[Op/Ed] A political cartoon

[Bounty]

No offense bounty, but perhaps you can see how a Belgian would be unable to grasp 200 year old cultural subtleties of America?

Because, you know, racism is a purely American thing? Please.

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

It's not clear. Explain it. Because all I see is a not-funny cartoonist making a not-funny mixup of two current events and a whole lot of shrieking from people who seem to think you only call someone a monkey if you're being racist and not making a comment on their skills.

So I suppose Lisa calling Homer a baboon in the Simpsons means she's racist too?

[thejester]

Yeah, I agree with Bounty. I thought it was bizarre and or racist until I heard about the actual chimp shooting, then it all sort of made sense. Unfortunate choice but I thought the meaning was pretty clear.

[Temjin]

Oh for fuck's sakes! I'm going to leave aside the debate on whether the intended racism or not, and just reply to Bounty.

Because, you know, racism is a purely American thing? Please.

Don't be a fucking moron. American culture and American racism is the direct issue here. For centuries, racists have been comparing monkeys to black people. It was used as a justification as racism (They're not really human! They're like the monkeys and chimps! It's no different than enslaving a horse!).

Today, still, even though it's not as popular an insult as N----r, it's still right up there. They're STILL getting compared to those animals to this day.

Do you ya get it now?

It's not clear. Explain it. Because all I see is a not-funny cartoonist making a not-funny mixup of two current events and a whole lot of shrieking from people who seem to think you only call someone a monkey if you're being racist and not making a comment on their skills.

Mr. Bean has already gone into this in depth on the first page. I don't care if you mean it in a racist way or not, but due to the history of that comparison, it does come off that way.

Negro is the Spanish word for black. That's it. But if you call a black person that, even if you don't intend it to be racist, don't be surprised if they get pissed off. This is the same damn thing.

So I suppose Lisa calling Homer a baboon in the Simpsons means she's racist too?

They must have weird televisions where you live, since I've always thought of homer as white. Which means that that unfortunate history isn't there, and it's not racist.

Yes, it's a double standard. I acknowledge that. In a perfect world, we wouldn't worry about the unfortunate implications of this comparison. It would be no different than comparing Bush to a chimp. But we don't live in that world, and we have to deal with that history.

[Bounty]

Don't be a fucking moron. American culture and American racism is the direct issue here.

There's "American" racism now? Why wouldn't a non-American be able to understand what is racist and what is not?

They must have weird televisions where you live, since I've always thought of homer as white. Which means that that unfortunate history isn't there, and it's not racist.

My point, which flew right over your head, is that a cry of racism is not the first nor the only sensible response to a derogatory comparison to monkeys.

Yes, it's a double standard. I acknowledge that. In a perfect world, we wouldn't worry about the unfortunate implications of this comparison. It would be no different than comparing Bush to a chimp. But we don't live in that world, and we have to deal with that history.

And you think the best way to deal with that history is by perpetuating the "monkey = filthy, dumb black person" comparison? Because that is, at its core, what you are doing here: you are saying that a portrayal of a monkey is automatically a racist statement, thereby... validating that racist statement.

If the author had no racist intent - and frankly I don't see any reason to assume he did apart from a wilful with hunt on the part of a few people who would see racism in Cheerios - then the cartoon is not racist, since there is an equally valid interpretation of the monkey as a symbol of stupidity. If the cartoon is not racist, then any accusations of it being racist are fabrications of the complainers which is a level of irony that is frankly staggering. Don't you see what kind of self-destructive navel-gazing is going on here?

[mr friendly guy]

No offense bounty, but perhaps you can see how a Belgian would be unable to grasp 200 year old cultural subtleties of America?

Because, you know, racism is a purely American thing? Please.

Because, you know, racists from different parts of the world will use exactly the same insults. Please.

Edit - I will use an example in HoS venting list when Gandalf lamented that his uncle was worlds apart from him by refering to the town as "gooky". Surlethe IIRC didn't get the reference and thought it was a play on the word geek. Unfortunately its a derogatory insult referring to Asians used by racists including John McCain.

So its pretty clear to any one with half a brain that unless you are familiar with every racist epithet ever invented, chances are you won't recognise some which locals will understand.

[Bounty]

So its pretty clear to any one with half a brain that unless you are familiar with every racist epithet ever invented, chances are you won't recognise some which locals will understand.

That's nice and all, if "monkey" (or macaque) wasn't a racist epithet in Europe too.

[mr friendly guy]

So your excuse is not ignorance, but stupidity? Nice argument.

And you think the best way to deal with that history is by perpetuating the "monkey = filthy, dumb black person" comparison?

So Temjin points out some people are racist = perpetuating racism now? LOL. What are you on drugs or something?

If the author had no racist intent - and frankly I don't see any reason to assume he did apart from a wilful with hunt on the part of a few people who would see racism in Cheerios - then the cartoon is not racist, since there is an equally valid interpretation of the monkey as a symbol of stupidity. If the cartoon is not racist, then any accusations of it being racist are fabrications of the complainers which is a level of irony that is frankly staggering.

I am sure for your next trick you will explain how something that has an equal valid interpretation as your own must have been made up by your opponents?

[Bounty]

So Temjin points out some people are racist = perpetuating racism now? LOL. What are you on drugs or something?

Temijn pointed out he thinks the cartoonist is racist because he thinks the cartoonist used an image, one which has both a long-standing interpretation as a symbol of incompetence and a long-standing interpretation as a racist epithet, as a racist image, even though that same image is a direct reference to a current event.

But all of that is of course irrelevant - the positive claim is one that the cartoon is racist, and so far I have seen zero proof of that beyond "some people think an image of a monkey is automatically racist regardless of context". Even though the context pretty much conclusively proves that the cartoon isn't racist.

Tell me, if the police has shot, say, a rabid emu and the cartoonist had used that image - as he would have done, since the joke'd be the same - would you be just as outraged?

[Surlethe]

So its pretty clear to any one with half a brain that unless you are familiar with every racist epithet ever invented, chances are you won't recognise some which locals will understand.

That's what bothers me about "this cartoon is racist!" or "that ad is racist!" It seems like a lot of people think that if there exists an interpretation of a piece of political literature which is racist, then it was automatically intended to be racist, and I frankly don't see how that follows. One can't make the determination without digging into the author's personal beliefs and experiences: did he know about the possible racist interpretation, and was if forefront on his mind when he created the piece? For example, a few years ago there was a ballyhoo about a question on a math exam where Condoleeza Rice drops a watermelon off a building x meters tall; how long does it take to hit the ground? (Irrelevantly, the answer is sqrt(2x/g).) To someone like me, with a relatively sheltered upbringing, there is absolutely nothing wrong with that question; to someone who knows about and is sensitive to racist stereotypes, where watermelon is apparently associated with poor black farmers or something like that, it's an offensive question.

For another example, it seemed like there were plenty of McCain and Clinton ads last year that had racist undertones (were "dog whistles"). Were the ads intended to be racist? With something like a political ad, which has to be well thought-out, such undertones seem more likely to have been intended.

In general, even for something well-thought out, how far can you stretch the interpretation before it becomes unreasonable for the author to have expected it? And if the meaning of a cartoon or ad or math question is not thoroughly explored, is it a sin of negligence on the part of the author?

[thejester]

Because, you know, racists from different parts of the world will use exactly the same insults. Please.

Except as you yourself pointed out a few posts ago, 'monkey' is clearly an internationally recognised racial slur as demonstrated by the Andrew Symonds incident.

[mr friendly guy]

That's what bothers me about "this cartoon is racist!" or "that ad is racist!" It seems like a lot of people think that if there exists an interpretation of a piece of political literature which is racist, then it was automatically intended to be racist, and I frankly don't see how that follows.

I am with Johonebesus on this one, in the sense that this cartoon has an alibi so to speak and can "explain away" any racism. It doesn't change my contention that at best its a poor choice of imagery and at worse racist.

What bothers me is that people can't even see the poor choice of imaging and then likening them to PC advocates who have gone mad.

Because, you know, racists from different parts of the world will use exactly the same insults. Please.

Except as you yourself pointed out a few posts ago, 'monkey' is clearly an internationally recognised racial slur as demonstrated by the Andrew Symonds incident.

Don't be an idiot. India is not the whole world and just because something is international it doesn't follow it would be recognised everywhere. Especially from my post it should be apparent I never heard it used here (obviously our racists use other insults, Kevin Andrews and African immigrants come to mind).

So Temjin points out some people are racist = perpetuating racism now? LOL. What are you on drugs or something?

Temijn pointed out he thinks the cartoonist is racist because he thinks the cartoonist used an image, one which has both a long-standing interpretation as a symbol of incompetence and a long-standing interpretation as a racist epithet, as a racist image, even though that same image is a direct reference to a current event.

Sorry, I must be reading the wrong reply, since you went into a big song and dance without actually addressing the point. You know, my criticism of your bullshit statement that Temjin somehow is contributing to racism by pointing out racists have used this particular insult. I trust you can find where you wrote that rubbish without me needing to guide you to it?

Tell me, if the police has shot, say, a rabid emu and the cartoonist had used that image - as he would have done, since the joke'd be the same - would you be just as outraged?

Hasn't this been explained to you several paragraphs ago? Its called connotations mate, look it up.

[Knife]

What Bounty, I think, is suggesting is that in Tejim's argument he keeps going back to the historical reference of monkey=black person. He even admits that the monkey phrase has lost usage the last few decades while the slur off of negro has gained prominence. Anyway, he makes a direct link between the history of the analogy and racism.

Bounty is pointing out that if the analogy has lost significance besides historical relevance, bringing it back up when the alternate of monkey=stupid is just as valid, only serves to put meaning and power back into the analogy.

That's what I'm getting out of his argument.

[mr friendly guy]

The thing is, I have heard the term monkey used as an insult against black people within the last few years, albeit not from my neck of the woods.

Moreover Temjin's own comments seem to suggest it still has more than historical significance in his country, ergo its still used in the present day to a signficant extent in the US.

Today, still, even though it's not as popular an insult as N----r, it's still right up there. They're STILL getting compared to those animals to this day.

I can understand if the insult is all but extinct, pointing it out may resurrect it, but that clearly isn't the case. Bounty even admits its used as an epithet where he is from (to counter one of my points). In which case it smacks of trying to have his cake and eating it too.

[General Zod]

And the Post apologizes.

NEW YORK (Reuters) - The New York Post apologized on Thursday to those offended by an editorial cartoon that critics said was racist because it likened President Barack Obama to a chimpanzee.

The newspaper acknowledged that the cartoon published on Wednesday had drawn controversy because African-Americans and others saw it as a depiction of Obama.

"This most certainly was not its intent; to those who were offended by the image, we apologize," the paper said in an editorial on its website headlined "That Cartoon."

"It was meant to mock an ineptly written federal stimulus bill. Period," the paper said.

The cartoon of a policeman shooting an ape played on the real shooting of a pet chimpanzee in Connecticut this week. A police officer in the cartoon says, "They'll have to find someone else to write the next stimulus bill."

The cartoon ran a day after Obama signed into law the $787 billion economic stimulus that he had strongly promoted. Critics interpreted the cartoon's dead chimp as a reference to Obama, who became the first black president of the United States on January 20.

Demonstrators led by civil rights activist Al Sharpton chanted "End racism now!" outside the skyscraper headquarters of the newspaper's parent company in midtown Manhattan on Thursday. They called for the jailing of Rupert Murdoch, whose international media conglomerate News Corp owns the Post.

The newspaper initially defended the cartoon as a parody of Washington politics, but Sharpton said it exploited a potent image in the history of racism toward blacks.

"I guess they thought we were chimpanzees," Sharpton said. "They will find out we are lions."

Sharpton said in a statement on Thursday night that groups protesting the cartoon would go ahead with a previously scheduled rally outside the Post on Friday afternoon and decide on a response to the Post editorial.

He added that "though we think it is the right thing for them to apologize to those they offended, they seem to want to blame the offense on those of whom raised the issue, rather than take responsibility for what they did."

The Post said it was not apologizing to all of its critics.

"There are some in the media and in public life who have had differences with The Post in the past -- and they see the incident as an opportunity for payback. To them, no apology is due," the editorial said.

"Sometimes a cartoon is just a cartoon -- even as the opportunists seek to make it something else," it said.

Critics said the racist message was clear.

[Teleros]

The two subjects were completely unrelated

That's nothing new for newspaper cartoons.

He seems to make no secret of his dislike of Gays, half the top ten worst list is made up of anti-gay cartoons.

And thus he must be a racist .

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 he thinks people are overreacting and should get a grip, therefore no apology is needed . Whether he'll be pressured into apologising is another matter though - I haven't had time to follow the story much beyond what's said in this thread, although I do see now that the Post has apologised (reservedly and perhaps a little late in the day).

If it wasn't intentional racism it was an appallingly ignorant choice of imagery combinations.

As with my first post, I'll agree to that.

if you need to go through a checklist to rationalize or explain why it is racist, then maybe that should be a hint

Fixed .

If that makes me lazy, ignorant, or reading-comprehension-challenged...

Just paranoid .

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.

To be fair to Coyote, he is talking about (real-world) politics here: facts don't matter as much - the whole furore over this cartoon is a case in point . That's why although I agree that the cartoon is not intentionally racist, it was a poor choice of imagery.

The purpose of the political cartoon is to make a broad point that the average reader will instantly understand.

As in, the same average reader who only recently read (and in the same paper) about police shooting a chimp dead ?

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.

1. Homophobia =/= racism
2. Or perhaps he's scornful because he genuinely doesn't think he has anything to apologise for?
3. Wonderful thing, hindsight.

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.

It's all those goddamn wussy liberals here causing a fuss .

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.

Read the thread next time . Your cartoon is picking on one particular person, unlike the original, as various people have pointed out.

It seems like a lot of people think that if there exists an interpretation of a piece of political literature which is racist, then it was automatically intended to be racist, and I frankly don't see how that follows.

Stop thinking logically and think politically. It also helps if you have an axe to grind, can spin the story for money / political purposes of course, but the point is that people don't think rationally and logically about things like this (hell if they did, there wouldn't be any racism). Arguably, the fact that the Post has felt the need to apologise (and several days after as well) just reinforces the idea of "he who shouts loudest wins".

[Bounty]

I can understand if the insult is all but extinct, pointing it out may resurrect it, but that clearly isn't the case. Bounty even admits its used as an epithet where he is from (to counter one of my points). In which case it smacks of trying to have his cake and eating it too.

By "perpetuating" I did not mean "resurrect". The argument that the epithet is no longer in wide use wasn't mine as far as I know. But I do think that it's ironic that people look at a cartoon and paste their own notions about racist imagery on it. The first person to bring up race was, after all, not the cartoonist but the one offended by the cartoon; the controversy wouldn't even have occurred to me if someone hadn't pointed it out, because it's only there if you look for it.

Put it this way: let's say you somehow knew with 100% certainty that the cartoonist had no racist intent. In that case the only people who immediately made the connection monkey = black would be the ones who are complaining about the supposed monkey = black connection. Who is pushing stereotypes then? Even if it's just by "pointing them out".

(the shooting part, now that I complained about)

[Mr Bean]

He seems to make no secret of his dislike of Gays, half the top ten worst list is made up of anti-gay cartoons.

And thus he must be a racist .

Did you enjoy snipping the parts where I made my point so you'd have one Teleros.
Lets try again with an simplified statement

If:A person (Sean Delonas the cartoonist) admits to and is proud of an irrational hatred of one minority group.
Is it
A. More likely
B. Less Likely
C. No change
that the person (Sean Delonas the cartoonist) will harbor other irrational hatreds towards other minority groups?

Explain your answer in essay forum.

[Surlethe]

That's what bothers me about "this cartoon is racist!" or "that ad is racist!" It seems like a lot of people think that if there exists an interpretation of a piece of political literature which is racist, then it was automatically intended to be racist, and I frankly don't see how that follows.

I am with Johonebesus on this one, in the sense that this cartoon has an alibi so to speak and can "explain away" any racism. It doesn't change my contention that at best its a poor choice of imagery and at worse racist.

At worst, racist -yes. At best, a poor choice of imagery? Sure, but all that's saying is people thought it was racist. I think the key question is: how reasonable are the claims that the cartoonist knew that a racist interpretation was possible and proceeded anyway? And how would one figure this out? Like I said earlier, this is a difficult call to make because interpretation varies based on background, knowledge, and sensitivity. Mr Bean, who has encountered honest-to-God shitbags calling black people monkeys, immediately linked the monkey and Obama. I, who had never heard the term "porch monkey" before my second year of college, wouldn't have made the connection without prompting. Whose interpretation was the cartoonist intending? Which of us is he more like in background?

What bothers me is that people can't even see the poor choice of imaging and then likening them to PC advocates who have gone mad.

In general, that depends on how much of a stretch - subjective judgment - it is to argue that the subject in question is a poor choice of image.

[General Zod]

At worst, racist -yes. At best, a poor choice of imagery? Sure, but all that's saying is people thought it was racist. I think the key question is: how reasonable are the claims that the cartoonist knew that a racist interpretation was possible and proceeded anyway?

And how would one figure this out? Like I said earlier, this is a difficult call to make because interpretation varies based on background, knowledge, and sensitivity. Mr Bean, who has encountered honest-to-God shitbags calling black people monkeys, immediately linked the monkey and Obama. I, who had never heard the term "porch monkey" before my second year of college, wouldn't have made the connection without prompting. Whose interpretation was the cartoonist intending? Which of us is he more like in background?

I have a hard time believing that anyone who'd ever gone to anything resembling a moderately sized high school hadn't at least gotten the idea of throwing around "monkey" as an insult at black people. My high-school was fairly modest with less than a thousand students but even then I'd heard people there throw around monkey as a slur at black students once or twice. (Of course it was a somewhat rural school too, that might have played a part).

[CarsonPalmer]

For the monkey slur, all he had to do was watch Remember the Titans. It has been in the public consciousness for a while, and I think someone who hadn't heard it would be the exception, not the rule (especially if that person is a cartoonist, whose job is to deal in symbols).

[Teleros]

If:A person (Sean Delonas the cartoonist) admits to and is proud of an irrational hatred of one minority group.
Is it
A. More likely
B. Less Likely
C. No change
that the person (Sean Delonas the cartoonist) will harbor other irrational hatreds towards other minority groups?

Reading that, I'm reminded of this scene from Yes, Prime Minister. If you couch the question in those terms then yes you've won: I'll have to answer "A" to that.


On the other hand, we could be a little more specific (and we'll set aside the question of whether he's actually proud to hate homosexuals or not):
If:A person (Sean Delonas the cartoonist) admits to and is proud of an irrational hatred of someone based on their sexual preferences.
Is it
A. More likely
B. Less Likely
C. No change
that the person (Sean Delonas the cartoonist) will harbor other irrational hatreds towards other people based on their ethnicity?

In which case I'd answer "C" - one does not follow from the other. There are plenty of Christians out there who will say that same-sex relationships are immoral but who won't hold your skin colour against you.

[Mr Bean]

If you couch the question in those terms then yes you've won: I'll have to answer "A" to that.


On the other hand, we could be a little more specific (and we'll set aside the question of whether he's actually proud to hate homosexuals or not):
If:A person (Sean Delonas the cartoonist) admits to and is proud of an irrational hatred of someone based on their sexual preferences.
In which case I'd answer "C" - one does not follow from the other. There are plenty of Christians out there who will say that same-sex relationships are immoral but who won't hold your skin colour against you.

So your want to go ahead and tell me that Gays outnumber Straits? And are not thus not a minority group? That's a bold claim.

Guess what? Per statistical measures if your not in the majority, your in the minority... Minority group does not mean ethnicity alone. Minority group can refer to any group that is in.... the minority if your a gay Native American in the United States for example, your in a very small minority, but if you were just Gay or just a Native America you'd still be in a minority group.

Sean Delonas has for years been off again on again targeted by Gay groups for his art style and comic content, the most recent one to draw their ire was this one

Lets play a fun game, how many gay stereotypes can you spot in this cartoon?
I count five

Unless you want to be a ruthless Sean Delonas appolgist you would admit the man shows a rather negative view of Gays in General(Other highlights of his are a Cartoon that Gay Marriage=Sheep Fuckers not once but twice as you'll notice from the above) and dare I say... and irrational hatred of them? (Unless you want to claim a rational hatred)

Once we accept the premise that Sea Delonas has an irrational hatred of one minority group and displays it for all to see in his art we can begin to exam other supposed hatreds in this light. If another artist had drawn this... say Bill Keane of Family Circus fame we could question his choice of figures for this comic and his linking of the two incidents and write it off as a poor choice. However that's not the person who drew this

More-over the non-apology apology the Post issued "We sorry if your offended" makes the whole thing look that much worse.

[Axis Kast]

The trouble arises because racism is as much subjective as it is objective.

Sometimes, we can call as we see it. The swastika, for all intents and purposes, has only one meaning in the West if it appears outside any other context.

Under other circumstances, racism is contingent. What does a racist joke say about the comedian? Is he secretly giving vent to socially unacceptable opinions, or just shocking us by defying norms?

As a useful analogy, we might consider sexism, which is also often completely in the eye of the beholder. From whom would you accept certain kinds of talk? How about certain kinds of behavior? Even far from the bedroom, chemistry and desire dictate who is "checking me out," and who's "just creepy."

I think that, examining this event as a contingent one, we see a temporal intersection between the cartoon and the pretty gripping tragedy in Connecticut. It was my own first reaction to the cartoon -- the implication that the insane primate must have been responsible for a bill that nobody could love, and only one party would claim, after holding its breath. It's easy to say that the decision to bring a monkey cartoon into the political realm, when a black man is president, was in very poor taste, and showed some carelessness. I wouldn't hold a cartoonist -- or nearly anyone else -- to an absolutely pristine standard, though.

As regards the confirmed bigotry of Mr. Delonas with respect to homosexuals and non-traditional gender assignment, I have to say that it's certainly valid to ask if he was implying that our black president is an ape, but I think there are some mitigating factors. First, Delonas would have been taking his career, and the paper's circulation, into his hands in a very conscious way in publishing something like that. If he couldn't have easily sold the monkey cartoon -- that is, if it wasn't very clear to his editor what, exactly, he was lampooning -- one wonders how it would have gotten out-the-gate. Second, and this is where I admit bias, it's a very easy thing, to recall the Connecticut case of only two days ago. Because I made that link so fast, I have difficult thinking that others could not.

[Temjin]

There's "American" racism now? Why wouldn't a non-American be able to understand what is racist and what is not?

Some insults are cultural which an outsider would be unable to understand. In any case, I'm conceding this point since I was unaware that this was an international thing.

My point, which flew right over your head, is that a cry of racism is not the first nor the only sensible response to a derogatory comparison to monkeys.

Every single time I've heard of a black man being compared to monkey, it's been an admitted racist doing the comparison.

In fact, that's the first thing that comes to mind for a lot of people, since racists use it so damn often.

And you think the best way to deal with that history is by perpetuating the "monkey = filthy, dumb black person" comparison? Because that is, at its core, what you are doing here: you are saying that a portrayal of a monkey is automatically a racist statement, thereby... validating that racist statement.

Please point out where I said that any portrayal of a monkey is automatically a racist statement. Because I don't think I ever said that, since I don't believe it.

What I've been trying to say is that comparing a black person to a monkey has definite racist connotations for a lot of people.

I think one of the reason we are having a misunderstanding on this issue is a poor choice of words on my part. Please forgive that. I try to stay out of debates for that very reason (In fact, I'm wishing I stayed out of this one ).

The only reason I thought the cartoon was racist at all was because I thought the chimp represented Obama. I have to admit, as a Canadian, I don't have as good a grasp of American politics as I could. When I think of the stimulus bill, I think of it as an Obama creation. I realise now that that's not correct.

If the artist really had no racist intentions with the piece, and actually meant something different, than I don't think it's racist at all. I have no idea what he intended with it though.

I only have a problem with it if he intended the chimp to represent Obama. I still think he could mean that, but I'm not as sure as I once was.

If the author had no racist intent - and frankly I don't see any reason to assume he did apart from a wilful with hunt on the part of a few people who would see racism in Cheerios - then the cartoon is not racist, since there is an equally valid interpretation of the monkey as a symbol of stupidity. If the cartoon is not racist, then any accusations of it being racist are fabrications of the complainers which is a level of irony that is frankly staggering. Don't you see what kind of self-destructive navel-gazing is going on here?

As I said, I no longer know if the artist intended racism or not. If he really intended the chimp to represent Obama, than I definitely think it was racist, since that's still a common insult to throw at black people. Yes, it also has connotations of stupidity, but I've heard it used much more as a racial slur.

If he did not mean it to represent Obama, than I have no problem with that, besides what is maybe a really bad choice of imagery.

[Wicked Pilot]

And the Post apologizes.

Spineless...

You know if they're going to give in every time Sharpton throws a bitchfit I would have much preferred them withholding the apology and just give him Murdoch instead.