The concept that some of us obviously sees the NYPost cartoon as racist makes one clear point...

[LynneSin]

it's racist.

All this overanalyzing "Oh but if that's how you see the monkey, someone else might see it as something else" mentality is bullshit and how any DUer can DEFEND this is bullshit. For those that do probably have not had any history of racist slurs where Gorillas/Apes/Monkeys have been used to belittle African-Americans including editorial cartoons throughtout history. The dead monkey had the word STIMULUS on it and the cops said someone else would have to write the bill, which Obama had a major part of writing it. It seems for many of it the racist slurs were clearly obvious. So the question that I ask you is this:

Even if YOU don't see it that way how dare you insist that others ignore the racism that they happen to see in the cartoon? I can't believe that after all these years of struggle with Civil Rights in this country that people would be so unconcerned about racism. How much did grief did many of us get when we said "Oh Rick Warren is just doing a prayer". This Cartoon is no different, those of you who defend it should hang your head in shame.

And I want to add something, if you don't think this is offense there is a great scene in the movie "Clerks II" that proves my point. Randal decides to use a word that he wants to 'take back' even though it was clearly offensive and everyone else told him not to use it. That offensive, racist word included the word 'Monkey' in it and when he used it he said it to a character played by Wanda Sykes.

[uponit7771]

1. Some folk bubbles are being burst when it comes to racism, they've drank the CMsM kool-aide on post

...racial (whatever that means) and for some reason thinks it doesn't exist.

A pic of a monkey being shot referring to the stimulus right next to Obama signing the stimulus is empirical

[Frustratedlady]

2. I don't see any way anyone could defend it. We know what it is.

I'm white and I was greatly offended. You can come up with all kinds of excuses when you are trying to CYA.

Just sayin'.

[LynneSin]

3. I'm White too but grew up in a town where the KKK wasn't exactly enemy #1

So I heard the reference alot as a kid.

Fortunately I didn't buy into this White Supremist stuff but when I saw that cartoon it was as clear as the nose on my face that this cartoon was racist.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

4. There are two reasons.

1. They are racist, and enjoy the cartoon.

2. They see opportunity for a flamewar.

The notion that it's not racist is absurd, and can be rejected off hand. Nobody's that stupid.

[LynneSin]

19. It's digging in the heels

you clearly said or did something wrong but ego dictates that it's better to fight for your argument then to say "whoops I was wrong".

[PVnRT]

8. The Minister of Logic of DU is, in another forum

I can't say the name, of course, that would be a call out.

Incidentally, Queensryche put out a great album in the early 1990's.

[On the Road]

5. I Can't Believe the Post Printed That Cartoon

With the zoo story in the news, I was originally willing to entertain the idea that the cartoonist had no racial motivation in mind in drawing the cartoon. But seeing some of his other work, he is very, very attuned to racial stereotypes and it's difficult to believe it was accidental.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

31. If you've ever read the NY Post, you'd be far less surprised.

It's a bigoted, RW rag if there ever was one. It's the original Fox News.

[On the Road]

33. I Know the NY Post and

I'm still surprised.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

37. Yeah... I suppose it is that bad, even for them.

Like I've said elsewhere, I *might* give the benefit of the doubt to another paper, but the NY Post? Hell, I'd probably see racism from them if they republished The Cat in the Hat.

[On the Road]

47. There Was a Flap a Few Years Ago

about an artist -- I believe he was a contractor on a job for AT&T -- drawing a map of the world dotted with little pictures (the Eiffel Tower, Rocky Mountains, Statue of Liberty, etc.) In Africa he showed a picture of a monkey holding a telephone. (It was AT&T after all.)

There was a similar outcry in some circles about implied racism at the time. The artist vehemently denied any racial implications. In this case, I tended to believe him. That's what made me take a wait-and-see attitude to the NY Post cartoon.

But after looking the guy's other work, he seems to know exactly what he's doing.

[jpgray]

6. If you apply that method fairly, you end up with some pretty ridiculous conclusions

There has to be a standard beyond simple sentiment, or you end up with total absurdity and judgments are handed down based on who brays the loudest. Your apologia of Warren, for example, makes you a bigot, if we use your logic.

Let's call it LynneSin's rule, and apply it:

If so many of us found Warren (or McClurkin) a homophobic insult, then it was. Your seeing the selection of Warren as 'something else' is bullshit and how any DUer can DEFEND that is bullshit. For those that do probably have not (experienced) any history of homophobic slurs and hateful bigotry. Even if YOU don't see it that way how dare you insist that others ignore the bigotry that they happen to see in the invocation choice?

Now, I'm not so quick to simply dismiss you as a hateful bigot who is full of bullshit, but apparently you would.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

7. If she had argued that Warren wasn't really homophobic...

then you'd have a point.

[jpgray]

9. Another application of LynneSin's rule:

If so many found Obama's "lipstick on a pig" statement sexist, then it was. Your seeing the statement as 'something else' is bullshit and how anyone can DEFEND that is bullshit. For those that do probably have not (experienced) any history of sexism, gender-coded language, and hateful bigotry. Even if YOU don't see it that way how dare you insist that others ignore the sexism that they happen to see in the phrase?

Are we to absurdity yet?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

11. One problem.

Nobody found Obama's lipstick on a pig statement sexist.

There were a handful of people claiming such, and they were clearly lying through their teeth.

Much like the people claiming the cartoon isn't racist.

In fact, they're pretty much the same people.

[Occam Bandage]

13. So your argument is that everyone who holds a different viewpoint is actually secretly lying.

I suppose that's easier than having to reconcile a world in which some people disagree with you.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

15. My argument is that anybody claiming the cartoon isn't racist is lying.

They're not exactly secret.

"I suppose that's easier than having to reconcile a world in which some people disagree with you."

I'm not going to reconcile with people who have a different viewpoint on whether or not Evolution happened.

I'm not going to reconcile with people who have a different viewpoint on whether or not the Holocaust happened.

I'm not going to reconcile with people who have the same viewpoint that the cartoon was racist, but pretend otherwise.

[Occam Bandage]

20. The Holocaust is significantly documented. Evolution is significantly documented.

It is reasonable not to reconcile with people who reject objective evidence. It is unreasonable to say that people who have a differing interpretation of an ambiguous cartoon are in the same category as Holocaust deniers.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

24. This cartoon is signficantly racist.

That the cartoon is documented.

[jpgray]

16. And if someone claims those who see the cartoon as racist are "clearly lying through their teeth?"

Do they win the argument then? I believe we're back to absurdity.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

17. No, they're just lying again.

:shrug:

The people who say it isn't racist already lost the argument as soon as they opened their fat racist mouth.

[jpgray]

21. Ted Rall, for example, is therefore a big fat racist

Rall of course is well known for his racism and support of the Post's conservative views.

"He was trying trying to jam two stories together, and unfortunately, this is what a lot of lame editors like," Rall said. "The comparison he had in mind: The guy who wrote the package wasn't Obama; it was a bunch of white economic advisers, and he wasn't thinking about Obama."

The Post cartoonist, he added, has the misfortune of working in a business that, over the past decade, has become a graveyard of gag jokes. A former editor once told Rall that satire in cartooning died after September 11.

"I have to wonder about the competence of his editors," Rall continued. "It goes with the 'make it shorter and dumber' mentality that's happening in print."

http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/02/19/chimp.cartoon.react/?iref=mpstoryview

I'll be interested to hear Obama on this. If he doesn't see the big deal (as with Biden's "clean, articulate" comments), does that make him a big fat racist?

More than this, if I simply call you names, making confident assertions that you are a bigot, do you become one?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

23. Possibly.

"More than this, if I simply call you names, making confident assertions that you are a bigot, do you become one?"

No, jpgray. Your opinion is irrelevant.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

36. Who is the arbiter of relevancy? (nt)

[LynneSin]

26. This is where you and even Ted Rall's fails

You assume that the average person is sitting around spending hours analyzing a newspaper's editorial cartoon - hardly.

I didn't have to think about the racism in that cartoon - to me it was obvious. My brain along with a very large majority of other folks with brains, saw it and the brain recalled that monkeys have been used as racial slurs for Centuries.

The guy that created the cartoon has had a history of pulling stunts like that. There are no accidents.

[KittyWampus]

28. A very few of us said the same as Rall. The chimp cartoon is a formulaic piece from a hack

whose cartoons are the equivalent of "just add water and mix".

All he EVER does is take one sensationalist story off the front pages and then shoves a political story into it. And he's proven to be totally insensitive and perfectly happy to insult various groups of people.

And with the chimp story, the idiot stepped onto a third rail. Which isn't to say he's not racist or the cartoon isn't racist or can be construed as racist.

[LynneSin]

14. "Lipstick on a Pig" has never been a sexist comment

The republicans tried to force it into one because they were desperate to sell Sarah Palin as a viable VP candidate.

The use of 'Monkey/Gorilla/Ape' have a long and illustrated history of being used as a derogatory word against African-Americans.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

34. But by your maxim, if they found it sexist - it was sexist.

You absolutely cannot have it both ways, Lynne. There's no exception for "well, when Republicans say it, it doesn't count". There can be no exception for "if I don't believe it was sexist, then it wasn't". According to what you yourself wrote, if they felt it, it's true, and there can be no further debate involved. This is my problem with your post.

[LynneSin]

40. The history of "Lipstick on a Pig" never defined as sexism

The history of Monkeys & African-Americans have been intertwined for centuries.

If "Lipstick on a Pig" had a century long history of being offensive to women then I would have to agree. If you look at the link below you'll SEE republicans using 'Lipstick on a Pig' which has NOTHING to do with women - never has. Here's the history of the phrase and you can see that it has been used many times in the past by republicans and NEVER as an insult to women:

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1840392,00.html?imw=Y

I mean hey you're OK being a racist that's fine. You should hang your head in shame. I can't believe you're supporting the same insults used against African-Americans for centuries - things I heard growing up in white racist rural Pennsylvania.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

42. You're not listening to the argument, nor yourself.

I'm neither defending the cartoon, nor the "lipstick on a pig" comment. What I'm saying is that by your own logic, they were right to be offended by the comment simply because they said they were offended by the comment. I'm completely unsure as to why you can't see that.

[LynneSin]

45. I'm using the history of 2 ideas

"Lipstick on a Pig" has never had a history of racisim against woman and every major publication including SNOPES agreed that the offense that the Republicans took at that time was way out of context of the use of this word.

Symbolism comparing African-Americans to Primates have been used for centuries.

I mean you could call me some obscure word you just random pick out of the dictionary and I could feign insult just like the 'lipstick on the pig' comment. That doesn't mean it is.

My offensive, which if you took your head out of your ass and read some of these post, hell most of these posts, you'll see is obvious from not only using a symbol that has been used to degrade the race that happens to be the president, but commenting on something closely associated to the president (the stimulus package) and I didn't even get into the concept that they shot the monkey in that cartoon (mirroring a real=life story).

You want to ignore centuries of racist remarks that's your problem and it shames me that I actually know you. Perhaps the best you should do is just say nothing since right about now everyone is thinking you're a racist.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

48. If you pulled your head out of your ass, you'd notice I'm not arguing racist or not racist.

If you pulled your head out of your ass, you'd notice I'm arguing whether or not your metric - which is to say "if I think something is racist, it is, in fact, racist" - is justifiable, which I don't believe it to be.

The cartoon is racist - I don't believe that's the first time I've made that statement. So put that completely out of your head. I'd also ask you to retract your asinine belief that I am personally racist because you're making a completely illogical and ignorant assertion.

Stop being so fucking stubborn - I AM NOT ARGUING THE MERITS OF THE CARTOON, I AM ARGUING THE MERITS OF YOUR STATEMENTS.

[LynneSin]

12. But you totally overlooked something

Instead of digging my heels in and insisting "Oh I'm right screw the rest of you" mentality I listened to what others were saying and rethought my choice (because yes at first I thought "It's just a prayer".).

There is absolutely, positively no excuse for racism whatsoever in this country and we must hold those who are racist accountable. From what I've read, the person who did this cartoon has done others that were 'borderline racist'. To not speak out, to say "oh I don't see it so I guess it's not racist" is saying that you're ok with racism as long as it's not slap-me-in-the-face opposite.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

49. That's funny, because you're digging your heels in right now and saying "screw the rest of you".

Please, I know you're better than this. Step back a moment, read through the comments thoroughly, digest them, and then rethink some of your rebuttals here. At least in this thread (I won't vouch for others), I don't see anyone justifying racism, not even in the slightest bit.

[Occam Bandage]

10. Many Christians saw the removal of the Ten Commandments sculpture as anti-Christian.

:shrug:

[LynneSin]

18. Oh MY GOD - you're desparate for a justification aren't you

First, the sculpture was removed from a government building and the constitution clearly defines a separation of church and state. You want to put it in your front lawn no one is going to stop you from doing that provided that your front lawn isn't owned by the government.

The constitution also defines 'Freedom of Speech' but freedom of speech also allows us to protest something that is clearly seen by most of us as racist.

[Occam Bandage]

22. I think "if people are offended by X then X is objectively discriminatory" is a bad argument.

The argument is not about Constitutionality anywhere, from the Post to the protestors, so I'm not sure why you're bringing it into this. The claim in the OP is that if a number of people find something racist, then it is racist. I cannot see why that should apply to claims of racial hatred and not to other claims of discriminatory hatred. I think that declarations of bigotry should be founded on something more solid than "some people took offense," because that metric is far too open.

[LynneSin]

25. Because the Ten Commandments Sculpture can be placed just about anywhere...

except a government owned land.

I drive home to my mother's house I pass about 10 houses with some sort of 10 Commandment sign or statue on the lawn (this is rural PA). No one is stopping these people from putting them there. However, the constitution says that there is a separation between church and state therefore the statue cannot be placed in a government building.

You're trying to compare those of us offended by a racist cartoon that was in a major newspaper to someone who disapproves the language as set forth in the constitution. It's not there - you don't have an 'apples vs. orange' argument you have 'apples vs. toasters' - not even in the same ballpark.

[Occam Bandage]

27. And, again, you're expanding the argument past its bounds.

You're now talking about the validity of the claims beyond the fact that people hold them. You're talking about Constitutionality, about other alternatives, about the cartoon being inherently racist...these are all arguments that are quite fair, but unrelated to your original argument, and the fact that you have to make these arguments does not support but instead destroys your original argument.

Your original argument is that if a large number of people find something offensive, then it is offensive, end of story. Clearly that is not the case, since you have provided convincing evidence that your argument is wrong when it comes to conservative Christians and the Ten Commandments, and therefore is a bad argument.

[LynneSin]

38. No you're the one taking a toaster and saying "Oh but this is an apple"

The validity of their claim is based on the concept that the constitution, that the constitution - the piece of paper that says how our country is run, says that church and state is separate. The Supreme Court of the United STates - that's those 9 folks picked to be the final decider in such things even said these need to be separate. And thus it is ILLEGAL to have a sculpture of the 10 commandments on lawn or in the building of a government property. Are the Christians upset - sure they are. What do they do - some of them put the 10 commandments in their own lawn.

HOWEVER, this was NOT an attack on Christianity, this was OBEYING the laws setup by our founding fathers. You can't put a religious icon on government property. End of discussion. We aren't banning the 10 commandments. We aren't driving around the countryside and pulling those 10 commandsigns & statues that people put in their front lawn (and they do - I see them in Lancaster County, PA). We're just defining where you can and cannot put these things. No one is saying "Oh you CHristians are stupid or lesser people" we're defining the laws in the Constitution.

But you are remoting grasping at straws and saying "Oh but this is the same thing as this racist cartoon" it's not. Racism is NOT the same thing as following the laws setup in our Constitution. The closest religious description is when DUers defending Obama's choice of Rick Warren doing opening prayer by saying "Oh it's just a prayer". Yes, it's just a prayer but it's being said by someone who vocal led the fight to ban gay marriage in California. Well this cartoonist used a symbol that, throughout history, has been used to be offensive to African-Americans. You think I'm kidding - go google "Porch-Monkey" (I'm really sorry for typing this out but clearly this guy doesn't have a clue). Sure it was a funny joke in Clerks II (which everyone said except one racist asshole) but here's the definition:

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=porchmonkey

I can only put the link there because my company firewall bans it for racist comment.

I mean, I didn't think I had to actually put the words in there but I just can't believe the stupidity of the two. We aren't insulting Christians or calling them negative terms, we're simply obeying the laws of our constitition - they do not connect with this situation.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

46. You are both arguing entirely different principles.

You're arguing the authenticity of the statements themselves, whereas Occam is arguing your (as in LynneSin's) metric for "objectively" determined what is and is not racist (which is what I too am arguing).

Neither of us are arguing in favor of lipstick on a pig being actually sexist. I don't think either of us are arguing that whether or not the cartoon is racist (I'm not, though I'm not going to conclude either way for Occam here). What we're arguing is that you cannot deem something racist or sexist simply because an arbitrary and inconclusive number of people believe something is racist or sexist. It is a false metric.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

29. There are some who will defend "free speech"

even if the speech (or cartoons) were drawn to inflame and incite violence. Same thing happened here with the Danish cartoons depicting Mohammed as a terrorist. Sadly, more people were on the side of "free speech" on those threads than those who saw them basically racist cartoons designed to incite violence.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

32. Some cannot distinguish one's right to say something from the right to be offended by it.

The Danish cartoon *may* have crossed that threshold - clearly, depicting Mohammed was going to elicit a reaction of violence, and as such, probably could not be protected as free speech. Still, too many people feel that people don't have the right to say things that are offensive. They do, but we also have the right (if not the responsibility) to denounce and outcast those people for exercising those rights. For some reason, people don't understand that there's such a distinction.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

35. I see your point

too bad the folks in favor of "free speech" don't understand that things like this aren't black and white. My husband has an acquaintance with whom he worked at one time. The fellow came by one day and in conversation talked the "Obama is a Muslim" BS. My husband glared at him and said, "SO WHAT IF HE WAS?" The guy backed down right away. No, I don't think he changed his mind (he's as right wing as they get--one of the 20% who still love Bush)--but he won't be talking that stuff around us. And the reason my husband did this was that we KNOW what ignorance like this can lead to--in fact, we have to keep a low profile where we live because one of our brothers had his house broken into and was threatened with a gun because of his faith.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

30. I don't think that's a proper logical conclusion.

Not regarding the cartoon - it's almost definitely racist, although I could understand a defense if from another cartoonist and another paper besides the NY Post.

However, your conclusion that "if some of us think it's racist, it is" is 100% indefensible. Simply being outraged does not make one right in being outraged. To wit - people saw racism in blocking Roland Burris' appointment, which in hindsight, was CLEARLY not a racist stand. Yet under your maxim, it absolutely was. People claim anti-Christian sentiment in this country all the time over asinine things like the "war on Christmas" - are those people legitimate in their claims as well?

Hell, I'm going to claim outrage by this post as anti-intellectual. Based on more than a few posts on DU, I'd say there are others who might join in such a claim in outrage. Am I then justified in making that claim? Of course not, but by your post, I absolutely would be.

Just because someone feels offended, that does NOT automatically make them right in feeling offended. This is because such feelings can be based themselves upon prejudice and bias, and such feelings are not always rooted in rational, logical thought.

[pipi_k]

39. Agree and disagree

with your statement:

"However, your conclusion that "if some of us think it's racist, it is" is 100% indefensible. Simply being outraged does not make one right in being outraged."


I agree with the first sentence. Just because xx number of people think something is ______ (fill in the blank) that doesn't automatically mean it's true.

Example...many people still think the earth is flat. They think they're right. They think their conclusions must be fact because THEY believe them.

That's what's happening here with the cartoon. Some are saying, "I believe it's racist, so therefore it must be racist". So on that I agree with you.

Disagree with the second sentence about being outraged not making someone right in being outraged. People can be outraged about just about anything they want, I suppose. It's their right to be outraged or angered. Whether they are right in being outraged...meh. I can't say they're right or wrong.

But their right to BE outraged stops with them.

They don't have the right to expect others to share their outrage, and they don't have the right to put down anyone who doesn't share their outrage.

That's where the line ends.

So....People who are outraged...be outraged. Go wild with outrage. Just don't run around abusing people who don't share that outrage.

[digidigido]

41. Remember Roseanne Roseannadanna, and lighten the fuck up for godsakes

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

44. I'm not saying they don't have the capital R "Right" to be outraged.

People have a right to be whatever they want, for the most part. They may not be correct in being outraged is what I'm arguing.

[bridgit]

43. "Clerks II"? Never seen it, doubt I ever will but if "Gorillas/Apes/Monkeys have been used to...

"...belittle African-Americans including editorial cartoons throughtout history" then how do we explain this



I can see the roof blowing off this site if Obama's face were actually on that idiot cartoon, and I do think people casting shame without understanding the capacity for images to come back around need to rethink the whole 'high road' gig cause after 8 years here they are pissing on our shoes and here we are expressing great umbrage

[noiretextatique]

50. there have always been apologists for racism..always will be

there was probably a time in america when most of the white population were apologists for racism, whether they were conscious of it or not. it doesn't surprise me in the least that there are still apologists. i don't think it really matters what the cartoonist intended, because he and his editors had to knew how that cartoon would be viewed, given the context (the historical depictions of african-americans as primates).

[petronius]

51. Because some people see it as racist, therefore it is racist, and anyone who

says otherwise is a racist or an idiot? Reminds me of the Bushies claiming that reality doesn't matter, because they make reality.

Sometimes a monkey is just a monkey (or a chimp or an ape or whatever it was)...