Anyone who could draw the chimp cartoon and validly claim that there

[rateyes]

was absolutely no racial overtones intended, is a dumbass.

Therefore, since the author of the cartoon claims that he didn't even have a passing thought that this cartoon could be mistaken as a racist insult, he portrays himself as a dumbass.

Not believing that the author is a dumbass, I have to believe that though his overriding intention may have been take the news of the day and twist it into a slam of the stimulus bill, he had to know having portrayed the chimp as the "author of the stimulus bill" that intelligent people would reasonably infer that the cartoonist was portraying Barack Obama (the "author" of the stimulus bill, and a black man) as a chimpanzee---thus, the SECONDARY (if not primary) intent of the author was to race-bait. That would make his act a racist one.

If, however, I am mistaken in the third paragraph of this post and the cartoonist never had a fleeting thought about how this cartoon would be perceived, then the cartoonist really is a dumbass.

Meaning for it to be (making the cartoonist a racist), or not (making the cartoonist a dumbass), the cartoon is racist because it portrays the author of the stimulus bill (Obama) as a chimpanzee...and, it is unreasonable, and illogical on anyone's part to say that it isn't. And, for the NY Post to run the cartoon, with NOT ONE editor even bothering to ask the question as to whether the cartoon could be seen as racist, boggles the mind.

[burythehatchet]

1. All of his past racist and bigoted cartoons notwithstanding n/t

[Skinner]

2. Exactly.

Imagine you are an editor at the New York Post.

The cartoonist hands you a cartoon about the chimp rampage and the stimulus bill. The cartoon uses that chimp as a metaphor for whoever wrote the stimulus bill. The cartoonist explains that the joke is: The stimulus bill is so bad it could have been written by an ape.

So far so good.

You are a smart editor, and reasonably well informed about current events and about history. You know that the primary person responsible for the stimulus bill is President Obama. You also know that throughout history, African Americans have been compared to apes by racist whites.

You think to yourself: Ew. We've got a problem here. The cartoonist says that there was no racist intent, and it's just a joke about a bad bill. But a lot of people are going to look at that and think he's calling the first black president of the United States a monkey. And they're shooting the monkey.

The interpretation that the cartoonist is comparing Obama to an ape is not a stretch: Cop shoots ape. Says they need a new author for stimulus bill. Author of stimulus bill is Barack Obama.

By the transitive property: Ape = Author of Stimulus Bill. Author of Stimulus Bill = Barack Obama. Therefore, Ape = Barack Obama.

Even if that was not the cartoonist's intent (a huge if), the potential that the cartoon would be interpreted that way is enormous. To have dismissed that obvious possibility is itself an egregious act of insensitivity.

We are talking about people who run a newspaper. They deal in words and ideas every day. They are not stupid. They knew this might happen, yet they printed it anyway.

[rateyes]

4. Thanks, Skinner.

:hi:

[Bluerthanblue]

17. your a far better Editor

than the one at the NY Post Skinner.

:hi:

But then, this site has a hell of a lot more value than the Post does as well.

Thanks for all you and so many others do to make it what it is.


peace~

[Number23]

19. Kicking for what should have happened

[backscatter712]

20. Damned straight.

They should have known better, and almost certainly DID know better, but they printed that cartoon anyway. Despicable.

[Ioo]

3. ZZZZZ zzzzzz ZZZZZZ zzzzzz

[rateyes]

5. Enjoy your nap. nt

[DevonRex]

9. Yet somehow you're always in these threads. Why is that? Hmmm?

[EFerrari]

6. Al Sharpton reminded Amy that they had to get an FCC waver

to own two papers and a radio station in New York. He said they can ask the FCC to review that situation.

[rateyes]

7. I hope George Soros buys the paper.

:evilgrin:

[rrneck]

8. The cartoonist

is a financially successful artist. His work is published in a large, albeit disreputable newspaper. That indicates to me that he has considerable understanding and control over the types and meaning of the symbolism he uses in his work. Of course, as Mike Luckovich said on the radio yesterday, sometimes even experts screw up, but I don't think this cartoon was entirely a mistake. It did have to make it past an editorial board. That board serves on a newspaper that is not only little more than a mouthpiece for right wing causes, it consistently loses money for the owner because its worth is not measured in cash, but in political and marketing capital. I think the question is not whether it is racist or not, but why it went over the line to just beyond edgy into racist.

It was a marketing decision. A racist would look at that cartoon and make the racist association immediately. Others of a more intellectual bent might make the association between the ape and the age old question regarding how long it would take a bunch of chimps to type the entire works of William Shakespeare. Some might consider the cops who shot the ape wish fulfillment for House and Senate Republicans as the ultimate outcome and final solution for their obstructionist politics. That's a political sword that cuts the analogy both ways depending on your stand regarding firearms and any number of other social issues. Those associations could go on for a long time, and would change with the social climate and public opinion. In the end, the interpretation of the image depends on the individual looking at it. That has less to do with pointed political commentary and more to do with mass appeal based on subjective emotional response.

Rush Limbaugh has made a lucrative career out of confusing political commentary, humor, and bombast for its marketing potential. Depending on whether your knuckles drag the ground, most of what he says could be either sharp editorializing or broad humor. This cartoonist and the editorial board at the Post are doing the same thing. They are fanning the flames of political umbrage on as many fronts as possible. If you're a racist, Obama's the ape. If you're a Democrat, you get a poke in the eye for comparing the last president to an ape for eight years. Doesn't anybody log onto Smirkingchimp.com? No matter what happens it increases circulation at the Post by causing a minor public kerfuffle. They're probably hoping for some sort of Democratic Fatwa, and they may get it courtesy of Al Sharpton.

It's just a cartoon - don't let 'em get to ya.

Note: In the process of typing this reply to another post on the same subject, the post to which it is address seems to have disappeared. I get an error message when I try to post it and I can't find it in any of the other discussion threads. If it is a dupe, my apologies and the mods can of course feel free to delete it.

damn typos

[Skinner]

10. Excellent and insightful post.

One of the better ones I've read on this topic.

I'm going to give you a valentine's heart. :)

[rrneck]

12. Wow! Thanks!

This is the only internet forum thingie I have ever fooled with. It's excellent design and management has attracted a formidable brain trust.

[rateyes]

11. Well, my OP was intended as a reply to, probably, that same thread.

How anyone could say that the 'toon is not racist, on any level, is simply ridiculous. As far as Sharpton is concerned---he's gonna do what he's gonna do. If, however, he raises enough stink, like he did with IMUS...perhaps he'll get the same results. If that homophobe Delonas is fired, it will be worth it to see him join those on the unemployment line hoping that the stimulus bill helps create a job for him to do.

[uppityperson]

14. I am quick, and cynical, and sarcastic, and I couldn't understand the cartoon

"Others of a more intellectual bent might make the association between the ape and the age old question regarding how long it would take a bunch of chimps to type the entire works of William Shakespeare."

And some of us didn't. I live on the west coast, had heard a bit about a chimp attacking someone and needing to be shot so understood the police/shot chimp thing, but what they were saying made no sense to me. What the heck does shooting a chimp have to do with Congress? I had to think for a bit and finally came up with "perhaps he meant it could have been written by a chimp", but I have never had this problem with my favorite ed cartoonists Horsey and Steve Bell.

[EFerrari]

15. And this is where Eric Holder's comments on how Americans deal with

(or don't deal with) race come in. For many years, America has pretended that the "race problem" was solved -- when in reality, we have two unequal justice systems, integration failed in many ways and when the GOP wants to manipulte the public, they routinely invoke the language of racism albeit in code so it doesn't register with casual listeners.

So, it's not surprising to me that a lot of Americans don't know the old tropes of racism or that they are surprised by them because for years, we haven't talked about them. There has been social pressure to not talk about race so consequently, we don't do it very well when we try. imo.

[rrneck]

16. Exactly. A well done editorial

cartoon can make a precise point that can understood by most anybody. To my mind, Tom Toles is a master of the "current issue mashup" to drive home a point. Mike Lukovich is another favorite of mine. He didn't get that Pulitzer for nothing.

The chimp cartoon is intentionally vague and poorly executed not to make a clear point or state a well thought out position, but to incite an emotional response based on the political predilictions and expereinces of the viewer. It's bad art. I place it in about the same category as a Thomas Kinkade painting. It depends on the feelings of the viewer to work, rather than offering them something original to think about.

The fact that you didn't get annoyed by the image means that it failed in your case. Not because it had anything intellegent to say, but that it didn't reach far enough into the marketplace to piss you off or (not likely) offer you visceral satisfaction with some tasteless racial allusion.

Here's one by Toles that had me in the floor:


And here's a Lukovich just because I like Lukovich:

[uppityperson]

18. Thank you for those, they are funny.

Lukovich does a very good mrbush and there is no vagueness about what is meant in either.

[alphafemale]

21. Yes. The comparisons of bush to a chimp were everywhere.

That fact was not lost on me during all of this.

But the comparison of bush to a chimp was clearly not racist. It was his individual mannerisms and behavior that led to those comparisons.

However, the reference to chimps and apes in overtly racist ways is evident throughout history. People are understandably touchy about it and are going to react in a manner that seems completely hypocritical.

The violence of the image was astounding as well. Especially if you were to assume that the artist "went there."

In fact, the violence and racism would be so incredibly over the top that I really can't imagine that was the intent.

Still, the cartoonist and all the hands this passed through before publication were oblivious to how it COULD be perceived to a large number of people. Not just the comparison of President Obama to a chimp...but a DEAD chimp. Shot by two white cops...with a "Beware of Dog" sign in the background.

whoa

[AndrewP]

13. Watch out. You might offend someone here that doesn't understand history