Tacky? do you realize how many other cartoons there have been depicting presidents as monkeys? The cartoonist can do whatever the hell he want. The monkey was to show the person who wrote the stimulus was dum, not that he was black, get over yourself.
Your moniker suits you. Don't like to pay, eh? contributing members get to edit their posts. ...... I believed most of your earlier posts to be intenionally obtuse; not quite so sure about that now............
I've run this through the bat computer and it told me you aren't sure of the definition of my moniker. To the others, thanks for the info. I found the "tip jar".
Someone just called in on the Rockets fan feedback and said "Do not be loyal to your starters. It is not about your starters, it is about production. They did not make it about who was not there but they made it about team production. Sorry Tracy Mcgrady, but like they say one monkey does not stop the show" How many people here are offended?
I didn't. I said, "you must not be black." Maybe that's your issue that you misinterpret even the most basic statements. Asked. Answered (about 100x) 1. term "monkey" has a long history of being derogatory towards blacks. 2. Obama was the lead supporter of the stimulus bill. 3. Cartoon depicted a monkey being assassinated and mentioning stimulous bill. It doesn't take a genius to find the OBVIOUS connections. In real life, the chief supporter of the stimulus bill is black. In cartoon, the 'writer' of said bill was murdered. Not brain surgery here. If Curious George was murdered because he wrote the stimulus bill ...the very same bill that Obama supported, then yes. Sorry, I assumed you could make the associations between points #1-3 above. Apparently, I assumed wrong. But most reasonable people on this BBS and elsewhere readily DO. They may not agree the cartoonist is racist ...but they do at least acknowledge the simple association and it was a reckless. btw, the real issue here is whether people were offended. Regardless if you feel it's racist or not is immaterial. People were offended and that is undeniable. Maybe you feel folks should not have been offended but that isn't your place to decide. You can't tell people how they should feel.
The cartoonist (and the editors) would have to be freakin' morons to not understand what kind of reaction that would get. And I'm sorry, even at the Post, they aren't that naive. Stupid, and *that* does just as much damage to the progress to 'get past' racism as anything else.
Yeah you’re right. It’s just another Monkey picture of a president being SHOT TO DEATH over a piece of legislation. I don’t know if your Insensitive or you’re just truly obtuse? Either way reading what you wrote, I see we are in agreement that the Monkey does indeed represent Obama. Let’s take out the white cops and replace them with two members of the Nation of Islam shooting a Giant sized Cracker. Then let’s change the quote to “They’ll have to find somebody else to write another affirmative action bill.”(Something that helps all minorities not just blacks).There will be a large number of Minorities, who would probably be insensitive just like you, but the vast majority of whites would most likely see some racism in the picture. I guess the only thing he had to say was “maybe” the monkey represented Pelosi” and that was fine with you…Either way the cartoonist conceded to the notion that the monkey did indeed represent a single person and not a group. It’s not only wrong, but it’s irresponsible for an American Newspaper to even joke about assassinating any one of our government officials. These are the same people( The Post)who were trashing hip hop a few years ago because in their opinion it glorified violence. The hypocrisy and the lack of understanding for other people, their culture, and what is offensive are implausible, but I shouldn’t be surprised.
It's like Joel Olsteen trying to get Bin Laden to understand that Terrorism against others with different beliefs are wrong....How far do you think Joel would get with that guy? Deep down in Republics heart, he really believes that it’s funny and there’s no real problem here…I wouldn’t waste my time reasoning with anybody who believes in their heads that Obama is a terrorist, a trader to his country, or is the Anti Christ. You just have to let those kinds of people make it.
Every single point you've made here requires a leap of belief for it to be valid. Nothing you've listed is a fact. For me, or anyone else, to see it like you, we'd have to be slanted in similar fashion. That's a fact. If you cannot see this, we will never get anywhere with this discussion. "I think" the monkey is the president is not the monkey being the president. "I think" monkey being a derogatory racial term for African Americans does not 1) identify the monkey as an African American, 2) make the connection that is why the monkey was killed, or even 3) identify the monkey as any human persona. To reach any of these conclusions, when others may not reach them, is bias. Period.
Actually, that's completely wrong. I've stated at least twice in this thread that I do not consider this cartoon to be my own personal taste. I frankly don't find humor in death, or in images associated with death. I don't know why you make the assumption I think it's funny when I've gone out of my way (twice) to say it wasn't. Perhaps it's that kind of mind magic that leads one to believe it's racist to begin with? I said early on people are drinking Kool-Aid in here and you just confirmed it. Hmm, I'm not sure what you mean by this statement. It would appear you've got a really broad brush for people. Once again, I can see how someone who uses words like this is slanted to see something through the bias required to misinterpret this cartoon, or almost anything else that occurs with basic human interaction. What kind of people?
Actually, one other point I want to make about the chimpanzee in this cartoon and the real life event that it's based upon... I am upset by the whole chimpanzee being killed to begin with. The lady owning the chimpanzee as a pet was ignorant and was operating around CT state laws (she was grandfathered in as a wild life owner when it became illegal to own animals such as these). It's a tragic situation that this animal was put in such a position. Had she never tried to raise a wild animal, her friend would still be alive and she would have never been mauled. The cartoon is upsetting to me on this basis alone. Why? It IS a dead monkey in the cartoon. There was a dead monkey in the real world. It's a tragic situation all the way around. These are FACTUAL reasons to be upset with the cartoon. You don't have to assume anything in this context to find reason for the cartoon to be in bad taste. It's right there in black and white. Make no mistake about it, I do not find the cartoon acceptable. There are plenty of literal reasons to be against it, reasons which don't need Kool-Aid in order to see. I just wanted to go on record as stating this for those that are assuming yet more things about me or my position on this thing. Now, I'll go wash off the paint from that broad brush you guys have.
No takers on the guy who used the analogy about monkeys at the show and TMAC on the bball court? Offended, not offended whats the verdict?
you are mad they shot the chimp who almost killed a woman? It is highly unlikely the crazy b*stard stops at one.
Most reasonable people can easily make the connection. Everything I listed is a fact. FACT #1 Monkey is a common derogatory term towards blacks. FACT #2 Obama's main agenda is pushing the stimulus package. FACT #3 A monkey was shot in the cartoon referencing the stimulus package. Those are FACTS. It's doesn't actually get much more factual than that. I see your problem. You don't know the definition of fact because this statement you just made is actually NOT a fact. Here are two more FACTS. 1. Protestors marched in front of the paper is protest of this cartoon. 2. The paper has offered an apology. Most responder have reached the same conclusion in this VERY same thread. Isn't that FACT alone proof enough of the possibility of alternate opinions other than your own? You asked for FACTS. I've delivered ...over and over and over. You refusal to acknowledge them is not my problem.
I simply don't play on the same playing field as some people. Where the hell would you get that I'm mad they shot the chimp because he "almost killed a woman"? In fact, if you knew the situation, you'd know he had already killed one and was in the process of killing his owner. Thus, he DID kill one. In any event, I'm going to break it down for you as you clearly need assistance... I'm bothered by the fact that this situation was even allowed to happen. The chimp should not have been "domesticated" as a dog, cat, or whatever. It was a wild animal. Even chimpanzee trainers recommend not keeping them as pets past the ages of 3-4. This chimpanzee was 8 yrs old, long past its "safe zone". Thankfully the police saved the one lady's life. It's unfortunate that they got their too late to save her friend. They were precisely doing the correct job by destroying the hostile primate. Let me know if you need me to clarify my position even more... /shrug
You don't get it. I'm talking about FACTS in stitching all this mess together. I simply didn't get the same picture you did. While these are facts you have listed, in my opinion they are largely irrelevant. There is no single FACT that puts this all together as irrefutable evidence this cartoon is racist. You cannot do it because it can't be done. That is the fact I was looking for. It doesn't exist. The position it's not racist is just as valid (and probably more so) than the one it is. Accept it so we can end the discussion. The paper apologized because of the fact that some people took it the wrong way, stating again the intention was NOT to make a racial statement. That's good enough for me. It did NOT apologize as an admission of any racial accusation being ACCURATE. You need to quit coloring this your own way. Know'm sayin'?
