Is This Cartoon Racist?

Again, the ape doesn't represent Obama. There is nothing in the cartoon to suggest that. For example, there is no characterization of Obama done to the chimp (just a normal looking primate). And the caption clearly says that it's referring to who WROTE the stimulus bill. Obama did NOT write the stimulus bill, therefore it's painfully obvious that the chimp is not referring to him.

You guys are TRYING to make this a racist message, for what reason I can only imagine.

I suppose that anytime a monkey/chimp is used in a cartoon they must be referring back to black people right?

Andrew - I just disagree. I think the primary subject of the cartoon was the ineptness of the bill. I do not think the primary thrust of the cartoon was MEANT to be racial degradation of the president.

Okay - now whether the cartoonist should have thought twice before he used the incident with the chimp, saying to himself....'hmmm....I want to say this bill is inept - but hey wait a minute - our president is a black man and...jesus - the chimp angle - even though topical and current, may be construed as racist - so I'll let this opportunity pass by...'
Yeah - maybe that'd have been the better thing to do.
My point is that the cartoon would have worked in getting the major or primary idea across with ANY ANIMAL AT ALL. Which says to me - it may not be intentionally racist.

And I can think this - because I know that I looked at that cartoon for twenty minutes and read three posts before I understood why DJ was asking about racism - because you know what - the monkey as Obama - or monkeys as black people was like the FURTHEST thing from my mind.
And I don't think I'm stupid or unaware of the racist history of the US.

I'm just giving this guy the same benefit of the doubt - sue me...

Cyclo said:

This could also very well be true - in fact I'm not naive enough to really doubt it. All I'm saying is that we don't know for sure - and if there was racial intent - I do not believe it was the primary focus of the cartoon - and certainly not the overriding message that I got from it.

Yeah - well, as a person who grew up in the south, I'll let you make the blanket statement about this sort of thing being more familiar or recognizable to people from or in the south.
As someone born in the south but raised in the north by two southerners and considered a yankee, I've been told I don't know what I'm talking about when I say the same exact thing.

if everybody was honest, they'd realize the main intent of the cartoon was exactly this thread

i firmly believe the artist and the post couldn't look the gift horse of a primate news story to shake the beehive

Jesus, people, what ever happened to subtext, double-meaning? When did we stop paying attention to that? Just because the cartoon may mean one thing doesn't, by that fact alone, disqualify another interpretation. In fact, that's cartoonists' bread and butter. That's how humor often works, via metaphors, comparisons.

If you've made the leap between the monkey and "someone who wrote the stimulus bill," how are you hitting some magical wall there that conveniently keeps you from then leaping to Obama?

Maybe I'm not - maybe I'm saying, 'Yeah, that could be a subtext - but maybe it's not.'
Why does my subtext have to be the same as your subtext?
That's my question - I think, as with anything - there is more than one interpretation. It depends on the reader's focus and experience - as with anything.
I'm allowing the racism believers to have their subtext - or even their primary focus - why can I not be allowed to have mine?

It's like people are saying - 'See the racism - you HAVE to - or you're stupid and blind.

No one is saying you aren't allowed. (btw, I looked back at what I actually wrote when you said I was saying some people were stupid. In fact I said some people were acting stupid. Huge difference.

The point is, you cannot just go by what subtext you choose to follow. That's like living in Nevernever Land.

You need to examine from the subtext the creator had in his mind when he drew this.

The illustrator is not in the business of writing clear, one meaning cartoons, just as Garg said.

He knows how to create something that will stir up a hornets next. Then when someone addresses the underlying, yet real meaning, he can innocently look up and say "What? That's not what was intended. The very idea." But, it's there.

No one can for a minute think this savy newspaper guy didn't know he was creating more than 1 reality.

You may choose to look at the innocent, but it can't be denied the other is there, and examine what his intent was.

Chai said:


I guess what bothered me was that you seem to be saying, in this part of your statement- is that anyone who didn't acknowledge that racist INTENT was the obvious purpose of this cartoon was 'playing stupid'.

I agree - it could very well be read or viewed as racist - but I think it's equally as viable a reading to say it isn't.
And I don't think anyone but the author can verify the INTENT of the piece.

And as far as the part of your statement that I've bolded, actually I haven't lived in a cave - I've lived among various and diverse populations and I honestly have never heard anyone I know refer to blacks as porch monkeys or jungle bunnies.
I guess part of me knows it still goes on - but to get back to my particular interpretation of the cartoon - those two terms wouldn't even have entered my mind - that's why it's not the first thing I'd attribute entering someone else's mind. As I said - we all have our experiences that inform our focus - mine is obviously different from yours.

Chai said:

As a person who reads widely and writes myself - I can tell you that readers often DO create their own subtext based on what they've seen and know.

I took Literature of the Reformation with my gay roommate. We both read, 'School for Scandal'. She discerned a whole underlying homoerotic subtext that I was completely oblivious to. Even when she tried to point it out to me - I didn't see it.

I have no idea what this creator had in mind - and if you're honest - you have to admit you don't either.

Even if his other work has a racist and cynical bent - how do you know he hasn't had some sort of epiphany or something? Farfetched I know - but stranger things have happened.

I'm just saying- you don't know that you're right any more than I do.

Chai said:

And you said it here yourself - there is more than one way to read this. There obviously is a way it can be read that is NOT racist.

I didn't think Obama or see race at all when I first viewed the cartoon. I saw a cartoon in really bad taste because it made light of a really tragic incident, but I saw the intent to be a stimulus package designed by a monkey and honestly did not even think of the President or his race. It seems that it is only some avid Obama supporters here who saw a correlation between a chimpanzee and the President's race? That in itself is kind of interesting.

No, actually it doesn't seem that way at all.

Sure it does...

I bet you 80%+ of the people here that thought that this cartoon was racist, voted for Obama.

Apparently you don't understand the definition of the words "avid" and "only." Now I see how you might be confused by tougher concepts like subtext and overtones. Carry on.

But you certainly do understand the meaning of 'some' and 'here' though. I haven't seen any non-Obama supporters who thought the cartoon racist on this thread and certainly not all of you who were Obama supporters thought the cartoon racist. But it seems reasonable to conclude that all those who thought the cartoon racist so far have also been Obama supporters, though I could certainly have missed a post or two that would contradict that observation.

Okay, so now it's not just the "avid" supporters, and it's not "only" them. Thanks for clarifying that statement where you said it was the "avid" supporters "only."

Is there anyone who didn't see this coming?

what I see coming is the ACLU defending the N Y Post cartoonist.

That would be ironic.

It would also be consonant with the mission of the ACLU.

Exactly - not ironic at all actually. Entirely appropriate. And I'd be in total support of it.
Because now not only does it seem people can be told what they can write or say - it also seems that people are comfortable telling other people how they should or have to interpret something they read or hear.

Bullshit - give me free speech any day.