Is This Cartoon Racist?

@snood,

Sorry snood, you're black so you can't possibly look at this issue with a clear head. Had you been white and saw some racism, then maybe it would be worth some consideration.

</sarcasm>

T
K
O

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Quote:

And to Setanta and Kicky, I don't care what either of you think. You can blow it out your ear for all I care. I prefer to have conversations with people who know how to have one without being cruel and hateful, thank you very much.

Upon what basis do you allege that it is "cruel and hateful" to ask you to back up your claim? You said that you had defended Clinton and Obama many times. I simply pointed out that if that were the case, you'd easily be able to quote those posts and link them. So your response is to say that it is cruel and hateful to ask you to back up your claim? There's no personal attack involved in asking you to back up your claim. There is nothing cruel or hateful in asking you to quote the posts in which you claim to have defended Clinton and Obama from unfair attacks and false claims, and in pointing out that you are better able than anyone else to quote them.

I suggest that your response is a cover for your inability to back up your claim. You can easily prove me wrong by defining "many times," and then quoting your posts which meet that criterion.

0 Replies

@snood,

You're right snood...to combat racism we should ignore the real social inequalities that Obama spoke of during his speach on race (a fantastic speach by the way) and instead devote as much time as we did on this cartoon.

Then we can talk again about that Obama delegate who called some black kids who were playing in the trees in front of her house like monkeys, monkeys.

You're right. Those issues are much more important than gang violence, perpetual poverty, judicial inequality, etc.

I'm not saying you should stop focusing on racism, just that I don't understand why you're not focused on REAL racism.

0 Replies

@Diest TKO,

That's an unfair and inaccurate paraphrase of what I had said.

1 Reply

@maporsche,

maporsche wrote:

That's an unfair and inaccurate paraphrase of what I had said.

I wasn't referring to you map. I was just trying to joke around with snood.

T
K
O

0 Replies

@Wilso,

Wilso wrote:

Not that I really want to get into this part of the debate, but the shrub was portrayed as a chimp because he actually LOOKS LIKE ONE. Had nothing to do with racism, though I guess it could also be indicative of the dribbling halfwit's intelligence.

Not that I really want to respond to this, but are you suggesting that if Obama looked like a chimp it would be okay to portray him as one? Not sure what your point is here.

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

Yeah, I probably should learn to be a dipshit like some and probably people wouldn't think being unkind was so much fun. Just isn't fun for me though. So I'll pass.

Are you going to answer my question or aren't you?

You might want to be careful with your edits of your posts, Fox, if you plan on going around giving people a hard time.

This question -

Quote:

You didn't answer my question though. Why is Barack Obama portrayed as a chimp racist after eight years of portraying George W. Bush as a chimp? Please explain that to me.

was not in your post when I responded to it, 2 minutes after you posted it. I never saw it. Try preview!

(Only one r, please.)

But to answer,

There is a history of linking African Americans and monkeys in order to denigrate them. The picture of a smiling, human-looking monkey was a popular way to depict blacks in cartoons and artwork for much of our country's history.

This creates associations in people's minds that links them with emotions and events from the past. So pictures have a real visceral impact and symbolism to them that requires one to be careful when using them in public discourse.

Scenario - I make a cartoon showing Republicans all getting swastikas tattooed on their arms!

You guys get up in arms, say 'boo! how hateful and UnAmerican!'

I respond, 'hey! They're just followers of Buddhist thought and you should be proud of that!'

The Hindu Swastika

An idea for another comic hits me! I'll draw a picture of Roy Blunt, Boehner, and Mitch McConnell dressed up in menacing white hoods and marching through a black neighborhood!

You would cry '"Foul! You democrats are the racists, not us, and this is ridiculous!"

Tee hee! It was really just about trick-or-treating! No harm done!

My guess is you'd be less than amused.

And with good reason.

Now stop playing dumb on this issue and admit that these idiots should have known better before running this cartoon. Just because you can construct a plausible argument against something doesn't make that argument the truth of the situation.

Cycloptichorn

This is basically what I said a few pages ago.

This thread has lost all interest for me, because it's turned into, not a conversation, but an exercise in picking out one phrase, one word from a post made pages back, and using that to try to disprove/argue/obsfucate the issue.

Debate is fine, so is disagreeing. But when it turns into this nitpicking over where a comma was placed, or stating something was or was not said exactly as presented 75 posts back, that's not a debate, that just childish.

There are those who will continue to innocently say that nothing was meant, argue that somone else cannot know what was in the mind of someone else, blah blah blah.

There is no real meaning left in this thread, it's just meaningless natter.

bottom line, the cartoonist, editors, publishers, owners, and anyone who laid their eyes on this cartoon knew before it went to print that this could and would be taken as racist, and that they could, with wide disbelieving eyes proclaim it meant no such thing.

This train wreck of a thread became nothing but uninteresting scraps flung around on the ground long ago.

2 Replies

@chai2,

chai2 wrote:

bottom line, the cartoonist, editors, publishers, owners, and anyone who laid their eyes on this cartoon knew before it went to print that this could and would be taken as racist, and that they could, with wide disbelieving eyes proclaim it meant no such thing.

I see ...the bottom line is you are right and those who disagree with you are wrong. Gotcha.

1 Reply

Foxy, could you repost the quote that you highlighted in red a few pages back? I'd do it, but it's rather difficult to do from the iPhone. I thnk that point (in red) is an nteresting paradox that deserves to be part of this discussion.

1 Reply

@Wilso,

Cartoons are meant to get people riled right? They are meant to make us think.. and to stir up the numbers of readers. It seems to me that it could have been meant as racist or it may not have been - either way - I do feel that the cartoonist (unless he is just totally obtuse) knew the end result of his cartoon. He knew it would stir up controversy - his job is done.

It wasn't nice to portray Bush as a monkey, regardless of whether you like him...it is disrespectful. I understand that some live life by showing respect only to those that earn it. So be it.

But I think what Beth said earlier is right...those that are in the public eye, and those of us who observe those in the public eye, should understand that they are going to get ridiculed. Sometimes rightly so - sometimes unjustly. It's just part of the package.

Practicing deep breathing is huge in help with getting uptight over these things - I am always so pissed off when I do - it is so - useless.

But I know some people think all the nyah nyah is fun...so why I am posting my point of view is beyond me this morning...it's almost like putting a sign on my back that says KICK ME.

1 Reply

@maporsche,

maporsche wrote:

Foxy, could you repost the quote that you highlighted in red a few pages back? I'd do it, but it's rather difficult to do from the iPhone. I thnk that point (in red) is an nteresting paradox that deserves to be part of this discussion.

You mean this quote from James Taranto's essay?

Quote:

Consider the paradox: Racial "sensitivity" requires not eradicating racial stereotypes but keeping them alive--and not only keeping them alive but remaining acutely conscious of them at all times. Delonas and his editors are under attack for seeing "chimp" and failing to think "black guy." Perhaps this is an editorial failing, but it is certainly not a moral one.

0 Replies

@mismi,

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090224/ap_on_re_us/ny_post_cartoon

At the bottom of the above link it says:

Quote:

The Rev. Al Sharpton is urging the Federal Communications Commission to review policies allowing Post owner News Corp. to control multiple media outlets in the same market.

What exactly does that mean?

0 Replies

@Ticomaya,

Ticomaya wrote:

chai2 wrote:
bottom line, the cartoonist, editors, publishers, owners, and anyone who laid their eyes on this cartoon knew before it went to print that this could and would be taken as racist, and that they could, with wide disbelieving eyes proclaim it meant no such thing.

I see ...the bottom line is you are right and those who disagree with you are wrong. Gotcha.

Correct.

Because, you don't disagree, you just say you do. All your double talk, emphasizing one word over another, and your now undoubtably going to say I can't know what you are thinking, unless of course now you don't say that be in that case you would be agreeing that I knew what you were going to say....like a moebius strip.

You say gotcha...meaning you know what I'm meaning, but how can you know what I'm meaning? I might be meaning something else where you're saying gotcha may not be true, unless of course your saying Gotcha means something else....round and round and round she goes.

zzzzzzz.....

.

1 Reply

Mismi said

Quote:

. . . .those that are in the public eye, and those of us who observe those in the public eye, should understand that they are going to get ridiculed. Sometimes rightly so - sometimes unjustly. It's just part of the package.

Absolutely right which is why you didn't see me getting my panties in a bunch when President Bush was cruelly and savagely lampooned for eight years. Some of it he deserved. Some of it he didn't. But it seems to go with the territory because some people get off on being hateful, cruel, disrespectful, mean, insulting, or insensitive and the First Amendment gives them the right to be that way if that's where their hearts lie. It doesn't make me think highly o them, of course, but they probably don't care what I think about them either. Nor should they.

My only quarrel, however, with your take and the 'cartoonist should have known' argument is an implication that President Obama cannot be treated in the same way as everybody else because he is a black man. The conclusion is that anyone who is insensitive or ignores his race and presumes to treat him in the same way as they would treat a white man is racist.

If anybody is clairvoyant or gifted enough to know for certain that the cartoonist would not have drawn that cartoon in exactly the same way if John McCain was in the White House or if Obama was blue eyed and blond, then they might have a case for racism. Since I don't believe anybody here is clairvoyant or gifted enough to know the cartoonist's mind re race, to make more of that cartoon than what is actually depicted could in itself be indicative of a racist attitude.

Yes political cartoons are supposed to be provocative and pithy and timely and zero in on current events and/or an existing national debate. Otherwise there isn't any point to them. But I think way more is being read into this one than anything that is actually there.

I'm sure some here did look at the cartoon and say, oh my God, that is a cartoon of Barack Obama. I didn't see that when I first saw the cartoon and probably never would have seen that if others hadn't expressed their perception of that connection. So does that make me a racist because I don't think black man or Barack Obama when I see a drawing of a dead chimpanzee?

The cartoonist may be the most black hearted bigot and racist in the world. I don't know him. But neither does anybody else here and there is nothing specifically racist or racial in that cartoon.

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Quote:

My only quarrel, however, with your take and the 'cartoonist should have known' argument is an implication that President Obama cannot be treated in the same way because he is a black man. The conclusion is that anyone who is insensitive or ignores his race and presumes to treat him in the same way as they would treat a white man is racist.

That wasn't my meaning - my thoughts were that most people - I would think - would look at their viewpoint from every angle before publishing it. If that is the case, then they would have had an inkling of the possibility of racial connection with our just having elected a black man as president...but, obviously - we don't always realize how others will take what we write - everyone brings their own story to what they read -

I am not saying you don't publish the cartoon because it might offend - I am saying you probably know it will - unless you have not properly looked at it from every angle - though it would be exhausting to be that responsible as a writer Wink

But certainly my post was not to say that President Obama should be free from criticism or being made fun of because he is black. I believe equal misery is a right we all are subject to (smile).

3 Replies

@mismi,

Point well taken. But I think Taranto was probably right in his observation that the cartoonist's worst crime was in not seeing 'black man' in the image of a dead chimpanzee.

I do hope that we have not regressed as a society that we think it is okay to ridicule somebody because of their race. I do think, though, that a better sense of humor and a lot less hypersensitivity regarding race would go a long way to help eradicate the last vestiges of racism in our society. I would like to see us get to the point where we could joke with black people and truly treat them as the equals they are without fear in the same way that it is no big deal when we tease the Scotch and Irish and Italians etc.

At some point though, people, both black and white, are going to have to stop making a huge deal out of it before that can happen.

0 Replies

Symbols don't just stop meaning things b/c you want them to.

Murdoch apologizes today -

Quote:

As the Chairman of the New York Post, I am ultimately responsible for what is printed in its pages. The buck stops with me.

Last week, we made a mistake. We ran a cartoon that offended many people. Today I want to personally apologize to any reader who felt offended, and even insulted.

Over the past couple of days, I have spoken to a number of people and I now better understand the hurt this cartoon has caused. At the same time, I have had conversations with Post editors about the situation and I can assure you " without a doubt " that the only intent of that cartoon was to mock a badly written piece of legislation. It was not meant to be racist, but unfortunately, it was interpreted by many as such.

We all hold the readers of the New York Post in high regard and I promise you that we will seek to be more attuned to the sensitivities of our community.

I think that Fox almost has it: even if the guys didn't mean anything wrong, they shoulda known better than to run the article. I personally believe that they knew exactly what they were doing, you'd have to be an idiot not to. But perhaps they were just merely idiots and not malicious.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@mismi,

Every angle? Seriously? We aren't talking about some random obscure angle to view it from here. It does not take an examination from EVERY angle to see a questionable message.

Frankly, going back to page one discussion, the comic isn't even funny. Even if the message isn't intentionally racist, it certainly isn't clear and racial ambiguity is dangerous waters when mixed with legacy racial imagery.

I don't care to see heads roll. I just think we can call a duck a duck and move on. They are free to create the most offensive material possible. They can even have the objective of making it intentionally offensive. I don't care. They have the right. But seriously, don't play games. Don't insult the intelligence of those who were offended.

I find this notion that the paper is somehow morally superior because they didn't see a racial red flag to be false. That does not make them superior. By that logic, those who simply don't SEE racial strife are superior when they don't notice it around them.

Speaking to Map's point about why we bother talking about something like this when there is "real" racism out there, I can only say that he's right about those issues being of greater concern, but it is my belief that having a culture that defamates it's minorities is not going to make gains in those areas. If we can't handle the small battles, then how can we expect to take on the big ones?

I could be wrong Map. Perhaps, if we had solutions to the larger issues of social equality RE: jobs, housing, and education the notion of a silly comic would be rain on the umbrella. But certainly rain still gets our pants wet, even with an umbrella.

EDIT***
Mimsi - most of this post isn't in reply to you
EDIT***

T
K
O

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

</thread>

This is late, but still the right thing to do.
K
O

0 Replies

@Diest TKO,

Quote:

Frankly, going back to page one discussion, the comic isn't even funny. Even if the message isn't intentionally racist, it certainly isn't clear and racial ambiguity is dangerous waters when mixed with legacy racial imagery.

That is probably true enough. But seriously - do you think we shouldn't write things that hurt people? And should we consider any one person's feelings above anyone elses? Is it okay to be mean and disrespectful to one person and it's okay because they are white but protect and deflect attacks upon another because they are black? This does not feel right to me. We either should curb our nastiness across the board or expect nastiness across the board.

I didn't think political cartoons were meant to be funny though - I thought they were meant to touch on issues. Making us think about the issues clarifies it in our minds. We figure out where we stand. The cartoon might piss us off - it may even hurt us sometimes, but the end result being we know where we stand and can then proceed to do something about it or continue to sit on our asses watching TV. But surely the last thing they are is funny - sometimes they are - but seriously - most of the time they seem to be pointing to a problem and asking us (implied) what we think about it.

2 Replies

Is This Cartoon Racist?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know