Controversial Ny Post Cartoon

This cartoon, which can be found in today's New York Post and is by Sean Delonas, has drawn (no pun intended) a considerable amount of controversy.

Your thoughts?

I personally think that it is ridiculously offensive.

No. It draws a monkey that shot. Maybe it could be racist if the monkey symbolizes blacks.

Don't see the racism. I think people are looking for an excuse to act offended.

There was a highly publicized story about a chimp on Xanax flipping out and attacking a woman and the cops were forced to shoot it. The inference I get from the cartoon is that the artist views the stimulus bill as so poorly drawn up that a chimp could've written it.

Either way, it's not a very good cartoon.

Don't see the racism. I think people are looking for an excuse to act offended.

There was a highly publicized story about a chimp on Xanax flipping out and attacking a woman and the cops were forced to shoot it. The inference I get from the cartoon is that the artist views the stimulus bill as so poorly drawn up that a chimp could've written it.

Either way, it's not a very good cartoon.

bogaty

[QUOTE="bogaty"]

Don't see the racism. I think people are looking for an excuse to act offended.

There was a highly publicized story about a chimp on Xanax flipping out and attacking a woman and the cops were forced to shoot it. The inference I get from the cartoon is that the artist views the stimulus bill as so poorly drawn up that a chimp could've written it.

Either way, it's not a very good cartoon.

Parandrus

I'm well aware of the perjorative. I just don't see it in this case. Anyone thinking the monkey in the cartoon is a veiled reference to Obama is mistaken, in my opinon.

This hasn't been done before?foxhound_fox

This hasn't been done before?

foxhound_fox

Also, note the fact that Obama wasn't the primary driving force behind the bill. He was a major supporter, but the true driving force was Congress, and the artist could very well be referring to its authors in general, which, IMO, is far more likely.

Jesus tap-dancing Christ, that is NOT racist. The artist wanted people to understand that the stimulus plan was stupid, therefore he drew the creator of this plan as a monkey, as a stupid animal. Is it that hard to understand?Mochyc

[QUOTE="Parandrus"][QUOTE="bogaty"]

Don't see the racism. I think people are looking for an excuse to act offended.

There was a highly publicized story about a chimp on Xanax flipping out and attacking a woman and the cops were forced to shoot it. The inference I get from the cartoon is that the artist views the stimulus bill as so poorly drawn up that a chimp could've written it.

Either way, it's not a very good cartoon.

bogaty

I'm well aware of the perjorative. I just don't see it in this case. Anyone thinking the monkey in the cartoon is a veiled reference to Obama is mistaken, in my opinon.

Racism :o... Wait... is it?... :ohorgen123

No. It draws a monkey that shot. Maybe it could be racist if the monkey symbolizes blacks.

kono11

Nobody except the drawer knows whether the cartoon is inherently racist, as dependent on his intentions when drawing it.

However, this has obvious connotations of racism when left open to interpretation. Either the drawer is a) racist or

b) exceptionally naive and foolish as to racial connotations and imagery that can be highly offensive.

[QUOTE="horgen123"]Racism :o... Wait... is it?... :oBumFluff122

No it's not. A cartoon is supposed to be funny, and make a joke. Big deal. Laugh at it, and then get over it.remmbermytitans

Nobody except the drawer knows whether the cartoon is inherently racist, as dependent on his intentions when drawing it.

However, this has obvious connotations of racism when left open to interpretation. Either the drawer is a) racist or

b) exceptionally naive and foolish as to racial connotations and imagery that can be highly offensive.

MetalGear_Ninty

Also, note the fact that Obama wasn't the primary driving force behind the bill. He was a major supporter, but the true driving force was Congress, and the artist could very well be referring to its authors in general, which, IMO, is far more likely.

thepwninator

Also, foxhound brings up an interesting idea. Is what the NY Post doing no different than what cartoonists did (and still do) with W? And an even broader question is even if it is racist, should anyone make a big deal about it in the first place?

Plus, many racist jokes can be hilarious... if you aren't racist and realize there is no difference between humans of different ethnic backgrounds.foxhound_fox

[QUOTE="thepwninator"]Also, note the fact that Obama wasn't the primary driving force behind the bill. He was a major supporter, but the true driving force was Congress, and the artist could very well be referring to its authors in general, which, IMO, is far more likely.

-Sun_Tzu-

Also, foxhound brings up an interesting idea. Is what the NY Post doing no different than what cartoonists did (and still do) with W? And an even broader question is even if it is racist, should anyone make a big deal about it in the first place?

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"][QUOTE="thepwninator"]Also, note the fact that Obama wasn't the primary driving force behind the bill. He was a major supporter, but the true driving force was Congress, and the artist could very well be referring to its authors in general, which, IMO, is far more likely.

nocoolnamejim

Also, foxhound brings up an interesting idea. Is what the NY Post doing no different than what cartoonists did (and still do) with W? And an even broader question is even if it is racist, should anyone make a big deal about it in the first place?

I think it is very similar to the whole SNL controversy in reference to Governor Patterson, where they would make fun of him for being blind. I'm not sure who said it, it might of been a columnist for the NY Times or the governor himself, but what was said was that it is perfectly acceptable to make fun of an individual, but when you make fun of an entire demographic for something that they have no control over (i.e. blindness) then you have crossed the line.

Agreed that Foxhound does bring up an interesting point with the treatment of Bush. I'm not sure that the point is valid though, because people who compared Bush to a monkey were specifically being derogatory towards Bush in isolation. They were drawing specific conclusions about his intelligence, his looks, etc. In other words, they were trying to be insulting towards BUSH ONLY and not the entire white race. This plays into the importance of the historical imagery used against black people. If for decades blacks as an entire ethnic group hadn't been compared to monkeys to imply their inherent inferiority, then I think the racist angle would be less pronounced. At that point this could be construed as a stab against the politicians responsible for this bill (of whom it is closely associated with Obama) and there would be no racial undertones present. Just as, I would argue, there were no such undertones when such imagery was used against Bush.nocoolnamejim

The cartoon is making fun of the stimulus bill and this

[QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"]Agreed that Foxhound does bring up an interesting point with the treatment of Bush. I'm not sure that the point is valid though, because people who compared Bush to a monkey were specifically being derogatory towards Bush in isolation. They were drawing specific conclusions about his intelligence, his looks, etc. In other words, they were trying to be insulting towards BUSH ONLY and not the entire white race. This plays into the importance of the historical imagery used against black people. If for decades blacks as an entire ethnic group hadn't been compared to monkeys to imply their inherent inferiority, then I think the racist angle would be less pronounced. At that point this could be construed as a stab against the politicians responsible for this bill (of whom it is closely associated with Obama) and there would be no racial undertones present. Just as, I would argue, there were no such undertones when such imagery was used against Bush.foxhound_fox

I'd like to ask... if there is no inherent difference between a "white" person and a "black" person, then what is the difference between portraying Bush as a monkey and Obama as a monkey? How is portraying Obama as a monkey an attack against the "black" race? I don't see any difference between Bush as a monkey and Obama as a monkey. They are being derogatory towards the person, not their ethnic background. If it were ethnic background, you would think they would portray his entire family as a family of monkeys throwing feces at each other with "white" people watching and laughing.foxhound_fox

Based on the responses in this thread alone though (which admittedly isn't a random sample) a significant enough portion of the population at large finds the photo racist and offensive. So while it may not have been the cartoonist's or the paper's intention to be racist, it was at the very least a little ignorant of the historical usage of the imagery deployed.nocoolnamejim

[QUOTE="foxhound_fox"]I'd like to ask... if there is no inherent difference between a "white" person and a "black" person, then what is the difference between portraying Bush as a monkey and Obama as a monkey? How is portraying Obama as a monkey an attack against the "black" race? I don't see any difference between Bush as a monkey and Obama as a monkey. They are being derogatory towards the person, not their ethnic background. If it were ethnic background, you would think they would portray his entire family as a family of monkeys throwing feces at each other with "white" people watching and laughing.nocoolnamejim

It's racist end of story, I mean what else would someone think he is trying to say.observer77

[QUOTE="remmbermytitans"]No it's not. A cartoon is supposed to be funny, and make a joke. Big deal. Laugh at it, and then get over it.foxhound_fox

yeah alot of racist jokes are funny but there are still the racist jokes that go way to far for it to be considered funny. There are some topics that just don't make people laugh because they are real matters of the public that haven't been fixed yet.