[Op/Ed] A political cartoon

[weemadando]

I can see the issue that people have, but when I looked at it all I got was the 100 monkeys w/ 100 typewriters joke. Nothing racist in my first read. Sure, it's there if you want it to be (and given his other work he certainly intended it to be), but I don't think that the primary implication is that Obama is a chimp. It's that the legislation is so stupid that a monkey could have done it.

[General Zod]

I can see the issue that people have, but when I looked at it all I got was the 100 monkeys w/ 100 typewriters joke. Nothing racist in my first read. Sure, it's there if you want it to be (and given his other work he certainly intended it to be), but I don't think that the primary implication is that Obama is a chimp. It's that the legislation is so stupid that a monkey could have done it.

It's possible, but you'd think someone who hadn't intended racism would have apologized for it instead of being belligerently defensive about it like this dildo. If it wasn't intentional racism it was an appallingly ignorant choice of imagery combinations.

[weemadando]

I can see the issue that people have, but when I looked at it all I got was the 100 monkeys w/ 100 typewriters joke. Nothing racist in my first read. Sure, it's there if you want it to be (and given his other work he certainly intended it to be), but I don't think that the primary implication is that Obama is a chimp. It's that the legislation is so stupid that a monkey could have done it.

It's possible, but you'd think someone who hadn't intended racism would have apologized for it instead of being belligerently defensive about it like this dildo. If it wasn't intentional racism it was an appallingly ignorant choice of imagery combinations.

I think he's just a slippery prick who put it in there knowing that he could get away with saying: "but that's not what the cartoon is about - you're seeing it wrong."

[Murazor]

Much like weemadando, my first reaction to the cartoon is that it is innocent enough political satire (rather unfunny, but as far as I am concerned this is the case of most political satires I have seen in my life), but it could be that I simply lack the cultural perspective needed to detect the racist overtones in there.

After all, Spain has only gained a substantial population of... people of African origins (not trying to be cheeky or politically correct, it is just that I am not sure of the best non-offensive term to identify coloured people) in recent years and the town where I live still has a very limited presence of foreigners, so I haven't had much first hand exposure to xenophobic behaviour.

Something similar happened with Jar-Jar Binks. Apparently, everyone was convinced that he was some kind of offensive caricature of African-Americans from the ghetto. Until I read an explanation of this, I was convinced that he was just another funny-looking CGI character with an obnoxious personality.

[Wicked Pilot]

It's possible, but you'd think someone who hadn't intended racism would have apologized for it instead of being belligerently defensive about it like this dildo.

Or perhaps he just doesn't want to bend over for all the whiners. If I didn't think I did anything wrong I sure as hell wouldn't apologize either, I'd maybe clarify the point of the cartoon and then tell everyone to go fuck off.

[General Zod]

Or perhaps he just doesn't want to bend over for all the whiners. If I didn't think I did anything wrong I sure as hell wouldn't apologize either, I'd maybe clarify the point of the cartoon and then tell everyone to go fuck off.

And most likely cost the newspaper that's employing you subscriptions, possibly advertising revenue in the process? Brilliant move there. I mean if the Post doesn't care that some people would be pissed enough to cancel their subscriptions or pull ads, then it's their call. But it's hardly the brightest idea in the world.

[Wicked Pilot]

Besides the fact that the story has most likely already blown over, it's doubtful considering The Post's readership that such a lack of apology would mean jack shit to the paper's bottom line.

[General Zod]

Besides the fact that the story has most likely already blown over, it's doubtful considering The Post's readership that such a lack of apology would mean jack shit to the paper's bottom line.

Except for the fact that it's still making rounds on CNN, I don't think it's blown over just yet. But why take the chance, anyway? Pissing off an ethnic group is a surefire way to cut into a business's bottom line and quite frankly incredibly unprofessional regardless of how you try and justify it.

[Wicked Pilot]

The cartoonist and editor explained the source of the cartoon, that's all that should have ever been required. Some people will always find a way to get pissed no matter what you do, and kowtowing to their whining with a disingenuous apology is certainly not a sign of professionalism. About the bottom line, maybe your right and they'll lose money over this. I certainly wouldn't give half a shit if that happened, I don't read the paper and as long as it's a Murdoch product I never will. Whatever way this thing's going to resolve itself it'll be quick, and we'll have our answer.

[Kanastrous]

Were the Danish publishers who ran the 'Muhammad' cartoon being incredibly unprofessional?

I don't recall everyone's individual response to that matter, but the f'ing Muslims should just suck it up attitude was certainly prevalent, around here.

[General Zod]

Were the Danish publishers who ran the 'Muhammad' cartoon being incredibly unprofessional?

I don't recall everyone's individual response to that matter, but the f'ing Muslims should just suck it up attitude was certainly prevalent, around here.

There's a fine line between blatant racist imagery and mocking ideas. The former was rather clearly mocking ideas.

[Wicked Pilot]

Islam is a belief someone can choose to hold or not to hold, that makes it a perfectly valid target for criticism or ridicule. Race is not accurate or inaccurate, moral or immoral, it's just what you are.

[Bilbo]

Addedium:Personally I'm in the let this slide category, digging back through this cartoonists work it's obvious he's somewhat of a conservative and with an odd sense of humor who enjoys drawing celebrities as fugly as possible. Nothing more, I'd say let it slide, but he's not that bright not to pick up the problem with the comparison he wants to run.

I believe Al Sharpton in particular has latched onto this. Probably as revenge for a recent NY Post about tax issues Al is having.

Overall my opinion is that with the police fighting the monkey incident as part of recent history the cartoonist saw a chance to take a cheapshot knowing he had a fallback "excuse" to use when someone tried to call him on it.

[Coyote]

The dialogue in the cartoon was also, "Looks like we have to find someone else to sign the stimulus bill", implying that the chimp was going to sign it before they shot him. So in other words, the monkey was the President, ie, rampaging angry Black dude out of control, etc. Seems pretty racist to me.

And the comparison to the Islam cartoons isn't entirely apt; despite what Conservitards say Obama is not actually held up as a religious figure whose examples are to be followed strictly, whereas Mohammed's bahavior is held as exemplary-- apparantly, including marrying and humping 9-year old girls. Mohammed's behavior and the insistence that people copy that behavior opens him up for for than just casual scrutiny or satire.

The cartoonist should have been more careful with his imagery; maybe made the rampaging monkey a "personification of the (wild, out-of-control) stimulus bill" itself, rather than as a stand-in for Obama.

[Kanastrous]

The dialogue in the cartoon was also, "Looks like we have to find someone else to sign the stimulus bill", implying that the chimp was going to sign it before they shot him. So in other words, the monkey was the President, ie, rampaging angry Black dude out of control, etc. Seems pretty racist to me.

WRITE, not 'sign.'

No wonder this is getting blown up like this; people aren't even reading the offending item correctly.

The cartoonist should have been more careful with his imagery; maybe made the rampaging monkey a "personification of the (wild, out-of-control) stimulus bill" itself, rather than as a stand-in for Obama.

The monkey is a stand-in for the authors of the Bill, not the President who signed it.

This is starting to look like a whole bunch of very intelligent people with an inexplicable reading-comprehension problem.

[Phantasee]

The dialogue in the cartoon was also, "Looks like we have to find someone else to sign the stimulus bill", implying that the chimp was going to sign it before they shot him.

Or, it wasn't: "They'll have to find someone else to write the next stimulus bill."

Come on, Coyote, it can't be that hard to remember the cartoon that was just on the previous page of this thread!

[KrauserKrauser]

I, personally, would have ok'ed the cartoon were I the editor.

Any intelligent analysis of the cartoon and what it is referring to destroys claims of racism.

The cartoon is claiming the bill was written by a monkey and since the bill was written by Congress, he is implying that Congress = Monkey, NOT Obama = Monkey. The recent shooting of a monkey by police offers just allows the proper context to make this implication as simply writing "CONGRESS = MONKEYS" is a bit simplistic and the political cartoon medium leads itself to nuance. People with half a brain that could remember their "I'm a bill" Schoolhouse Rock Song would recognize this fact and move on with their lives.

People that depend on both finding and, when they can't find it, inventing racism where none is present (Sharpton, Jackson, etc.) of course could throw this cartoon around and scream racism, because their target audience generally won't understand the difference between having a President support a bill and actually writing the damn thing.

The reaction to this cartoon is less a damnation of the cartoonist and the paper that published it, than a showcase of the ignorance level of the public and media with respect to it's own laws and governing policies.

[KrauserKrauser]

The dialogue in the cartoon was also, "Looks like we have to find someone else to sign the stimulus bill", implying that the chimp was going to sign it before they shot him. So in other words, the monkey was the President, ie, rampaging angry Black dude out of control, etc. Seems pretty racist to me.

BZZZZZZZZZZZZT WRONG ANSWER!

Try reading that cartoon text again and retract this statement.

[Coyote]

Well, as I stand corrected, it was "write" not "sign"--

WELL, EXCUUUUUSE ME



...but since Obama is still seen as the person behind the creation of the stimulus bill, I still think the tie-in is apt.

[KrauserKrauser]

Yes, I easily see the correlation, but the wording is appropriate to draw the conclusion that Congress = Monkey, not Obama = Monkey.

You can insert your own biases and claim it is referring to something it is not in fact referring to all you want, but honestly your time would be better spent dealing with issues where you are factually correct.

The cartoon text makes reference to the writers of the stimulus bill, which does not in fact include the President, and as such any claims that the cartoon is racist is factually incorrect as the group of "Congress" is not a single race and in fact include multiple races within its membership.

Public perception is really the barometer you want to go by? We should support people that are obviously ignorant and coddle them by approving of their outrage?

The people outraged by this are idiots, ignorant of the laws and procedures of their own country OR they fail at reading and rush to judgement.

[Bilbo]

Public perception is really the barometer you want to go by? We should support people that are obviously ignorant and coddle them by approving of their outrage?

The people outraged by this are idiots, ignorant of the laws and procedures of their own country OR they fail at reading and rush to judgement.

That is how the PC folks have operated for years. It does not matter what you meant, or even what you said. When it comes to what is right and what is wrong it only matters what the offended person "thinks" or "feels". Reality has no relevance to them.

[The Spartan]

That is how the PC folks have operated for years. It does not matter what you meant, or even what you said. When it comes to what is right and what is wrong it only matters what the offended person "thinks" or "feels". Reality has no relevance to them.

Oh? So if I walk up to a black man and say something like, "What's up, my nigga?" it's his fault for feeling offended as long as I mean it the same way he does if/when he says it to another black man and don't mean it as him belonging to me?

[Coyote]

Public perception is really the barometer you want to go by? We should support people that are obviously ignorant and coddle them by approving of their outrage?

The people outraged by this are idiots, ignorant of the laws and procedures of their own country OR they fail at reading and rush to judgement.

If this were an in-depth political treatise on the stimulus bill by political commentators, or an attempt to assign 'authorship responsibility' to the bill by a panel of reporters, I think that's a good point to be made.

But this is a political cartoon, where the whole idea is to condense abstract thought into a comical one-liner and where rediculous caricatures and anthropomorphics are expected to serve as stand-ins for political figures as part of the terrain. A political cartoon is precisely the opposite of what you are trying to describe, even if certain facts and conclusions wind up in the same place.

Logical or not, President Obama is seen as an 'architecht' or 'guiding hand' behind the stimulus bill. You can get into the technicalities and nitty-gritty about the machinations of government, but the general perception is this bill is happening because of Obama.

At best you could make the agument that "government in general is a rampaging monkey that must be put down"; that is a typical conservative mantra I can see.

Bear in mind I didn't invent the system; if people make up their minds based on an emotional whim or a case of misperception, it sucks. I'd gladly trade that for a country where people make rational and informed decisions after carefully considering the facts and filtering out the hyperbole. But we don't have that system; we have a system where people vote because someone is "the type of guy they'd like tohave a beer with" or because they wear a flag pin, or similar crap. And that is the crowd that this cartoon is aimed at. It is, to me, a dog-whistle. Don't misperceive my recognition of this with my support and happiness about it.

[KrauserKrauser]

I would disagree that your argument is the best that can be made as it simply does not use all of the data available from the cartoon.

The words chosen show that the shot monkey was responsible for the writing of the stimulus bill. Therefore anyone not involved in the WRITING of the bill would not be said to be represented by the monkey. Obama was not one of the writers of the bill, Congress was, specifically Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid as the heads of Congress, and therefore it is Congress and not Obama that is being referred to in this cartoon.

As you did in your intial post, bringing your own personal shit and applying it incorrectly will of course result in outrage because if the wording had been as you claimed, I would agree that this is a racist cartoon referring to Obama as a monkey. It is not.

Actually thinking of it now, I don't know what you are trying to say here. You were wrong. The people that are objecting to the cartoon are wrong. The cartoon does not infer what they are trying to claim it infers.

I know you are not defending their reaction, as you are more likley trying to save face from your earlier mistake and claims of outrage, but saying that a politcal cartoon is more open to interpretation than a congressional hearing is senseless. They are inferring incorrect things, hence the claims of their ignorance and stupidity.

[Bilbo]

That is how the PC folks have operated for years. It does not matter what you meant, or even what you said. When it comes to what is right and what is wrong it only matters what the offended person "thinks" or "feels". Reality has no relevance to them.

Oh? So if I walk up to a black man and say something like, "What's up, my nigga?" it's his fault for feeling offended as long as I mean it the same way he does if/when he says it to another black man and don't mean it as him belonging to me?

Nope, more like the state employee whi waa reprimanded for using the word niggardly (in proper context) by his boss who had no clue what the word meant biut thought it sounded racist.