[Op/Ed] A political cartoon

[Kanastrous]

Either President Obama wrote the bill, or he didn't.

As it happens, he didn't.

So comments about the people who *did* write the bill are not comments about President Obama.

This is so painfully simple that I think one must have some sort of investment in not-seeing it, in order to not-see it.

[Kanastrous]

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.

District of Columbia, I think. Let's not let them forget that they are not a state.

What was almost tragic about the whole affair is that David Howard actually was forced to tender his resignation, something which even Julian Bond of the NAACP found deplorable.

[Coyote]

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.

I believe you are over-thinking it. The average person (ie, the targets of the cartoon) won't be going through the proper mental checklist of facts to remind themselves who did the actual drafting of the bill.

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.

No, I don't think I brought anything to this that most other people wouldn't.

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.

Save face from my earlier mistake? What, about the actual wording of "write" rather than "sign"? Um, you'll recall that I said I got the wording wrong, but that I felt the implication was there, so I haven't backed down or tried to shift goalposts or redefine it. I still think the cartoon is a racist dog whistle. You think I'm wrong, since the facts about who "wrote" the bill don't provide the necessary correlation to the "Monkey/Obama" image.

In contrast, I don't believe the average reader will think about it that deeply, even if the facts of what you say are right. Obama is seen as responsible for the bill, regardless of actual authoriship.

So what it comes down to, is that you credit people with enough intelligence to "see through it" and know the facts. I don't give them that credit.

[Kanastrous]

So what it comes down to, is that you credit people with enough intelligence to "see through it" and know the facts. I don't give them that credit.

Does that mean you'd agree that the racist interpretation is basically a consequence of ignorance, intellectual laziness and/or poor reading-comprehension?

If so, it seems unfair to slam a newspaper for failing to realize what doofuses their readers happen to be.

[KrauserKrauser]

I believe you are over-thinking it. The average person (ie, the targets of the cartoon) won't be going through the proper mental checklist of facts to remind themselves who did the actual drafting of the bill.

Well, let's see the cartoon was printed in a NEWSPAPER. You have to READ newspapers. In fact, most people buy newspapers to get INFORMED about current events.

Anyone going apeshit over this cartoon is RETARDED, also they were probably not the target audience of this cartoon as the average newspaper reading CAN READ and MAKE INFORMED DECISIONS BASED ON FACTS.

No, I don't think I brought anything to this that most other people wouldn't.

I'm just wondering what point you are trying to make. People are retarded? Check. People jump to the wrong conclusions based on factually incorrect data? Check.

The only racist tint to this cartoon is due to the color of glasses you are looking through to see the world.

Save face from my earlier mistake? What, about the actual wording of "write" rather than "sign"? Um, you'll recall that I said I got the wording wrong, but that I felt the implication was there, so I haven't backed down or tried to shift goalposts or redefine it. I still think the cartoon is a racist dog whistle. You think I'm wrong, since the facts about who "wrote" the bill don't provide the necessary correlation to the "Monkey/Obama" image.

In contrast, I don't believe the average reader will think about it that deeply, even if the facts of what you say are right. Obama is seen as responsible for the bill, regardless of actual authoriship.

So what it comes down to, is that you credit people with enough intelligence to "see through it" and know the facts. I don't give them that credit.

I could give a shit if Obama is seen as responsible for the bill, he didn't write it. If the quote was "We'll need more people that were responsible for the bill" then sure, otherwise you are reaching for straws.

People that see racism in everything, will see racism in this? SHOCKING!

[Coyote]

Does that mean you'd agree that the racist interpretation is basically a consequence of ignorance, intellectual laziness and/or poor reading-comprehension?

I believe the cartoonist was making a crack about Obama being a monkey. Obviously I have no proof. What Krauser (and you) say is technically correct but most people aren't going to see the truth of it; they're not going to sit and contemplate it and run through the checklist about how government operates and who wrote what.

We have no immediate way to know if the cartoonist himself is a closet racist and did this on purpose. I guess we'll have to give him the benefit of the doubt. I thought it was racist when I saw it first and I still think it's racist, and if you need to go through a checklist to rationalize or explain why it isn't racist, then maybe that should be a hint.

If that makes me lazy, ignorant, or reading-comprehension-challenged, well, I guess I'll just have to find a way to scrape along in my filthy, degraded state and hope that someday the light of all the more brilliant people here manages to penetrate my dull, thick skull then. Feel free to gloat and/or crow if that is what you need to end your day on a high note.

[Bilbo]

if you need to go through a checklist to rationalize or explain why it isn't racist, then maybe that should be a hint.

Thinking always takes more effort than ignorantly jumping to conclusions so I am not quite sure what point you are trying to make here.

[Kanastrous]

I believe the cartoonist was making a crack about Obama being a monkey. Obviously I have no proof.

Don't we usually try to apply standards of proof, around here...? Seems like kind of a heavy accusation to level, when we seem to agree there's no proof to substantiate it.

What Krauser (and you) say is technically correct

No, it's just correct. Either the President wrote the bill, or he didn't (he didn't); either the cartoon - with an explicitly written title - is aimed at the signer of the bill, or it wasn't (it wasn't).

but most people aren't going to see the truth of it; they're not going to sit and contemplate it and run through the checklist about how government operates and who wrote what.

So you want to evaluate the intent of the cartoon's author, based upon the response of the cartoon's readers, even though you have explicitly acknowledged that the actual for-real content of the cartoon doesn't support "most people's" conclusion. Since when are actual facts determined by proportion of public opinion?

We have no immediate way to know if the cartoonist himself is a closet racist and did this on purpose. I guess we'll have to give him the benefit of the doubt.

Fair enough.

I thought it was racist when I saw it first and I still think it's racist,

Oh. Well, so much for giving anybody "the benefit of the doubt."

and if you need to go through a checklist to rationalize or explain why it isn't racist, then maybe that should be a hint.

There's no "checklist," and there's no "rationalization" involved, at all. Unless simply looking at what's actually there and reading what was actually written is suddenly a form of 'rationalization.'

If that makes me lazy, ignorant, or reading-comprehension-challenged, well, I guess I'll just have to find a way to scrape along in my filthy, degraded state and hope that someday the light of all the more brilliant people here manages to penetrate my dull, thick skull then.

I thought that you were basically describing the readers who are complaining, in those terms. I hadn't realized you were including yourself in that description, or that anyone else was, either.

Feel free to gloat and/or crow if that is what you need to end your day on a high note.

*shrug* my day's nowhere near over, and nobody's gloating. Although I am puzzled by what looks like your on-the-one-hand acknowledgment that one might have to be ignorant of current affairs, and the functioning of our government in order to see this as 'racist,' and your on-the-other-hand apparent continued insistence that it *is* racist, even while you apparently acknowledge that on its face, it isn't.

[Coyote]

I'm just wondering what point you are trying to make. People are retarded? Check. People jump to the wrong conclusions based on factually incorrect data? Check.

You asked why I thought it was racist. I saw it as a comparison of Obama to a monkey. You asked a question, you got your answer. You disagreed, for reasons I understand but I don't think most people will take the time to dissect. I do not approach a poltical cartoon with the same mental rigor and analytical mindset that I do a regular newspaper article or a op-/ed written by a journalist or commentator that is supposed to be renowned in his field.

I could give a shit if Obama is seen as responsible for the bill, he didn't write it. If the quote was "We'll need more people that were responsible for the bill" then sure, otherwise you are reaching for straws.

People that see racism in everything, will see racism in this? SHOCKING!

Actually, I don't see racism in "everything" and I challenge you to find where I do. I was one of the people who thought the "anti-Asian racism" claim to the Neimoidians in Star Wars was a bunch of horseshit, for example. I tend to agree that most of the time the Sharptons and the Jacksons of the world are, indeed, trying to make mountains out of molehills-- or nothing at all, frequently. This was a racist molehill that it being spun into a mountain here, though, mostly because you've decided to take it personally that I see this as racist.Sorry, but I did and still do. I'm not spun up about it enough to actually contact the Post and bitch.

[Coyote]

I believe the cartoonist was making a crack about Obama being a monkey. Obviously I have no proof.

Don't we usually try to apply standards of proof, around here...? Seems like kind of a heavy accusation to level, when we seem to agree there's no proof to substantiate it.

Well, there's no way to know one way or the other without knowing the cartoonist's inner thoughts, which is impossible.

What Krauser (and you) say is technically correct

No, it's just correct. Either the President wrote the bill, or he didn't (he didn't); either the cartoon - with an explicitly written title - is aimed at the signer of the bill, or it wasn't (it wasn't).

President Obama did not write the bill, but he is widely perceived --a sort of mental shorthand-- as an instigator, a motivator, a person who is responsible for encoraging it, etc. I know he didn't put pen to paper and write it himself; but, this bill would not have seen light of day if a McCain-Palin Administration had been voted in, for example. What I'm saying is that Obama has a sort of 'ghost authorship/responisibility/influence' on the bill even if he himself did not do the physical writing (I already conceded that I messed up on "sign" vs. "write").

Look at it this way-- my car is an Isuzu Rodeo. It is a "Japanese" car. It was made in Ohio (from Japanese plans); but it was never physically in Japan. But it is a "Japanese import" in perception despite this.

...you want to evaluate the intent of the cartoon's author, based upon the response of the cartoon's readers, even though you have explicitly acknowledged that the actual for-real content of the cartoon doesn't support "most people's" conclusion. Since when are actual facts determined by proportion of public opinion?

Was the cartoonist's intent mis-interpreted? Again, we don't know if he intended to draw a racist analogy to "Monket/Obama". I find it hard to believe that someone in the United States, today, who is doing this kind of work for public consumption, would be ignorant of such a potential connection. The history of "Blacks = Monkeys!" by racist movements in the USA is well known, so for me I have a hard time accepting that this was an "oopsie, I didn't think of that!" moment by the cartoonist. I am a cartoonist, and I would not have drawn such a cartoon because, facts about bill authorship and government aside, I'd be concerned about public misperception.

The reaction of the audience has to be taken into account when putting ink on paper (or actors on a stage, or what have you). Making a commercial about how the Ku Klux Klan really loves Clorox bleach because it gets their sheets so white and soft-- it may be true that the bleach gets the fabric clean & white, but public perception about the Klan will still result in a negative issue regardless of the facts.

and if you need to go through a checklist to rationalize or explain why it isn't racist, then maybe that should be a hint.

...If that makes me lazy, ignorant, or reading-comprehension-challenged, well, I guess I'll just have to find a way to scrape along in my filthy, degraded state and hope that someday the light of all the more brilliant people here manages to penetrate my dull, thick skull then.

I thought that you were basically describing the readers who are complaining, in those terms. I hadn't realized you were including yourself in that description, or that anyone else was, either.

Well, I apparantly can't very well agree that it was a racist cartoon without being "retarded" or some such.

*shrug* my day's nowhere near over, and nobody's gloating. Although I am puzzled by what looks like your on-the-one-hand acknowledgment that one might have to be ignorant of current affairs, and the functioning of our government in order to see this as 'racist,' and your on-the-other-hand apparent continued insistence that it *is* racist, even while you apparently acknowledge that on its face, it isn't.

Because I don't believe most people are going to look beyond the surface of the monkey imagery. Using a portrayal of a monkey to refer to a government that is headed by a Black man --knowing that the "Black=Monkey" connection is a historical standard of racists-- is going to get in the way of the facts that the "supposed monkey in question" would have had nothing to do with the actual writing of the bill referenced in the dialogue.

Bear in mind I am not the only person who saw this connection and found it troublesome and offensive. Apparantly others have also. This tells me that the cartoonist really fucked up with a piss-poor choice of imagery. Either he did, indeed, make an innocent mistake and is mortified at the resulting misperception, or, he didn't 'cover his tracks' enough ("No, look, see, it's the government! Government is like a rampaging monkey! The Democrats in the Legistalture! Not Obama!"). Since the "monkey=Black" connection is well known, I'm suspicious that he knew damn good and well what he was doing and didn't cover his tracks, but I'm cynical. I don't buy his protestations of innocence. But, at the same time, no one here can haave proof without reading his mind.

[Kanastrous]

^ It looks to me as though the "checklists" and "rationalization" involved here, are all on the side of insisting that the cartoon is racist.

[Coyote]

You know what, I'm surprised we've wasted the better part of a day arguing about this. In my opinion I thought this was pretty racist; It looked racist to me and I still think it is, and if that makes me ignorant, then so be it.

There were things I wanted to do today that didn't happen because I let myself get dragged into this bullshit, so I'm conceding everything. Had I known it would get dragged into this I'd've never said a goddamned thing. Everyone is now free to strut about the cabin.

[Kanastrous]

Just promise not to get cute with the control yoke, while we're doing it...

[Johonebesus]

If a cartoon needs to be explained or analyzed, it's a failure. The purpose of the political cartoon is to make a broad point that the average reader will instantly understand. One shouldn't have to spend much time critically analyzing the exact language used by the cartoonist. Given the public perception of the bill as Obama's, I think it is very reasonable that the first reaction of many people would be to see the chimp as representing Obama, especially without a label.

The racist interpretation is immediate and obvious. The innocent interpretation isn't. It hinges on a technicality of language and a trivial news story that didn't exactly captivate the nation. From my personal experience, such technical arguments are often used by people who want to cause offense but don't want to suffer any penalty for it. Some people get off on saying offensive things and then, full of innocence and sweetness, saying, "but it's not offensive because it technically means something else entirely!"

Given the guy's history of mildly offensive homophobia, and his apparent scorn for the people who took offense, it's hard to believe that it was all an innocent misunderstanding. Even if it were, I find it odd that so many are going so out of their way to defend the cartoon itself instead of just admitting that it was a damned poor choice and does lend itself to a racist interpretation, even if unintentionally. At best, it accidentally invokes the dehumanization suffered by blacks in this country for generations. I can't see how that isn't offensive, even if it was inadvertent. Sometimes people are over sensitive, but sometimes offense is justified, and I don't think that innocent intentions should be an automatic excuse for any and all offenses.

[CaptainChewbacca]

Is 'It looks like it was written by a crazed monkey' an expression other people have heard, or was that just my 7th-grade english teacher's personal gem?

[KrauserKrauser]

Is 'It looks like it was written by a crazed monkey' an expression other people have heard, or was that just my 7th-grade english teacher's personal gem?

That's what came to my mind. Especially with reference to something being created by a monkey.

I don't see Monkeys and think OMG RACISM!!!

[Mr Bean]

Is 'It looks like it was written by a crazed monkey' an expression other people have heard, or was that just my 7th-grade english teacher's personal gem?

That's what came to my mind. Especially with reference to something being created by a monkey.

I don't see Monkeys and think OMG RACISM!!!

Let me relay a conversation I had roughly six years ago with a good friend I'll call Ward. Well Ward was a good friend and we were out and about with nothing to do with a few friends and hitting up the local bars when one of my friends drinks a little to much and my friend friend wll call Dave who's the DD drives her home. We are sitting in the back playing pool waiting for Dave to get back but the Bar-owners tells us to either buy another round or get on to the next bar. Not being one for that Ward and I go outside to wait for Dave to get back. While we are out there these two shitbirds from the bar down the street which we had skipped due to the giant Confederate flag which filled one of the windows outside and the shear number of trucks in the parking lot. I can tell right away by the slight sideways drift they both have they are pretty damn hammered.

Stick with me now Krauser because we are fast getting to the point of this little story, because soon after they notice us leaning up against the side of the building outside the other bar, they look us over a time or two and then one of them turns to the other and says in a loud voice. "Hey look there at that N****er lover and his pet Monkey. I wonder where I can get me one of them. Be useful to get my own n****er for around the house." The both laugh and the the shorter of the two steps forward and says "Hey Monkey I'm talking to you, don't you understand English Monkey? I guess not because your just a goddam N*****er.

I'll end the story there but trust me when I say it did not get better and no there was no happy ending involved. And while I can not understand it myself I know enough people from the green-card caring Nigerians I met in Ohio to the friends I made in high school(I spent a year at a 65% Black school in North Carolina) to those I made in the service. And yes where I hear monkey being used to indvidual or a group I do think racism.

When we started this little "What do you think" about this cartoon I was unconvinced that Sean Delonas(The fellow who drew this cartoon) was a racist. We dig a little deeper and we find out that Sean Delonas is in fact a demonstrable Homophobe. Is it that much of a stretch to ask if he is also possibly a racist? Not a massive KKK inductee racist but a more common small "R" racist so to speak.

[Dark Hellion]

Jesus Fucking Christ people, I went to a school with 1% black populace and I know that implying a black person is a monkey is racist. If you don't see it, you have your head in the sand, it is not people being sensitive. Yes, us whites in America get away with being casually racist all the fucking time, because we are a majority with a great deal of power. It just takes a bit of fucking empathy, something we have greatly lacked for the past decade. So pull your head out of your ass and realize that we have mistreated blacks for about 300 years now and perhaps we are a bit more used to it, and in on it that we like to admit.

[The Spartan]

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.

And what does that have to do with using a stereotypical depiction of a particular race that's little different from using a racial epithet for said race?

Christ, I'm in one of the most racist states in the country and I picked up on the same damn thing Ender did the second I saw the damn picture. Oops I guess I must be PC.

[Kanastrous]

I don't think it's PC; it's more like pattern-matching. People see what they are predisposed to see.

[mr friendly guy]

So how many people who don't automatically suspect racism or at least poor choice of imagery on seeing that cartoon have heard of monkey being used as a derogatory term to describe black people?

I have only heard it twice, once when Israeli soldiers verbally attacking the criticism African countries were levelling at them, which went something along the lines of how can people who have just come down from the trees criticise us, and also when some Indian cricket fans made monkey noises to taunt Australian cricketer Andrew Symonds, who had some black ancestry.

Needless to say, even before seeing Ender's comment it was enough for me to see that it could easily be interpreted that way. If you haven't heard of this as an insult, then I can understand not seeing it as such, if you have and can't at least see that it could easily be mistaken as an insult, then frankly you are retarded.

[erik_t]

I'm amazed that the magnitude of racism (or lack thereof) is even under discussion. However I'd have to be retarded to not see the correlation between political ideology and defense/attack of this cartoon.

Gee, wonder why that might be.

[Bounty]

However I'd have to be retarded to not see the correlation between political ideology and defense/attack of this cartoon.

I lean left and see no racism. Is that what you mean?

[Dark Hellion]

No offense bounty, but perhaps you can see how a Belgian would be unable to grasp 200 year old cultural subtleties of America? You are as ignorant of such pervasive feelings as we are over the conflicts between the Flemish and the Waloon.

[Flagg]

Not racist? Ok, let's do a test. Michael Steel was behind the obstruction of the Stimulus bill. He's also head of the RNC and happens to be black.




Is this clear, or do I need to explain why it's racist?