News Where is the line in Political Cartoons?

[lisab]

But this is completely irrelevant.

When a racist calls a colored person a monkey, chimp, or macaque, they are not saying that the person exhibits stronger physiological similarities to that creature; they are essentially calling the person primitive and less than human. The length of body hairs, pigmentation of the skin, or the size of the kidneys adds nothing of relevance to the issue.

Right - like I said in an earlier post, it's a method used to dehumanize. It has absolutely nothing to do with physical similarities.

 

[WhoWee]

You can refrain from smoking and still be an addict.

People just need to be educated to the fact that chimps don't resemble blacks any more than any other racial group. So it's irrational to use the slur or be offended by it. And If you really analyze it, just for the sake of analyzing, you find chimps resemble whites more than blacks.

Imagine now, base on those facts, I started calling whites chimps. Should white people as a whole be racially offended? I don't know of any white person that would.

It all means nothing. You think it means something because it's "those pooor blackies, oh Esoteric have pity, be sensitive to the blackies."

You don't realize how seamlessly enmesh you are into the white supremacy way of thinking.

Let me be clear...your comments are the fuel of rage.

This is the type of dialogue that gets people injured...your attempt at "making people understand"...or whatever your idea was(?) does not help.

Your post says "I understand...I'm above it all...I can see past skin color...why can't everyone see this is ridiculous"...but your words infer that you believe you are superior and would talk down to make your point?

I assume you don't reside in the US. Here is some advice, regardless of your good intentions, do youself a favor...don't share your enlightened opinion on the streets of our major cities...unless you have adequate private health insurance.

 

[Esoteric]

But this is completely irrelevant.

When a racist calls a colored person a monkey, chimp, or macaque, they are not saying that the person exhibits stronger physiological similarities to that creature; they are essentially calling the person primitive and less than human. The length of body hairs, pigmentation of the skin, or the size of the kidneys adds nothing of relevance to the issue.

Yeah, but so what? even if the context is primitiveness and not appearance, are African Americans primitive or less than human? no. One need only travel to Appalachia if they believe otherwise. Let's not forget Bush was also depicted as a chimp with the same meaning associated with it as above.

So it's still irrational to use the slur and it's still irrational to be offended even in that context imo.

 

[Evo]

Yeah, but so what? even if the context is primitiveness and not appearance, are African Americans primitive or less than human? no. One need only travel to Appalachia if they believe otherwise. Let's not forget Bush was also depicted as a chimp and it had the same meaning as above.

So it's still irrational to use the slur and it's still irrational to be offended even in that context imo.

You seem to lack a basic understanding of how blacks have been treated and the psychological scars it caused. I get the feeling that you are trolling.

Pictures of Bush's facial expressions and chimps for a comical reason has nowhere near the implications of a comparison of a chimp to a black person as an indication of lack of intelligence. There was no farcical comparison of facial expressions here, and to claim that the two are no different is disingenious.

 

[Esoteric]

=Esotric]I know you take your black racial cues from guys like Al,

Boy are you wrong, I haven't even read what he's said.

however, the vast majority of black people aren't walking around "psychologically scarred" with a chip on their shoulder over things that happened decades ago.

I work with a lot of black people and they are very upset.

That's an older generational thing. If you ask African American people; who is most to blame for their present day ills, whites or blacks, most would tell you *gasp* blacks. But of course they're psychologically scarred, they don't know any better.9.

Sorry, but before you are allowed to post again, you are required to post legitimate mainstream sources that show this.

 

[LowlyPion]

I'm not ill informed. I just fail to make the "chimp" = "black man" connection based on the facts.

So what you are saying then is that you lack empathy for the situation of others, and instead choose to judge their feelings of outrage as stupid and ill informed by your standards?

Perhaps you should allow for the fact that you don't know what others feel? That these "facts" that you choose to embrace, and use to paint your canvasses, just may be images and colors of disrespect and oppression as seen by others, and are not so easily dismissed by them as stupid, despite whatever insights you may have gotten from reading Asimov?

 

[pentazoid]

I know I am not supposed to post in this forum but I just had to give my opinion on this topic: I think it is very racist to set double standards for politicians that are members of a different race: First off , I want to say that I did not find the cartoon to be racist. Obviously , since the stimulus package bill was written in such a timely manner and some have said it was poorly written , then an animal with the intelligence of a chimpanzee must have written the bill. Why must we assume that their are racist implications when a cartoonist draws a chimpanzee politician? Other politicians have been drawn to look like chimpanzees like George w bush. If the chimpanzee drawn in the cartoon was supposed the be a caricature of a stereoptypical black person, he would have had the large pink lips, and small dark eyes , just like the black people drawn by cartoonists in the 30's and 40's Personally, I think Obama sort of resembles a chimpanzee, not because is half black , but because he sort of has the ears shaped like a chimpanzee.And so does George Bush .I bet most people would not have known that the cartoon was associated with the stimulus package, let alone the unlikely connection between the chimpanzee and obama, if it were not for a few opportunists in the media who created the racial connection between the chimpanzee and obama. I bet most people would have associated that cartoon with the chimpanzee who mauled the woman in Connecticut. Sales have dropped down to 17 percent for the New Yorker. Drawing a political cartoon with racial implications would be drawing unnecessary negative press , and lowering there audience number drastically, which no business wants.

People should be worrying about real issues that influences and affect their lives dramatically, not a silly cartoon. A cartoon cannot physically harm you. I bet most people who are boycotting the New Yorker never even read the New Yorker to begin with.

 

[WhoWee]

Yeah, but so what? even if the context is primitiveness and not appearance, are African Americans primitive or less than human? no. One need only travel to Appalachia if they believe otherwise. Let's not forget Bush was also depicted as a chimp with the same meaning associated with it as above.

So it's still irrational to use the slur and it's still irrational to be offended even in that context imo.

Have YOU ever been to Appalachia? What exactly do you mean?

Do you believe that people who live in Appalachia are inferior to black people or to monkeys ...or just inferior to you?

Or is it your intent to dismiss one racial slur with the introduction of a well-known slur of another group of Americans?

What is your point?

 

[Alfi]

Some non-Americans that aren't aware of the racist slur of comparing a monkey to a black person may not see it, but I don't know how any American wouldn't see it. They might not be bothered by it, but not see it? It's one thing to not be bothered by it, or even agree with it, but not even being aware of it? If you've watched tv or read a newspaper in the US in the last 40 years, you know of the racial slur.

Another Non-American here.
I first and only thought of the Infinite Monkey Theorem when I saw the cartoon. and giggled.
Not until I started reading posts on various sites I didn't even know people were making it controversial over a race issue.
I live in multicultural Toronto and never caught the connection.

 

[Evo]

Another Non-American here.
I first and only thought of the Infinite Monkey Theorem when I saw the cartoon. and giggled.
Not until I started reading posts on various sites I didn't even know people were making it controversial over a race issue.
I live in multicultural Toronto and never caught the connection.

That's understandable.

 

[mheslep]

Quoting Sharpton:

The cartoon in today's New York Post is troubling, at best, given the historic racist attacks of African-Americans as being synonymous with monkeys.

That's one take. A more relevant and recent quote might have been:

"Today's comment by Sharpton is troubling, at best, given the historic, well documented, and blatant abuse of race by the likes of Sharpton in thinly disguised shake downs for political power."

Here's the real thing couple days ago, requiring no speculation on symbolism: Clyburn's comments on some states that might refrain from accepting Federal money:

"...these four states are in the heart of the black belt... That's why I called this an insult. That's why I said this is a slap in the face; because a majority of these counties are, in fact, inhabited by African-Americans."

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics/AP/story/914106.html

I suggest that Clyburn cooly calculates the timing of an outrageous slanders such as this to be effective given the finger pointing over last weeks Post cartoon.

 

[LowlyPion]

I suggest that Clyburn cooly calculates the timing of an outrageous slanders such as this to be effective given the finger pointing over last weeks Post cartoon.

I don't see the connection.

If you want to find a connection between Republican Governors and their potentially vindictive funding obstructions against the minorities in their states that Federal funds are intended to assist, then that sounds like a good topic for another thread.

As to the cartoon itself, there is no doubt that not everyone goes to a Rodeo for the same reason. And is Sharpton a self promoter, who has made a career of advocating against racial discrimination? I'd say that this is how he interprets his mission as a Minister. So sure. He pops out of the woodwork when The Post makes an egregious public statement that awakens the public debate on race baiting. What did they expect?

I think if the Post doesn't want the public excoriation, or to feel as you would put it, "shaken down", then perhaps they should pursue a more enlightened approach and exercise a little more editorial sensitivity and discretion? Perhaps they could even show some real humanity and actual respect for those they clearly offended and actually apologize in a more unqualified way than to say sorry unless you are speaking out against it, then stuff it?

 

[mheslep]

...As to the cartoon itself, there is no doubt that not everyone goes to a Rodeo for the same reason. And is Sharpton a self promoter, who has made a career of advocating against racial discrimination? I'd say that this is how he interprets his mission as a Minister. So sure.

Please. Against what he claims to be racial discrimination, and after the Tawana Brawley fraud that will always be in serious doubt.

 

[LowlyPion]

Please. Against what he claims to be racial discrimination, and after the Tawana Brawley fraud that will always be in serious doubt.

Merely because Tawana Brawley was found to have been involved in an apparent fraud, it was not a fraud of Sharpton's making. And while he may have been found to have libeled one of her alleged attackers, mythical or not, in the heat of the moment, that serves at least to demonstrate his past history of passionate advocacy.

And even all of that taken into account, his advocacy in speaking out against the presentation of what many apparently think is salacious racial content in the cartoon, does nothing to cleanse the fact of the cartoon or any action that the Post would have taken in seeking to shirk accountability or disrespect any who have complained.

 

[LowlyPion]

Finally

STATEMENT FROM RUPERT MURDOCH

February 24, 2009

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.

http://www.nypost.com/seven/02242009/news/regionalnews/statement_from_rupert_murdoch_156676.htm

 

[LowlyPion]

OK. Sharpton lost me. Give it up Al. The apology is all you can expect, and thinking they will force more blacks on to the staff of the Post looks like the wrong response now. Racial hiring quotas has nothing at all to do with the offense of the cartoon.

Apology not accepted: Sharpton not satisfied with Murdoch's statement on controversial Post cartoon

BY Adam Lisberg and Christina Boyle
DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITERS

Tuesday, February 24th 2009, 8:14 PM

The Rev. Al Sharpton was still not satisfied Tuesday after New York Post owner Rupert Murdoch issued an unprecedented personal apology over a controversial cartoon that was branded racist.

... He also demanded that the billionaire businessman explain how he will ensure that a similar gaffe will not occur in the future.

http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2009/02/24/2009-02-24_apology_not_accepted_sharpton_not_satisf.html

Sharpton would make a lousy salesman. Any salesman knows that when the customer has been sold, that's the time to shut up and book the order and not to keep talking.

 

[Proton Soup]

OK. Sharpton lost me. Give it up Al. The apology is all you can expect, and thinking they will force more blacks on to the staff of the Post looks like the wrong response now. Racial hiring quotas has nothing at all to do with the offense of the cartoon.
http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2009/02/24/2009-02-24_apology_not_accepted_sharpton_not_satisf.html

Sharpton would make a lousy salesman. Any salesman knows that when the customer has been sold, that's the time to shut up and book the order and not to keep talking.

maybe he operates like Jesse Jackson and isn't going to go away until they show the money. the book "Shakedown" was a real eye-opener wrt to JJ.

 

[LowlyPion]

At this point if I were Murdoch, I would tell him to stuff it.

 

[mheslep]

Finally

http://www.nypost.com/seven/02242009/news/regionalnews/statement_from_rupert_murdoch_156676.htm

Classy apology by Murdoch. Was given in a manner appropriate to answer any unintended, but none the less insensitive, offense. Had none of the 'we really, really like minorities, and have lots of minority friends, see?' sophistry of the past.

 

[mheslep]

At this point if I were Murdoch, I would tell him to stuff it.

Bravo.

 

[LowlyPion]

Well I heard Sharpton earlier on MSNBC interview with Kieth Olbermann, and honestly he no longer has any good reason to proceed with more action against The Post. Except of course he is revving his engines still.

Yes The Post was insensitive and now they are aware. And if they aren't they are so tone deaf they can't tell when the orchestra is tuning their instruments or playing a symphony. Were it to happen again anytime soon, then maybe Sharpton might have a broader issue. But they haven't, and I don't see that he does any more.

The idea that Sharpton now expects to make demands on how The Post will run its business, is a bit over the line. The Post has no debt to Sharpton after acknowledging his point in the public dialog. Regardless of how insensitive they have been about racial depictions, it is enough to have the apology. The issue is not discrimination against blacks at The Post, though maybe minority participation may be deficient. The issue was minority affront. That The Post finally stepped up with a bit more class than the first self-servingly feeble apology and I think that should at last be enough.

Let's get on to more important things like fixing the economy and trying to repair the country after the last 8 years of Republican sponsored rot.

 

[LowlyPion]

Well the people at the Post aren't the only ones with a tin racial ear apparently.

Watermelons on the South Lawn instead of Easter Eggs?

Community reacts to mayor's watermelon e-mail

http://www.ocregister.com/articles/mail-grose-city-2318359-price-mayor

OK. So it's not a cartoon. But it is un-funny like the Delonas cartoon.

 

[Isilya]

Racist, sexist, poor taste, not funny (I'm offended by unfunny jokes), religious-phobic, bias, and stupidity.

People have a right to free speech, I do NOT have a right to be protected from being offended.

Cartoons, media or speech. Bring it on. A free society only works if everyone is free, even if you don't like what they have to say or think it is in poor taste. Censorship is a waste of time, and hurts more than it can help.

At least being offended makes people talk and hopefully think.

 

[Office_Shredder]

Racist, sexist, poor taste, not funny (I'm offended by unfunny jokes), religious-phobic, bias, and stupidity.

People have a right to free speech, I do NOT have a right to be protected from being offended.

Cartoons, media or speech. Bring it on. A free society only works if everyone is free, even if you don't like what they have to say or think it is in poor taste. Censorship is a waste of time, and hurts more than it can help.

At least being offended makes people talk and hopefully think.

I have a right to let people know when I'm offended though

 

[Isilya]

I have a right to let people know when I'm offended though

By all means. I encourage it. This is where debates emerge from. Conflicting points of view.

But telling them so does not mean they have to accommodate you. Nor should you expect it.

 

[Hurkyl]

But telling them so does not mean they have to accommodate you. Nor should you expect it.

Hey, I have a right to expect that they have to accommodate me!

 

[Alfi]

Hey, I have a right to expect that they have to accommodate me!

I know I do.
Hey, someone has to expect it. Why not me?

 

[Isilya]

LOL