NY Post cartoon of dead chimpanzee stirs outrage

[pym]

Wow......what a surprise.
A tradgedy involving a woman getting her face torn off by a Chimpanzee,which is then shot to death.......and comparing that scenario with the Barack Obama/Congress engineered Stimulus package.........

Gotta love THAT comparison, eh Facey?

Well alrighty then.........Another instance of FaceKing being on the wrong side of things. AS ALWAYS. NON-Entity pile of shit .

 

[AllHazzardi]

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.

But what else is in the link?

Peachy. Artist's interpretation.

It depends on the statement, your 'what if' is kinda vague.


It depends on the context. FWIW: You've already proven yourself to be more than a bit prejudiced.

No, not my beliefs, facts.


: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.

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.


And you should be careful about choosing the opposing side in a debate about which you do not have all the facts.

If you read my comments correctly, I'm not talking about someone taking offense to something. You can CALL something racist, but that does not MAKE it racist. I'm speaking of a cartoon which is drawn, a cartoon which is drawn and has MANY possible connections in it. In this situation, the interpretation that should be used is from the conceptual perspective; which combination of images were intentional, and which were not. Through this perspective we can analyze if it is racist, or if it is just offensive.

But you are correct, it IS the recipient which determines if it is OFFENSIVE. But not RACIST. A racist slur is a racist slur because a race takes offense to it. It is then used to trigger that offense INTENTIONALLY. However, if it is, as in many cases, NOT intended, it is NOT racist. Offensive, yes. Racist, no.

In the case of your drunk driving example, there is a clear distinction. Racism is a mentality, or a frame of reference, which is different from discrimination; an action. A racist remark, is one intended to harm, demean, or offend another race. However, any statement can be offensive to one race or another. Does that mean that any statement is racist? No, it doesn't. That is the difference between being an idiot and an asshole, intent. In the drunk driving example, whether you intended to kill someone or not, does not matter, because DUI is not a mentality, it is an act. This is why discrimination is punishable by law but prejudice is not. One is an act, the other is a state of mind.

 

[pym]

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.

As NJQT said....so naive
I have actually visited some of the finest art museums in the world. I have personally seen paintings by the MASTERS depicting jews as Big nosed pawn-brokers, Spray-painted hate grafiti on synagouges, all sorts of 3rd reich propaganda depictions of jews and other UN-desirables, Japanese ww2 era depictions of Chinese and korean {not to mention Americans} as Animals beneath contempt. I really could go on.....But i'm 47 and have really seen the world.....I suggest you grow up and experiance the world outside of text-books. Try expressing your point of view to the average guy in Tupelo Mississippi. I'd like to watch that conversation.

 

[B_VinylBoy]

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.

I disagree...
If this was 2007, and the picture depicted a Polar Bear being shot by two men holding a Koran saying, "I guess we don't have to deal with anymore surges in Iraq", I'm sure that Faceking and many other anti-Libs would have been all up in arms and asking for the cartoonist's head.

If anything, it's the fact that this so-called "monkey" needed to be killed that gets me the most. Who cares if you don't think the chimpanzee is being used to represent Obama? The cartoon still hints that the people who wrote the Stimulus Bill need to be shot. Which means he thinks the politician(s) involved to make that happen need to be assassinated in order to not pass another piece of legislation that he doesn't agree with.

No matter how you look at it, the cartoon is in bad taste. Just because something makes you laugh doesn't mean that it's lacking in moral judgement.

 

[AllHazzardi]

I disagree...
If this was 2007, and the picture depicted a Polar Bear being shot by two men holding a Koran saying, "I guess we don't have to deal with anymore surges in Iraq", I'm sure that Faceking and many other anti-Libs would have been all up in arms and asking for the cartoonist's head.

If anything, it's the fact that this so-called "monkey" needed to be killed that gets me the most. Who cares if you don't think the chimpanzee is being used to represent Obama? The cartoon still hints that the people who wrote the Stimulus Bill need to be shot. Which means he thinks the politician(s) involved to make that happen need to be assassinated in order to not pass another piece of legislation that he doesn't agree with.

No matter how you look at it, the cartoon is in bad taste. Just because something makes you laugh doesn't mean that it's lacking in moral judgement.

Mm, yes, but how you look at it does make the difference between bad taste and racism.

 

[AllHazzardi]

As NJQT said....so naive
I have actually visited some of the finest art museums in the world. I have personally seen paintings by the MASTERS depicting jews as Big nosed pawn-brokers, Spray-painted hate grafiti on synagouges, all sorts of 3rd reich propaganda depictions of jews and other UN-desirables, Japanese ww2 era depictions of Chinese and korean {not to mention Americans} as Animals beneath contempt. I really could go on.....But i'm 47 and have really seen the world.....I suggest you grow up and experiance the world outside of text-books. Try expressing your point of view to the average guy in Tupelo Mississippi. I'd like to watch that conversation.

I never said "If it's art, it's not racist". I said that the difference is between intention. If something is intended as art, it's offensive, rather than racist, UNLESS it was intended as RACIST art.

I've been on half the continents and a good third of the states, I've been in the middle of nowhere, too. I've seen people living in a way which makes them scramble onto roads to gather grain that falls off passing farm trucks to try to plant and grow some food. My perspective is not reactionary, like many of the people here. If something hits me, I don't get angry at the tree it fell from. I do not see something that offends me and then call it racist. I figure out why it was said, and if it was said for racist purposes, then I call it racist.

I am not going to jump to a conclusion or make an emotional reaction. I did that when I was younger, and it took its toll. I've made my mistakes, and I have learned from them. Now I examine the situation before I make a decision. Try it sometime.

 

[dong20]

i dont think the cartoon has anything to do with President Obama. ... i have no idea how this comic is racial in any way, much less somehow representing President Obama.

To be honest, I find that difficult to believe.

By way of illustration; replace the chimp with say a ... donkey and ask yourself [honestly] if there would be such a reaction. Sure, it may get a reaction but surely not this one.

If you need further illustration; consider the 'infinite monkey*' theorem (of which this is possibly a play) and recall that so far as we know, William was white.

I don't know.... the way I'm seeing it is that the stimulus bill is so bad a CHIMPANZEE could have written it.

Well of course, and that's how all it should be seen as and it would be - were our world free from stereotype and prejudice.

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 agree, yet that doesn't negate the latent symbolism - given we are not [yet] living in the world alluded to in my first sentence.

As for needing an explanation of the rationale; I 'somehow' find it difficult to believe many would truly need a diagram. It's a measure of my cynicism that I feel that way, so if I'm doing you an injustice I apologise.

* Yes, I know, Chimps aren't monkeys.

 

[B_VinylBoy]

Mm, yes, but how you look at it does make the difference between bad taste and racism.

The racial overtones of this cartoon are too obvious and blatant. NJ makes a perfectly valid argument about the cartoon on that level. As adults we all can't pretend to be oblivious to our Nation's past just to appear objective or color blind. In fact, I think that's one of the main reasons why this cartoonist decided to use this particular symbolism for his message. Because he knew that some people would try and justify themselves for liking this cartoon by acting as if they didn't see race in it at all. And to be honest, it's impossible not to especially if you've been born and raised in this country.

But even if you want to assume that role of color blindness, we can look at it in another way and see that the cartoonist thinks people who push legislation that he disagrees with should be shot. So, unless you think people should be assassinated for doing something you don't like, there's really no need for anyone to defend this.

 

[B_Nick4444]

wow!

all this drama over something as inconsequential as a cartoon

no wonder real problems remain unresolved ...

 

[AllHazzardi]

FWIW: You've already proven yourself to be more than a bit prejudiced.

And for what it's worth, you've also proven yourself to be more than a bit prejudiced. I'd even go so far as to say you're often borderline bigoted or racist in some of your comments.

It pains me to see someone speak against racism without abandoning it first.

This is well grounded on things you have said, so before you get angry, try to find what comments I'm talking about. Failing that, though I think it better if you were to find them, I'll be more than willing to compile a list.

 

[dong20]

PS dong20: Funny thing, using the word "Rationalization" to describe a logical analysis. I mean, if anything, logic IS rational.

Well. rationalise has more than one meaning, and logical analysis in itself is no guarantee of reaching the truth.

 

[AllHazzardi]

As NJQT said....so naive
I have actually visited some of the finest art museums in the world. I have personally seen paintings by the MASTERS depicting jews as Big nosed pawn-brokers, Spray-painted hate grafiti on synagouges, all sorts of 3rd reich propaganda depictions of jews and other UN-desirables, Japanese ww2 era depictions of Chinese and korean {not to mention Americans} as Animals beneath contempt. I really could go on.....But i'm 47 and have really seen the world.....I suggest you grow up and experiance the world outside of text-books. Try expressing your point of view to the average guy in Tupelo Mississippi. I'd like to watch that conversation.

You know, I must apologise, I entirely forgot to reply to your challenge.

I could easily explain it to the average guy in Tupelo, Mississippi, if he agreed to reserve judgment until the explanation is finished.

 

[dong20]

wow!

all this drama over something as inconsequential as a cartoon

Which would suggest it isn't inconsequential.

 

[slurper_la]

It's amazing and mind boggling all at the same time...

for about three weeks now I've listened to and read the rantings of right wing obstructionists, everywhere from C-SPAN to Talk Radio to these forum pages, defame President Obama for his lack of experience, poor judgment and socialist leanings as they apply to "his" stimulus package and how it will be the worst thing that ever happened to this country.... AND SUDDENLY, MIRACULOUSLY... in the wake of the publication of this ill-conceived cartoon, the stimulus package now has ownership rights assigned to Speaker Pelosi.

In a similar light I now find myself taking great head-scratching pleasure watching some of the obstructionist republicans, who voted against this bill because it was "created by the Dems in secret, without republican participation" now taking credit for the moneys and programs that will flow to their districts to help people.

 

[AllHazzardi]

Well. rationalise has more than one meaning, and logical analysis in itself is no guarantee of reaching the truth.

Of course, I just found it funny that it pans out in that way. Don't you? I mean, handing off something because it's a rationalization, when in fact it is a rational analysis, rather than a rationalization which is tenuous and is meant to "rationalize" a bad or incorrect perspective.

 

[dong20]

Of course, I just found it funny that it pans out in that way. Don't you? I mean, handing off something because it's a rationalization, when in fact it is a rational analysis, rather than a rationalization which is tenuous and is meant to "rationalize" a bad or incorrect perspective.

Indeed.

Explanations voiced by some of the early responders may be correct in a strictly 'factual' sense, but if offered merely to avoid acknowledging an inconvenient truth, or to appear 'incredulous', then I would find that disingenuous, at best.

Of course there is the possibility the imagery in the cartoon is entirely innocent. However, and I freely admit this is just my opinion - I somehow feel that's unlikely.

That said, and as a nod to Nick's comment earlier, I do feel we create these little dramas for ourselves, and while we continue to assign [sinister] meaning where it shouldn't (read doesn't) belong then progress will inevitably remain slow. Perhaps it's simply our nature.

 

[AllHazzardi]

Indeed.

Explanations voiced by some of the early responders may be correct in a strictly 'factual' sense, but if offered merely to avoid acknowledging an inconvenient truth, or to appear 'incredulous', then I would find that disingenuous, at best.

Of course there is the possibility the imagery in the cartoon is entirely innocent. However, and I freely admit this is just my opinion - I somehow feel that's unlikely.

That said, and as a nod to Nick's comment earlier, I do feel we create these little dramas for ourselves, and while we continue to assign [sinister] meaning where it shouldn't (read doesn't) belong then progress will inevitably remain slow. Perhaps it's simply our nature.

Indeed, and it is in understanding that nature that we are able to circumvent it. If we are not aware of it, however, it will not change. In fact, often an ascription of "it's our nature" is to an extent a cop-out from actually fixing it. We seek the desirable, it's our nature, but we learn from the undesirable. That undesirable thing will continue to come at us until we understand it and its purpose. Once we understand it, we can hold it at bay, or make it work for us. It is all in understanding of what is going on that we are able to accept it, fix it if necessary, and move on.

 

[Big_Al9_5]

And for what it's worth, you've also proven yourself to be more than a bit prejudiced. I'd even go so far as to say you're often borderline bigoted or racist in some of your comments.

It pains me to see someone speak against racism without abandoning it first.

Bravo. I think you've hit the nail squarely on the head.

 

[tripod]

I could easily explain it to the average guy in Tupelo, Mississippi, if he agreed to reserve judgment until the explanation is finished.

You'd have to get his fist out of your mouth first Al.

**************************************

Ha Ha ha... the right wingers on this board have been towing the conservative line with their bullshit about how Pelosi wrote the bill...

Pelosi wrote the bill because that is what the house of representatives does, they write the bills. The bill is not Pelosi's stimulus, it is BARACK OBAMA'S stimulus package. Barack is the one who has been talking about the stimulus... there would be no stimulus if he wasn't elected... and Pelosi would still be the Speaker of the House. Have you right wing geniuses ever even consider that?

The stimulus bill is Barack Obama's baby. he is responsible for it's existence even though Pelosi and Reid had to actually draft the versions of the bill becasue it is their jobs to do so.

It is also about VIOLENCE.

The cartoon is distasteful at best... and condones violence toward Democrats. If the shoe was on the other foot, you right wingers would have been calling for congressiional hearings into the matter.

It is absolutely the worst political cartoon I have ever seen.

So, forget about the racism and let's follow the Republican talking point where Pelosi is the chimp and she has been shot dead by the police while they make a smarmy comment about her.

Is this even in the least bit tasteful to you right wingers? Of course it is, because you are all a bunch of mean spirited jackals that delight in anything negative towards the deomcrats.

The right wingers on this board are predictable with their blasé rections to this horrific cartoon. The event with the lady's friend getting her face torn off by the chimp, the owner having to shank her chimp with a butcher knife and the violent way with which the chimp met his demise was an absolutel;y tragic event... anybody that would make a joke out of it are fucking inhuman Neanderthals and the right wingers who condone the cartoon are carrying his bags for him.

The pieces of dog excrement that call themselves humans on this board never cease to amaze me with their lack of beating hearts.

 

[dong20]

Indeed, and it is in understanding that nature that we are able to circumvent it. If we are not aware of it, however, it will not change. In fact, often an ascription of "it's our nature" is to an extent a cop-out from actually fixing it.

Agreed, and I deliberately 'tossed' that in at the end for a reason - while I think it's possible (essential in fact) that we change our 'nature' in the future, we may achieve that aim more easily by moving if we're able to accept what is now.

I use 'we' collectively of course because we each 'progress' at our own pace, and not to negate the progress made in recent years - but as a species eventually we must 'grow up', or risk extinction.

Of course that's a very generalist statement, and doesn't relate just to the issue raised in this thread, we face far more insidious threats than a risqué cartoon. I wasn't intending to reflect a defeatist stance, but simple pragmatism.