NY Post cartoon of dead chimpanzee stirs outrage

D_Tintagel_Demondong

Sexy Member
Joined
Dec 9, 2005
Posts
3,928
Media
0
Likes
73
Points
193
A New York Post cartoon that some have interpreted as comparing President Barack Obama to a violent chimpanzee gunned down by police drew outrage Wednesday from civil rights leaders and elected officials who said it echoed racist stereotypes of blacks as monkeys.
I really don't see an affiliation in the cartoon that warrants "outrage". There is certainly no direct connection.

Edit:
On second glance, I still don't see the Travis/Stimulus package link. Considering that Obama didn't draft the package, I fail to see that connection too.
 
Last edited:

Flashy

Sexy Member
Joined
Feb 27, 2007
Posts
7,901
Media
0
Likes
27
Points
183
Location
at home
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
The Caption says:

"They'll have to find someone else to write the next stimulus bill."


Obama did not even write the stimulus bill. Pelosi, Reid and Obey did.

so how is it comparing Obama to a chimp?

The NYPost is a rather retarded newspaper, but how does one link a bill not written by Obama, to a comparison of Obama as the chimp?

this whole non-issue is retarded...predictably, Sharpton is making hay out of it..."troubling at best given the historic racist attacks of African-Americans as being synonymous with monkeys."

indeed, that would be troubling if they were comparing blacks to monkeys...but this is a chimpanzee, and chimps are not monkeys.

so essentially, the president did not write the bill, and nobody said the chimp was supposed to be Obama yet now Sharpton et. al are angry, because they have painted it as an "Obama as monkey" racist attack, and yet chimps are not monkeys.

tomorrow, doubtless, Limbaugh will join the fray, and we will be in for another left-right retardation-fest racial shit-storm debate.
 

dong20

Sexy Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2006
Posts
6,058
Media
0
Likes
28
Points
183
Location
The grey country
Sexuality
No Response
Dancing on pinheads to avoid the obvious. The 'author' no doubt counting on the above 'rationalisations', and variations thereof.

I mean it's bullshit, of course - but there are plenty who will use it as fodder for their pet peeve - I assume that was part of the motivation behind the cartoon, aside from the faux humour that is.

When will these people get past living their lives like a perpetual Rorschach test ... last I checked, the boogeyman had vacated the underneath of my bed, and most times, a chimp is just a chimp.
 

Principessa

Expert Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2006
Posts
18,660
Media
0
Likes
135
Points
193
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Female
First off Delonas was stupid to allegedly try to combine a cartoon about the stimulus bill with the shooting of a chimp in CT a few days earlier.

An earlier Delonas cartoon made fun of Paul McCartney's ex-wife Heather Mills for having only one leg, and another compared gay people seeking marriage licenses to sheep lovers. In a cartoon last month, an enormous Jessica Simpson dumps boyfriend Tony Romo for Ronald McDonald.
IMO-It's time for Delonas to retire. Clearly he has no idea how to discern political satire from ignorant, trailer trash style insults.

Commentary: NY Post cartoon is racist and careless
"Monkey slurs against Africans and African-Americans go back to the days of early colonialism, when Anglo Saxon, Spanish and Portuguese conquerors used these types of drawings and descriptions to dehumanize black people so that their mistreatment and enslavement would not be viewed as wrong or sinful. The practice also took on more sinister roles later in history including during the slave trade here in the U.S. and in Hitler's Nazi Germany." "One cannot truly understand America without understanding the historical experience of black people in this nation. Simply put, to get to the heart of this country, one must examine its racial soul."
A responsible, educated person would be aware of the ugly history of ape, gorilla, and monkey slurs against black people in this country and would not have even thought to make such a cartoon.

The argument that Pelosi and others are responsible for the stimulus bill doesn't hold water because all the radical right sees is that, 'That black man signed off on it'. Therefore it's his bill in their eyes. :cool:

Unfortunately all this cartoon does is to further divide the country along racial lines.:frown1::mad:
 

hoggindaz

Experimental Member
Joined
Sep 14, 2008
Posts
328
Media
0
Likes
21
Points
103
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
A responsible, educated person would be aware of the ugly history of ape, gorilla, and monkey slurs against black people in this country and would not have even thought to make such a cartoon.

yeeaaaaah, im going to go ahead and disagree with you on that one,

i dont think the cartoon has anything to do with President Obama. i think its pretty simple really, the comic is deriding the poor layout of the bailout bill, i have no idea how this comic is racial in any way, much less somehow representing President Obama.
 

Principessa

Expert Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2006
Posts
18,660
Media
0
Likes
135
Points
193
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Female
yeeaaaaah, im going to go ahead and disagree with you on that one,

i dont think the cartoon has anything to do with President Obama. i think its pretty simple really, the comic is deriding the poor layout of the bailout bill, i have no idea how this comic is racial in any way, much less somehow representing President Obama.


Of course not, that's because you are white and clueless just like the guy that did the cartoon. :rolleyes:
 

beretta8

Sexy Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2007
Posts
9,124
Media
10
Likes
45
Points
193
Location
By the western shore of Lake Michigan
Sexuality
99% Gay, 1% Straight
Gender
Male
Since this poor chimp could shower, brush his teeth, lock-unlock doors, go potty, host a tea party....among other things...why not write a stimulus package, eh?....oh yeah....he dead...


edit: "beware of dog" sign creeps me out.....
 
Last edited:

D_Chaumbrelayne_Copprehead

Account Disabled
Joined
Jan 9, 2008
Posts
8,858
Media
0
Likes
83
Points
133
The editor of the NY Post should be ashamed of himself for printing that hateful cartoon......worst of all, It's NOT even funny.

Exactly. It's clueless and stupid. It feels racist to me, but if it's not, it's lame and unfunny and makes the cartoonist look like incompetent, in over his head, and unable to do his job.
 

AllHazzardi

Experimental Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2004
Posts
338
Media
76
Likes
18
Points
163
Location
Palm Springs, California
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
I don't know.... the way I'm seeing it is that the stimulus bill is so bad a CHIMPANZEE could have written it. Then of course, a chimp gets shot due to mauling a woman.

Hell, I look at the article, and I see 4 people making interpretations, and not one of them is the artist. Lot of stupid people jumping to stupid conclusions.

Now, had the chimp had OBAMA written over it, as often names are written onto caricatures in political cartoons, then I'd be making a different analysis.

All of you have gotten caught up in those different interpretations it seems. Can you argue EXACTLY why it is referring to Obama, without using any of the comments in the article? If you can, is it a REALLY STRONG link, or is it REALLY WEAK?

Personally, I think it's pretty accurate, the stimulus bill is a godawful stupid idea, it always has been. Reason #1 is to take a look at what happens to companies when they know it's there. Reason #2 is that bailing out companies that didn't work; bad idea.

Of course, you can all think what you want. I just don't see the reasoning that makes the Chimp equate Obama in this Political cartoon, perhaps one of you can explain it...
 

Principessa

Expert Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2006
Posts
18,660
Media
0
Likes
135
Points
193
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Female
First off Delonas was stupid to allegedly try to combine a cartoon about the stimulus bill with the shooting of a chimp in CT a few days earlier.


Commentary: NY Post cartoon is racist and carelessA responsible, educated person would be aware of the ugly history of ape, gorilla, and monkey slurs against black people in this country and would not have even thought to make such a cartoon.

The argument that Pelosi and others are responsible for the stimulus bill doesn't hold water because all the radical right sees is that, 'That black man signed off on it'. Therefore it's his bill in their eyes. :cool:

Unfortunately all this cartoon does is to further divide the country along racial lines.:frown1::mad:

I don't know.... the way I'm seeing it is that the stimulus bill is so bad a CHIMPANZEE could have written it. Then of course, a chimp gets shot due to mauling a woman.
That's what you see? Hmm, and what color is the sky in your world? :confused:

Of course, you can all think what you want. I just don't see the reasoning that makes the Chimp equate Obama in this Political cartoon, perhaps one of you can explain it...
I stated that quite clearly in a previous post in this thread. Please, see above. I bolded it for you.:cool:
 

Columbus

Just Browsing
Joined
Apr 15, 2008
Posts
32
Media
0
Likes
0
Points
91
It's always about race.... had it been a white president no one would have cared... Riots in washington.. oh and when the cops start tasing people, they too will be racist..

What a joke.
 

B_Nick8

Cherished Member
Joined
Jun 29, 2007
Posts
11,403
Media
0
Likes
298
Points
208
Location
New York City, by way of Marblehead, Boston and Ge
Sexuality
80% Gay, 20% Straight
Gender
Male
IMO-It's time for Delonas to retire.

You're right. He has a track record for offensive, sophomoric 'humor' which has been too long tolerated.

Commentary: NY Post cartoon is racist and careless A responsible, educated person would be aware of the ugly history of ape, gorilla, and monkey slurs against black people in this country and would not have even thought to make such a cartoon.

The argument that Pelosi and others are responsible for the stimulus bill doesn't hold water because all the radical right sees is that, 'That black man signed off on it'. Therefore it's his bill in their eyes. :cool:

Unfortunately all this cartoon does is to further divide the country along racial lines.:frown1::mad:

Nj, I'll be honest. My first instinct was to say that people were being too sensitive and over-reacting and that Sharpton was yet again doing that media whore thing he does so well. But on second thought, I have to agree with you. And I'll go one step further: it's not just the radical right that sees the stimulus package as Obama's bill, regardless of who actually wrote it; it's the vast majority of the country.

So, yes, I agree with you. Especially give the author, I believe the implication was intentional and the slur that much more offensive.
 

AllHazzardi

Experimental Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2004
Posts
338
Media
76
Likes
18
Points
163
Location
Palm Springs, California
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
That's what you see? Hmm, and what color is the sky in your world? :confused:


I stated that quite clearly in a previous post in this thread. Please, see above. I bolded it for you.:cool:


First off Delonas was stupid to allegedly try to combine a cartoon about the stimulus bill with the shooting of a chimp in CT a few days earlier.
Commentary: NY Post cartoon is racist and careless A responsible, educated person would be aware of the ugly history of ape, gorilla, and monkey slurs against black people in this country and would not have even thought to make such a cartoon.
But what else is in the link?

Delonas, the cartoonist, said to CNN, "It's absolutely friggin ridiculous. Do you really think I'm saying Obama should be shot? I didn't see that in the cartoon. The chimpanzee was a major story in the Post. Every paper in New York, except The New York Times, covered the chimpanzee story. It's just ridiculous. It's about the economic stimulus bill. If you're going to make that about anybody, it would be [House Speaker Nancy] Pelosi, which it's not."
Peachy. Artist's interpretation.

Tell me something, if anyone uses anything which has any history to do with racism or anything of the sort, regardless of knowledge or not beforehand, Does it mean that person is making a racist comment?

If I draw a picture of a Chimpanzee, am I being derogatory about african-american people? If I draw a picture of a Cross on fire, am I a white supremacist? If I draw a picture of a trailer being carried off by a tornado, is it a bigoted comment about "Trailer trash" folk?

No. It's not. A comment has to be MADE with racist or discriminatory intent for it to be racist or discriminatory.

You have come to the conclusion that it is racist because of your own beliefs. In this case, it is historical relevance, but you have forgotten to examine the artist responsible, a slightly more present-day evaluation. If the artist did not intend it to be racist, it is not. Just like the whole thing with the elephant dung on the painting, it was not intended to be offensive, it was intended to be art. People just got offended by it because of their own standards. Of course, historical relevance says that this will most likely be waved off as one of the "rationalizations" the artist was counting on.

If those of you speaking against it(on what I believe to be weak grounding) were all correct, then the artist is too stupid to know the history of ape-kin insults for black people, but is smart enough to plan things perfectly such that the "rationalizations" are all sensible and logical leaving none-the-wiser on that side of the fence. Bit contradictory, but okay.

You should be careful with overreaction, it's usually what causes most of the back and forth between the two sides. One overreaction to anything, especially something small, is what sets up left and right to go 12 rounds with each other.

PS dong20: Funny thing, using the word "Rationalization" to describe a logical analysis. I mean, if anything, logic IS rational. In fact, a lot of the problems we've been having between people, with companies, with government, is because a lot of people have been irrational and irresponsible on top of it.

PPS njqt: Racism can be a very ugly thing. It is important to be mindful though, because a stone thrown does not necessarily stop the one coming at you. Then again, I could just be white and clueless like the artist, right?

---------
History never repeats itself, but sometimes it can come close.
 
Last edited:

Skull Mason

Expert Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2006
Posts
3,035
Media
6
Likes
110
Points
193
Location
Dirty Jersey
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
spare me the drama. If the author or "artist" is ignorant enough to not recognize the underlying racism present then he should retire.

*IF THE PRESIDENT IS BLACK, AND IS LARGELY ATTRIBUTED TO THE STIMULUS BILL BY THE PUBLIC (THE "ARTIST'S" AUDIENCE), THEN DRAWING A PICTURE OF A PRIMATE BEING SHOT AND BLAMED FOR WRITING THE STIMULUS BILL IS ASININE.
 
Last edited:

AllHazzardi

Experimental Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2004
Posts
338
Media
76
Likes
18
Points
163
Location
Palm Springs, California
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
spare me the drama. If the author or "artist" is ignorant enough to not recognize the underlying racism present then he should retire.


Racism does not "exist" in the world. It is not something that is just there. A photo is not racist. A painting is not racist. A tree is not racist. Nothing is racist unless it is given that label, given that state. People make things racist, could be the giver, could be the receiver. An image of a chimpanzee is not racist unless it was intended to be so. It can be interpreted as racist when it is not, and it can be interpreted as not racist when it is. If you look at the artist's history of work, you find a lot of directly offensive work. When I say directly, I mean quite literally, no qualms about it, up front, in your face, or many other ways to say the same thing. That this is not direct and up front would mean one of two things, either he DID intend for it to be Obama, and the editor had him remove the label, or he did NOT intend for it to be Obama, and the cartoon is not intended to be racist.
I look at all this, and I can't help but think, what the hell ever happened to "Innocent until proven guilty", everyone who considers this offensive is doing so not only on assumption but also condemning him based on that assumption. If anything, go look at some of his other work, and condemn him for a valid reason:

Loathsome: Ten Cartoons from Sean Delonas


*IF THE PRESIDENT IS BLACK, AND IS LARGELY ATTRIBUTED TO THE STIMULUS BILL BY THE PUBLIC (THE ARTIST'S AUDIENCE), THEN DRAWING A PICTURE OF A PRIMATE BEING SHOT AND BLAMED FOR WRITING THE STIMULUS BILL IS ASININE.

I disagree, because I don't assume people are racist. I don't assume a populace of an audience to make a particularly racist connection by default. I do assume that some people will make a connection that isn't there, however.

Though, my agreement isn't far off. The stimulus bill is likely not going to work, not because of a failure in planning, but because of a failure in the corporate system we have. To me, this stimulus bill looks like a poor choice. I think a chimpanzee probably could do a better job of planning it, probably a lot more concern for bananas and banana production, but at least we'd have plenty of food. The thing which would make my agreement come quickly is if a Chimpanzee had not actually been shot. If the Chimpanzee had not actually been shot, it would have taken a racist mind to add the chimpanzee to the stimulus bill comment. However, in the other direction, it's soundly insulting to imply that the now-dead chimpanzee was the author of a stimulus bill most of the audience likely considers a bad idea.
 
Last edited:

Principessa

Expert Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2006
Posts
18,660
Media
0
Likes
135
Points
193
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Female
You are so young and naive. It pains me that you were reared in this country yet are so completely clueless on basic facts. Allow me to extract a quote from your most previous post.
No. It's not. A comment has to be MADE with racist or discriminatory intent for it to be racist or discriminatory.
This is where you and many others are wrong. It is not the person making the statement who decides if something is racist or sexist. It is the recipient of the slur or derogatory remark who decides it is offensive. There are just as many white people who saw that cartoon and recognized it as racist. I'm not saying only black people are able to identify racism. :cool:


But what else is in the link?

Peachy. Artist's interpretation.

Tell me something, if anyone uses anything which has any history to do with racism or anything of the sort, regardless of knowledge or not beforehand, Does it mean that person is making a racist comment?
It depends on the statement, your 'what if' is kinda vague.


If I draw a picture of a Chimpanzee, am I being derogatory about african-american people? If I draw a picture of a Cross on fire, am I a white supremacist? If I draw a picture of a trailer being carried off by a tornado, is it a bigoted comment about "Trailer trash" folk?
It depends on the context. FWIW: You've already proven yourself to be more than a bit prejudiced.

You have come to the conclusion that it is racist because of your own beliefs. In this case, it is historical relevance, but you have forgotten to examine the artist responsible, a slightly more present-day evaluation.
No, not my beliefs, facts. :cool:


If the artist did not intend it to be racist, it is not.
:bsflag: Bull Shit! By your rationale if I go out tonight and get drunk, then get in my car and cross into the opposite lane and kill someone driving towards me. Then I should be neither jailed, nor fined; because I didn't mean to kill anyone. After all I just wanted to go home and sleep it off.

Just like the whole thing with the elephant dung on the painting, it was not intended to be offensive, it was intended to be art. People just got offended by it because of their own standards. Of course, historical relevance says that this will most likely be waved off as one of the "rationalizations" the artist was counting on.
That crap (pun intended) was not art. It was the visual equivalent of an internet troll who makes a single post such as "Obama is a muslim baby killer" then sits back to watch the melee begin.


If those of you speaking against it(on what I believe to be weak grounding) were all correct, then the artist is too stupid to know the history of ape-kin insults for black people, but is smart enough to plan things perfectly such that the "rationalizations" are all sensible and logical leaving none-the-wiser on that side of the fence. Bit contradictory, but okay.

You should be careful with overreaction, it's usually what causes most of the back and forth between the two sides. One overreaction to anything, especially something small, is what sets up left and right to go 12 rounds with each other.
And you should be careful about choosing the opposing side in a debate about which you do not have all the facts.