked in the stimulus and finally threw in a chimp as the cherry on top. Then it should be considered racist.

[azelismia]

well are we certain they are comparing that to Obama or is it assumed obama, .the last stimulus bill was written by George bush who was constantly compared to a chimp

[The Flying Elvi]

Racist? No. It's a cartoon with reference to the phrase..as illustrated below. I would have thought that was obvious to all who saw it in the paper.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Political correctness rearing its ugly head again.

[HeyZeus]

I would have thought that was obvious to all who saw it in the paper.

Political correctness rearing its ugly head again.

That does not quite put a lid on it Elvi.

If it was so obviously harmless to a majority, it wouldn't have been such a flap and Rupert Murdoch would not have apologized for it. Intelligent people have not understood the intent. Has the cartoonist validated your interpretation of the cartoon? If he has, then that at least explains his intent if not his success in exporting that intent. If he has not, then you may be at peace with your interpretation, but it does not settle the issue and you cannot generalize for humanity that it's merely PC rearing it's ugly head. Slapping the PC label on things is so very tired...

It's still not clear what relationships the cartoonist was attempting to satirize. Hence, we are left with geometrically opposed viewpoints.

Maybe the cartoon was secret ploy by the new Atty General to help us all overcome our cowardice in talking about race. Obama stepped on his neck recently. I don't disagree with the AG's comment...I sense a new thread tingling...about our collective cowardice (hypersensitivity?) in discussing race in America.

[boldbidder]

One last time then I'll leave this thread be; it's not JUST the monkey. Combine monkey, cops, shooting of said monkey, and then cops making light of killing said monkey. For those who don't know the historical significance of each of these things individual then I invite you to do some research, don't have the time nor the inclination to delve into each in an adequate fashion. The cumulative effect of all these things = bigoted cartoon.

[Lycurgus]

One last time then I'll leave this thread be; it's not JUST the monkey. Combine monkey, cops, shooting of said monkey, and then cops making light of killing said monkey. For those who don't know the historical significance of each of these things individual then I invite you to do some research, don't have the time nor the inclination to delve into each in an adequate fashion. The cumulative effect of all these things = bigoted cartoon.But the cops actually shot a chimpanzee (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. _ticking_time_bomb_/srvc=home&position=recent)!

It's not as if the cartoon wasn't based on a real life event. You're entirely removing context from the cartoon in order to assume something which, honestly, probably isn't there.

This, coupled with the old joke 'a monkey must've written that!' makes it difficult for anyone who isn't looking for racism to assume there is racism involved.

[HeyZeus]

The gorilla lies dead on the pavement. Cop with smoking gun says "someone else" will now have to write the stimulus bill. Someone else indicates an individual. Is the dead gorilla representing the original writers (plural) of the stimulus bill, or its individual executive proponent? This is left to the imagination of the reader. The cartoon requires non-intuitive leaps on a minefield. There are many ways to interpret the cartoon, and some of them connect to offensive racial metaphors. Plus, it's not funny.

[Lycurgus]

It's not funny is the worst part, I saw no racial undertone -- unless you looked for it.

Considering 1) the executive didn't write the bill, 2) the bill was written poorly, 3) monkeys write poorly, 4) the old adage about monkeys writing poorly, I still don't understand the people saying it's racist.

[HeyZeus]

Sorry to be so remedial here folks. For Lycurgus:

Obama is African American, or black. He is the first black president. He is championing the stimulus bill as the executive. The stimulus bill met some resistance a few weeks ago, and was in jeopardy of failing to pass in the US Congress.

There is an anachronistic and hateful historical use of primates/monkeys/apes/gorillas as metaphor for African Americans' presumed intellectual inferiority and primitiveness in behavior and appearance. It is and always has been a fallacy, and it represents some of the most shameful, ignorant, and backward thinking of "traditional" America (for a wonderful perspective on this, check out Ken Burns' PBS mini-series "Jazz", and you will gain increased empathy for this mass-exclusion against African Americans that was socially acceptable throughout much of America for much of it's history as a nation, and how it made people feel--or just read your Langston Hughes).

This metaphor was openly practiced through discrimination and even extra-judicial murder and torture by Americans against African Americans for hundreds of years. Oh yes, for much of America's history, whites owned blacks as property, applied corporal punishment as they saw fit, and this was legal. This is, in part, why the metaphor creates cautious suspicion and negative attention.

[The Irish Lands]

It's definitely racist, and I'm not one that blames someone of being racist lightly.

Of all of the images of things dying that you could put that caption to, a chimp? Really?

Someone would have to be incredibly, INCREDIBLY stupid to not see the implication of that while sitting there and drawing it, or they would have to be giggling inside, saying to themselves 'hehehe, I just compared Obama to a chimp!'

If it's not racist, why the chimp at all? People get shot and die all the time. Animals get killed all the time. There's a connection there, and it's not an innocent one.

But wasnt Bush also portrayed as a chimp from time to time? And if I may, I would say that it suited him well ;)

Still, would you also agree with me that it should be perfectly legal to make this stuff, as it is a part of free speech?
I think that it is the main point.

[Lycurgus]

Sorry to be so remedial here folks. For Lycurgus:

Obama is African American, or black. He is the first black president. He is championing the stimulus bill as the executive. The stimulus bill met some resistance a few weeks ago, and was in jeopardy of failing to pass in the US Congress.

There is an anachronistic and hateful historical use of primates/monkeys/apes/gorillas as metaphor for African Americans' presumed intellectual inferiority and primitiveness in behavior and appearance. It is and always has been a fallacy, and it represents some of the most shameful, ignorant, and backward thinking of "traditional" America (for a wonderful perspective on this, check out Ken Burns' PBS mini-series "Jazz", and you will gain increased empathy for this mass-exclusion against African Americans that was socially acceptable throughout much of America for much of it's history as a nation, and how it made people feel--or just read your Langston Hughes).

This metaphor was openly practiced through discrimination and even extra-judicial murder and torture by Americans against African Americans for hundreds of years. Oh yes, for much of America's history, whites owned blacks as property, applied corporal punishment as they saw fit, and this was legal. This is, in part, why the metaphor creates cautious suspicion and negative attention.You speak to me in a condescending manner, as if I don't know the history of my own nation, and yet you're still unable to grasp a fact so simple as the comparison of intellectually dumb people, regardless of their race, to Chimpanzee's? Here (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.), Here (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.), Here (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.), Here (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) and here (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.). Hell, Googling "Bush Chimp" yields 807,000 page hits, and over FIVE MILLION (that's more than 9,000) image hits.

That, of course, still considering Obama still didn't WRITE the goddamn bill!

You seem, quite ineptly, to be forcing the square racism peg into the round bad joke hole.

POOSH HARDAH!

[HeyZeus]

Right guy...there's only one way of interpreting the cartoon. Your way. All other interpretations are invalid and reflect flawed reason. I get it now. Awesome. I concede.

[Lycurgus]

Right guy...there's only one way of interpreting the cartoon. Your way. All other interpretations are invalid and reflect flawed reason. I get it now. Awesome. I concede.If you can't explain your reasoning, in the face of a thought process critical of it, I'm automatically being condescending, and worthy of your sarcasm?

This seems like a rather... quick way to stop a conversation.

I do not blindly agree with you. Of course I'm going to say that my interpretation is the correct one, and yours uses flawed reasoning, doing otherwise would either be disingenuous or dishonest, likely both.

[Lucid]

Settle down folks. We don't all have to agree. It's just the internet. I'm confident that we can discuss a difference of opinion calmly and without getting all worked up into a later about it.

[HeyZeus]

I've posted here multiple times. I've been consistent. Check it out.

My position is the cartoon recklessly uses potentially offensive metaphors. The gorilla metaphor is not cut and dried in representing the plural writers of the stimulus bill. That conclusion requires leaps of logic that are not self-assured. Other potential interpretations exist. Open your mind to some of those other possibilities and leaps of logic. Different people may have cause for reactions to the cartoon OTHER than the singular, universally correct conclusion you arrived at. The mutual condescension is so thick that I can no longer tell who is lost.

[Lycurgus]

I've posted here multiple times. I've been consistent. Check it out.

My position is the cartoon recklessly uses potentially offensive metaphors. The gorilla metaphor is not cut and dried in representing the plural writers of the stimulus bill. That conclusion requires leaps of logic that are not self-assured. Other potential interpretations exist. Open your mind to some of those other possibilities and leaps of logic. Different people may have cause for reactions to the cartoon OTHER than the singular, universally correct conclusion you arrived at. The mutual condescension is so thick that I can no longer tell who is lost.I haven't been condescending yet. If I've been short it's only because I have a broken hand and I'm typing with one. So, no, the Mutual condescension is not think at all. Yours, perhaps, is just clouding your vision.

See, I ascribe to a theory called Ockham's Razor, which is to say the simplist solution is the most often, most accurate.

I'm not using any leaps of logic in my statements.


There was a real life event where a chimpanzee was shot.
There have been reference in the past, often, to things of poor quality being done by a chimp.
The Stimulus was of poor quality.


Further, your assertion requires no less than two more things -- both of which do require leaps of logic -- in order to be true.


The cartoon was not implying writer of the bill, as it directly states, but another party entirely. (this is the one I have the problem with, as it's literally shoehorning your own assumption into the cartoon with no justification.)
This cartoon is not simply using the above stereotypes, despite the fact they've been used to describe the Office before, but has some underlying racial issue in that they used a monkey and therefore MUST be racist.



All theories and ideas are not created equally.

[zibber]

But wasnt Bush also portrayed as a chimp from time to time?

BLAM! There we go.

This greatly problematises the "every time a nonhuman primate is used in a cartoon, it's racist" theory. Hm.

[goulas]

All I could do was shaking my head with my mouth hanging open when I first saw this. I don't think it was meant to be racist in nature because I find it hard to believe someone whose name is associated with this content would have a pair large enough to pull it off. On the other hand, I don't get it. I just can't put any of it together so I can just write it off as bad judgement. What DOES it mean to depict?

[The Flying Elvi]

Calm down dear...it's only a cartoon. US members go here:

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Perhaps Lycurgus should use his excellent use of the English language to use this thread as the basis for the plot of a new Planet of the Apes movie...perhaps in the distant future some rather sharp Chimp saw this cartoon on Google and went Ape Shit, no pun intended. Then he got his mates together and the uprising began, leading to the collapse of civilisation as we know it. Then the smart chips get smarter by reading Wikipedia and decide that now they have killed of the human race they need some form or replacement slave to feed them bananas. The smart chips get together at the UN and invent a robot/human replacement.

After many years of servitude the robots gain critical thinking and develop a 'conscience'. They then get together and then decide that the chimps really piss them off, and so begins 'Judgement Day'. You can then either go one of two ways:

1. Into a Terminator - Rise of the Machine style sequel
2. A matrix mind fuck of a sequel, featuring chimp cyborgs

Said chimp cyborgs then find out off of Wikipedia how to build a space rocket, and thousands of years later, they also discover how to time travel. They then go back or forward in time, depending on your perspective - and confront Captain Picard from Star Trek...and the rest is history.

How do you like them apples?

[Synapse]

How is it racist? It's just bipartisan hate, I see not even a single subtle hint of racism throughout that cartoon.

[Visum]

People, this is not racist. Obama did not write the stimulus bill so get off the gorilla to African American connection. In economic jargon, economies are frequently referred to as gorillas. The gorilla is dead, as in our economy is dead, and the bill did nothing to revive it.

The 500-pound gorilla in the foreign policy parlor: China (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)
Deflation: The 800-Lb. Gorilla in the Room (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)
Is China a duck or a gorilla, and should Small Business USA care? (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)

[Bobert]

It's only racist if you make it racist.

Remember, racism is not illegal. Although being politically correct does promote socialism - let's all think and speak the same way, otherwise you'll be socially ostracized.

If you want to be racist, go ahead. But don't let it interfer with me.


PS. I'll not vote on such a loaded poll.

[Delarge]

I imagine the cartoon is simply suggesting that the stimulus-package could have been written by a monkey, as it's poorly constructed. Nevertheless, the inherent message could easily be misconstrued.