Barack and the Chimp

Cidu Bill on Feb 28th 2009

Filed in Barack Obama, Barnes and Noble, Bill Bickel, Snopes | 37 responses so far

37 Responses to “Barack and the Chimp”

  1. Steven Hunter Feb 28th 2009 at 03:46 pm 1

    As the saying goes “Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by incompetence.”

  2. Singapore Bill Feb 28th 2009 at 04:31 pm 2

    Well, you know, people compared Bush to an ape, always drawing him as a chimp and stuff, so why is there any problem with comparing Obama to a monkey? It’s because it’s okay to make fun of Republicans but the Liberal Media Elite would never allow that to happen to its darling. The true racists are those who see comparing Obama to a cute little watermellon-eating, fried-chicken loving, white-woman raping monkey as anything but a cute joke.

    [/disingenuous right-winger mode]

  3. James Feb 28th 2009 at 04:40 pm 3

    The problem with comparing Obama to a monkey is that it’s a traditional racist trope. Cartoonists got away with it with Bush because there isn’t the racist connotation in that case. A quick search on Google will turn up dozens of blatantly racist Obama-as-monkey images.

  4. Todd Feb 28th 2009 at 04:46 pm 4

    If you believe B&N’s apology, I have this bridge…

    Would a customer even have access to such a display? It looks to me like something only an employee could reach. I could be wrong, of course.

    The apology should have said that the employee responsible, if he or she can be identified, will be dismissed from the company immediately.

  5. Todd Feb 28th 2009 at 05:00 pm 5

    I think S-Bill’s comments were a joke. However, I’m offended by his labeling of someone who would shovel that s*** as a “right-winger”. I’m a right-winger (mostly) and offended by both the display and the cartoon.

    In response to Hunter: There’s no way this display can be attributed to anything but malice; but only on the part of one employee or customer.

    Matter of fact, knowledge of this display should have gone no further then the customer who saw it and the store’s management. I suspect that the person who took the picture is the person who placed the monkey book.

  6. Arvy Feb 28th 2009 at 05:48 pm 6

    Steven, I don’t think the saying applies here - this wasn’t incompetence - it was malice. It’s just that it was malice on the part of someone other than the management of B&N. (while they’d like to the point the finger to an unknown customer - the likeliest explanation - it could just as easily have been an employee who did it.

    if you’ve ever worked in retail you know this to be true.

  7. Singapore Bill Feb 28th 2009 at 05:54 pm 7

    James, I think I need to refer you to Rule 63 (formerly known as Rule 35 until a possible number conflict arose.)

    Internet Rule 63: No matter how outrageous your statement, someone will think you really, really do mean it.

  8. Cidu Bill Feb 28th 2009 at 07:26 pm 8

    I’d be inclined to believe it was a customer simply because the chance of being caught was fairly high and an employee would be risking his job. I’d bet money that the same person responsible for the prank also took the photo.

  9. furrykef Feb 28th 2009 at 07:53 pm 9

    What I don’t get is why people get upset at B&N themselves about this, as if somebody in upper management must have decided, “You know, I don’t like this Obama guy, so let’s set up a rack with all Obama books and put one with a monkey in the middle.” There are no large corporations that think anything remotely like that, yet somehow they blame the corporation…

  10. ShireNomad Feb 28th 2009 at 08:29 pm 10

    Furrykef: Actually, if an employee does something bad in the course of his duties, both s/he AND the company can be legally held responsible. The theory is “you hired the bozo, you allowed access to whatever s/he used to do something stupid, therefore…” This also encourages the companies to fire problem employees as fast as possible rather than sit back and say “meh, not hurting us enough to bother with the paperwork.”

    (The company can, however, cover their asses by proving the employee was clearly instructed against the liable act or the circumstances that led to it — say, if a delivery boy runs over someone, they’re off the hook if he was way off his route making a run to 7/11 or playing taxi for his friends. And proof can include employee manuals or similar saying “don’t do that kind of thing”. If B&N can show some sort of policy about the window displays that would cover this situation, they’re off the hook.)

    Of course, in this situation, legal questions won’t come up, since there’s nothing you could actually sue over. But you’d better believe that if it turns out an employee did this, s/he’s canned anyway.

  11. yellojkt Feb 28th 2009 at 10:12 pm 11

    In other blatantly racist news, a small town California mayor resigned after sending around an e-mail saying “No Easter Egg hunt this year” with a photoshop of the White House lawn replaced with a watermelon patch.

    http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Mayor_apologizes_for_email_showing_watermelons_0225.html

    It’s only going to get worse.

  12. furrykef Mar 1st 2009 at 12:39 am 12

    ShireNomad - I think legal liability and responsibility are two different things though. We may say that the company is responsible in a legal sense, but we know that it’s really just the fault of the moron who did it (unless of course the company instructed him to do it, or they were aware he did it and did nothing about it — both of which are extremely unlikely in this case, of course).

    - Kef

  13. Ron Mar 1st 2009 at 03:33 am 13

    Yes, whoever did this was in extremely bad taste.
    However, in light of the recent chimp cartoon flap
    it’s also funny as long as you don’t believe they
    were serious. It’s kind of like the guy who saw
    the sign in front of the church saying “Santa will
    greet the children here on Dec 12th” and
    rearranged the letters of the first word. “Satan
    will …”.

  14. David Mar 1st 2009 at 11:17 am 14

    Whether the action is incompetence or malice, whenever I hear a story like this, I remember what my mother kept telling me about teasing and name calling - “As long as you keep reacting, they’ll keep doing it, that’s what they want.” When I was the one doing the teasing, that was my intent too. The more attention and outrage things like this get, the more incentive there is for troublemakers to keep doing it. The newspaper comic may have not been intended that way (personally, I don’t think it was), but the outrage inspired the obviously deliberate acts. Yes, racist and hurtful things get done deliberately, but there will always be people willing to do them, and the greater the outraged response (the payoff), the more the risk is balanced.

    Put the books back, paint over the grafitti, don’t arrest anyone unless it’s really a crime, and most troublemakers will just shut up.

  15. Tom T. Mar 1st 2009 at 12:42 pm 15

    It wouldn’t surprise me if the same person moved the book, took the picture, AND sent the email to Snopes.

  16. Mark in Boston Mar 1st 2009 at 10:16 pm 16

    Is there NOTHING anyone could have done while Bush was president that would have gotten the same reaction? (Aside from things that would apply to any President, like threats on his life.)

    Race is a total fiction. There’s not much difference between Obama’s genes and Bush’s genes, and the genes that produce “racial characteristics” are just a tiny percentage of the already small percentage that are different.

    Racism — even though it’s a total fiction — must be deeply ingrained in everybody if White Anglo-Saxon Protestant Males are universally thought be so superior that there is just no way to insult them.

  17. tofor Mar 1st 2009 at 10:49 pm 17

    Well, at least in this case I don’t think there’s much argument that the association of Obama with a monkey was anything but deliberate. The set-up, with the monkey book right-smack-dab in the middle and surrounded by Obama books is far too perfect to have been an accident. Whether it was a customer or employee I don’t think makes much difference. What gets to me is that the very same people who scream the loudest about this type of display are the very same who would have laughed the loudest if all the books were about Bush.

  18. Matthew Mar 1st 2009 at 11:35 pm 18

    Yes, Tofor, I would have laughed if the books had been about G.W. Bush, surrounding the book on monkeys. That’s not racist. When the same arrangement is done about Barack Obama, then it is racist. The reasons for that have been mentioned here & much more fully some ten days ago about the dead stimulus-bill-writing chimp.

    Whether this display was created by employee or by customer isn’t very important. The B&N apologized & rectified the display. End of problem.

  19. wondering Mar 2nd 2009 at 03:55 pm 19

    Why is it so much worse if something is racist than if something is making fun of someone. (Referring to Matthew’s comments.) They both are trying to make the object of the “joke” look small and foolish.
    To Mark in Boston: The answer is, “NO.” There WERE threats to Bush’s life. In cartoons, plays, books, movies. We were supposed to accept them as “art.” It used to be that even implying danger to a President could get you thrown in jail. Threatening the head of state didn’t fall under freedom of speech.
    If we would all stop doing stupid things we might be better off.

  20. Matthew Mar 2nd 2009 at 04:51 pm 20

    Wondering, when you associate G.W. Bush with a monkey, you make a comment as to what an immoral (or amoral), witless, puppet he is for his masters (mostly Dick Cheney). It’s a witty, bitter, sad comment.

    When you associate President Barack Obama with a monkey, you tie into a long-standing association of African-Americans with jungle animals, monkeys & apes, usually, implying that African peoples are less sophisticated, less civilized, & more primitive & animalistic than are Europeans & European-Americans. It’s a humorless, racist comment.

  21. Dane Bramage Mar 2nd 2009 at 05:17 pm 21

    Strangely my African American sensitivities were not outraged at the display. I was amused. But I’m a conservative African American.

    So I guess if I think Obama is a monkey it’s acceptable for the same reason I could use the N-word and get away with it since we are both black which for some inexplicable reason makes using it okay.

    If an African American were responsible for the display, would it then be acceptable humor like a Bush-chimp display?

  22. Mark M Mar 2nd 2009 at 05:49 pm 22

    @wondering - I was thinking the exact same thing. It would seem that unflattering depictions of an individual are okay and even encouraged, and yet the same depiction of a group is not. Then again, most people don’t have a problem with redneck jokes, so there goes that theory. And I agree that it had to be a customer. Any employee who would risk a move like that is not all there.

  23. Lola Mar 2nd 2009 at 06:57 pm 23

    Could have been a former or currently disgruntled employee. If so, it’s a highly effective, albeit reprehensible, bit of sabotage.

  24. ctd Mar 3rd 2009 at 09:33 am 24

    “Internet Rule 63…”

    Internet Rule 63b: No matter how satirical your statement, someone will honestly agree with it.

  25. Matthew Mar 3rd 2009 at 11:24 am 25

    Dane, you think of Bush-Dick as a great president, so your sensibilities are hardly to be trusted, and, no, your claim to be African-American does not make it “acceptable” for you to “think Obama is a monkey”. It’s still racially offensive, just as would be many of your uses of the n-word.

    Yes, Mark M., some people find “redneck jokes” funny and harmless, but “rednecks” are hardly comparable to African-Americans. Do not, by the way, conflate “redneck” with “hillbilly”. “Redneck” bespeaks a chosen sensibility. “Hillbilly” is a somewhat derogatory term for poor exploited European-Americans living & working in Appalachia. Although Appalachians are not comparable to African-Americans, they have more in common. They often are the descendants of indentured Whites, and they have been exploited as hardscrabble farmers or miners by wealthy interests.

    Yello, I saw that photo, too, but I don’t think that it’s only going to get worse. The country is progressing away from racism & toward more tolerance & sensitivity. The election of 2012 could feature Bobby Jindal vs. Barack Obama. Isn’t that remarkable!

    David, I’m pretty much with you. Point out the racism—and the humorlessness of these antics (Sean Delonas’s cartoon, this window display, &c.)—and then ignore such people & their works. They aren’t worth our time.

  26. wondering Mar 3rd 2009 at 02:41 pm 26

    RE: Matthew: Gee, unless you mean that he was a trained monkey (which could take us down another racist bunny trail), I think that the great artists of our day were making fun of President Bush’s ears and the mannerisms with his lips. Ha, Ha, ahem, ha. When Obama whined that he didn’t like his ears to be made fun of, everyone quit drawing them with exaggeration for humorous intent. (!?!) *Who* are the trained monkeys?

  27. wondering Mar 3rd 2009 at 03:04 pm 27

    BTW, if we want to talk about puppets, did anyone catch Obama’s first bill signing? Probably not, since it wasn’t reported in the mainstream media. He didn’t even know what was in it. He had to turn to Greg Craig and ask about the details. *Not* a great start. The sad fact is, (and the same would have been true for Sarah Palin as the first female VP) that Obama will have to perform twice as well to get half the credit.

  28. wondering Mar 3rd 2009 at 03:07 pm 28

    RE: Mark M: Since we’re having so much fun with this…how many groups can we think of that it is okay to belittle? Mark, you already said Rednecks, I’ll add: southerners in general, blondes, Christians, the French.

    Anyone else?

  29. Cidu Bill Mar 3rd 2009 at 03:22 pm 29

    Matthew, I doubt we’re looking at Obama/Jindal in 2012: Jindal had his “Obama in 2004″ moment last week and he blew it. The centrist Republicans have at least two years to come up with somebody shinier and newer to be their front-runner in 2012.

  30. Matthew Mar 3rd 2009 at 11:18 pm 30

    Bill, don’t count out Governor Jindal simply due to a bad performance last week. Recall Governor Clinton at the Democratic Convention, 1988?

    Thanks, Wondering, for supporting my point that comparing G.W. Bush to a chimp is making a personal comparison. That is hardly the case when one compares President Obama to a chimp.

    As to Obama’s ears, every cartoon I see of him uses the jug-ears. The trained monkey is STILL our former president.
    As to “Obama’s first bill signing”, if you have “information” that no one else has, then please cite a source so that we can share it. Or did you get it through an aluminum-foil helmet? Is that also the source of your thinking that belittling groups is “okay”?

  31. wondering Mar 4th 2009 at 11:31 am 31

    Matthew: Read more carefully. You missed my point.

    A simple Google search found what I referenced. I truly do apologize that it is from the Limbaugh site. It’s the only place I could find a transcript.If you ignore Rush’s comments, you will read the actual transcript from the order to close Guantanomo Bay (which *is* different from a bill, yes). The second link is to youtube. FFWD to 3:30 I also heard this on my local radio news and at least two national shows.

    http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_012209/content/01125111.guest.html

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGIdtZa-DbM

    A simple google search would have produced this for you. Instead of knee-jerk insulting me, why not look into what I say? We don’t all have to hate each other because we vote for different people.

  32. wondering Mar 4th 2009 at 11:36 am 32

    Also, *don’t* think that it is okay to belittle *anyone.* Please note the irony and sarcasm in my posts. *That* is why I object to the portrayals of President Bush *and* I strongly object to the picture that started this thread.

  33. Tim Mar 4th 2009 at 12:45 pm 33

    David #14 and Matthew #20 comments are tied together. As long as people like Matthew react, the people that David describes will bring it on.

  34. Dane Bramage Mar 4th 2009 at 02:48 pm 34

    So Matthew are you saying my lack of offense at the Obama cartoon is strictly politically motivated? I think Obama looks like a monkey, much more so than Bush. There is no racism there just an observation. But feel free to be offended.

    Historical portrayals of black men as monkeys not withstanding, it is no less appropriate to display Obama as a chimp than it is to display Bush as a chimp. You would see that if you could elevate this above race issues and evaluate it in terms of two men duly elected to serve the highest office in the land. Evaluated on the content of their character neither deserves the comparison, but if in the name of free speech one can be thus characterized, then the other is fair game don’t you think?

  35. Matthew Mar 4th 2009 at 11:29 pm 35

    I’m glad, Wondering, that you object to the display that provoked this discussion. You had said nothing about that.

    I don’t know how I insulted you, Wondering, simply by asking you to do the work that a respectful discussant does for the group. You mention the “facts”, then you should cite the sources when someone asks. I have enough work already w/out doing research when you don’t quite have the facts right. I do appreciate your citations. Thank you.

    Excepting the weird two minutes of robotic speech about the evil prisoners at Guantanamo Bay and the minute of robotic speech at the end, the Youtube video of President Obama’s signing the executive orders to close the Guantanamo Bay torture center seems reliable. Limbaugh’s transcript, however, is not accurate.

    I don’t see the problem you have with these signings. Why shouldn’t Obama check with those members of his staff who know these details better than he? Aren’t you glad that he will close the torture center? Of course, none of this has any connection with the racism of the window display. I presume, Wondering, that your desire to discuss Obama’s signing orders to close this torture center tacitly admits that the racism of the window display is a given.

    Pssht, Tim, read my entire comment (#20). I said that this display was exceedingly small potatoes, barely worth a reaction—except for those who want to claim no racism in the display or want to claim that a display associating Obama & monkeys is the same as a display associating G.W. Bush & monkeys. That’s the reason this discussion continues. Discussing the display is done.

    Dane, I won’t speculate about your motivation. It doesn’t matter. That you consider Bush-Dick a great presidency, however, leads one to question the value of any of your judgments.

    Historical displays of African-Americans as monkeys are not withstanding. That’s the difference. Thanks for admitting it. Yes, if our planet didn’t bear a history of racism that goes back at least the last 500 years, then there would be no difference in associating a monkey with either Obama or G.W. Bush.

  36. Matthew Mar 4th 2009 at 11:45 pm 36

    P.S., Wondering: Youtube has a video of C.N.N. covering President Obama’s signing of the orders closing the Guantanamo Bay facility (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vQ8sT0Lh5fI&feature=related), so it was certainly on the “mainstream media”.

  37. wondering Mar 5th 2009 at 11:19 am 37

    Matthew: Frankly, I’m impressed that you made it through the robotic speech beginning and end. I couldn’t quite stand it. I thought I was doing you a favor by telling you to FFWD. :) Peace.

Comments RSS

Leave a Reply