NY Post cartoon of Obama-chimp

Remove all ads!

Martaug - I fail to see what this has to do with the topic. One is just a protest sign that could be taken with any number of meanings, and yet, the cartoon in our topic actually depicts two cops shooting the "writer" of the stimulus bill. I don't see how the two are related. Now if the newspaper staff was invaded by the Secret Service, then maybe you could in some way link them together. But in this instance, it only looks like you are throwing up a smoke screen.

And considering how GWB stepped all over the Constitutional rights of Americans, he's the one that should be investigated. I thought I would laugh when I saw that line about "a bit heavy handed." How many political enemies did GWB put on his "terror watch list?"

 

Actually, I believe Martaug is exactly on point. The "monkey cartoon" is no more offensive then all of the "assassination chic" directed at Bush II. As a strong supporter of "freedom of speech" I'm disturbed at how any and all criticism of Obama is shouted down. Does anyone remember an anti-Bush protester being arrested (even if temporarily) for having an offensive sign? I know I don't. If the Obama administration and even more important his ardent supporters can't handle criticism then it is going to be a very long four years for them.

While I admit, I don't think the "monkey cartoon" was in good taste, I do not see anything wrong with it and it in no way is deserving of as much attention as it has gotten.

 

Oh, really? Then you can explain to us who at the newspaper was "arrested" or investigated by the Secret Service, as you claim. Even the anti-abortion dude was not arrested but handed a slip of paper saying he was under investigation. So who was "arrested," TGS?

So let me see if I understand your idea of Freedom of Speech: Anyone can make a cartoon showing the president being shot. Right? But when people protest, or "shout about it," that's not really covered by your definition of "free speech." Interesting concept you have of what's free speech.

And regarding GWB: Can you explain how so many people turned up on the terror watch list who were never supposed to be there? People who were on that list and tried to board a plane were held in custody simply by being on the list with no further explanation, like Cat Stevens (or whatever he goes by now). And how can I forget Ted Kennedy?

http://www.aclu.org/privacy/spying/watchlistcounter.html

 

I'm personally confused how anyone could believe the shot chimp was supposed to be Obama. The chimp is the one that ate that woman's face in the brutal attack a couple of week ago -- the attack ended when the police shot the chimp.

The implication in the cartoon is the chimp wrote the stimulus package -- an attack on the stimulus package (i.e., it was written by monkeys).

However, the cartoon was done in extremely poor taste (no pun intended). The incident with the chimp was horrific -- it was extremely insensitive to the families of this tragedy to be subjected to this level of attention. Secondly, even if indirectly, connecting a chimp to a black man or woman will cause a racial stir -- I find it irresponsible of any member of the press who would intentionally create racial tensions.

 

T2 - Who is the black person that the chimp is connected to, if not Barack?

 

@ T2,

Because in the eyes of the public, it's more or less Obama's bill, even though he didn't write it himself. I've heard it referred to several times on the news as "the Obama Stimulus bill," especially by conservatives (who want to tie him to it because they think it'll be a failure) and some Dems (who tie it to him for the opposite reason). Just as Bush's and Clinton's bills often had their names attached, no matter their level of involvement in the drafting of said legislation. I agree with you on what the implication likely was - I just also see how it could be interpreted otherwise, and given the track record of the NY Post and in particular this cartoonist, I don't think the hubbub is wholly unwarranted.

 

I know it was early when I typed this and so was your response, but you completely missed the boat. My concept of "free speech" is that people should always be allowed to say what they want. I consider the "shouting down" of people to be a horrible offense to our political system. While I may have misread that the "abortion guy" got arrested as opposed to being ticketed (or whatever it was) the point is still valid. Why did he get the ticket when it was very common at Anti-Bush rallies for people to be openly walking around with t-shirts and signs calling for Bush's assassination?

As to the No Fly list, you have got to be kidding. I will admit that the entire concept is stupid, but if you do a quick look you will find prominent Republicans that have been screwed up by the list as well.

 

Thats just it chandos, NONE!, as T2 pointed out it was referring to travis, the trained monkey, that attacked people & was shoot by police.
It was IMHO meant to imply that the stimulus was so badly written that a monkey could have done it.

 

While I can't say that is 100% correct, it is certainly plausible as anyone who lived in the northeast (where the newpaper is published) knew that this was a big story in our area. I suspect the people who saw racism are for some reason being overly sensitive to racism and to the protection of Obama.

 

Chandos, there is a significant difference between the chimp being connected indirectly to Obama (i.e., the chimp could have written the stimulus package) and the chimp being represented as Obama in the drawing (which I do not believe was the artist's intent). However, either way the cartoon is offensive and derisive.

Although I firmly believe in freedom of the press, there are times the press should be responsible as well as informative. To publish a cartoon which could create racial tension (whether intended or not) was irresponsible.

 

That's exactly what I've been saying. Thank you.

 

This is exactly on point. I agree that under the First Amendment to the Constitution that what the cartoonist and paper did was legal. I further agree that it is entirely plausible that the intent of the cartoonist may have been to say the Stimulus Bill was so poorly written a chimp could have done better. However, given that we are talking about the Ruppert Murdock owned NY Post, and a cartoonist who is known for going for shock value in his cartoons, I also think it is not implausible to interpret the cartoon as a racial slur, and if the interpretation is taken to an extreme a call to violence against the president. I'd also like to make clear that if the animal involved was something other than a primate, this would not have been nearly as big of a deal.

Do I think that the editor or cartoonist should be fired because of this? No. Do I think that there should be legal action taken against the cartoonist or the paper? Hell no. Do I think the cartoonist acted irresponsibly and that black people have a right to be offended? Absolutely yes. But that and a dollar will buy you a cup of coffee. I just think that the cartoonist could have easily made it clear how he wanted it to be interpreted. He could have had the chimp wearing a pin that said "Congress" and everyone would have been cool with it.

 

Think of yourself as the editor in charge of this cartoon's entry into the paper. You have it sitting in front of you, on your desk, and unless you are not giving it much thought, you study it for half-a-minute; regardless of the intent, what DIFFERENT conclusions can YOU draw from it?

 

Chandos, I've already answered that question -- what purpose is served by going further down the path? Just what point are you trying to make that I have not already conceded?

Aldeth: Pretty much dead on, IMO. Although I disagree with it being a call to violence against Obama.

 

All I'm saying is that racism is obviously, patently offensive but no more offensive than any other form of insult. You can't have it both ways and advocate offending one group but vilify offending another.

That said, though, don't misunderstand me -- were I the editor of that magazine, I would have looked at the cartoon in question, realized in about .327 picoseconds that it was inflammatory, and told the artist "you have freedom of speech, which means you have the right to have this piece of stupidity printed in any paper that'll take it. This paper ain't one of those, though."

I would have turned down the monkey ones of Bush as well. But then perhaps my paper would have ended up being so boring sales dropped and I would have been the one to lose my job. It looks like a high wire job!

 

That is the point that I am largely concerned with, T2. I don't believe that it is a "call to arms," but using the voilent imagery is an understanding of how much emotional "haterd" is being used to ratchet things up. As much as I hated having GWB as president, I didn't emotionally hate him, espeically enough to see him killed by some loon. I don't recall all the cries of "assassinate Bush" that TGS is referring to, but I'm sure there were some of those (as there have been against all presidents). It is using the voilent imagery to stir up a kind of emotion response, rather than a critical dislike, that I believe is at work here.

 

This simply isn't true, LKD. Using racial slurs is an exercise of power, used to establish dominance over not only the target, but of everyone who has his skin color or religion, speaks his language, or shares his country of origin. In addition to invoking past violence, racial slurs let the target know that he does not belong, that he is inferior.

For a member of the majority to refer to a minority* as a "nigger", a "gook", or <insert racial slur here> is a far greater insult than to call him an idiot. You really can't see this?

* Power, of course, is the over-arching theme where racial slurs are concerned. When a minority uses a racial slur against a member of the majority, it doesn't have the same effect.

 

I see the argument, but two things here:

1: The cartoonist did not use any of the words you mentioned. He used an image that has been used on the previous president frequently with little or no outcry from people. I understand that Obama has African heritage. But it's open season on him in the pundit press just as it was open season on Bush for the past 8 years. To say that Obama should be treated any differently than the last president is racist in and of itself

2: The chimp image was not used in a vacuum -- there was context beyond that of race. This is not to say that race is non-existent in the cartoon, but it is not accurate to say that there were no other factors in play.

If we really want equality, we're going to have to treat all public sphere members equally. I'd prefer to see that done by treating them all with respect, but if we decide that it's OK to treat one without that respect, we can't demand special treatment for one, even if he is a minority.

Chandos, the violent imagery was based on something that recently happened -- I don't see it as encouraging or inciting violence against Obama or African Americans in general.

 

So calling a black man a monkey is bad, but drawing a picture of him as a monkey is different? The fact that he didn't use the word directly is irrelevant. That image, when applied to a white man, is not a racial epithet, so the fact that a similar comparison was used towards Bush is also completely irrelevant. It may have been the same comparison, but it was not the same insult. (You really can't see this?) Had we been aiming racial slurs at Bush in political cartoons for the last 8 years you'd have a point, but that wasn't happening. Since no one was directing racial epithets at Bush during the last 8 years, wouldn't this equal treatment you keep bringing up dictate that we not do the same to Obama?

Now, I have already conceded that the possibility exists that this is just one colossal misunderstanding and that, rather than being just another attempt at creating controversy, the artist that drew the cartoon and the editor that authorized its inclusion really had no idea that many would interpret the cartoon the way they did. If this were true, however, both the artist and the editor would be among the most ignorant and incompetent of their professions. Since I find the idea that they could have attained such high stations within their respective industries by accident, I consider this scenario more than a little unlikely -- especially when considering the cartoonist's long history of trying to stimulate exactly this kind of noise with his other...works.

I have also acknowledged that the cartoonist had every right to draw the work and that the paper had every right to print it. While I think the post may want to consider hiring a more competent editor for that section of the paper, I don't think they should be subject to any formal repercussions of any kind. They have the right to free speech, even when it offends people. That said, people also have every right to cancel their subscriptions or stop buying copies from the newsstands when they find the content of the paper offensive.

 

What I'm suggesting is an irrational, emotional response. Such as: "I hate that guy so much I could shoot him." It doesn't mean that a normal person would follow through on such a comment. I can frame this within context: I have a relative, whose husband told me that on the day RFK was shot that, "she was so happy she did a jig." She actually danced with joy. Now I know this person well enough to know that she would never shoot anyone herself, and normally there is not a mean bone in her body.

She sends me junk mail from conservative writers which spews hatred for liberals and Democratic politicains (She tries to convert me). And she listens to AM radio all day. She hears and believes that Obama and Democrats are turning America into a socilaist state, that they are destroying her values and her country. She knows on some rational level that all this is rhetorical, but there is an emotional response. It is not critical, nor rational. The picture in question feeds into that dark emotion with its imagery. But it doesn't mean that she is going to actually shoot anyone. I hope this illustrates what I'm trying to convey.