This is where you're mistaken. 90% of the people in this thread, including apparently rocket3forlife2, are saying that some people find it offensive, not that you must find it offensive. Do you understand that distinction? In my opinion... I think virtually everybody on all sides of the discussion understands that the cartoon combines two stories in the news recently - the stimulus bill championed by Obama, written by legislators and their aides, passed by congress and signed by Obama - and the shooting of a chimpanzee that attacked a woman in Connecticut. So the chimpanzee (and the shooting of it) in the cartoon was not out of nowhere, it came from a specific news story. That is understood. It is certainly possible that the person who created it is racist and was thinking of Obama when he first came up with the idea to mix the stories. That said, I'd give that person the benefit of the doubt when they state that it was not intended to relate Obama to a monkey. The explanation I believe is just that the stimulus bill was so bad it was written by a monkey, not that any one person behind the bill was that monkey. Obama was the face of the stimulus bill and was apparently shown with a big picture signing the bill in the same newspaper, so it is not wrong for people to associate him with the bill and to relate the monkey in the cartoon to Obama (even if that's not what was originally intended). Comparing blacks to monkeys (or gorillas or even chimpanzees) has been done for centuries as a racist insult. So while comparing Bush to a monkey is not racist because it's implying that Bush is an idiot, comparing Obama to a monkey is racist because even if you're implying he's an idiot there is too much history behind that comparison for it to be taken as anything but racist. So you can understand why some might be offended and why the cartoonist and his editor should have considered the potential for backlash. It is easy to assume the monkey refers to Obama, and a comparison of Obama to a monkey is racist. So the newspaper apologized to those they offended, which I think is appropriate. In my opinion that should be the end of that. Sometimes people say or draw things that are offensive to some without intending them to be. When they realize they offended someone, they apologize and everything's hunky dory. Hopefully next time they will be more sensitive to the possibility that others look at things differently than they do. I also think it's quite possible they knew that it might touch a racial nerve and wanted to print it anyway. I would be ok with that as well, again because I'm operating under the assumption that it was not conceived of as being a reference to Obama, so therefore they wanted to be able to print something that might not be taken correctly without needing to censor themselves so harshly.
Check out this poster's name!! RACIST!!! http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showpost.php?p=4264826&postcount=41
In this country, there isn't a history of people calling white people a monkey and then lynching them. Your opinion isn't terribly relevant since you clearly are not offended by it. If you want to know if it was offensive, ask the people who were offended. That is what is relevant ...not your interpretation of whether somebody else should be offended. You are in no position to tell others how they should feel. If it was just a couple fringe people objecting, then I see your point. But this was widespread enough that it drew protests and an apology from the paper. As such, why do you feel you know better?
Well, to be fair, there are a few photos out there comparing Bush to a monkey. But in all those, the monkey is alive.
Not surprising. Our administrative assistant at work does quite a bit of crocheting in her spare time, and recently, she bought a sock monkey for her grandson. He wanted her to crochet a sweater for him, so she did, and she e-mailed us a picture of the sock monkey wearing it. A few seconds later, my boss comes around the corner and says, "I have something tacky to say about the picture you just sent us. That sock monkey kind of looks like our new president." Both I and the administrative assistant just looked at each other, dumbfounded, and our boss proceeded to justify it by saying, "Well, I just meant that his ears..." First of all, if one were to actually take the time to examine the picture, the sock monkey is actually navy in color, but why bother.
I've read through this thread and here are my two cents. This cartoon could very easily be interpretted as racist and there clearly is a long history of the use of the term "monkey" as derogatory towards blacks and other non-Caucasions. The linking of it to the stimulus bill which Obama had signed the day of the issue of this cartoon and which it was well known he was going to sign it that day does strongly hint that the monkey in the cartoon is an indirect reference to Obama. As the same time this could easily be a play on the saying regarding monkeys on typwriters and a criticism that the stimulus package is such gibberish only a monkey could've written it with no racist intent. With either of these views though it requires some previous background to come to either of these interpretations. A few posters have talked about focussing on facts and there are facts that could support either position but the fact that either opinion can be reached shows that this debate is ultimately subjective. Further the whole purpose of an editorial is subjective. its to present in a humorous fashion one particular point of view. I don't know if there is really a right point to this short of looking into the mind of the cartoonist. I think there is a lot of validity to this being a racist cartoon and it is a fact that many see it as that way. At the minimum the NY Post should've been aware of that possibility before running it. The biggest problem with this cartoon to me is that it fails as an editorial cartoon in terms of being clear about what point it is trying to make. Now I'm not going to say that every cartoon has to make sense or there should be one clear interpretation but if you are making an editorial in a newspaper your point should be clear.
yeah, but they're comparing bush to a monkey because he's stupid (and made stupid faces). You're argument is weak. This is different. When black people are called monkey's, it's not because they're stupid....People just need to learn that whether or not you're trying to be racist, just dont compare black people and monkeys. it's racist...ask Mutombo. And lets be honest. Yes, Obama wasnt the only one who wrote the stimulus bill, but it's his bill. he'll always be famous for it (similar to FDR's new deal)....it's a racist cartoon.
not to derail or anything... The mayor of Los Alamitos is coming under fire for an e-mail he sent out that depicts the White House lawn planted with watermelons, under the title "No Easter egg hunt this year."
all southerners should take offense to watermelons and fried chicken being associated with blacks. Everyone from the south enjoyed these things their entire life.
This is just dumb PC stuff. It's ok to compare Bush to a monkey but here you can't even say a monkey wrote the stimulous bill (which was congress not Obama). I hate PC.
I disagree, and there are probably millions of others as well.The dude who made the drawing never said it was congress, but he did say it "Could have been Pelosi " Which didn't sound like he was to sure. Either way, even if you don't see it as being racist, how can you look at the picture and say it was appropriate for a News paper?
If you didn't understand the black-watermelon connection, the joke wouldn't make sense. I don't understand how he could say he thought it was funny for some other reason.
