Well I guess I am ignorant of the black struggle in America. I'd not heard about blacks being compared to monkeys before yesterday (at least not in any way I took seriously). I still think the racist "undertones" are rather imaginary, and it seems like any attack on the president is going to cause a cry of "racism!" (for the simple reason he is black). How many times was George Bush pictured as a monkey by the press? Many many times in the UK at least! Whilst the image might remind people of a time when black people were oppressed, reacting in the way they did over a harmless image that to me says more about the stimulus bill and Obama being "crazy" (likening his actions to the "crazy" monkey) isn't going to help anything.
The ironic thing about these situations is invariably that the newspaper can't do anything right in the public's eyes. If they apologise (which I am pleased they haven't), then they are admitting that there were racist undertones and they will get called a racist publication by the black community. If they don't apologise, they still get called a racist publication because the people won't accept any other view, and on top of that, they make people angry by the fact they haven't apologised.
It all boils down to this issue: should you apologise in a situation where you haven't done anything wrong? Neither a yes or no answer can be justified, and instead you need to respond in a way that settles all arguments. In this case, the paper should explain how it wasn't meant as a racist jibe, but that they understand how people could have interpreted it that way, and that these things will be looked over more carefully in future. It isn't an apology, but it isn't a complete rejection of views either; it's the only logical halfway point to go.
If Obama had been a white man, I reckon the paper would have printed the same strip, simply to call to attention the nature of both events. The fact that Obama is black and people have reacted in this way is why I am against the anti-racist movement, which seeks not to enhance "equality" between whites and blacks, but instead to do the opposite and make damn sure everybody knows that there is a difference between whites and blacks. That, to me, is very very racist. Case in point, we had a situation a few years ago where a woman was called "racist" for shouting "bitch" at her black neighbour. What has the word "bitch" got to do with skin colour? Nothing. She insulted a black woman in a common way, and suddenly it is a race issue. All it did was highlight the hypocrisy of the anti-racism movement, which instead of promoting equality of races, decided that any attack on a black woman was a racial attack, simply because she was a black woman. In a truly equal world, white women can insult black women, and black women can insult white women, and no "race cards" are played because people understand that different races are equal. I am not anti-racism, but I am not pro-racism either. I encourage equality.
The ironic thing about these situations is invariably that the newspaper can't do anything right in the public's eyes. If they apologise (which I am pleased they haven't), then they are admitting that there were racist undertones and they will get called a racist publication by the black community. If they don't apologise, they still get called a racist publication because the people won't accept any other view, and on top of that, they make people angry by the fact they haven't apologised.
It all boils down to this issue: should you apologise in a situation where you haven't done anything wrong? Neither a yes or no answer can be justified, and instead you need to respond in a way that settles all arguments. In this case, the paper should explain how it wasn't meant as a racist jibe, but that they understand how people could have interpreted it that way, and that these things will be looked over more carefully in future. It isn't an apology, but it isn't a complete rejection of views either; it's the only logical halfway point to go.
If Obama had been a white man, I reckon the paper would have printed the same strip, simply to call to attention the nature of both events. The fact that Obama is black and people have reacted in this way is why I am against the anti-racist movement, which seeks not to enhance "equality" between whites and blacks, but instead to do the opposite and make damn sure everybody knows that there is a difference between whites and blacks. That, to me, is very very racist. Case in point, we had a situation a few years ago where a woman was called "racist" for shouting "bitch" at her black neighbour. What has the word "bitch" got to do with skin colour? Nothing. She insulted a black woman in a common way, and suddenly it is a race issue. All it did was highlight the hypocrisy of the anti-racism movement, which instead of promoting equality of races, decided that any attack on a black woman was a racial attack, simply because she was a black woman. In a truly equal world, white women can insult black women, and black women can insult white women, and no "race cards" are played because people understand that different races are equal. I am not anti-racism, but I am not pro-racism either. I encourage equality.
