New York Post Cartoon

[Eilonnwy]

Adrian and I were discussing the new york post cartoon featuring a gunned down chimp and mention of the stimulus plan on twitter. Since twitter ahs a 140 character limit I decided to bring the discussion over here. Below are some links related to the cartoon:

The Cartoon itself: http://is.gd/jZTt
Huffington Post Article: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/18...67841.html
Pam's House Blend Article: http://www.pamshouseblend.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=9532
Keith Olbermann talks about it: http://tinyurl.com/cmgyur
Republican Campaign Monkey: http://tinyurl.com/avagoh

To be clear, I'm simply arguing that the cartoon is racist. Not that the cartoonist should be lynched for it. I whole heartedly believe in freedom of speech and that cartoonist can be as racist as he wants and I can then boycott the New York Post (which I don't read anyway).

Anyway, Adrian's twitter post said:

Please can a sane person explain how this is racist in any way, shape, or form

Since I like to think I'm sane, I will explain!

Here in the US black people have historicly been equated with monkeys and not in the nice factual evolutionary way. Obama was insulted as one in the campaign. You can see that in links I posted above.

Furthermore, the US also has a history of police shooting down black people. Not a pretty fact, but it's a fact. There's also the fact that Martin Luther King was gunned down. Stuff like that.

While yes, I agree that the cartoonist was refering the chimp that went crazy and mauled a lady, the racist undertones are glaring since the police then mention the stimulus bill which Obama had been trying to pass once he got into office.

The racism is there. While I may not think that cartoonist should be lynched and I can agree that political correctness goes to far. I have to agree there is racist undertones.

[Meatball]

You'd have to be very ignorant of the struggle black people have been through in America to not see the racism in the image. The worst part is that the artist (And the editor of the rag) refuse to admit that someone could possibly interpret this as racist, and won't issue any kind of acknowledgment of that.

[Tiberius]

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.

[Eilonnwy]

The paper did apologize in a weird half-assed way. Either way, I agree completely with your sentiment in the last paragraph completely. I've been affected by reverse racism and was fire as a result of it. I think there is a point in which equality becomes "special treatment." I don't think people have a right to not be offended, but if they are offended they have the right to speak out about just as the other guy has the right to be offensive in the first place.

I'm just saying as a pure judgement call, the article is blatantly racist. I get what you're saying about it refering to the crazy chimp, and yeah there is definitely a double standard there and I don't deny it. If it was a white person it was making fun of people wouldn't be up in arms. I think the thing that makes this extremely racist is the combination of not only the chimp but also the policemen gunning him down. THAT is where it goes wrong in my opinion. And that's the kind of overtone that maybe you can only 'get' if you lived in America and know the history. There is actually a real fear amongst many people that Obama will be assassinated because he is black. It's on the back of a lots of people's mind, seriously. No fucking joke. So it's a little too close to home in that aspect. So I can legitimately see how people would get uspet over that aspect.

Simply put, this isn't a case of something that is absolutely not racist being taken out of proportion like your example of the white woman calling a black woman bitch, it's something that IS racist but still kind of being taken out of proportion.

[bozo]

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.

It seems likely that Obama wil be subject to racist attack. He is black and a lot of Americans don't like blacks and certainly don't like a black president. Nothing imaginary about it.
As regards BUSH being likened to a chimp in the uk,surely that was more to do with his underdevelopment rather than being racist.
In any country, racism is racism and needs to be both recognised and confronted. If we don't stamp out racism, how will we ever get equality?

[Tiberius]

It seems likely that Obama wil be subject to racist attack. He is black and a lot of Americans don't like blacks and certainly don't like a black president. Nothing imaginary about it.
As regards BUSH being likened to a chimp in the uk,surely that was more to do with his underdevelopment rather than being racist.
In any country, racism is racism and needs to be both recognised and confronted. If we don't stamp out racism, how will we ever get equality?

Yes, Bush being compared to a chimp was to do with his intellect, but the fact is that as soon as you compare Obama to a chimp, it becomes about racism. As far as I am aware, despite the level of accusation, the chimp reference is there to portray Obama as "crazy", likening him to the "crazy" chimp who attacked a woman (not just chimps in general).

Racism does indeed need to be recognised, but the anti-racist movement sees racism where there isn't any, and in doing so becomes a hypocritical and racist movement itself. We shoud stamp out racism by teaching people why everyone is equal, not by saying "people are different colours and you shouldn't attack that". Discussion of colour shouldn't come into it (if we are talking about equality).

[bozo]

It seems likely that Obama wil be subject to racist attack. He is black and a lot of Americans don't like blacks and certainly don't like a black president. Nothing imaginary about it.
As regards BUSH being likened to a chimp in the uk,surely that was more to do with his underdevelopment rather than being racist.
In any country, racism is racism and needs to be both recognised and confronted. If we don't stamp out racism, how will we ever get equality?

Yes, Bush being compared to a chimp was to do with his intellect, but the fact is that as soon as you compare Obama to a chimp, it becomes about racism. As far as I am aware, despite the level of accusation, the chimp reference is there to portray Obama as "crazy", likening him to the "crazy" chimp who attacked a woman (not just chimps in general).

Racism does indeed need to be recognised, but the anti-racist movement sees racism where there isn't any, and in doing so becomes a hypocritical and racist movement itself. We shoud stamp out racism by teaching people why everyone is equal, not by saying "people are different colours and you shouldn't attack that". Discussion of colour shouldn't come into it (if we are talking about equality).

Well you can interpret the nyp cartoon as you want....you choose non-racist, others will differ and see it as racist, given the history involved.
Whether something is racist is again your perception.
Leaving colour aside, people are clearly born unequal, so how are you going to convince the poorest on the planet that they are the equal of Bill Gates?

[Tiberius]

bozo, I'm talking about equal as human beings, not anything else. Obviously people aren't equal in terms of economics, but as human beings (without political beliefs, religious beliefs, or economics coming into it) we are all equal. We have no control over our sexuality, or our skin colour, or which nation we happened to be born in, so it is absolute rubbish to say that one set of people are "better" than another based on any of these.

[Eilonnwy]

Yes, Bush being compared to a chimp was to do with his intellect, but the fact is that as soon as you compare Obama to a chimp, it becomes about racism. As far as I am aware, despite the level of accusation, the chimp reference is there to portray Obama as "crazy", likening him to the "crazy" chimp who attacked a woman (not just chimps in general).

What you seem to not get is that calling a black man a "monkey" "ape" "chimp" is a racial slur well known in the US. It's the same as using the word Nigger. That's a fact and not open to interpretation. It just seems to be lost on you because it's not a slur in England. It's not something that's new because of Obama. It's always been a slur for as long as I can remember.

[Tiberius]

It hasn't been lost on me, I understand how some people would view the cartoon as offensive, but given my background I personally don't find the cartoon offensive. Like I said, it doesn't mean that in the US it would be viewed the same way, but I'd much prefer people to view it as a petty jab at a President's stimulus package than a racial attack.