- ‹ previous
- 361 of 1485
- next ›
Al Sharpton Is Wrong About the Monkey Cartoon
In today’s New York Post there’s a Sean Delonas cartoon that shows two policemen standing over a dead chimpanzee. One is holding a handgun while the other says, "They'll have to find someone else to write the next stimulus bill."
Al Sharpton is very offended. But he shouldn't be because the cartoon isn't offensive, unless you're an ape.
Sharpton issued a statement saying:
The cartoon in today's New York Post is troubling at best given the historic racist attacks of African-Americans as being synonymous with monkeys. One has to question whether the cartoonist is making a less than casual reference to this when in the cartoon they have police saying after shooting a chimpanzee that "Now they will have to find someone else to write the stimulus bill."
Being that the stimulus bill has been the first legislative victory of President Barack Obama (the first African American president) and has become synonymous with him it is not a reach to wonder are they inferring that a monkey wrote the last bill?
Well actually, yes, it is a reach. That's why the New York Post refuses to apologize and issued this statement:
The cartoon is a clear parody of a current news event, to wit the shooting of a violent chimpanzee in Connecticut. It broadly mocks Washington's efforts to revive the economy. Again, Al Sharpton reveals himself as nothing more than a publicity opportunist.
I'll leave Sharpton's motivation alone, but this whole thing seems a little puzzling. Consider three recent events.
- January 20: A black man is inaugurated president of the United States.
- February 16: Police shoot and kill a chimpanzee after it attacks his owner's friend.
- February 17: President Obama signs the $787 billion stimulus package into law. It is widely seen, particularly by Republicans, as a gigantic boondoggle.
Guess which one of these is irrelevant to the cartoon? If you picked #1, you're right. This cartoon has nothing to do with the ethnicity of Obama's father and everything to do with the fact that the stimulus bill is messy. So messy, in fact, that it could have been written by a chimpanzee.
The truth is, it's not a good cartoon. Because it is an awkward attempt to combine two unrelated news stories, it doesn't resonate, not in the way that this really wonderful cartoon does. You many not even get the cartoon at all (stimulus=monkey?), but that's understandable because it's not that funny; it's just not racist either. Sometimes a joke about monkeys is, well, just a joke about monkeys.
Al Sharpton aside...
I dunno, I have to say I disagree. I found the cartoon as a whole kind of troubling, considering both a) the well-known history of "monkey" as racist insult, and b) the fact that they are *shooting the damn monkey*. Clearly they're considering Obama as the "author" of the stimulus bill, so the monkey is the stand-in for him. Add in the whole "shoot the monkey" factor and you've got a cartoon that's not only unfunny, vaguely racist, and creepy, but seems to verge on threatening. A monkey in a cartoon is never "just a monkey."
Well, as I didn't know about
Well, as I didn't know about the monkey story, I immediately thought "Well... that's pretty racist." Then I realised it was in the New York Post, which is unlikely to make jokes about shooting President Chimpama and was totally confused. Then I found out about the Monkey Story and went "Ohhhhhhh. Wow, someone did not think about the alternate readings of their idea." I mean, if you grew up with vicious people cracking jokes about you being a monkey/ape/caveman AS AL SHARPTON DID, that cartoon probably reads differently.
I doubt the New York Post realised it, but once the violent chimp story fades, that cartoon looks double-plus-ungood. No-one should be punished for it, but still, it's not one to put on a T-Shirt.
I guess you don't like Al
I guess you don't like Al Sharpton. That's a unique perspective. But going all patriarchal on your fellow Americans who know racism when they see it, is far more reprehensible than Sharpton.
Black people have been "joked" about as if they were apes globally, by white soccer fans, citizens, and legislators. They are regularly murdered by police with impunity.
Loser's-- or as he calls himself "Luzer's" reference to President Obama's father means he too operates under the notion that Obama's father was referenced by the chimp. Racist? Yeah.
Just proves democrats have no sense of humor (or reality)
The cartoon is appropriate given that the incredibly messy/wasteful stimulus bill might just as well have been written by a monkey. As it is, Obama didn't have much to do with it. The bill (as is most legislation) was writen by members of congress, in this case by the Democratic leadership; i.e. Pelosi and Reid. So if you're offended by comparing the dem congress leaders to monkeys; well reality sucks doesn't it??
Perhaps not intended, but should have been expected
First, I would say this is a poorly constructed political cartoon. The truth is, Obama is most strongly connected with the Stimulus bill, so any joke about said Bill would immediately be connected with Obama, not with anyone else. Secondly, even if the racist angle was not Delona's intent, any editor worth his salt should have spent exactly 1.5 seconds looking at this cartoon before saying "Uh, Delonas, I know this isnt what you meant, but there's another way to read this....especially given the long and troubling history of african-americans being compared to monkeys...even as recently as the 2008 campaign with some of the racist internet memes..." . This is both a failure by the cartoonist and by his editors. Thirdly, a political cartoon should jump out at you with its meaning, you shouldnt have to try to guess what represents who and how, especially when an alternative, much more negative interpretation is just waiting in the wings, yet I have yet to hear a decisive "The Chimp Represents X" explanation. No one's sure what the chimp EXACTLY represents,but its kinda sorta about the stimulus...and how poorly written it is...and its congress...or it IS Obama but not like in a racist sense....and Bush was called a chimp...and 1000 Monkeys on 1000 typewriters...
Please. Humor abhors a vacuum, and in the case of this vacuum, racism rushes in to fill the void.
Anyone who has taken civics know this is not about Obama
Uh, you forgot the most relevant reason this cartoon isn't racist: the subject is NOT Obama, it's the legislators who wrote the bill. How do I know this? Because the cartoon mentions writing the next bill, and it is the role of the legislature to WRITE bills, the role of the president to influence/veto/approve them. Anybody who is over the age of 10 should know this.
I am really dismayed at the profound ignorance of everyone who fails to note this basic, obvious point. If this cartoon were run in a newsletter for schoolchildren or mental defectives, then yes, maybe it could be assumed the readership might think it's about Obama. Since it was run in a paper for adults, anyone who misunderstands it deserves whatever discomfort their ignorant misreading might engender. THAT IGNORANCE is what is deeply and profoundly offensive.
Now, should the Post editors have been savvy enough to realize how utterly, abjectly stupid the American electorate has become, to the extent that we no longer know the basic facts of how our government works that were obvious to schoolchildren a generation ago? Perhaps, but if so, how utterly tragic.
Anyone who has taken a 4th
Anyone who has taken a 4th grade social studies class knows that anyone can write a bill. Whether is gets reviewed or voted on by Congress is another story.
As far as ignorance goes, 40+% of the country voted Republican in 2008. Nuff said.
It DID run in a newsletter
It DID run in a newsletter for mental defectives -- the New York Post.
Rationalization, anyone?
Daniel -- You don't seem to understand how to determine if an image or phrase is racist. Rule #1: It's not up to your interpretation, nor mine. Racist expressions are racist expressions. If my grandfather thinks “nigger” is a term of endearment, that doesn't make it true. He doesn’t get to decide that. That is determined by the linguistic-cultural context that makes the term intelligible in the first place. So if he says “nigger” in public, it’s a racist term whether he feels it is or not, and whether he "intends" it or not.
But this case is not even at the grandpa level. Because you’d have to be a complete lobotomized fool to believe that this cartoonist is *unaware* of the long, long history of comparing blacks to monkeys, and to the countless Obama = monkey expressions we’ve already seen throughout the presidential campaign. *Those* are the cultural/linguistic contexts that determine what the cartoon means -- and you're simply dishonest if you try to argue that the cartoonist is "innocent" or "unaware" of all the recent Obama/monkey gags.
To Chris -- The reason your
To Chris -- The reason your profound "point" is utterly meaningless is because the Post has been consistently tying the "socialist" bill to Obama and Obama alone. Just look at the issue in question. The previous page shows Obama, by himself, in front of some legislation, purportedly. This is the Post's repeated, obvious and clear agenda: To tie the bill to Obama, period. Even your ten-year-old can see that.
that's a stretch
But Obama didn't write the bill! That is not his role in government! It is cut and dry, no ambiguity whatsoever.
I don't read the Post much, so I can't speak to this campaign to trick the public into thinking the executive branch has somehow subsumed the PRIMARY role of the legislative branch, but even if the editors are trying to connect Obama to the bill, any adult should know that he did not WRITE it. What is so hard to understand here?
To "Chris"
Hey, "Chris", have any 10-year-old look up the word "disingenuous" for you. Or if that's too hard for you, try "bad faith".
Two things for your consideration
1.) I think you VASTLY overestimate the intelligence of the average person.
2.) At this point, the Post isn't much more than Weekly World News without the "Bat Boy." They put all of their money into writing clever headlines and had to let the interns do all of the "journalism"
To quote Rush Limbaugh...
"IT WAS TOTALLY ABOUT RACE!!"
Eh...
It's pretty obvious that the chimpanzee is supposed to be the president, isn't it? The premise of the cartoon is:
1. Obama writes stimulus.
2. A rampaging chimp is shot by two cops.
3. Cop says, "They'll have to find someone else to write the next stimulus bill."
It seems to me that it's really a stretch to say that the chimp is NOT supposed to be at very least compared the president. The cops basically say that it's him!
I was expecting to see a cartoon with some tenuously racist cartoon that would make me think, "Eh... Lame but whatever." What actually went through my head was that it was saying "Obama is a chimp and the cops just shot him... because of the stimulus? WTF?"
At best, the cartoon is drawing parallels between an out of control president and an out of control ape... and being shot for it. At worst, the cartoon is portraying our president, a black man, as an out of control ape... and being shot for it. Can someone explain to me how this could be at all funny to anyone other than people who want the president shot to death??
Sean Delonas is deranged.
I don't know if you're
I don't know if you're familiar with the way the US government works but Obama did not write the stimulus bill. I'll repeat that: OBAMA DID NOT WRITE THE STIMULUS BILL. The bill was written by white people, passed by a mostly white congress, and then Obama signed it.
Saying something was written by monkeys has long been a way of implying "the people who wrote this were idiots." Bush was routinely compared to a monkey himself. The monkey as symbolism is not exclusively racist. If the cartoon said "Guess we'll have to get someone else to sign the stimulus bill" it would of course be racist, but to stretch this cartoon as is to be about the President is just more ridiculous hypersensitive "lipstick on a pig" style BS.
Depends on Your point of veiw
Many have refered to the history of African Americans being associated with Monkeys. I would hope that we have gotten past this sort of tired old racial cliche. But then that old uneasy feelin' creeps in that makes us wary and suspect of any one, thing or idea that we are not familliar with or is not in our comfort zone. So we make fun of it. This being exemplified by the plethora of jokes gags IMs and emails that circulated the globe after B.O. (not a racial slur intended to infer that all Blacks have Body Odor) was elected. If indeed this cartoon was intentended to be a racial slur then from the response it has created I would say it was succesful, as many have interpreted it to be just that. I personally dont hate Blacks or Monkeys but I guess there are a lot of haters out there that just haven't gotten over the whole emancipation thing. And this attitude has been passed along and nutured for over 200 years and appears to be alive and well here in 2009. At the very least the cartoon is food for thought. As far as the stimulus bill now there is a subject that would be fodder for wrist slashing humor. That is if it wern't so sad. In closing, How an individual percieves the content of the cartoon in question says volumes about their point of view and their character.
Your servant,
Ozzie
Chris -- You don't seem to
Chris -- You don't seem to understand: It doesn't matter that Obama didn't write the bill. In the logic of the world of The New York Post -- where the cartoon was published -- Obama *is* the father of the bill. That's the angle they've been pressing for weeks: that it's Obama's bill. You have to work with the Post's logic -- the context in which the cartoon is embedded.
I love this idea that if you
I love this idea that if you see the obvious racism in the cartoon -- which 98% of the world sees instantly -- then that just means you are racist.
By the same logic, I'm a racist for finding my grandfather's use of the word "nigger" racist. After all, my grandfather doesn't *think* he's being racist -- therefore, he isn't!
Racism exists entirely outside of your control, your interpretation, your "intent". It works the same way language works. You don't get to decide what words mean each time you open your mouth. Words mean what they mean because of the cultural/linguistic environment that makes them intelligible in the first place.
Same with racist cartoons. If a cartoon equates the president with a monkey, it doesn't matter what you think. Because in the cultural/linguistic environment in which we live -- and all you have to do is remember the *dozens* of Obama monkey puppets during the campaign, the Curious George Obama T-shirts, etc. -- that racism is just a fact: a fact of the cultural/linguistic environment that makes the cartoon intelligible in the first place.
cartoon not racist?
Are you serious? in this time of serious problems...Blacks shot by police all over this nation you have the audacity to say this is not racist... I now the right wing is intellectually dishonest............Not you at Mother Jones .....How dare you!
Still...
You might be absolutely right about the Post's intentions in this matter; however, in a society that has no real functioning mechanism to discuss race and ethnicity in a substantive manner, do you not concede that the author's intentions are very easily misconstrued?
Moreover, do you suppose its possible that a seeded, socialized or somehow ingrained racism comes into play here, regardless of the cartoonist's intentions on-face?
I think the fact that you and so many others feel it necessary to opine on this cartoon (and I certainly do not mean that pejoratively -- I feel these debates are productive in the utmost) suggests there's some sort of gray area in play here, and for that reason, I disagree with the decision to publish the cartoon. Moreover, given the Post's reputation as provocateur, it seems to me that they were almost asking for this blowback, which is at best disingenuous (given their stated position) and at worst, well, racist or at least tolerant of racist speech.
Umbrage is not always right
I think we're all forgetting chimpanzees and monkeys are two very different things, both biologically and iconically.
In the history of racist imagery, black men have traditionally been painted as gorillas, to indicate brutishness, or monkeys, to imply that their intelligence is mimetic, that they are capable only of the imitation of thought.
Chimps have long been used to represent stupidity non-specifically. A great number of people depicted and called our previous President a chimp (quite rightly). There's your linguo-culturo-historical context for ya.
To those that decry structural racism at the Post and posit a conspiracy whereby Obama is covertly made the monkey father of a bill and shown shot to play on white racist fantasy: Go back to undermining the logocentric paradigm of the Enlightenment metanarrative or whatever it is that you do. Sharpton's crying wolf here. Neither he nor the cartoon are worth the froth they've inspired.
Luzer, you probably shouldn't have taken the bait.
Racism is in in the eye of the offended.
Luzer's tone deafness on this is stunning. This ancient racial stereotype is still so prevalent that the image of the cartoon actually leads one to imagaine what black person the cartoonist was writing about. The answer is Obama because it is clearly his stimulus bill, regardless of congress' role in its actual writing.
With racists and their apologists constantly looking for ways to clandestinely demonize those who conservatives see as the beneficiaries of liberal policies, we must be ever vigilant to not only call them out on blantant racism, but to oppose their efforts to inject subtle (plausibly deniable) racism into the otherwise acceptable forms of parody and satire.
You are right about the
You are right about the failed attempt to combine two unrelated news events. A photo of President Obama signing the Stimulus bill appears in the paper on page 11 and then on the very next page, page 12 you see the Delanos weak and terribly unfunny cartoon, therefore it is hardly a stretch at all oh genius author Daniel Luzer. You, like Delanos are wrong and not to mention tasteless.
Bush or Chimp?
I like this collage of Bush and Chimps.
http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/images/blbushmonkey1.htm
New York Post Employees Unhappy, Ashamed
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/19/new-york-post-employees-u_n_168267.html
New York Post Employees Unhappy, Ashamed Of Offensive Cartoon
The mood inside the New York Post, it seems, is a mix of anger and bewilderment that the paper published a cartoon depicting the authors of the stimulus as a dead, crazed chimpanzee.
On Wednesday, an employee of the paper told the Huffington Post that the phone lines had been inundated with complaints over what was interpreted as a racially charged jab at Obama. "As they f--king should be," said the source.
Today, meanwhile, the Post's Associate Editor, Sandra Guzman, sent out an email to other reporters distancing herself from the paper's cartoon and acknowledging that she has talked to management about her disapproval.
"Thank you for your feedback," reads the email. "Please know that I had nothing to do with the Sean Delonas cartoon. I neither commissioned or approved it. I saw it in the paper yesterday with the rest of the world. And, I have raised my objections to management. --Sandra Guzman."
The Post has stood by the cartoon, saying that it was meant to mock the contents of the stimulus by comparing the legislation to a now-infamous chimpanzee who attacked a woman in Connecticut.
White House press secretary Robert Gibbs was asked about the image on the Air Force One, Wednesday and had the following to say: "I have not seen the cartoon, but I don't think it's altogether newsworthy that I don't spend a lot of time reading the New York Post."
Why is it that anyone
Why is it that anyone disagreeing with the consensus that this cartoon is racist is immediately dismissed as "disingenuous" or worse, racist themselves. I certainly didn't think the cartoon was funny, and I am well aware of the grotesque and racist comparisons to monkeys that have historically been made about African Americans. I was disgusted by the Curious George garbage that McCain supporters were peddling. However, when I saw the cartoon, my first reaction was that it was a clumsy attempt to say that the stimulus bill was so poorly written, it was as if a monkey had written it. And no, Obama didn't "write" the bill, Congress did. Could the cartoonist have been trying to compare the dead chimp to the president? Perhaps. But reasonable people can interpret the same cartoon differently.
we see what we want to see
"If I seek red in the world, I will find it everywhere." - Jill Bolte Taylor. People who are offended by the NY Post cartoon (which regularly prints offensive cartoons) because they see racism in it, are looking for racism. Had I not been told by the media that it was racist, I would have seen it as a weak attempt to make fun of the stimulus by connecting it with a rather tragic episode in the life of a chimpanzee and his parent (yeah, scoff). I in no way say Barak Obama in the chimipanzee ,but then I don't look to see Obama in every critical cartoon or comment. Had they shot a box of crackers, would I assume they meant white people? Get over it folks, monkey is in the mind of the beholder.
Sorry Daniel, but gotta
Sorry Daniel, but gotta disagree with you on this one. It's a classic example of what's getting called "dog whistle racism": "coded words and themes to appeal to conscious or subconscious racist concepts and frames. . . what’s dog whistle racism? It’s pure political theater to push buttons to win elections and policies." Thanks to Ludovic Blain over at StopDogWhistleRacism.org...
And it's a dumb cartoon, too.
The artist knew exactly what he was doing
For those who keep saying, "But Obama didn't write the bill therefore the monkey doesn't represent the President," I will point out that this very same artist produced a comic last month showing Obama as the author of the bill (at least educating all the democrats on what it should be). So I would have to say that the artists intent is pretty apparant.
And given the frequency of blacks being shot and killed in this country by the police, having two policemen standing over a dead representation of the President and making a flippant comment should probably be a reason for a visit from the Secret Service, because my first thought when I saw it was immediately that it was encouraging just such violence.
No offense intended
I think Luzer is right that the artist didn't mean anything racist with the cartoon. The thought didn't even cross my mind when I first saw it. However I am white so obviously I would react differently to the cartoon than a black person. The artist is also white so I can imagine he didn't see how the comparison could be taken offensively and therefore probably didn't mean for it to be offensive.
I am more offended by the lack of sensitivity to the death of the chimpanzee than anything else.
This wasn't a joke about monkeys
This was a joke about the stimulus bill. The punchline was the stimulus bill. The major event was the stimulus bill. The monkey shooting was old news before the body cooled and of no value to anyone. At all.
The joke, compiled and de-flowered, is "the principal actor of the Stimulus Bill is a (or is like a) monkey"
And no, the House is not seen by anyone outside the Beltway as "the principal actor".
I'll give the benefit of the doubt to the artist who might not have double-checked with Colbert's Black Friend before going to print, but Sharpton's statement -- a stern "Dude, that's not funny" -- is on firm ground.
Your article is disgusting.
Your article is disgusting. I feel soiled even reading it.
I am a white elderly lady from Wisconsin. I'll never forget having a history book in grade school that pictured black lawmakers in the South during Recontruction looking like apes. This crap has been around a long time and must be roundly denounced not "nuanced".
I suspect either that you are not from this country or that you're just trying to be glib or clever. Perhaps not caring who you hurt.
As a former intern at Mother
As a former intern at Mother Jones I am sorry to see that some things never change - another outdated white liberal perspective on race to go down in the Mother Jones books. Who authored the stimulus bill? Obama. Who is depicted in the cartoon as the author of the stimulus bill? A chimp. The conclusion? Obama = chimp. The fact that some chimp actually did get shot by police was just a convenient newshook for an unacceptable depiction of our first black president. Anyone trying to explain away the connection is REACHING, is in denial of US race relations, or has some other agenda.
Daniel have you seen political cartoons from the early 20th century through the 60s? have you seen how they depict African Americans, Filipinos, Puerto Ricans as monkeys? And can you deny the connection between these depictions and the structural oppression of Jim Crow laws and colonialism, the vestiges of which remain today? Please study your history and expand your mind.
Increasingly sick
It isn't questionable whether this cartoon is racist. But what becomes significant and incredibly disgusting are the pathetic attempts at apologizing for it. Defenders of bigotry just can't let go. They will forever be rationalizing their perverse ideologies. Only time and the short cycle of human life can eradicate this scourge.
Is This What Holder Means?
"Why is it that anyone disagreeing with the consensus that this cartoon is racist is immediately dismissed as "disingenuous" or worse, racist themselves."
[Probably because we've figured out that both racism AND denial is neither a defensible nor a debatable position. This isn't a discussion about artistic preferences or literary interpretations. This is about 14% of Americans who have a family history or even personal experience which includes being dehumanized by simian comparisons and caricatures. So have a little empathy -- and don't try to blame the victim. Most of the time a sincere, "Oh -- dang -- I'm sorry" goes a long way towards making it copascetic.]
"People who are offended by the NY Post cartoon (which regularly prints offensive cartoons) because they see racism in it, are looking for racism."
[Are you purposefully trying to not get it? If it were a banana peel with a couple of bullet holes in it, no one would see racism. If it were 2005 and the dead chimp had Dick Cheney's features and the cop was saying, "I guess someone else will have to come up with a Gitmo Torture Policy," no one would see racism in it (and it'd even be funny).
Luzer does his entire point a disservice by failing to look at Rev. Sharpton's reported reaction on 1st seeing the cartoon. According to Michael Daly in the NY Daily News, "He [Sharpton] saw it at 5:30 a.m. on his way to the gym.
"I'm like, 'Maybe I'm missing something,'" he recalled. "I called 10 people and said, 'Tell me there's something I'm missing.'"
That doesn't sound like someone looking for racism.
I've no doubt the Post management gets it. I'm stunned that they've become so craven that they'd rather sell more papers by grandstanding like Limbaugh, O'Reilly, and other circus freaks masquerading as journalists than do the responsible thing.
But really, Luzer . . . what's your excuse? Maybe you should actually get out and meet a black American. You know, actually talk with one. And perhaps more importantly, listen.]
"One cannot truly understand America without understanding the historical experience of black people in this nation . . . in things racial we have always been and continue to be, in too many ways, essentially a nation of cowards. Though race related issues continue to occupy a significant portion of our political discussion, and though there remain many unresolved racial issues in this nation, we, average Americans, simply do not talk enough with each other about race."
-- Att'y General Eric Holder
Hideous cartoon, great discussion
I'm not going to air my own take on the chimp affair here (I can just walk two cubicles over, after all), but I've really been inspired to see the level of conversation in this thread--and keep in mind that we try to encourage open debate at MoJo, which means disagreeing with each other plenty often (see "Party Ben" Gill's post, http://www.motherjones.com/riff/2009/02/new-york-post-apologizes-monkey-cartoon, for another take). --Monika Bauerlein, MoJo coeditor
Middle Ground
If you'd have to be an idiot to think that the stimulus bill was written by Obama (rather than a bunch of legislators), then I can't even imagine how stupid you'd have to be to be unaware of the racist "blacks as monkeys/apes/chimpanzees/gorillas" association that's been perpetuated for centuries in this country - or to be unaware that Obama is associated with the stimulus bill a lot more than a handful of Congressmen are.
Is it possible that Delonas is just that much of an idiot? Sure, I think so. I could picture someone thinking, "Hey, a monkey was shot, maybe I can tie that to the stimulus bill somehow," and then coming up with the "It was written by a monkey!" joke. But even if he didn't have the racist intent, that doesn't mean he and his editors aren't idiots, or that he and the Post should be exempt from criticsm.
In other words, there's a middle ground here between, "He was calling Obama a chimp, and urging the police to shoot him!" and, "Obama didn't write the stimulus bill, you morons!"
this comment is for Luzer
this comment is for Luzer (loser). Any person who is not black kill me when they make comments like," thats not a racist joke" are b"lack people shoulldnt take this offensive". but the bottom line is your not black, you have never been discriminating against for being black you dont know anything about being black so you have no place to judge what should be offensive and what shouldnt. lets say this person who created this cartoon wasn't trying to make a racial joke (wich he was) after coming up with this concept and maping it out if he has any common sense he had to look back and say hmmmmm maybe this might be a lil offensive to are president who wrote the stimulis bill because calling black people monkeys is very popular racial slur. RIGHT THERE after having that thought and still publishing the cartoon is proof that it was intended to be a racial joke calling president OBama a monkey.
all i have to say in response is he is already our president and he already signed the stimulis bill. as much as u hating ass people want to do something to stop it u cant .
SO JUST STOP HATIN. HA HA
Trained Monkeys
Amazingly enough (not) this is not the first editorial cartoon comparing Congress to "Trained Monkeys".... not by a long shot...
For those who've forgotten their 5th grade civics lessons, CONGRESS writes bills... no one else... just Congress.
The "outrage" coming from Al Sharpton is expected, after all his livelihood is derived from detecting "racism" from subtle clues only he can see... His co-religionists in the Church of Racism Incarnate are joining in on the chorus as expected too...
Thank goodness that writing bills in Congress is something a "Trained Monkey" could do, because the folks doing that work today aren't doing so well...
I used to subscribe to your magazine
But I eventually wearied of the unconscious bigotry often expressed in your pages.
Coming from San Francisco, I figured you'd immediately get the overt racism inherent in this deplorable cartoon. So allow me to express some bigotry of my own: I suspect you probably live in the Marina or the Castro & don't have much truck with folks in the Western Addition, the Tenderloin or Bayview, (much less Oakland.)
Many White Liberals lead an insular existence, but the irony of working & writing for a periodical named after Mother Jones is deep. She would have kicked your lilly butts. She would have forced you to get out more and hang w/ some people not like you.
Oh, and hire some minority writers for chrissakes.
Monkey See, Monkey Hear, Monkey Doo-doo
A little analysis tells you what this "cartoon" is about.
The cops have shot what we know was a 200-pound chimpanzee who was thought to be a tame, harmless pet but who attacked, mauled & severely injured an innocent woman, a friend of the chimp’s owner. The chimp is a bad guy, and the cops, by extension, are good guys. They oppose & overpower the chimp.
The cop’s remark indicates the chimp wrote the “first” stimulus bill. President Obama wrote the first stimulus bill.
Ergo, the chimp is a stand-in for Obama.
So it is clear it was the artist’s intent to liken the President of the United States to a 200-pound chimpanzee who was thought to be a tame, harmless pet but who attacked, mauled & severely injured an innocent woman. That is to say, the artist believes the President is not the “tame pet” he seems to be. He is not “housebroken.” Behind his nice manners lurks a savage who will maul your women.
During the campaign, we saw a few “comments” like this, though most were much less blatant.
The cops — the good guys who represent law and order — have disposed of the President/chimp by violent means. Because they are “authorized representatives of the people,” their violence is presented as a justifiable means of returning law & order to the community/nation and “saving” women the President endangers.
Sorry, but this cartoon is worse than racist. It advocates the assassination of the President.
I don’t know what’s in the artist’s conscious mind, but I do know what’s in his subconscious mind — and it is sick, sick, sick. And dangerous. Rather than have Al Sharpton complaining about the cartoonist & the editors who approved the cartoon, I’d like to have some FBI profilers step in. Now. This is not something to take lightly.
P.S. I didn’t notice it at first, but the “Beware of the Dog” sign on the phone pole is an intentional reference to dogs attacking civil rights advocates in the South. The white cops depicted in the cartoon recall Bull Connor’s troops.
As I said, the artist is a sicko & so are the editors of the Post. Anyone who claims not to “get” this is either a liar or too thick to think.
The Constant Weader at http://www.RealityChex.com
say what you want Daniel, we
say what you want Daniel, we all know what's up........ check the similarity Daniel and denial ....hummm
I generally find myself
I generally find myself highly skeptical of scandals of this variety. Often, the editorial cartoon, misquote, etc is either clearly being taken out of context or interpreted in a completely different (perhaps warped) manner than was intended. We live in a society highly aware of race and thus we sometimes see racism where none intentionally exists. Delonas' chimp cartoon, however, went above and beyond to the degree that potential misinterpretation is essentially irrelevant in the face of a cartoon that is almost comically offensive. Even if Delonas didn't mean to refer to anything other than the chimpanzee attack in New York, even if he was entirely unaware of the history of ethnological comparisons between African Americans and apes, is there honestly not a single member of the New York Post staff with any kind of legitimate education or sense of propriety? Nobody realized what this very clearly looks like? Obviously we don't want the NY Post to write our next stimulus bill....
Also, Daniel Luzer: the article above is bad. You must be aware of that. You're defense is buffoonery. I also propose we don't let you craft our next stimulus bill.
Written undoubtedly by a
Written undoubtedly by a white guy
I totally agree with A.
I totally agree with A. Sharpton. Black people have been compared to apes, monkeys, etc. for years by Whites...why, i'm not sure, but that's similar to White people being called 'crackers'........why? anyway, the not so subtle reference of the chimp to our new Prez was not missed on us. And I definitely appreciate the NY Post apology...that was due! some things are not funny, especially when its contents can be taken as derogatory and racist. actually the cartoon was totally useless on so many levels...(the dead chimp, the lady it mauled, the confused owner, the economy, etc.)...go figure
I believe only seeing the racism is missing the point.
I believe treating this cartoon as merely a racist episode is missing the point. It must be viewed as incindiary speech. As I said in another forum.
For those who fail to see the "humor" of the cartoon:
The police (righteous authority?) have just SHOT the MONKEY who had the audacity to author the stimulus bill, with the comment "they (who, liberals?) will have to find someone else" to author the next one, ha ha!
This code speech not only suggests the old racist idea of black (president) equals monkey, but INVITES HIS JUSTIFIED ASSASSINATION!!!!!
How can you be missing this? I'm sure there are some in the target audience who aren't. How many of our liberal leaders have to be shot before we wake up?
During the previous administration, people were detained for wearing T shirts saying anything even vaguely negative about Bush or his administration. I want to know why the Secret Service isn't closing the Post's editorial office and detaining people.
PERCEPTION IS REALITY
I suppose it could be a "good" thing that so many people today are removed from the "blatant" racism of the past that they just don't see the whole "monkey equals black person" reference. Especially the new generation. Still doesn't make it right.
Since NO one can honestly say that the author was trying to purposely make a racist comment, then it all comes under the heading of "offensive items are in the mind of the beholder". People choose what to become offended by. Personally I think that there are MANY things much more offensive in this world at this time. You know.............things like the fact that more than half the population of the world lives on less than three dollars a day, or the fact that an elected U.S. official lied us into a war that murdered hundreds of thousands of INNOCENT men, women, and children! Duh.
Given the fact that no one is a mind reader................then the most that the author can be accused of is poor taste and the editors can be accused of poor judgment. Illegitimi non carborundum!
SAVE AMERICA..........................SHOOT A CEO!
Hope I didn't "offend" any corporate weasels.
Chimp/Stimulus Cartoon and "-ism's"
Okay, in this country "free" speech is allowed but not the kind that incites violence.
I don't know what the cartoonist was thinking.
However, I am saddened by all of it - the cartoon and some of the comments.
The USA's deplorable economic condition, a President as much "black" as he is "white" so why is he termed a "black" President unless it is his choice to so label himself in that way and/or because his skin is darker than concrete, a dead chimpanzee and a distraught owner and a disfigured friend with serious injuries, an animal with DNA closest to human DNA considered very intelligent, Use of the term "mental defectives" to describe anyone. In my home we may label actions that seem less than smart as stupid or idiotic but never people. No name-calling or put downs for people or creatures - after all, we humans are also part of the animal kingdom.
As a special education teacher, I am offended whenever I hear terms such as "mental defective" or "retard". It boils a person down to only one aspect of their self - an intellectual challenge and disregards all other parts of the whole.
Martin Gardner discussed the concept of "Multiple Intelligences" and all of us have some form of intelligence. Some of us can handle linear equations while others smile in a way that makes others feel warmly welcomed. Some of us may play an instrument or our vocal cords while others are fluid on ice skates. Some of us aurally attuned while others are visually tuned in, still others have incredible sense of balance. We are all gifted in one way or another.
All of us are T.A.B.S.= Temporarily Able Bodied... until we aren't.
In fact, frequently, the most successful people achieve greatness not because of innate ability or intelligence but rather by sustained and substantial effort along with resourceful action that enables them to overcome obstacles and sometimes innate abilities actually get in the way.
Oh, and some persons with mental challenges become phenomenally successful as a result of their challenges. They "see" or experience the world in a different way than the rest of us.
If anyone using the term "mental defective" has actually ever worked with or attempted a sincere friendship with a person with intellectual challenges in order to expand one's mind (yes, the "intellectually challenged" will expand the mind of the greatest genius) rather than gawk, be unkind or take advantage of the person, then that person reaching out to a person with an intellectual challenge would be enriched and have developed a greater understanding of the achievements of others as well as the way we all have areas of strengths and areas in need of further development.
Persons on both ends of the Bell Curve have long been marginalized by our society - whether persons with physical challenges, behavioral challenges, social challenges, who speak, move, look or sound differently or who are advanced and stand out and are "nerds".
Shame on everyone who considers racism wrong but not other -isms.
It's not about dissecting
tagged as:- solution
It's not about dissecting who came up with the stimulus bill's language - it's about the wide audience who will see that cartoon and what they will immediately associate with it.
Maybe instead of trying to carefully split hairs and deconstruct why this cartoon is okay, have a bunch of people who have never heard about it take a look. Ask them what their first reaction is.