- Joined
- Nov 14, 2004
- Posts
- 7,426
- Media
- 6
- Likes
- 277
- Points
- 208
- Location
- Mavs, NOR * CAL
- Sexuality
- 100% Straight, 0% Gay
- Gender
- Male
I really don't see an affiliation in the cartoon that warrants "outrage". There is certainly no direct connection.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.
IMO-It's time for Delonas to retire. Clearly he has no idea how to discern political satire from ignorant, trailer trash style insults.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.
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."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.
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.
The editor of the NY Post should be ashamed of himself for printing that hateful cartoon......worst of all, It's NOT even funny.
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.
Unfortunately all this cartoon does is to further divide the country along racial lines.:frown1:![]()
That's what you see? Hmm, and what color is the sky in your world?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.
I stated that quite clearly in a previous post in this thread. Please, see above. I bolded it for you.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...
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.
Unfortunately all this cartoon does is to further divide the country along racial lines.:frown1:![]()
That's what you see? Hmm, and what color is the sky in your world?
I stated that quite clearly in a previous post in this thread. Please, see above. I bolded it for you.![]()
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.
But what else is in the link?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.
Peachy. Artist's interpretation.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."
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.
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.No. It's not. A comment has to be MADE with racist or discriminatory intent for it to be racist or discriminatory.
But what else is in the link?
Peachy. Artist's interpretation.
It depends on the statement, your 'what if' is kinda vague.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 context. FWIW: You've already proven yourself to be more than a bit prejudiced.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, not my beliefs, facts.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.![]()
: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.If the artist did not intend it to be racist, it is not.
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.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.
And you should be careful about choosing the opposing side in a debate about which you do not have all the facts.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.