Comics I Don’t Understand

DSkinner Feb 20th 2009 at 01:24 am 1

It’s not racist. President Affirmative Action didn’t write the stimulus bill, Pelosi and Reid did. It’s a take on the million monkeys banging on typewriters bit. Sharpton is still a race-baiting hustler. The man has no credibility.

Tim Feb 20th 2009 at 01:27 am 2

Yes, we should never be allowed to write or draw anything about monkeys ever again because a bunch of idiots like to compare black people to them.

That makes sense.

Cidu Bill Feb 20th 2009 at 01:29 am 3

Okay, then let’s try it a different way: If the monkey does not represent Obama, how does the cartoon make the least bit of sense?

solarrhino Feb 20th 2009 at 01:47 am 4

Wow. So when you read, “write the stimulus bill”, you think OHB? I don’t - I think Congress. Isn’t that the way it works? Congress writes legislation — the President only signs, vetos, or sits on it. (Though in the case of these past “stimulus” bills, maybe we’d have been better off if psycho apes had written them.)

Besides, even if I had thought OHB, I fail to see how that would be racist. When you see an ape, do you automatically think of black people? I don’t. How about all those people who called George W. Bush “chimpy” these last eight years? Did they all think that he was black? How about the million monkeys banging at a million typewriters for a million years? Do they make Shakespeare black?

Fusses like this one seem to tell one more about the viewer than about the artist.

Matthew Feb 20th 2009 at 04:22 am 5

No, Solarrhino, bills can be written by the president–as the budget is each year. Congress passes all legislation, and the president–if he/she chooses–signs it.

It’s interesting that the defense of this quite unfunny cartoon is that one must “automatically” associate the chimp with an African-American. No, it’s not automatic, but, in this context, with the police officer referring to “someone else to write the next stimulus bill” (note the singular), the cartoon clearly associates the chimp with the president. The stimulus bill has been President Obama’s baby. He sent it to Congress. He went to meet with House Republicans, seeking votes for it. He has held a press conference where half the time was spent discussing it.

Although I hate to agree with a blowhard like Al Sharpton, he’s right this time. The cartoon is racist. Worse, though, it lacks wit & humor. Indeed, if you go to THE NEW YORK POST’s website, you can find more cartoons by Sean Delonas. I expect that your reaction will be the same as mine: Why did the POST hire this guy?

Annie Benson Feb 20th 2009 at 05:20 am 6

I’m with CIDU Bill on this one. Blacks have been compared to/portrayed as chimps/monkeys often enough that even if the NYP didn’t mean it in a racist way, they should have known damn well that plenty of people would see it that way, what with us having our first non-white President and all. So either it’s racist on purpose, or idiotic by accident.

That said, I have to say I kinda begrudingly admire the NYP’s position that they haven’t done anything wrong, so everyone should just shut the hell up about it. Oh yeah, they ARE wrong, but at least they’re no groveling about it!

I’m not a big fan of Mr. “We’re all eternal victims!” Sharpton. But if he walked up to me and said “Annie, the sun is much too hot for humans to live on”, they yeah, I would have to agree with him. Something that is blindingly obvious doesn’t become wrong because one doesn’t like the philosophies of an individual who comments on it.

Ooten Aboot Feb 20th 2009 at 06:43 am 7

Apart from racism, implied or inferred, what about the speciesism? What did the New York Post find funny, or at least worthy of parody, in “the shooting of a violent chimpanzee in Connecticut”? The incident was an unmitigated tragedy for all concerned.

I wish I were an NYP subscriber, so I could cancel.

Derek Feb 20th 2009 at 08:05 am 8

I hate defending bad art, I really do. And this is bad art. It’s not clever or funny. But it’s not racist. Even if it were comparing Obama to a chimp which it clearly isn’t, there’s at least an eight-year history of cartoonists (and others) regularly comparing WHITE presidents to chimps.
Is nobody allowed to satirise the commander-in-chief anymore? Isn’t that double standard racist?

Matthew Feb 20th 2009 at 08:23 am 9

Although I don’t much care for the word “speciesism”, I agree with Ooten that the shooting wasn’t funny, and that this cartoon doesn’t make it funny. The cartoonist just didn’t do his work. It’s a lazy combining of two items, the shooting of the monkey & the passing of the stimulus bill, but Sean Delonas hasn’t made the proper effort to gain wit from the juxtaposition. I don’t think that it can be done, and Delonas should’ve scrapped this cartoon & drawn something else.

Derek, I’m glad that we agree 90% about the cartoon, but back to racism. Just because cartoonists associated G.W. Bush with a chimp doesn’t mean that it’s the same thing when they associate Barack Obama with a chimp. European-Americans have not lived with 500 years of racism, violence, & oppression, throughout which they were associated with jungle creatures, they were termed animals & primitive peoples, and European-Americans used such associations to justify continued oppression of African-Americans.

The double standard you mention would be to pretend that African-Americans & European-Americans live in the U.S.A. on an equal footing. They don’t, and that makes Delonas’s use of the chimp—whether he knew it or not—racist.

Blork Feb 20th 2009 at 08:27 am 10

I think the intention of this comic was something along the lines of “The Stimulus Bill is so stupid it looks like it was written by a chimpanzee.” And I have to echo the comments that if comparing George Bush to a chimpanzee is acceptable then comparing Obama to one should be just the same. I was certainly no fan of Bush but I see no reason why he alone should be an acceptable target for mockery.

Annie Benson Feb 20th 2009 at 09:00 am 11

Historical context is why it is not ok to compare Obama as chimp. Seriously, hate group propaganda has shown blacks as lower primates for several decades (Jews, too, but that’s another cartoon).

Perfectly fair? No, probably not. I’m sure George W. didn’t like being compared to a chimp either. But the editors at the NYP should have been aware of the outrage this would cause, regardless of what the intent of the artist was.

Protip to the New York Post: It may be wise if you were to steer clear of imagary of burning crosses and nooses hung from trees when making obvious referances to Obama.

Elliott Feb 20th 2009 at 09:25 am 12

I am as astounded by some of the remarks here as I was yesterday, listening to yesterday’s Talk of the Nation.

In fact, it makes me feel a little ill, to be honest.

MellowCake Feb 20th 2009 at 09:50 am 13

@ Elliott -I’m astounded you feel a little ill! I don’t feel ill at all. Everyone’s exactly the same as me in opinion, physical constitution, and worldview, right??

Charlene Feb 20th 2009 at 10:18 am 14

I really hate it when people find some obscure reason why something like this might not be racist, then come screaming “THIS IS NOT RACIST”.

Sorry, it’s racist. Completely, totally, inarguably racist. Just because the artist didn’t mean it to be racist doesn’t mean it isn’t racist.

That’s the real harm of racism - not people like the KKK and the Aryan Nation who are upfront with their racism but people like you and me who do things like this without even thinking that it is racist.

And finding some obscure, “maybe there’s a one-in-a-million chance” reason to claim it’s not racist makes it sound like accusing someone of racism is somehow a worse thing than being racist! It is not!

Daniel J. Drazen Feb 20th 2009 at 10:33 am 15

The cartoon is an epic fail on two counts:

First, the best context for the chimpanzee joke is the old “If you put 100 chimpanzees and 100 typewriters in one room….” line. An isolated chimp gone wild misses the set-up of the joke so that’s a misfire right there.

Second, there’s a sick little ideology called polygenesis which (I’m not making this up) maintains that white folks were created by God and blacks got here by evolution. This notion, which tried to smooth over the creation-evolution conflict in the late 19th century, is pretty much confined to the Ku Klux Klan-Aryan Nations twilight zone nowadays, but it obviously is capable of striking a nerve.

Two very bad ideas that don’t go great together.

Powers Feb 20th 2009 at 10:50 am 16

Until a few years ago, when a local radio commentator compared the incumbent mayor (running at the time for county executive) to the orangutan at the local zoo that had briefly and harmlessly escaped from confinement, I had no idea that comparisons to lower primates were considered racist.

He was drummed out of town for that, and only brought back when no one could get anywhere close to the same ratings in that time slot. Yet I still firmly believe that he would have said the exact same thing if the incumbent mayor had been white. And not an eye would have been batted.

I cannot disagree more with Charlene when she says speech can be unintentionally racist. That’s, frankly, horrifying — to think that not only could I be accused of racism without intending any slight whatsoever, but that those accusations would be accurate? I find the very concept horrifying.

This cartoon was tasteless and not funny, but is it racist? I can certainly see that it might have been. A racist could certainly have drawn this cartoon. But to look at it and say “Well, that must be racist,” is to assume that one has insight into another person’s thought processes, and that’s just not possible.

cicely Feb 20th 2009 at 11:00 am 17

The voice of cynicism suggests that this was published knowing it would cause a ruckus, deliberately aiming for the racist/not-racist reaction. Controversy sells. It’s all about page hits and eyeballs.

Nicole Feb 20th 2009 at 11:25 am 18

No one is seriously attributing the stimulus package to anyone but President Obama. Listen to the news, read the papers, and even the political cartoons and they all speak of or show Obama as the author of the stimulus bill.

Sean Delonas is definately NOT politically correct. His cmics do not shy away from sterotypes used in a way to insult one group or another. Here is a sample of some of his work, clearly displaying any sort of self editing simply does not exist for this man.
http://gawker.com/5155855/ten-cartoons-from-sean-delonas

I don’t know (but I think he did) if he actually meant the cartoon in the way most of us are reading it, but I have NO DOUBT what so ever that he knew it would be taken that way — he just didn’t care.

As to why the post would even publish it — any publicity is good publicity

Nicole Feb 20th 2009 at 11:32 am 19

Here is how I read this. A rampaging chimp was shot by the local police. The rampaging chimp was the author of the stimulus package.

No one is seriously attributing the stimulus package to anyone but President Obama. Listen to the news, read the papers, and even the political cartoons and they all speak of or show Obama as the author of the stimulus bill. The pundits refer to the passage of the stimulus package as a victory for Obama. I haven’t heard anyone try to connect the bill with anyone else than Obama.

That being the case — the cartoon can be easily read as portraying Obama as a rampaging chimp.

Sean Delonas is definately NOT politically correct. His cmics do not shy away from sterotypes used in a way to insult one group or another. Here is a sample of some of his work, clearly displaying that any sort of self editing simply does not exist for this man.
http://gawker.com/5155855/ten-cartoons-from-sean-delonas

I don’t know (but I think he did) if he actually meant the cartoon in the way most of us are reading it, but I have NO DOUBT what so ever that he knew it would be taken that way — he just didn’t care.

As to why the post would even publish it — any publicity is good publicity

harleyquinn Feb 20th 2009 at 11:51 am 20

It’s not racist!!

It’s making a play on “1000 monkeys with 1000 typewriters will eventually write Shakespear”
And combining that with the chimp that just went crazy and nearly killed that woman last week.

1/2 my family is black, I asked them — Not a one thought this was racist.
Talk about STRETCHING!!!

Get a life Sharpton!!!

fet101 Feb 20th 2009 at 12:14 pm 21

Not racists. Just a somewhat lazy comic trying to cover two current news stories at one time.

John in Tronna Feb 20th 2009 at 12:37 pm 22

A view from the “Great White North”…:)

I didn’t know the hoopla was about any allegation/appearance of racism. When I first heard about a controversy, I thought it was about insensitivity toward an animal killing. Although I am aware of the use of simian references as racial epithets, my first thought was about the infinite number of monkeys at typewriters trying to write Shakespeare and linking that to your Congress. I mean, wasn’t the stimulus package being bandied about / “typed up” when Dubya was still in office?

.

Matthew Feb 20th 2009 at 12:38 pm 23

Powers, noting a racist statement doesn’t mean that the author of the statement knew that it was racist. When European-Americans use the word “niggers” to refer to African-Americans, then the European-Americans have used a racist epithet whether they know it or not.

Correspondingly, when Sean Delonas portrays the author of the Barack Obama’s stimulus package as a chimp, then he is playing into racist stereotypes, whether he knows it or not, whether he “intended” to or not.

Seventy years ago, in literary studies, we disposed of the author’s “intention”. Attempting to glean the author’s intention is practicing the “intentional fallacy”. Even authors don’t know all their intentions.

For those claiming a reference to the myriad monkeys typing for endless time to come up with Shakespeare, I’m afraid that there is no evidence of that here. The policeman uses the singular in his statement, and that notion of the myriad monkeys would be an indirect compliment to the stimulus bill, which is hardly what the cartoon means.

I agree, Fet, that Delonas was lazy. That supports the argument that the cartoon uses racist imagery; it doesn’t oppose it.

Nicole Feb 20th 2009 at 12:40 pm 24

Another black/monkey comparison

http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heather/john-gibson-compares-eric-holder-monkey-bright-blue-parts

Mark in Boston Feb 20th 2009 at 12:42 pm 25

Is there any animal that is politically incorrect as a depiction of a white person? For that matter, if you are of the dominant culture in your area, is there any word you find offensive for your own group? I could be called a “honky” but I think that word is just funny. (Nobody even knows the derivation — there are at least three competing theories.) Calling a mounted policeman a “Honky on a Donkey” is just hilarious — although I wouldn’t say it to his face; it might hurt the horse’s feelings.

The Ploughman Feb 20th 2009 at 01:01 pm 26

Okay, Ploughman here to save this terrible cartoon. Here’s an alternate bubble that isn’t racist, gently criticizes the stimulus package, and doesn’t harm an animal:

“Gee I wish the government would allot more money to law enforcement. I just used my last two bullets on that robot chimp!”

The robot is leaking oil, by the way.

Jack Feb 20th 2009 at 01:05 pm 27

Presidents don’t write the bills that they sign into law (just like late night talk show hosts don’t write all their own jokes).

I think that, as part of human nature, we sometimes might “see” more racism in the media than is actually there. Of course, that doesn’t excuse us from labelling true racism when we see it. I calls em as I sees em, and this does not appear to be racism to me.

Matthew Feb 20th 2009 at 01:23 pm 28

Jack, this stimulus bill originated at the White House. Yes, by the time both houses have passed the bill, it has changed, but to say that presidents don’t write is silly. President Obama didn’t write what he actually signed, but what he signed was based on what he’d written.

(The analogy with late-night talk-show hosts is weak, by the way.)

Mark, this isn’t about being politically correct. This is about using a racist stereotype.

Cidu Bill Feb 20th 2009 at 01:26 pm 29

I don’t think “any publicity is good publicity” really applies to a daily newspaper since by the time the cartoon has become “controversial,” the next day’s edition will already be on sale. And a cartoon like this certainly isn’t going to garner any new regular readers, especially in a city with a growing non-white population.

Winter Wallaby Feb 20th 2009 at 02:17 pm 30

The New York Post. Because it’s inconceivable that anybody’s going to top this one (and yes, “inconceivable” does mean what I think it means).

http://dailycartoonist.com/index.php/2009/02/13/cohens-cap-cartoon-raises-question-of-racism/

Topics for discussion:

1. Does Cohen’s cartoon “top” the New York Post cartoon. Defend your answer in 100 words or less.
2. Is Cohen’s defense that the black man in the left panel does not represent all black men plausible? Would the cartoon have had the same meaning if the man in the left panel had been Asian? Discuss.
3. Was Bill engaging in “humorous exaggeration” by implying that Al Sharpton is only right twice a day? Explain.

Winter Wallaby Feb 20th 2009 at 02:25 pm 31

Charlene:

Just because the artist didn’t mean it to be racist doesn’t mean it isn’t racist.

Powers:

I cannot disagree more with Charlene when she says speech can be unintentionally racist. That’s, frankly, horrifying to think that not only could I be accused of racism without intending any slight whatsoever, but that those accusations would be accurate? I find the very concept horrifying.

Why is this “horrifying”? It seems rather sensible to me that people can have racist ideas without explicitly thinking “Hey, I’m a racist and I’m going to say something racist now.” Everyone in America knows that racism is bad, and no one like to think of themselves a bad person. Which is presumably why I’ve heard some gems like “I’m not a racist, but every time I see a black person in my neighborhood, I call the police,” or “Oh, you don’t want to live in that neighborhood. Not to be racist, but that’s where the black people live.” The people who said such things to me didn’t “intend” any slight, and were sincere in their claims that they weren’t racist, but I don’t find it horrifying to claim that they’re, nevertheless, racist.

Nicole Feb 20th 2009 at 02:28 pm 32

Bill — the Post is a funny beast. It is clearly written to appeal to the kind of person who would find Sean Delonas’ comic funny. Still I see many minorities reading it. The black guy from Cameroon that runs the local gas station reads it all the time.

Even before Murdoch took it over it was a tabloid rag. When I asked someone back then why he read it when he knew the best thing you could do with it was to train a puppy, He replied that the had good sports coverage.

The people who read it will keep on reading it, the people who don’t still won’t. I don’t think this will hurt it’s readership.

Cidu Bill Feb 20th 2009 at 02:44 pm 33

Winter, I believe Powers means that non-racist comments can be interpreted in a negative way, and that’s very hard to defend against. I remember some years back when Howard Cosell referred to a black football player — who was also his personal friend — as a monkey, referring only to his playing style. Cosell meant nothing racial by it, the player didn’t take offense, but other people made it an issue.

A few weeks after this, I took my pre-schooler and his (black) friend to the zoo and they both started climbing a tree they weren’t supposed to be climbing. I shouted “You monkeys get down here,” and then wondered whether in the court of public opinion this was a racist comment. Was it only half racist because I was yelling at one white kid and one black kid? Then again, Mikey’s father was Italian, so it was probably only a quarter racist.

And of course you’re always at the mercy of the most ignorant…

Cidu Bill Feb 20th 2009 at 02:46 pm 34

It’s not the readership the Post has to worry about, Nicole, but the advertisers — and advertisers are much inclined to pull their ads under threat of bad publicity or consumer boycott.

Matthew Feb 20th 2009 at 02:48 pm 35

Bill, you know as well as I that endearingly calling two little children “monkeys” is not the same as implying that an adult African-American is a chimp.

It’s not that people are racist or that words are racist. Particular uses of words or images are racist.

Cidu Bill Feb 20th 2009 at 02:48 pm 36

Winter, I never said Sharpton was right twice a day: I merely made a comparison with the broken clock that in spite of itself isn’t wrong 100% of the time.

ctd Feb 20th 2009 at 02:49 pm 37

A few years back, radio talk show host Bob Lonsberry was suspended for a year for comparing the (guess the genetic persuasion) city mayor to an orangutang. It was a spur-of-the-moment live-radio comparison, but punishment was administered.

At the same time, the very same radio station was running an ad that compared Republicans to monkeys. Nobody said a thing.

Those who want to see an offensive outrageous comparison will make it.
Those who don’t, won’t. I don’t.

BTW: bills are written in the House of Representatives. The President only signs them. Between that, and the recent gorilla news story, it’s pretty darned obvious that the NPY cartoon was NOT conceived offensively.

Matthew Feb 20th 2009 at 02:51 pm 38

Ctd, please read all the remarks carefully. Each of your points has already been answered.

Cidu Bill Feb 20th 2009 at 04:55 pm 39

Matthew, what you and I know is irrelevant: American racial politics (like the Internet) is not bound by Earth logic. As I said, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/local/daily/jan99/district27.htm

Winter Wallaby Feb 20th 2009 at 05:21 pm 40

Sure, Bill, I get that comments with no racist background ideas or intentions whatsoever can be taken as racist for nonsensical reasons (as in the “niggardly” incident). But conversely, just because someone doesn’t intend to be racist, that doesn’t mean that they’re not being racist. Which is all Charlene was saying.

Matthew Feb 20th 2009 at 05:32 pm 41

Yes, yes, yes, Bill, I thought of the “niggardly” dust-up, too, as I discussed this cartoon, but that doesn’t make our knowledge irrelevant. Just because ANYONE can claim racism at any moment doesn’t make anyone’s claim correct. There must be substance to the claim. You & I & some of the other opiners here have demonstrated the racism underlying this cartoon. The case to make against your fondly calling two little children climbing trees is much more difficult, as it was against David Howard, who shouldn’t’ve resigned or apologized. He resigned, however, obviously, at the mayor’s re¬quest simply to end the little flap and for reasons having nothing to do with this matter but simply because he was a pawn in D.C.’s power struggle, not because, as you & I know, he had done anything wrong. Since we’re discussing racism, then we should point out that the very governance of D.C. demonstrates inherent American racism. The residents of D.C. have no representation in Congress nor does this 85% African-American population receive the same autonomy that does the smaller 95% European-American population of Wyoming. The dust-up over “niggardly” must be seen in that context.

Cidu Bill Feb 20th 2009 at 05:49 pm 42

I have enormous contempt for the politicians who had sufficient education to know what the word meant but insufficient balls to come to Howard’s defense (the exception being, as I recall, Andrew Young, who essentially said “Are these people stupid, or what?”

I’m not sure it’s a coincidence that a year later we had an Administration in which intelligence was considered a fault.

I think you might be guilty of the oft-mentioned “finding racism where there ain’t any” in making a point of D.C. not having full representation in Congress: That was in place well before D.C. was 85% black, and in fact well before blacks could vote at all, so there certainly couldn’t have been any racial intent there.

Matthew Feb 20th 2009 at 05:54 pm 43

Everyone: Please forgive: I meant to check those percentages in my previous remark before submitting; then, I forgot to do so.

The District of Columbia is 56% African-American, 36% European-American, & 8% Hispanic American, which is a lower percentage of African-Americans than D.C. has had in decades. In 2000, the African-American population was 60%, and the European-American population was 31%.

I was really close with Wyoming, which is even Whiter than I thought: 96% & only 1% African-American.

Lola Feb 20th 2009 at 05:59 pm 44

It’s impossible to tell what’s in another’s mind. Even if they tell you outright, they could be lying. However. If the caption had been something along the lines of “If they keep killing them, pretty soon there won’t be enough of them left to write the next stimulus package,” then the 1000 monkeys allusion is clear. That would tend to indicate a reference to a single individual. On the other hand, there is nothing in the caricature that resembles Obama. I’d be hard pressed to call it either way.

BTW, I thought the Rosie O’Donnell comic in the ten-cartoons-from link was hilarious. Does that make me a closet homophobe or obeseaphobe?

Lola Feb 20th 2009 at 06:04 pm 45

Lola: That would tend to indicate a reference to a single individual.

This should have been The way it’s written would tend….

Matthew Feb 20th 2009 at 06:58 pm 46

Wow, Bill, you are as argumentative as I. You’re from the northeast, aren’t you?

Now, back to the issue: Let’s get past the “niggardly” flap. I agree with you that it was a stupid thing, but, as I said, it was a small instance in a larger issue, so looking narrowly at “politicians” who didn’t come to Howard’s defense pretends that the issue is all that it claims to be, which I doubt. Indeed, I doubt whether anyone misunderstood the word at all. Howard was a pawn of a power struggle, so “niggardly” might have had almost nothing to do with anything.

I’m not sure how you can claim no racism involved with D.C.’s colonial status when you state that for most of its history Blacks couldn’t vote. Since D.C.’s founding, there has never been a moment when race didn’t play a part. Although African-Americans did not attain a majority until 1960, they have, since 1800, occupied a much higher percentage of D.C.’s population than they have of the entire nation. In 1900, when African-Americans were 10% of the U.S. population, they were 31% of D.C.’s. Granting D.C. the rights of a state—which should’ve been done by 1900—would always mean a state in which African-Americans would have a great piece of the vote. The calls for statehood have been louder since the 1970s, and the U.S. Congress has no reason to oppose it. Might race be a factor when a vastly White populace is refusing to grant autonomy to a majority Black populace?

Okay, I have spent long enough on this today. Thanks, Bill, for providing this forum where I can write on interesting topics but away from what I should, right now, be writing. So, yeah, man, thanks a lot.

Elyrest Feb 20th 2009 at 08:52 pm 47

Regarding unintentional racism: I managed a bookstore a few years ago. We had a section that was Social Studies. It included women’s studies; black studies; true crime; anthropology, gay studies etc. The whole section was alphabetized by subject matter therefore black studies followed anthropology. A professor came in from the local university with a class to point out the racism in the shelving. The point was that because anthropology was followed by black studies it was implying that blacks were apes. No discussion.

I didn’t agree with it then and I still don’t. Was there racism because a group saw it that way? I did rearrange the section, but it it never felt quite right.

Lola Feb 20th 2009 at 09:15 pm 48

I just noticed another bizarre thing about this cartoon. There’s a Beware of Dog sign on the telephone pole. At first I thought it must say Curb Your Dog, but it doesn’t. Why on earth would there be such a sign on a public street?

Powers Feb 20th 2009 at 11:06 pm 49

Cidu Bill was correct in his interpretation of my post.

I wasn’t talking about people having racist thoughts that they didn’t think were racist. I was talking about taking non-racist actions (or speech) that one knows is not meant to be racist, and having those actions interpreted as racist.

If I use the N-word in a scholarly context, discussing the history and meaning behind the word, am I being racist? I posit “no”. I believe some people, the same people who believe this cartoon is racist whether the cartoonist meant it to be or not, would say “yes”.

tofor Feb 20th 2009 at 11:54 pm 50

Ok, I know I’m coming into this discussion rather late, but having read all the above posts, I still can’t figure out why this cartoon would be considered racist. Or let me take it out of this context. If I were to say, “Having George Bush as president was like having a monkey run the country.” Is that racist? Ok, well if I say, “Having Barack Obama as president is like having a monkey run the country.” Is that racist? If the first is not, and the second is, please explain how so.

assdad Feb 21st 2009 at 04:43 am 51

Many Republican political cartoonists make horribly racist cartoons. Look at the website Duck ad Cover and the Something Awful Forums’ thread, The Only Good Thing Space Kimchi Ever Did. http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=2664888 This writer seems to be such a cartoonist.

I remember one cartoon where a big lipped Black man, wear a shirt reading, “unions, yes” read a newspaper, whose headline said, “Obama to distribute money to the undeserving.” One White guy said, “he acts like he won the lottery” and the other responded, “I think he has.” Another cartoon, prited during Obama’s election, said, “four little Indians.” This is a reference to Agatha Christie’s great story, Ten Little Niggers, better known as …And Then There Were None.

“Tofor,” Black men have, often, been portrayed as monkeys. Racists believe that Africa is primitive and uncivilized and the residents are poorly evolved live in the trees, like monkeys. Macaaca, a racial slur made famous by former Senator George Allen, is named after a breed of monkey. We referred to Bush as a monkey because he was retarded and looked like a gibbon. Portraying Barack Obama, who seems to be intelligent and does not look like a monkey as a monkey is equivalent to calling him a macaaca and that is like calling him a nigger.

Powers Feb 21st 2009 at 11:23 am 52

The problem, tofor, is that too many people conflate “Having Barack Obama as president is like having a monkey run the country” with “I can’t believe that d@mn monkey got himself elected president.”

tofor Feb 21st 2009 at 11:37 am 53

How is that different?

Matthew Feb 21st 2009 at 01:09 pm 54

Tofor, please read more slowly & carefully. Comparing George W. Bush to a monkey is simply stating that Bush is a thoughtless, careless, & incompetent president. Comparing Barack Obama to a monkey ties into racist attitudes by European-Americans toward African-Americans.

We haven’t lived in a world of utter equality for the last thousand years. The same act, the same statement, has different meanings depending on who is saying it about whom.

I think that it’s time to move on. We can all agree that the cartoon is tasteless & lacks humor & wit. Furthermore, since editorial cartoons should either have humor or wit (and if they have plenty of that, then we can forgive them lack of taste), then this cartoon doesn’t deserve to exist.

Derek Feb 21st 2009 at 03:14 pm 55

Simple test: In a parallel universe where John McCain won the election and passed an identical stimulus bill, would this cartoon have been any different?

tofor Feb 21st 2009 at 03:47 pm 56

Don’t see why it would be.

Matthew Feb 21st 2009 at 06:10 pm 57

A parallel universe is hardly a “simple test”, Derek. You’ve now doubled the complexity, not reduced it.

cicely Feb 21st 2009 at 06:16 pm 58

The cultural context is everything.

In a world where black people have historically been equated with monkeys, this cartoon is racist if the monkey does stand in for Pres. Obama. Ever watch Clerks 2? This is what the whole “porch monkey” sub-plot was about. If white people had been historically equated with monkeys, then the cartoons during Bush’s administration where a monkey stood in for Pres. Bush would have been racist. In the absence of that context, it wasn’t.

Which doesn’t mean that it wasn’t intended as an insult to Bush; it was. However, instead of being a racial slur, it was a denigration of his intelligence, i.e., “Bush is as dumb as a monkey”. If there had been a history of white people being stereotyped as being “dumb as monkeys”, that would have made it a racial slur, but as far as I know, there has been no such history.

tofor Feb 21st 2009 at 07:51 pm 59

Black people have also been historically portrayed as having low intelligence. Does that mean that to question Obama’s intelligence would be racist?

assdad Feb 21st 2009 at 09:46 pm 60

Questioning Obama’s intelligence is not racist if one finds an appropriate reason. His intelligence, should his plans fail, would come into question and someone who would, therefore, consider him stupid would not be seen as a racist. Assuming his plans succeed, however, he will seem like a highly intelligent, clever man. Someone who, despite such success, would consider him an idiot would be a racist.

tofor Feb 22nd 2009 at 12:48 am 61

What about questioning the wisdom of his policies now? There is little doubt in my mind that this stimulus plan will extend and exacerbate the recession our economy is going through. I therefore question the intelligence of anybody who was involved in the creation of this bill who actually thought it would help the nation as a whole. It’s like the bill was written by a monkey! Oh no! One of the people supporting the bill was Obama! Obama is black! That means I’m a racist! Don’t you see how absurd that is? You are basically saying that unless the president’s policies fail in some objectively catastrophic way criticizing them would be racist. You are setting up our president as a no-go zone for criticism because of the color of his skin. *That* my friends, is racism.

That is the real root of the controversy surrounding this cartoon. We have a political cartoon criticizing a policy made by our government, passed by congress, and signed by the president, that referenced another current national news story about how a chimpanzee was shot by police to make the point that the policy is absurd. Then everybody whines and moans because there’s criticism of the president and it’s racist. Sorry, I’m not buying it.

John Roy Feb 22nd 2009 at 12:52 am 62

This is just plain stupid that in 2009 a cartoon like this one would be in a publication in the US …

I see no humor in it what so ever …

Very sad …

Matthew Feb 22nd 2009 at 02:46 am 63

Go ahead, Tofor, criticize the wisdom of President Obama’s policies. This, however, is hardly the forum for criticizing Obama’s policies. We’re discussing a cartoon that implies that Obama is a chimp, which ties into a persistent racist stereotype that Europeans & European-Americans have had for hundreds of years about African-Americans.

That you don’t buy this reasoning is probably because this Republican-made recession has left you without the funds to buy something even so reasonably priced.

There are many places to discuss Obama’s stimulus bill and the rest of his policies, too. Good luck there.

Elyrest Feb 22nd 2009 at 12:04 pm 64

I don’t want to discuss this particular cartoon, but to broach another point. Editorial cartoons are by their nature not necessarily meant to be humorous. They are to make a point, mock a subject or person, shine a light on something hidden etc. Sometimes they are meant to make a person laugh, but in my experience these “cartoons” are meant to make us think.

Whatever else this Delonas creation has done - it has made us think.

Derek Feb 22nd 2009 at 02:58 pm 65

Matthew, I haven’t doubled the complexity. The parallel universe I suggested need differ in only one significant respect: the president is white. If the same joke would have been made, then it cannot be considered racist. Racism is when you do things differently because of someone’s race.

Matthew Feb 22nd 2009 at 03:38 pm 66

Okay, Derek, then if this is so simple, please answer me some questions about this parallel universe: Which people, who voted for Barack Obama (in this universe), voted for John McCain (in your universe)? Alternatively, did simply more people vote (in your universe)?

What is THE NEW YORK POST’s editorial slant (in your universe)? Has THE NEW YORK POST had the same attitude since the election (in your universe)? Who is in McCain’s cabinet (in your universe)? Who, specifically, is his Secretary of the Treasury (in your universe)? Alternatively, are you implying that a President McCain would choose Timothy Geithner as his Secretary of the Treasury (in your universe)?

Do you get the idea, Derek? There no such thing as “one small change” in a matter like this. I suggest that you stick to this universe.

I must slightly disagree with you, Elyrest. Editorial cartoons should be—usually—humorous or, even better, witty. There are exceptions, of course. A cartoon of the number of Iraqi children slaughtered by Bush-Dick could be angry, rather than humorous or witty. I certainly agree that an editorial cartoon should provoke thought. This cartoon has, but it certainly wanted to be witty, and, in that, it failed badly. Besides provoking thought, an editorial cartoon should demonstrate thought, and, in that, this cartoon fails, too.

Yes, we have had a long discussion about it, but that is due to its racism & its failures. Mutatis mutandis and on a VERY small scale, this cartoon is akin to the bus policies in Montgomery, Alabama, 55 years ago. They were cruel & thoughtless, but resisting them helped provoke the civil rights movement. That something good came out of such stupid laws is not a defense of the laws’ stupidity.

tofor Feb 22nd 2009 at 04:30 pm 67

Matthew-you missed the point of my post. I made no arguments relating to Obama’s policies. I simply stated that I believe they are wrong-headed and continued to make an argument for why I don’t believe this cartoon is necessarily racist. You failed to counter my arguments and simply said I was arguing the wrong topic, which I wasn’t.

Matthew Feb 22nd 2009 at 04:39 pm 68

I’m afraid that, Tofor, you have made neither an argument against President Obama’s stimulus bill nor against the inherent racism in implying that President Obama is a chimp. You claim to have little doubt about the weaknesses of the stimulus bill then, without any reasons, you claim that that lack of doubt means that the bill resembles one written by a monkey. Why?

You avoid the long history of associating African-Americans with monkeys, apes, & chimps even though articles to that effect are cited in earlier remarks. That’s the topic as issue here: the inherent racism of implying that President Obama, an African-American, is a chimp.

By the way, if your “arguments” rest on your beliefs (see remark #67), then they’re not arguments.

Mark M Feb 22nd 2009 at 08:47 pm 69

Matthew says this is hardly the forum to criticize Obama’s policies, but apparently it’s appropriate to talk about the “Republican-made recession” and imply the Bush/Cheney are responsible for slaughtering Iraqi children. Sure.

As for the argument that non-intended racism is still racism, I don’t buy it. There was a story a few years back about a woman crying racism when she stepped off a bus at a Civil Rights rally and saw a white policeman eating a banana. Obviously, most people of all races would think he’s hungry, it’s a hot day and bananas are good for replenishing vitamins, etc. So anyone can be offended if he or she wants to dig deep enough into another individual’s words or actions. Unless anyone can prove the cartoonist had racist intentions, he’s innocent until proven guilty.

Matthew Feb 22nd 2009 at 09:02 pm 70

Yes, Mark, I mentioned the “Republican-made recession” to Tofor as I suggested that a discussion of the recent stimulus bill belonged elsewhere. I discussion of Bush-dick’s slaughter of Iraqi children ALSO belongs elsewhere, which is the reason that I simply used that horror as an example of a time when an editorial cartoonist wouldn’t strive for wit but rather for anger. Don’t you agree?

In re racism: Your recounting some anecdote of a woman crying racism because she saw “a white policeman eating a banana” hardly qualifies in this discussion. Please offer us the facts of the matter (it sounds to me a lot like Ronald Reagan’s “welfare queen buying steak”). Thanks.

tofor Feb 22nd 2009 at 11:19 pm 71

There was a young airline stewardess who routinely made the announcement before take-off, “Eeney, Meeny, Miney, Moe, take a seat it’s time to go.” Now, I don’t know about anybody else, but I always thought that the proper continuation to that rhyme was, “catch a tiger by the toe.” This young lady lost her job in disgrace because somebody was offended. Do you think she knew about the older offensive version? Very likely not. I likely still wouldn’t know about it if I hadn’t heard this story a few years back. There are an infinite number of ways to inadvertently offend somebody. Well said, Mark M.

Matthew Feb 22nd 2009 at 11:23 pm 72

Tofor, please cite a source for this story. Without a source, it sounds like fiction.

Cidu Bill Feb 22nd 2009 at 11:34 pm 73

Matthew, I can serve as Tofor’s source: I wrote about this case over a period of several days back when I was with About.com.

Matthew Feb 22nd 2009 at 11:50 pm 74

Well, Bill, then maybe I can’t work About.com, because I just looked at the first 100 entries on “stewardess”, and I didn’t see any “eeney, meeney…”. Can you supply the link? I’d love to read more about this. Thanks.

Cidu Bill Feb 23rd 2009 at 12:03 am 75

Matthew, I’m really not clear what your qualifications for working at About.com, or lack thereof, are relevant here. What I said was, I reported on this story in real time when it happened, and I can vouch for the fact that it’s true.

This all happened maybe 10 years ago, and there really wasn’t a hell of a lot more to it than what Tofor said.

If you’re determined to find further confirmation online, you might have better luck substituting “flight attendant” for “stewardess” in your search (as well as trying alternate spellings for “eeney meeney”)

tofor Feb 23rd 2009 at 12:22 am 76

Here’s one reference, though it’s an OpEd, not a news story: http://www.jewishworldreview.com/kathleen/parker030303.asp The girl’s name was Jennifer Cundiff if you want to search further.

Matthew Feb 23rd 2009 at 02:02 am 77

Thanks, Tofor. Besides Kathleen Parker’s editorial (not particularly reliable, considering the number of axes she grinds), I found an article about the case in U.S.A. TODAY. (Again, not a great source, but better.) It happened in 2003; not, as Bill said, in 1998. The flight attendant didn’t lose her job. A federal jury very quickly found for her & for Southwest Airlines, and against the two offended women.

We can see how little this relates to Sean Delonas’s cartoon. A great many people here have seen its racist content, which is less obscure & much more pointed than a simple use of children’s rhyme that, fifty years ago, was cleansed of its former racism.

Okay: We’re done with this little puff just as we disposed of the “niggardly” puff. Neither of those puffs denies the racism in Delonas’s cartoon, and both of them demonstrate how complex race still is in America.

Cidu Bill Feb 23rd 2009 at 02:07 am 78

Geez, Matthew, I never said “ten years” as an authoritative date. This was one of hundreds of cases I wrote about over the course of more than twelve years. And if you insist on quibbling, “ten years ago” was 1999, not 1998.

Derek Feb 23rd 2009 at 09:37 am 79

Matthew,
I’m sorry if I confused you with my mention of a parallel universe. All I really meant was: Would the joke have been different if the president was white (all other significant things being equal, to the extent that such things could be equal in a hypothetical scenario)?
To me, it’s quite clear that the cartoon would not have changed one iota had the president been white, absolving the cartoonist of all charges of racism.

Hunt Feb 23rd 2009 at 09:40 am 80

“Hey, Sean, don’t you think a lot of people will think this chimp is supposed to represent Obama?”

Is there no editor at the Post with enough sense to have asked this question? Of course, maybe there was, and Delonas said, “Yeah–so what?”

To me, that’s the crux of this controversy. I understand the arguments that the chimp isn’t supposed to be Obama, but the cartoon is so wrong-headed that it should have been spiked, and just one of the reasons is that any sensible editor should have realized it would spark a racial controversy…unless, of course, that’s what the Post wanted.

Mark M Feb 23rd 2009 at 10:24 am 81

Here is one report of the “policeman eating a banana” story. I can’t find an actual new story.
http://boortz.com/nuze/200502/02142005.html
Again, the point is that one what one call racism may not be seen as such by others.

tofor Feb 23rd 2009 at 07:25 pm 82

You are right, Matthew. Apparently I remembered wrong and she did not, in fact, lose her job. This does not affect in any way the original point that Mark made and I was backing up that there are legion ways to insult somebody or appear racist without meaning to.

Hunt-It’s just possible somebody asked that question, and Delonas said, “Don’t be ridiculous, Obama didn’t write the bill.” I showed the cartoon to my mother who was entirely unfamiliar with the controversy surrounding it, but was certainly familiar with the stimulus bill and the chimpanzee incident. Her first reaction was, “Nancy Pelosi wrote the bill, right?”

Pinny Feb 23rd 2009 at 08:29 pm 83

CIDU Bill wrote:
“But like the broken clock that’s correct twice a day…”

I assume that you meant “…like the STOPPED [analog] clock…”

An [analog] clock could be broken in a way that may NEVER be correct. For example, think of a clock with both hands on the 6.

Zop Feb 23rd 2009 at 09:53 pm 84

6:30?

Powers Feb 24th 2009 at 07:47 am 85

The hour hand is not the six at 6:30, if the clock is working correctly.

Matthew Feb 24th 2009 at 10:25 am 86

Not only, Tofor, did Jennifer Cundiff, the flight attendant, keep her job, but Southwest Airlines won the case easily. This example doesn’t help Sean Delonas’s dead stimulus-bill-writing chimp cartoon since the example of the flight attendant shows that the two women, Grace fuller & Louise Sawyer, who considered the attendant’s words racist were the ONLY two who did so, whereas myriad people find Delonas’s cartoon racist. Indeed, Tofor, you & your mother are more in the position of Grace Fuller & Louise Sawyer, out of step with reason & determined to argue at any cost. After all, you are attempting to defend a cartoon that depicts the writer of the stimulus bill as a dead chimp by equating it with a young woman singing the first two lines of “Eeney, meeney, miney, mo”.

Now, not only did the Cundiff not do anything racist (demonstrated in the courts), but also her attempt to amuse her passengers was tangential to her job, whereas it is intrinsic to Delonas’s job to think about what he’s drawing & to consider its ramifications. He failed to do so, as the hundreds who appeared today at a rally in Manhattan showed.

Were there rallies after the verdict in favor of the Cundiff? No. Did the N.A.A.C.P. protest? No. Cundiff’s case has very little in common with Delonas’s cartoon.

What’s interesting is the desperation involved in sidestepping the original issue: Comparing Barack Obama to a monkey ties into racist attitudes by European-Americans toward African-Americans. This desperation is so great that it caused your memory to fire poor Ms. Cundiff in disgrace.

Zop, Pinny is right. 6:30 is shown with the minute hand on the 6 and the hour hand halfway between the 6 & the 7.

Mark, thanks for the citation, but, as you imply, Neal Boortz is hardly a reliable source, and, of course, it doesn’t matter, because even if Boortz’s version is true, it’s a story about one woman’s opinion. Thousands of people around the world have found Delonas’s dead stimulus-bill-writing chimp cartoon racist.

Thanks for the apology, Derek, but I wasn’t confused. I was trying to save your example from unfortunate messiness. Without the parallel universe aspect, your point has already been answered (see remarks #9, #11, #24, #51, #54, #58, & #68).

Mark Jones Feb 24th 2009 at 02:32 pm 87

As a black guy (well, mixed–black father, white mother–just like Obama) I’m gonna have to say “not racist.” The cartoonist probably wanted a cartoon about the recent chimp incident, and decided to tack on a political joke. The way the joke is worded makes me think it’s a swipe at the *stimulus package*, rather than whoever wrote it (”This legislation is so bad, a chimp must have written it!”).

Also, if the chimp *does* represent Obama (which is a strech–I would think Congress), why is it necessarily racist? Belonging to a minority doesn’t make you above criticism–if it’s ok to compare a white President to a chimp in similar circumstances, the same goes for Obama.

Mark M Feb 24th 2009 at 03:00 pm 88

I find it interesting that we focus on potential racism of the cartoonist, which is a stretch and requires a lot of assumptions. And even among those who do see it as racially motivated, it seems most view it as non-intended. Meanwhile, there is the obvious lack of taste of the cartoonist for making light of a brutal attack that left a woman clinging for her life and ended in the death of an animal celebrity.

Matthew Feb 24th 2009 at 05:37 pm 89

Mark, Bill, in his presentation of this cartoon, referred to it as racist, not to the cartoonist. So did remarks #1, #5 (which also pointed out that the cartoon lacks wit & humor), #6, #14, #23, #28, #35, #54, #58, #66, & #77.

Remark #7 points out that the entire issue of shooting the monkey really isn’t funny either, as did remarks #8, #9, #16, & #54.

Hardly any remarks call Sean Delonas a racist. I agree, by the way, that even subtracting the racism, this cartoon is tasteless, pointless, & humorless.

assdad Feb 24th 2009 at 11:37 pm 90

I disagree with Mark, I think that this man, based the other cartoons linked by Nicole, is one of the very racist Republican cartoonists.

Some cartoons taken fro the Something Awful Forums thread I mentioned:

All of those, however, are better than the works of A. Wyatt Mann: http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=2838214&pagenumber=3&perpage=40#post343006464.

tofor Feb 25th 2009 at 11:45 pm 91

assdad-Most of your links are broken, but I simply have to ask: which of the cartoons at the page linked to by Nicole is racist? There are some pretty radical things there, but I must have missed the racism somehow.

http://gawker.com/5155855/ten-cartoons-from-sean-delonas

Mark Jones Feb 26th 2009 at 12:29 am 92

Matthew–Racism is a prejudice held by people, not drawings. If there was no racist intent (conscious or otherwise) on the part of the cartoonist, the cartoon isn’t racist. Though I agree that it’s unfunny and tasteless, but that’s another issue.

Matthew Feb 26th 2009 at 01:29 am 93

‘Fraid you’re wrong, Mark. From the start, we’ve been discussing a racist cartoon, not a racist cartoonist. Read Bill’s intro, above. Sean Delonas’s intent is unknown, a will-o’-the-wisp. The cartoon is what we have, and it employs a racist stereotype of long-standing, associating an African-American man, our president, with a chimp.

Cidu Bill Feb 26th 2009 at 01:39 am 94

Well, to be logical about this, I think in order to deliberately draw a racist cartoon, you probably either have to be racist yourself, or be trying to provoke a reaction (and even in the latter case, I’m not sure how many cartoonists could draw something they themselves consider objectionable.

And if this wasn’t deliberately racist, then it’s just plain awful because it makes no sense in any other context.

I think on balance I’d have more respect for a clever racist than for a complete incompetent, though not a whole lot.

Mark Jones Feb 26th 2009 at 12:46 pm 95

A cartoon can’t be racist on its own, because a cartoon can’t discriminate. The only way it makes sense to call a cartoon racist is if there is racist intent, which, based on this cartoon alone, I don’t believe there is.

The fact that the cartoon could be interpreted as racist doesn’t make the cartoon racist; saying that this cartoon is racist says more about your beliefs than the cartoon itself, i.e. to view this as racist, you must believe that any comparison between a black man and a chimpanzee must be racist. I don’t buy that, so, by itself, I don’t see this comic as racist.

Mark Jones Feb 26th 2009 at 12:52 pm 96

Bill: “And if this wasn’t deliberately racist, then it’s just plain awful because it makes no sense in any other context.”

Why wouldn’t it make sense in the context of “this stimulus package is so stupid it must have been written by chimps?” And if it does, why is that necessarily racist? I can imagine that (all else being equal) similar jokes would be made with a white president.

tofor Feb 26th 2009 at 09:36 pm 97

What to say? Mark, of course you’re right. But some people (*cough* Al Sharpton *cough*) are determined to find racism in any criticism of Obama, no matter what cruelties and injustices he imposes on our nation.

S.P. Charles Feb 26th 2009 at 09:47 pm 98

Tofor, what we’re looking at here is the boy who cried wolf: When Sharpton comes across something that truly is racist, his reputation makes it difficult for people to side with him (and gives ammunition to those who try to justify this cartoon)

tofor Feb 26th 2009 at 10:27 pm 99

If this cartoon is an example of what is called racism today, then I rejoice because it means that racism has all but died in our nation.

Winter Wallaby Feb 27th 2009 at 12:25 am 100

Hey, I haven’t read the whole comment thread above, so maybe this has already been covered before, but I’m looking at this comic, and is that chimp supposed to be Obama? Because if so, this comic seems pretty racist!

Winter Wallaby Feb 27th 2009 at 12:26 am 101

Woo, hoo! 100 posts!

Mark Jones Feb 27th 2009 at 09:42 am 102

In a way, I think we’re giving the cartoonist too much credit by saying the chimp represents Obama. If I’d seen this cartoon without any sort of commentary, I would’ve merely assumed it was an attempt to combine two recent events, resulting in an unfunny comic.

Of course, even if we say that the chip *does* represent Obama, I’ve yet to see how that’s racist…couldn’t it just be a comment on the stimulus legislation?

Andrew Feb 27th 2009 at 06:07 pm 103

Shortpacked’s got a comic up about this cartoon here. As for my opinion of the cartoon, I think there’s enough cause for the cartoon to be taken at face value without assuming it’s racist - When I first saw it (on that something awful thread) I hadn’t heard about the chimp-shooting incident and thought it was just an attempt to combine the ideas “This bill is so bad it’s as if it was written by a chimp” and “This bill is so bad, somebody should be shot for it.”

S.P. Charles Feb 27th 2009 at 06:22 pm 104

Blacks = monkeys is a common American racist metaphor. That’s just the way it is. Whether it’s a connection you or I would ever make is irrelevent.

Abby Feb 27th 2009 at 06:43 pm 105

I find it humorous that none of you find this comic funny. Especially since it is.
Grow a sense of humor.
This comic is only racist if that’s how you want to see it. I took it as the person who wrote the stimulus bill(not Obama, by the way) being compared to having the intelligence of a monkey, because the stimulus package isn’t going to help at all.
So by saying what was said in the comic, they’re saying, “I guess we’d better find another idiot to write something useless.”

Not Surprised Mar 1st 2009 at 12:19 am 106

I’m really not surprised that there are idiots trying to defend this comic. I am a little saddened by it in 2009 though.

It’s clearly racist. It’s point is blatant and yet there are people fighting tooth and nail to defend it.

For what?

At the end of the day what do you earn for defending a racist comic online on a freaking blog?

You should be outraged that someone would try to get away with this. If you found it amusing then enjoy cowering and secretly enjoying racist stereotypes in total anonymity. Bring it out in public and you’ll get reamed.

The only monkeys are the idiots who found this comic amusing or somehow can’t understand how it’s racist.

tofor Mar 1st 2009 at 10:19 pm 107

Not Surprised-You criticise those of us who don’t think the comic is racist by asking what we gain by defending it, yet *you* come on here and call total strangers racist.

I enjoy this blog because of my love for comic strips. I participated vociferously in this discussion because of my interest in politics. We have here a cartoon that either attempts to say, “Obama is black and so it makes sense that he acts like a chimpanzee” which is racist, or it says, “The stimulus bill is so stupid it’s like it was written like a chimpanzee.” which is not racist. Taken at face value the message is clearly the latter and any other interpretation is simply looking for deeper layers of meaning that would normally only be considered on this very website. Because there are people interested in squashing any criticism of Obama, no matter how slight, this cartoon instead became a national scandal.

Matthew Mar 2nd 2009 at 02:51 pm 108

No, Bill, you can draw a racist cartoon without deliberately setting out to do so. Many people who continue to express racist thoughts do so without realizing that they are racist. These people have acquired these thoughts thanks to racist remarks, ideas, images purveyed by the media, by friends & family, by a sheltered upbringing.

It is fallacious to examine the intent of the creator of any art work, even a cartoon. What we have here is a cartoon that uses an historically racist connection between a monkey (in this case, a chimp) & an African-American (in this case, President Obama). Thus, the cartoon is racist.

Tofor, I agree with you that the U.S. has made great strides in overcoming racism. This cartoon is a tiny backslide from that, but there are much bigger problems of bigotry toward races, classes, ethnicities, gender, & sexual orientation remaining.

k-otic Mar 2nd 2009 at 09:32 pm 109

I am a libertarian to the core, so I believe anyone should be able to say anything in a free speech (although this one is blatantly offensive). However, all I am going to say is if you believe in free speech, than I don’t expect to hear ONE complaint when the backlash of racist cartoons against white people start showing up (and they should.) Fair is fair, and the fact that after all these years people still find it FUNNY to make jokes like this, just shows that we are all monkeys. But so be it. that’s freedom, crackers.

k-otic Mar 2nd 2009 at 09:55 pm 110

OH and for those of you that think things like this don’t have effects, please go here.
http://www.jackandjillpolitics.com/2009/02/the-connection-between-blacks-as-apes-and-police-brutality/

Home of the July 8 marathon

The 2009 ”What The HELL Were They Thinking?” Award Goes to…

110 Responses to “The 2009 ”What The HELL Were They Thinking?” Award Goes to…”

Leave a Reply

comics

Recent Comments

Categories

Archives

Meta

February 2009
M	T	W	T	F	S	S
« Jan				Mar »
						1
2	3	4	5	6	7	8
9	10	11	12	13	14	15
16	17	18	19	20	21	22
23	24	25	26	27	28