Look at this and then tell me this cartoonist didn't mean to imply that Obama is a monkey

[redstate_democrat]

Notice the animal in the bed inside the doorway. Notice the picture hanging on the wall of the Village People. Notice the AIDS awareness ribbon on McGreevy's jacket. Notice the drink with the little umbrella on the desk. And of course, notice the leg flip. These are not so subtle and subtle slams against GLBT folks.

Now, this cartoonist has a history of including sneaky and not so sneaky slams in his "work". He used a current news story to slam Obama with this monkey picture. He thought he didn't have to be sneaky with it because of it was a current event. I don't believe this cartoonist was acting innocently. He knew what he was doing, just as he knew what he was doing by drawing a pig or sheep in a bed and the rest of that sneaky crap in the above picture.

[NoPasaran]

1. What, in your view, is the cartoonist implying

What, in your view, is the cartoonist implying by portraying the police officers as identical twins?

[redstate_democrat]

2. What do you think it implies?

[Occam Bandage]

5. The cops imply that there were cops.

The monkey implies that there was a monkey.

[Uncle Joe]

9. And the "They'll have to find someone else to write the next stimulus bill"

implied, the primary person equated with championing the stimulus bill.

[Occam Bandage]

12. No. It implies the bill is so bad a monkey could have written it.

The monkey of course did not write it in real life! Hacky cartoonists sometimes posit things that are not true for the sake of humor.

[Uncle Joe]

14. So he's comparing President Obama to a bullet riddled monkey?

And before you say Congress wrote the bill, in the eyes of the public, no individual person is more credited with championing this bill than President Obama.

[Occam Bandage]

17. No. He is comparing nobody with a bullet-riddled monkey.

He is saying that the stimulus bill is so bad, it is as if a deranged monkey had written it. The monkey is not intended to stand for anything but the monkey: the real, actual, bullet-riddled monkey.

This cartoonist is an idiot. You are giving him way too much credit.

[Uncle Joe]

19. I don't consider that credit, just racism which fits with his M.O. of homophobia

as exhibited in the first and other cartoons of his.

[Occam Bandage]

21. I agree it would be racist if he had compared Obama to a chimp. nt

[Uncle Joe]

24. If he didn't compare President Obama to a bullet riddled chimp, he did a piss poor job

of not doing it.

[Occam Bandage]

26. I agree. He has clearly offended many people. nt

[unblock]

55. hmm, so he didn't compare OBAMA to a chimp, he compared obama's PERFORMANCE to that of a chimp?

so i suppose that a statement like "blacks perform like monkeys" would not be racist??
hey, i said "perform", not "are".

:eyes:

[Occam Bandage]

64. No, he compared the product of a long and complex political process

to the product of a chimpanzee. It's tempting to single out Obama, I'm sure, but I've noticed that in most of his other cartoons he prefers to link the stimulus bill to the Democrats instead of to Obama, as has the Republican party at large. "The Democratic stimulus" is a lot easier to fight than the "Obama stimulus."

[Uncle Joe]

10. Self-delete duplicate post. n/t

[Baikonour]

97. So, what was the "Beware of Dog" sign in the cartoon implying?

'Cause I don't see any dogs.

Further, what exactly does an ape have to do with the stimulus bill?

[ms liberty]

105. It implies that there was a beware of dog sign in the yard of the photo the cartoon is based upon...

This was covered a couple of days ago here. Someone posted a photo or screen shot from the coverage of the monkey incident and there is a beware of dog sign on a tree on the left side of the image.

[petronius]

109. I thought it was a 'reward - lost dog' sign. Clearly, it's a sexist reference to Nancy Pelosi,

a Democratic leader associated with the stimulus bill. He's calling her a bitch, and saying she's lost (her way? her mind?). There is no other possible explanation for the dog sign...

[rd_kent]

15. You answer a question with a question.

Are you avoiding the answer? What do you think the artist is implying?

[redstate_democrat]

18. I really hadn't paid any attention to the cops.

They're cops. The monkey, however, was meant to represent something more than a monkey, as evidenced by thousands of people unrelated to one another picking up on it.

[Occam Bandage]

20. You have confused result with intent. nt

[redstate_democrat]

Thousands if not millions of people see the same thing.

Just because the monkey is dead in the pic does not mean that the author suggested that monkey actually wrote the bill. He would be an total idiot to suggest such a thing because monkeys don't have anything to do with writing bills. It was a clear dog whistle that the person who did write the bill is figuratively a deranged monkey.

[Occam Bandage]

32. Er, yes. The monkey did not actually write a bill in real life, nor do they ever write bills.

Similarly, the Democrats did not actually go to a fertility clinic, become pregnant with the stimulus package, and then bump into the Octomom on the street, nor did she have a cloud with "AND THEY SAY I'M IRRESPONSIBLE" written on it floating over her head. I don't understand this chorus of "WHAT? MONKEYS DON'T WRITE BILLS!" Cartoonists often tie together two unrelated real-world things with a conceit that is not true. That is what they do.

[redstate_democrat]

41. That's totally different!

[Occam Bandage]

69. Sure, champ.

[Two Americas]

38. of course

Racism is about results, not intent.

Only defenders of racism argue about intent, and demand that we discuss intent and demand that we prove intent, and ignore results.

There is no more prevalent and potent defense of racism - make the victims prove something about the perpetrators that is impossible to prove.

You - and the other defenders of this racist cartoon - are using the lack of proof of intent to deny the result.

A person with innocent intentions would say "oh, yes, now that you point out the racist implications of this cartoon to me, I can see the harmful results of this sort of thing." End of story.

Instead we get "I dare you to prove malicious intent."

We saw the same thing happen around the Warren invitation. People said "I support gay rights" - in other words, my intentions are good, and I dare you to say otherwise - "so therefore you cannot call me on any bigoted and hateful statements I may make" and "I will not consider any discussions of the negative results this could have for GLBTQ people."

The obsession over good intentions is a distraction from a discussion about the results, and avoiding the results of hatred and bigotry is denying hatred and bigotry and to defending and promoting it.

This is the very way that hatred and bigotry are always defended and promoted.

...

[Occam Bandage]

42. I will not question anyone who claims that the comic is hurtful, or that

the comic has upset many people. Those are the results and they are undeniable. However, claiming malevolent intent, which is what this OP is explicitly doing, is entirely unsupported by appeals to results.

[Two Americas]

53. why?

Who cares about that? Why do you want us to focus on that?

Did the cartoonist say "oops, my mistake. I am sorry." No.

What possible harm is there in speculating here that the motives of the cartoonist may not be good? Certainly, when we look at that ugly and hateful anti-gay cartoon, there can be no doubt whatsoever that this cartoonist has in fact used his cartoons to promote hatred and bigotry.

Why defend him? Defending the intentions of the perpetrator IS a way to deny the experience of the victims, to deny their reality, and that IS the primary way that hatred and bigotry are promoted.

In the 1850's people said "not all slave owners are bad." They said we should not assume that they all had evil intentions in everything they did. So what?

[Occam Bandage]

65. Why would I talk about the intent of the artist in a thread about the artist's intent?

"How to know when your argument has just run off the rails: you accuse someone of participating appropriately in a thread."

[Two Americas]

86. no, I think I understand that

I think I understand why you posted on this thread. The OP broached the subject of intent, and that created an opportunity to defend the artist.

What I don't understand is why you want to defend the artist, and why you want to make intent the determining factor in whether or not the cartoon is racist.

[POAS]

102. And you have decided you can

know the cartoonists intent as if you had a doorway into his mind.

This is not a first case of deliberate disparagement of a group people through subtle clues and code words used in his work. In this case it is not even subtle, it is blatant. The history of equating Africans to monkeys and apes is a very old one and this picture plays on that history.

Do I believe it was deliberate? In spite of, or perhaps the because of the nature of, the Post's apology I do believe it was deliberate. If it was not deliberate then the cartoonists and his publisher are guilty of ignorance on a scale that should disqualify them from any journalistic or editorial pursuit.

[rd_kent]

29. People saw what they wanted to see in the monkey

Taken at face value, the artist implied that the xanax monkey wrote the stimulus bill. Now, if you choose to look for some underlying meaning, then its going to be there, intended or not. I can read into your OP and insinuate that you are just trying to create controversy by comparing this cartoon that lacks anything relating to Obama, to the one that completely covers every gay stereotype. Was that your intent or am I reading too much into your post?

[redstate_democrat]

35. To do so you would really have to S T R E T C H!

Clearly, the first picture is meant to demonstrate the cartoonist's history of creating hate-filled cartoons to show that people's reactions to the monkey cartoon are probably not too far off the mark. I'm sure people could look at the first cartoon and draw a conclusion that nothing about it is wrong in any way. A pig is a pig, right? It's just a pig, it has no additional meaning beyond that. Yeah fucking right.

[rd_kent]

84. No, its not so "clear"

"Clearly, the first picture is meant to demonstrate the cartoonist's history of creating hate-filled cartoons to show that people's reactions to the monkey cartoon are probably not too far off the mark."

Oh, I didnt realize that was your intention, I though you were just stirring up controversy. (sarcasm intended)

You made my point for me, as you are now defending your original post against something that I read into it that wasnt really there. Do you get it now?

[stillcool]

88. Have you ever heard of a racial slur?

[Uncle Joe]

3. That his artistic skills are as limited as his humanity. n/t

[Occam Bandage]

4. Note how the first cartoon labels everyone, and has a dozen visual cues as to

both their identity and their homosexuality. Note that nothing is sneaky, but is as blatant as blatant can be.

Now note how nothing is identified in the second cartoon, and that you are implying that unlike every other cartoon this guy has ever written, he has for once decided to sneak a subtle message (being that Obama is an ape) in that is entirely unrelated to and in fact is incompatible with the overt joke of the comic, being that the stimulus bill is so bad the Xanax monkey might as well have written it. If the Xanax monkey is also Obama, there is no joke. There is simply a dead Obama.

[redstate_democrat]

8. So are you suggesting that this "cartoonist" would have to write Obama's name across the monkey's

carcass before you would be able to identify it as racist?

[Occam Bandage]

13. No. He would just have to supply a cue that the chimp represents Obama.

I don't think adding Obama to the mix makes sense. The joke is that the Xanax monkey wrote the bill as part of its addled, deranged rampage. Making the Xanax monkey also Obama not only implies the cartoonist is smart enough to intend two distinct readings of a comic, which a quick read through some of his other work resoundingly suggests is not true, but that he intends for his real reading to be absolutely incompatible with the surface reading. Either reading precludes the other, making it very unlikely that both were intended.

[rd_kent]

16. Well said!

Now if everyone else would just see it for what is is and stop making this "news!"

[redstate_democrat]

22. What possible cue could he have given (beyond what is already suggested) that would NOT have

resulted in him literally being dragged out of the NY Post's offices in either handcuffs or a headlock? He was thinking of the consequences of such an OBVIOUS assault. That's why dog whistles are employed.

[Occam Bandage]

25. So your evidence that he intended a racial meaning at odds with the surface meaning

is that there is no evidence that he intended a racial meaning at odds with the surface meaning (unlike, say in his documented stabs at bigotry above.)

You will forgive me, I am sure, if I remain unconvinced.

[noiretextatique]

33. here are some clues

http://contexts.org/socimages/2008/06/18/whites-blacks-apes-in-the-great-chain-of-being/

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/abolition/black_imagery_gallery.shtml

[Occam Bandage]

36. I did not ask for evidence that blacks have been malevolently compared to apes.

That is obvious. I asked for a cue in the comic that the ape in question is intended to be a reference to Obama.

[noiretextatique]

49. you are clueless eom

[Occam Bandage]

66. I've been called worse by better. nt

[Political Tiger]

23. But is not a bigot a bigot?

Based on his other work, it seems to me this cartoonist is a bigot who relies on stereotypes which he knows his audience will appreciate, and understand. Republicans are masters of this. For instance, if you are against abortion rights you are "pro-life" but if you favor abortion rights you are "pro-abortion." If you don't think gay people should have the right to marry you believe in "traditional" or "family values," but if you believe in gay rights you have "San Francisco values."

If you speak at and your husband joins a separatist political party whose founder once professed his "hatred for the
American government" and cursed the American flag as a "damn flag," you are "patriotic" but if you once sat at the same table as Bill Ayers did you are "palling around with terrorists."

To me, this cartoon is simply an illustrated example of how the right uses words and stereotypes to dehumanize people.

[Occam Bandage]

28. No.

It is not sound to say that one instance of bigotry is evidence that a given later work is also an instance of bigotry. It only proves that he is capable of bigotry, and nobody has rested their argument on the claim that he is not. Moving on, your discussion of labeling and framing, which is certainly an interesting topic, does not really have anything in particular to do with the cartoon.

[Political Tiger]

40. There's more than one instance of bigotry:

For example, these:

[Occam Bandage]

43. That is true. And yet those still do not prove anything but that

the cartoonist is a hateful scumbag who is capable of bigotry.

[redstate_democrat]

47. So why is it so improbable that this "hateful scumbag" had "malevolent" intentions with this

particular cartoon? Why is it such a stretch to think that this cartoonist could have possibly been trying to refer to Obama as a monkey? His homophobic cartoons are CLEAR as to their intentions, mainly because there are many people who feel the same as he does. If he had come out and labeled the POTUS as a dead monkey, he would be out of a job, probably questioned by the Secret Service, and discredited and shunned for life. That's why he wasn't as direct as I'm sure he wanted to be. But because of the history of labeling African Americans as monkeys, he was sure his intended audience would hear the dog whistle and have a good laugh.

[Political Tiger]

50. That's how I look at it.

If this guy didn't have a history of using bigotry in his cartoons I could give him the benefit of the doubt, but that doubt is erased by his own past work.

[Occam Bandage]

68. Because there's nothing in the cartoon to suggest he did.

You can claim 'he wanted to go further,' 'this is all a dog whistle,' but without any evidence that it is, what's the point? It's entirely possible that DU is secretly a big government flypaper project to monitor all us liberals, and I could probably defend that inane theory with plenty of "well you don't knows" and "well it's in their nature to do that," but without anything to back it up, I'd just be whistling Dixie.

[Political Tiger]

6. I agree. This cartoonist has a history

of regularly using stereotypes so why should anyone believe this is any different?

[tularetom]

7. Not only is it nasty, it ain't funny or clever

And the art work is like on a first grade level.

There really isn't anything to recommend this crap.

This "cartoonist" is a sad human being.

[countingbluecars]

11. It's racist and violent. n/t

[Grateful for Hope]

27. That's how I see it also. n/t

[AspenRose]

30. It's pretty damn obvious to all who will see

And both are pretty damn disgusting.

[rd_kent]

31. The problem here is that everyone automatically assumes

that a monkey is a black man. If that is your first thought, then you need to reevaluate where you stand on racial stereotypes. I see a monkey, nothing more. It looks nothing like Obama. How many cartoons potrayed Bush as a chimp? Where was the outrage when cartoonist offended chimps like that?

[Occam Bandage]

34. There was no outrage because there is not a deep and malevolent history of

comparing white people with apes as a justification for first enslaving and later oppressing them.

[rd_kent]

37. Youre right, but I was trying to make a point

In this instance, there is nothing to suggest the artist was implying the monkey is Obama, nothing. At what point can we stop looking for metaphorical associations and just see what there is to see. If the artist had somehow associated the monkey with Obama, I would be as angry as everyone else, be the association just isnt there!

[Occam Bandage]

39. I don't blame people for seeing a link between Obama and the chimp.

Any time you have "black man" and "ape" in the same paragraph, people are going to be very wary. In a political cartoon, in which things often stand for other things, it's absolutely unavoidable, and a smart cartoonist wouldn't have let himself be misunderstood like that.

I don't believe the cartoon was intended to be racist. I do believe the cartoonist is a bigoted, right-wing scumbag. And, moreover, I do believe that the cartoonist is at fault, and not the people who are misreading his intent. As they say, four out of five dentists can't be wrong.

[rd_kent]

45. I agree that the artist didnt think this through

but he never used the monkey to represent Obama. I see where folks can make the association, but that was not the artists intent. We can be TOO politically correct sometimes, and it does get in the way.

[Raineyb]

101. The cartoonist doesn't have to intend for the cartoon to be racist for the cartoon to be racist.

It is not the intent that makes an image racist. Although I'd say that the racism is bloody obvious in this cartoon.

Why are you so invested in defending this filth?

Regards

[Usrename]

51. Your whole argument seems misguided to me.

I grew up in the South with a lot of sheet-wearin' folks, many of whom I know well and some of whom are close relatives.

Why do they think that this cartoon is actually funny? Why would a racist pee himself laughing over this cartoon if it isn't a racist cartoon? Whatever you are thinking, you need to snap back to reality for a moment.

I don't think the cartoon is funny, do you? I think it's sick, and it's even sicker to watch a bunch of ignorant assholes yucking it up over it.

[rd_kent]

52. I think youre making a mountain out of a molehill

It was a monkey that went nuts and made headlines. Had it been a different animal, we would have seen THAT animal in the cartoon.

[Usrename]

56. Why do racist assholes think it's hilarious?

Don't you understand the question that I asked?

Explain please.

[rd_kent]

60. Well, I can only assume that you think Im a racist.

And on top of that, you think Im an asshole. Or was not the intent of your post?

[Usrename]

80. Why? Do you think the cartoon is funny?

The intent of my post is simple. I make an observation and ask a simple question.

Why do racist assholes think the cartoon is the funniest thing they have ever seen while normal people think it is sick and disgusting?

[rd_kent]

83. I think I am quite normal and I dont think its

sick or disgusting or funny. By your logic if I dont think its sick and disgusting, you think Im a racist asshole. Now, I just may be an asshole, but Im no racist. Sorry if I dont fit the narrow mold you have created.

[mrbarber]

89. It's not sick or disgusting?

Not even addressing the not so subtle racist overtones, but just looking at the cartoon as it, you don't think taking a story about a chimpanzee who went insane, TORE A WOMANS HANDS OFF, PULVERIZED HER ARMS AND COMPLETELY DESTROYED HER FACE and using it to make some snide, petty little statement about a stimulus bill isn't nauseating, or at least in bad taste?

[Usrename]

94. There ya go! Thank you!

:fistbump:

[rd_kent]

98. Uh, nope.

[Usrename]

95. You are completely in the dark about my logic.

You don't think the cartoon is funny, fine. That's a good thing. Some people ALSO deny that it is racist.

My question to all those folks who deny that the cartoon is racist is a simple one:

If the cartoon is NOT racist, why is it that ONLY racist assholes seem to think it's funny. They actually laugh at it. Why is that? How can that be unless the cartoon itself is racist?

[redstate_democrat]

44. No, if the cartoonist hadn't captioned the pic with the statement referring to the monkey

as the author of the bill, no one would have associated it with Obama. The monkey, combined with the statement about the author of the bill, is what gives it additional meaning!

[rd_kent]

48. Where you see the artist implying that the monkey is Obama

I see the artist implying that a crazed monkey wrote the stimulus bill. If it had been a rabid dog or mountain lion or some other animal that went nuts and killed someone and was then shot by police, I'm sure we would have seen THAT animal in the artist cartoon. Picture this in your mind, the cartoon has a dead unicorn, shot twice, in the cartoon. Is the unicorn Obama? Would that be less offensive to you? Perhaps you should be angry at the monkey for going crazy. If that had not have happened, or it had been a different kind of animal, then we wouldn't be having this discussion.

[Bjorn Against]

57. How do you know the cartoon would have even been drawn if it were not a monkey?

Honestly if it were a mountain lion or a unicorn do you think people would understand the joke at all? The fact that it was a monkey carries additional meaning, and people have picked up on that meaning. I highly doubt that this cartoon would have been made of a mountain lion, but even if it were we still have the image of that mountain lion being killed in a very violent fashion and when that is being linked to a stimulus bill that Obama was the chief proponent of that would still make the image extremely disturbing even without the racial aspect.

[rd_kent]

58. I disagree

Lets use a mountain lion, for arguments sake. Had it been a mountain lion that went beserk, killed its owner and went on a rampage, finally to be shot by police, then made into national news, then YES, we probably would have seen the cartoon. Again, for arguments sake, had the cartoon still been published, only with the mountain lion as the animal, would there still be this outrage?

[Bjorn Against]

61. First you have no evidence to support your claim, second yes there would still be outrage.

The outrage would not be over the racism aspect, but there would be outrage over the image which suggests Obama getting shot down.

[rd_kent]

63. Dude, you have no evidence and youre missing the point.

The point being that had it been a different animal, no one would be associating the stupid cartoon with Obama in a racial sense. Are you angry at the racial implication of the cartoon or the implication that somebody shot the prez? If its that somebody shot the prez, well then thats a different argument, but if its the racism that some think is being implied in this cartoon, then had it been a different animal, there wouldnt be this implied racism.

[Bjorn Against]

67. You are the one making the claim, which puts the burden of proof on you not on me.

If you make a claim it is up to you to back it up, you have not done so. It is not up to me to prove anything because I didn't make a claim.

And why do I have to choose between whether I should be upset by racism or implied assassination? Can't I be upset by both?

[rd_kent]

71. Sure, you can be upset about whatever you want, but

I made no claim at all, people who think that there is racism in that cartoon made a claim. I disputed that claim by stating that if there was a different animal used in the cartoon, the original claim of racism would not have been made.
Now, YOU made the leap into the claim that the cartoon ALSO implies that there is implied assassination. My question to you is: if there had been a different animal in the cartoon and the claims of racism had not been made, would YOU still feel that there was implied assassination?

[Bjorn Against]

72. You did make a claim, you claimed the cartoonist would have made a cartoon of a different animal

You still have not provided evidence to show that this cartoon would have still been made if it had been a different animal, you simply insist that we should believe you that it would have been.

As far as the claim that the cartoon is racist there has been a great deal of evidence to suggest that it is. There is the fact that monkeys have long been used as racist symbols, and there is the fact that this cartoonist has made racist and homophobic cartoons in the past as shown in this thread.

And yes, I have already stated if Obama had been depicted as a different animal that was shown being shot I would feel that it was still an implied assassination. I just said that a couple posts ago, I don't know why you feel the need to ask me again.

[Occam Bandage]

74. Please provide the evidence for the claim that Obama has been depicted as a chimp here.

Note that "apes are sometimes racist depictions of blacks" is not very good evidence either way, because apes are more often just accurate depictions of apes. Note also that "now they'll have to find someone else" is not very good evidence, because the proposed non-racist reading of the comic is that the stimulus bill is so bad that it is as if the deranged Xanax chimpanzee wrote it, and that makes just as much sense if not more.

It seems the most convincing argument for the claim that the comic depicts Obama is that the mob has decided that is the case. I'm unconvinced.

[Bjorn Against]

76. I already had this argument with you today and you made false statements about what I said.

I am not going to debate with you any more if you are going to come up with quotes that were never written or spoken and try to pin them on me.

[Occam Bandage]

78. So I'll take that as a "no" then.

[Bjorn Against]

79. Actually it is a yes, but I know whatever I say you will distort so there is no use bothering.

[Usrename]

96. It's a cartoon.

What else can a dead ape that wrote a stimulus bill be referring to?

Seriously.

And if you need more proof, try and figure out why racists are passing this around and laughing about it? Is there some non-racist answer to that question that you are holding back?

[rd_kent]

75. Wow, you really are taking this to the extreme

I was trying to make a point, not start the debate on whether another animal would have been used. But like I said before, some people will see racism in everything if they look for it hard enough, whether its really there or not.

[Bjorn Against]

77. And some people are blind to racism even when it is staring them right in the face.

[rd_kent]

81. That may be true, but some people also see racism when its really not there.

If you are implying that I am blind to racism, then youre dead wrong. I just dont see it in this case, and I have 20/15 vision.

[mrbarber]

90. "Some people"

Seem to be a hell of a lot of people, from many different walks of life.

The cartoon is in horrible bad taste, and it does have some serious racist overtones, and even if it wasn't meant to be so, the fact that is was completely looked over by the artist (who has a long history of making racist, homophobic and sexist cartoons) and the entire editing board says a hell of a lot about the news organization, doesn't it?

But I'm sure they're just taking "PC TO Far", like you said. They obviously approve of everything the cartoonist puts out, seeing as how they had no issue with depicting gay marriage as being identical to marrying a sheep and how Obama being elected would be celebrated by the people responsible for 9/11.

Is that to PC for you, "dude"?

[rd_kent]

99. Remember that Danish cartoon that got all the muslims worked up?

We all said they were overreacting and reading too much into it. This is the same thing happening here. Calm the fuck down, its just a cartoon, dude!

[Cronus Protagonist]

54. DING DING DING

Finally, someone points out what should be obvious - racism is in the eye of the beholder.

Here, I portray Bush as a baby chimp. Apparently this is NOT racist BECAUSE Bush is NOT black! Why are chimps associated with blacks in some people's racist minds? I've never seen that association in my lifetime, and either way, George still looks like a chimp. I say all you mind-readers are projecting, in a Jungian sense, your own prejudices and experiences.



By the way, is this racist because Condi's in there? Apparently not, because I've had it online for years and no one has ever said anything of the sort. So why is it different with Obama?

[rd_kent]

59. Thanks, Im glad SOMEONE can see past the BS hype

If someone wants to see racism is something, they are going to find it. If everyone would slow down and look at the INTENT forst, we just may be able to get past some of the "racism".

[Cronus Protagonist]

70. Intent is hard to distinguish, but every cartoonist's intent is to make you laugh, clearly

A racist bash wouldn't be funny, and therefore would not be the intent of the artist's professional work, which is to make you smile or laugh, and maybe think a little too.

[Bjorn Against]

73. Could you please explain how this cartoon is funny in any way?

[rd_kent]

82. THAT is a whole other debate and has nothing to do with this topic

or maybe its not. Funny is in the eye of the beholder, much like the alleged racism in this cartoon.

[Cronus Protagonist]

93. I love the ignore list

lol

:P

[rd_kent]

100. self delete

sorry, its late and I wasnt paying attention to who posted what

[mrbarber]

91. Except there is a long history of comparing African Americans to monkeys and apes.

So it's less about "Jungian senses" and more about having a basic knowledge of racism in the United States.

[stillcool]

87. Probably from black people being called..

"Porch Monkeys" etc. It's not an Obama insult, it's a racial slur.

[Bjorn Against]

46. Here is another illustration that Delones did that appears to be racist to me...

It has long been a tool of racists to create menacing images of black men, and that is exactly what this cover represents. Yes it is supposed to be OJ Simpson on the cover, a man who I will not defend but notice how this image of him makes him look far more menacing than any actual photo of him does. Also notice that nowhere on the cover does it actually say OJ Simpson's name, and because it is an illustration it is safe to say that many people won't immediately identify him they will only see the menacing black man. While I was not able to find an actual copy of the article that was not written by Delones, I did find a http://www.slate.com/id/1131/">piece on Slate which described the article

Weekly Standard, July 29
(posted Monday, July 22)

The Weekly Standard puts tabloid favorite O.J. Simpson on its cover. "Why He Still Haunts Us" makes the familiar point that race defeated justice in the O.J. trial, and blames the acquittal on the civil rights movement, which "grew corrupt, turned on the society it had served, and became an active menace to it."

In other words not only did Delones draw a menacing image of a black man, but he created that image for an article that blamed OJ Simpson's acquittal on the civil rights movement and even refers to the civil rights movement as an "active menace" to society. Racist? No doubt in my mind.

[POAS]

104. Good find and analysis!

[JohnnieGordon]

62. He made a series of homophobic cartoons about McGreevey

Also at least one about gay marriage. As soon as I found out it was the same artist, I knew the racism in the ape cartoon was intentional. He just couldn't be as obvious about the bigotry as he was with McGreevey, it's dog whistle racism. The outrage was predictable to anyone with a half a brain, and many people had to sign off on the cartoon on it's way to publication. There's no way they were all too dumb to see what the result would be. I don't know what they thought they'd gain from it, a delighted audience of racist Republicans? Any publicity is good publicity? And they've positioned themselves as victims of a false allegation, and more specifically, victims of the left.

[dansolo]

85. The veiled racism isn't even the worst thing about the cartoon

I am much less bothered by the association of Obama with the monkey than the not-so-subtle desire to see Obama shot.

[followthemoney]

92. Lincoln Drawn As A Monkey

From:Cartoons of the Civil War

See America's favorite president, Abraham Lincoln, drawn as a monkey.

One hundred and forty plus years ago this is how the haters got their message across.

http://www.indiana.edu/~liblilly/cartoon/monkey.html

Picture Album

David H. Strother, Pencil on paper, Richmond, 14 Jan. 1863.

[POAS]

103. Some will say there was no racial intent....

They are willfully blind.

[eridani]

106. Monkeys are fair game-we certainly did it enough to Bush

However--DEAD monkeys are way beyond the pale, and IMO constitute an advocacy of assassination.

[Name removed]

107. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MiniMe]

108. What bothers me more than anything is that the monkey was gunned down

The cartoon is a racist piece of trash. But does he really think it is funny to depict a dead President?