Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics' started by B_faceking, Feb 19, 2009.
NY Post cartoon of dead chimpanzee stirs outrage
nice try... quite a reach.
I really don't see an affiliation in the cartoon that warrants "outrage". There is certainly no direct connection.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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:
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.
The editor of the NY Post should be ashamed of himself for printing that hateful cartoon......worst of all, It's NOT even funny.
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.....
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.
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...
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.
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.
Yeah some of you guys blow me away. Who do you think the chimp represents?
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.
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?
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.
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.
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
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.
Ok, you have definitely convinced me. I am now 110% sure he is being an ignorant racist after seeing his track record.
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.
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.