This topic is locked from further discussion.
Funny, when I first saw the cartoon the thought of racism never entered my mind.
Does anyone here ever think there can ever be a political cartoon in it and it NOT be considered racist?
I feel bad for any journalist that says anything political with the terms 'monkeying around' or 'I'll be a monkey's uncle.' or 'monkey see monkey do'.
I wish people wouldn't be so distracted by something trivial as this and focus more on the fact this stimulus bill was passed without being read.
I feel bad for any journalist that says anything political with the terms 'monkeying around' or 'I'll be a monkey's uncle.' or 'monkey see monkey do'.
flazzle
Fortunately, most journalists choose not use such..colorful..language. At least the smart ones do not.
It was Obama who proposed for the creation of such a bill, it was Obama who campaigned for the bill, and it was Obama who advocated for his ideas to be included in the bill. No, Obama didn't actually sit down and write the bill word for word, but he was a major contributor when it came to the ideas introduced in the legislation, and because of that, he did help write it. If it wasn't for Obama, the stimulus bill as we know it wouldn't have been created. The stimulus bill is Obama's bill, and the way I am interpreting the cartoon is that because the chimp (Obama) is now dead, someone else is going to have to emerge and create the next stimulus bill, in the same fashion that Obama created the current bill.-Sun_Tzu-You are adding meaning to the cartoon to suit your needs and it doesn't make sense. To get this joke (and its a stupid joke at that) you have to know the authors of the bill and the story of the chimp that got shot. It's confusing because these two stories are unrelated, but they are both current events. Obama DID NOT WRITE THE BILL, and anyone informed on politics realizes this. If the toon said 'now who's going to sign the bill', then thats a different story. But it CLEARLY does not say that or imply it. You can find offense in anything if you add meaning to things like you are. You compare the chimp to Obama which is wrong. But to follow your line of thinking, you interpret it as Obama being dead. That doesn't make sense because no even like that happened. Nothing is dead regarding the stimulus bill or Obama so you seeing the artist making this comparision is silly. The monkey isn't dressed like a president, doesn't look like the president and has zero implications its even him. If someone kept a pet Dodo bird (yes, I know they are extinct but for sake of argument because they are considered dumb animals) and it got shot this week instead of a monkey, you would most likely see this same cartoon with a dodo being shot.
[QUOTE="flazzle"]
I feel bad for any journalist that says anything political with the terms 'monkeying around' or 'I'll be a monkey's uncle.' or 'monkey see monkey do'.
Fortunately, most journalists choose not use such..colorful..language. At least the smart ones do not.
I disagree. Those are valid terms that have no additional implications. I think people that can only think of racism when the term 'monkey' is used are very limited thinkers. Granted HOW you use them you can make them impy other meanings, but when used normally they are perfectly fine. Otherwise we might as well censor to the teeth since people seem to add interpretation as they see fit.[QUOTE="dnuggs40"][QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"] The persona of the chimp is extremely vague. It could very well be congress, but you are overlooking the fact that Obama has put a tremendous amount of input into the stimulus bill; so much that one could go so far to say that he helped write said bill. -Sun_Tzu-Did Obama write the bill? Yes or no It was Obama who proposed for the creation of such a bill, it was Obama who campaigned for the bill, and it was Obama who advocated for his ideas to be included in the bill. No, Obama didn't actually sit down and write the bill word for word, but he was a major contributor when it came to the ideas introduced in the legislation, and because of that, he did help write it. If it wasn't for Obama, the stimulus bill as we know it wouldn't have been created. The stimulus bill is Obama's bill, and the way I am interpreting the cartoon is that because the chimp (Obama) is now dead, someone else is going to have to emerge and create the next stimulus bill, in the same fashion that Obama created the current bill.
Even if Obama wrote the entire bill, the comic wouldn't be racist. I'm really tired of people yelling racism for everything, get over yourselves. You're trying to hold a moral highground, but in fact, you're yelling wolf, wolf when there is no wolf. And we all know how the boy who yelled wolf ended up like?
[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"] It was Obama who proposed for the creation of such a bill, it was Obama who campaigned for the bill, and it was Obama who advocated for his ideas to be included in the bill. No, Obama didn't actually sit down and write the bill word for word, but he was a major contributor when it came to the ideas introduced in the legislation, and because of that, he did help write it. If it wasn't for Obama, the stimulus bill as we know it wouldn't have been created. The stimulus bill is Obama's bill, and the way I am interpreting the cartoon is that because the chimp (Obama) is now dead, someone else is going to have to emerge and create the next stimulus bill, in the same fashion that Obama created the current bill.flazzleYou are adding meaning to the cartoon to suit your needs and it doesn't make sense. To get this joke (and its a stupid joke at that) you have to know the authors of the bill and the story of the chimp that got shot. It's confusing because these two stories are unrelated, but they are both current events. Obama DID NOT WRITE THE BILL, and anyone informed on politics realizes this. If the toon said 'now who's going to sign the bill', then thats a different story. But it CLEARLY does not say that or imply it. You can find offense in anything if you add meaning to things like you are. You compare the chimp to Obama which is wrong. But to follow your line of thinking, you interpret it as Obama being dead. That doesn't make sense because no even like that happened. Nothing is dead regarding the stimulus bill or Obama so you seeing the artist making this comparision is silly. The monkey isn't dressed like a president, doesn't look like the president and has zero implications its even him. If someone kept a pet Dodo bird (yes, I know they are extinct but for sake of argument because they are considered dumb animals) and it got shot this week instead of a monkey, you would most likely see this same cartoon with a dodo being shot. How am I adding meaning? It isn't that far of a stretch to say that Obama is one of the authors of the bill. He didn't sit down at a computer and physically write it, but the bill was composed almost entirely of Obama's ideas. Obama physically went to Capitol Hill and told them what to put in the bill. If that does not make him an author of the bill I don't know what does.
its only racist if you're a chimp... i guess its chimpist.
You didn't hear? Racism doesn't apply to white people. TheokhothYeah, that comparison to people showing Bush as a monkey came up early on in the thread by Foxhound.
[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.nocoolnamejimBecause history gives certain imagery power. The swastika, prior to its use by the Nazis, was not inherently offensive. If the Nazis had never used that symbol, then nobody would bat an eye of a political party used it today. It's the history behind it that makes it offensive. It's the same with using images used in the photo. If there wasn't a very well documented history of comparing blacks to an animal (Monkeys) as a way to define them as less than human then that image wouldn't strike me as being racist and I would agree with you that the outrage was ridiculous. To say that there is equivalence with how monkey imagery has been used to denigrate the black race for decades and the use of it to insult the intelligence of one modern white politician strikes me as a little silly. Let's say, as a hypothetical, that the cops in the picture had Confederate flags on their arms. Would that then be racist? I think many people would find it so because of the historical background of that particular symbol.
[QUOTE="Vanadium2k8"]Didn't people used to similar things for George Bush? (Bush-monkey look-a-likes?)Theokhoth
You didn't hear? Racism doesn't apply to white people.
thats an ignorant way to look at the situation. If you were to go a black or white or asian person and make a joke about him being killed in a gas chamber...no one would care. Make the same joke to a Jewish person and it becomes offensive. Why? Because of history. You cant assess every situation based on a "closed box" mentality. Sure on it own it seems innocent enough, but when you take into context the racial use of comparing black people to monkeys, its a whole different situation. At the very least, the cartoonist and NY Post were very stupid for letting this hit the papers.How am I adding meaning? -Sun_Tzu-
First, you're assuming the comic is about Obama when there is absolutely no implication of that.
Second, you're assuming that the comic is racist and offensive simply because it's about Obama. Obama is not a representative of all black people and criticising him is not a criteria for racism.
The only way this comic could possibly be construed as racist is if you assume the monkey to symbolise all black people, which makes no iota of sense whatsoever given the context, or if you consider Obama to be a representative of all black people, which is simply asinine.
Well, If this specific comic did imply Obama, it would be out of line cause hes shot down in the street.. :| Not to mention the history of african americans and derogatory terms involving monkeys. That can really get to someone because of the history of that insult. Just as you hold no tolerance to someone insulting your religious beliefs, imagine it was something you have no control over (race) become the butt of demeaning jokes?I fail to see how it's racist even if the chimp does symbolise Obama. Criticising Obama through humor =/= racist.
Theokhoth
[QUOTE="Theokhoth"][QUOTE="Vanadium2k8"]Didn't people used to similar things for George Bush? (Bush-monkey look-a-likes?)II_Seraphim_II
You didn't hear? Racism doesn't apply to white people.
thats an ignorant way to look at the situation. If you were to go a black or white or asian person and make a joke about him being killed in a gas chamber...no one would care. Make the same joke to a Jewish person and it becomes offensive. Why? Because of history. You cant assess every situation based on a "closed box" mentality. Sure on it own it seems innocent enough, but when you take into context the racial use of comparing black people to monkeys, its a whole different situation. At the very least, the cartoonist and NY Post were very stupid for letting this hit the papers.Black people haven't been the only people compared to monkeys. Politicians have as well. In fact, a lot of people have been compared to monkeys. It's such an obscure reference that drawing upon it is simply ridiculous, especially considering the social and linguistic context of the comic. It doesn't imply racism in the slightest bit.
I fail to see how it's racist even if the chimp does symbolise Obama. Criticising Obama through humor =/= racist.
That's because you have an open mind and don't look for racism when it's not there. You are treating everyone equal in your head! How dare you do that! This reminds me of that South Park episode regarding racism, which was a very good one. Of course I am aware of how African Americans have been disgustingly compared to apes and monkeys, but in this cartoon it is not the case.[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]Well, If this specific comic did imply Obama, it would be out of line cause hes shot down in the street.. :| Not to mention the history of african americans and derogatory terms involving monkeys. That can really get to someone because of the history of that insult. Just as you hold no tolerance to someone insulting your religious beliefs, imagine it was something you have no control over (race) become the butt of demeaning jokes?I fail to see how it's racist even if the chimp does symbolise Obama. Criticising Obama through humor =/= racist.
warbmxjohn
You have yet to establish that race is the butt of this joke. There's absolutely nothing to imply that, even if Obama is supposed to be the monkey in the comic.
[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"] It was Obama who proposed for the creation of such a bill, it was Obama who campaigned for the bill, and it was Obama who advocated for his ideas to be included in the bill. No, Obama didn't actually sit down and write the bill word for word, but he was a major contributor when it came to the ideas introduced in the legislation, and because of that, he did help write it. If it wasn't for Obama, the stimulus bill as we know it wouldn't have been created. The stimulus bill is Obama's bill, and the way I am interpreting the cartoon is that because the chimp (Obama) is now dead, someone else is going to have to emerge and create the next stimulus bill, in the same fashion that Obama created the current bill.flazzleYou are adding meaning to the cartoon to suit your needs and it doesn't make sense. To get this joke (and its a stupid joke at that) you have to know the authors of the bill and the story of the chimp that got shot. It's confusing because these two stories are unrelated, but they are both current events. Obama DID NOT WRITE THE BILL, and anyone informed on politics realizes this. If the toon said 'now who's going to sign the bill', then thats a different story. But it CLEARLY does not say that or imply it. You can find offense in anything if you add meaning to things like you are. You compare the chimp to Obama which is wrong. But to follow your line of thinking, you interpret it as Obama being dead. That doesn't make sense because no even like that happened. Nothing is dead regarding the stimulus bill or Obama so you seeing the artist making this comparision is silly. The monkey isn't dressed like a president, doesn't look like the president and has zero implications its even him. If someone kept a pet Dodo bird (yes, I know they are extinct but for sake of argument because they are considered dumb animals) and it got shot this week instead of a monkey, you would most likely see this same cartoon with a dodo being shot.
Thank you, and this was very well said. It's obvious who the monkey represents, and if we make the monkey into Obama anyways the cartoon doesn't even make sense anymore. These people are just twisting and adding to the cartoon in order to push their incorrect interpretation.
What kind of pisses me off is people who do this and create controversy where it doesn't exist are killing satire in this country. The way people are going to great lengths to tie this cartoon to racism is intellectually dishonest. Frankly some of you should be ashamed.
[QUOTE="LosDaddie"][QUOTE="flazzle"]
I feel bad for any journalist that says anything political with the terms 'monkeying around' or 'I'll be a monkey's uncle.' or 'monkey see monkey do'.
flazzle
Fortunately, most journalists choose not use such..colorful..language. At least the smart ones do not.
I disagree. Those are valid terms that have no additional implications. I think people that can only think of racism when the term 'monkey' is used are very limited thinkers. Granted HOW you use them you can make them impy other meanings, but when used normally they are perfectly fine. Otherwise we might as well censor to the teeth since people seem to add interpretation as they see fit.That's nice, but your post had nothing to do with what I said.
How am I adding meaning? It isn't that far of a stretch to say that Obama is one of the authors of the bill. He didn't sit down at a computer and physically write it, but the bill was composed almost entirely of Obama's ideas. Obama physically went to Capitol Hill and told them what to put in the bill. If that does not make him an author of the bill I don't know what does. -Sun_Tzu-Because you COMPLETELY disregard all other authors and only want to see it soley as Obama. You are seeing it as you want to see it and refuse or fail to have the capicity to consider the monkey represents all the authors of the bill. Do you understand why a monkey was used and not another animal?
[QUOTE="flazzle"][QUOTE="LosDaddie"]
Fortunately, most journalists choose not use such..colorful..language. At least the smart ones do not.
I disagree. Those are valid terms that have no additional implications. I think people that can only think of racism when the term 'monkey' is used are very limited thinkers. Granted HOW you use them you can make them impy other meanings, but when used normally they are perfectly fine. Otherwise we might as well censor to the teeth since people seem to add interpretation as they see fit.That's nice, but your post had nothing to do with what I said.
I thought your post implied that a smart journalist would never use terms with monkey in it, and I was arguing they were ok to use and they can still be smart and use them. Sorry if i misinterpreted.You are adding meaning to the cartoon to suit your needs and it doesn't make sense. To get this joke (and its a stupid joke at that) you have to know the authors of the bill and the story of the chimp that got shot. It's confusing because these two stories are unrelated, but they are both current events. Obama DID NOT WRITE THE BILL, and anyone informed on politics realizes this. If the toon said 'now who's going to sign the bill', then thats a different story. But it CLEARLY does not say that or imply it. You can find offense in anything if you add meaning to things like you are. You compare the chimp to Obama which is wrong. But to follow your line of thinking, you interpret it as Obama being dead. That doesn't make sense because no even like that happened. Nothing is dead regarding the stimulus bill or Obama so you seeing the artist making this comparision is silly. The monkey isn't dressed like a president, doesn't look like the president and has zero implications its even him. If someone kept a pet Dodo bird (yes, I know they are extinct but for sake of argument because they are considered dumb animals) and it got shot this week instead of a monkey, you would most likely see this same cartoon with a dodo being shot.[QUOTE="flazzle"][QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"] It was Obama who proposed for the creation of such a bill, it was Obama who campaigned for the bill, and it was Obama who advocated for his ideas to be included in the bill. No, Obama didn't actually sit down and write the bill word for word, but he was a major contributor when it came to the ideas introduced in the legislation, and because of that, he did help write it. If it wasn't for Obama, the stimulus bill as we know it wouldn't have been created. The stimulus bill is Obama's bill, and the way I am interpreting the cartoon is that because the chimp (Obama) is now dead, someone else is going to have to emerge and create the next stimulus bill, in the same fashion that Obama created the current bill.dnuggs40
Thank you, and this was very well said. It's obvious who the monkey represents, and if we make the monkey into Obama anyways the cartoon doesn't even make sense anymore. These people are just twisting and adding to the cartoon in order to push their incorrect interpretation.
What kind of pisses me off is people who do this and create controversy where it doesn't exist are killing satire in this country. The way people are going to great lengths to tie this cartoon to racism is intellectually dishonest. Frankly some of you should be ashamed.
Oh I don't think this is such a blatantly black and white issue that you can automatically assume intellectual dishonesty on behalf of the people who are viewing the cartoon seeing racism. Look at the percentages in the poll. It's nearly a 50/50 split. That's a lot of people who are being unreasonable! :)First, you're assuming the comic is about Obama when there is absolutely no implication of that.
And I disagree with the idea that there is no implication of that.
Second, you're assuming that the comic is racist and offensive simply because it's about Obama. Obama is not a representative of all black people and criticising him is not a criteria for racism.
I am interpreting the cartoon as racist because it is comparing Obama, a black man, to a mad chimpanzee. Historically, blacks have been called things such as monkeys. I am not saying that Obama represents all black people, just that from how I am interpreting the cartoon, he is being criticised because of his race, rather than his character.
[/QUOTE]
You have every right to disagree with me; that's your perogative and I have no problem with that. But I do feel that my interpretation holds some legitimacy.
Oh I don't think this is such a blatantly black and white issue that you can automatically assume intellectual dishonesty on behalf of the people who are viewing the cartoon seeing racism. Look at the percentages in the poll. It's nearly a 50/50 split. That's a lot of people who are being unreasonable! :)nocoolnamejim
I don't think numbers is an indication of an individual's reasonableness.
[QUOTE="warbmxjohn"][QUOTE="Theokhoth"]Well, If this specific comic did imply Obama, it would be out of line cause hes shot down in the street.. :| Not to mention the history of african americans and derogatory terms involving monkeys. That can really get to someone because of the history of that insult. Just as you hold no tolerance to someone insulting your religious beliefs, imagine it was something you have no control over (race) become the butt of demeaning jokes?I fail to see how it's racist even if the chimp does symbolise Obama. Criticising Obama through humor =/= racist.
Theokhoth
You have yet to establish that race is the butt of this joke. There's absolutely nothing to imply that, even if Obama is supposed to be the monkey in the comic.
I am not aiming to establish that racism is the butt of this joke. :| I was directly replying to your hypothetical scenario "I fail to see how it's racist even if the chimp does symbolise Obama." And you have my post its all in the quotes of this post. Only exploring your hypothetical alternative, of which I felt was little irrational and almost offensive..[QUOTE="LosDaddie"][QUOTE="flazzle"] I disagree. Those are valid terms that have no additional implications. I think people that can only think of racism when the term 'monkey' is used are very limited thinkers. Granted HOW you use them you can make them impy other meanings, but when used normally they are perfectly fine. Otherwise we might as well censor to the teeth since people seem to add interpretation as they see fit.flazzle
That's nice, but your post had nothing to do with what I said.
I thought your post implied that a smart journalist would never use terms with monkey in it, and I was arguing they were ok to use and they can still be smart and use them. Sorry if i misinterpreted.What I meant was that most professional writers (ie journalists) don't use language like that at all. And you'd hope a journalist would not use the phrase "Monkeying Around" when describing the actions of a black group, be it political or not.
[QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"] Oh I don't think this is such a blatantly black and white issue that you can automatically assume intellectual dishonesty on behalf of the people who are viewing the cartoon seeing racism. Look at the percentages in the poll. It's nearly a 50/50 split. That's a lot of people who are being unreasonable! :)Theokhoth
I don't think numbers is an indication of an individual's reasonableness.
My point was that if a LOT of people are seeing the same thing - and based on the numbers that is the case - it decreases the likelihood that people are intentionally arguing in bad faith because it would have to be a lot of people all arguing in bad faith. Yes, it is entirely possible that the people arguing in this thread that the cartoon is racist don't really believe that and are just trying to stir the pot by arguing the cartoon is racist when they know it isn't. ...but that seems less likely the more people come to the same conclusion that the cartoon has racist overtones. If the numbers were like 95% of people not seeing any racism there and 5% arguing that it was racist, then the assumption that the people seeing racism are arguing in bad faith would be stronger. I'm not saying that the people seeing racism are absolutely reasonable and correct. I'm arguing that they aren't saying they see racism out of intellectual dishonesty. They really do feel that it is racist.[QUOTE="dnuggs40"][QUOTE="flazzle"] You are adding meaning to the cartoon to suit your needs and it doesn't make sense. To get this joke (and its a stupid joke at that) you have to know the authors of the bill and the story of the chimp that got shot. It's confusing because these two stories are unrelated, but they are both current events. Obama DID NOT WRITE THE BILL, and anyone informed on politics realizes this. If the toon said 'now who's going to sign the bill', then thats a different story. But it CLEARLY does not say that or imply it. You can find offense in anything if you add meaning to things like you are. You compare the chimp to Obama which is wrong. But to follow your line of thinking, you interpret it as Obama being dead. That doesn't make sense because no even like that happened. Nothing is dead regarding the stimulus bill or Obama so you seeing the artist making this comparision is silly. The monkey isn't dressed like a president, doesn't look like the president and has zero implications its even him. If someone kept a pet Dodo bird (yes, I know they are extinct but for sake of argument because they are considered dumb animals) and it got shot this week instead of a monkey, you would most likely see this same cartoon with a dodo being shot.nocoolnamejim
Thank you, and this was very well said. It's obvious who the monkey represents, and if we make the monkey into Obama anyways the cartoon doesn't even make sense anymore. These people are just twisting and adding to the cartoon in order to push their incorrect interpretation.
What kind of pisses me off is people who do this and create controversy where it doesn't exist are killing satire in this country. The way people are going to great lengths to tie this cartoon to racism is intellectually dishonest. Frankly some of you should be ashamed.
Oh I don't think this is such a blatantly black and white issue that you can automatically assume intellectual dishonesty on behalf of the people who are viewing the cartoon seeing racism. Look at the percentages in the poll. It's nearly a 50/50 split. That's a lot of people who are being unreasonable! :) There are a lot of unreasonable people is this world. Remember...the average IQ is 100...that means there is a whole lot of people BELOW 100...You have every right to disagree with me; that's your perogative and I have no problem with that. But I do feel that my interpretation holds some legitimacy. -Sun_Tzu-
Which is more likely: That the authors of this comic are drawing upon solely Obama, rather than the hundreds of authors of the bill, and comparing him to a monkey because of historical terms that haven't been used in years, or that the authors are comparing politicians in general (particularly the ones who wrote the bill) to monkeys, an animal that traditionally is considered to be stupid or incompetent, in a society where politicians are acting more and more incompetent every day?
If I compared Jeremiah Wright to a monkey, would that be racist?
If I compared Condoleezza Rice to a monkey, would that be racist?
Or would you assume that I would be talking about how I feel about their competence in their previous actions?
By the social context of the comic, I can see only the most obscure links to racism and even Obama that have to be searched for in order to be applied. I'm pretty sure Occam's Razor would work here.
[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]How am I adding meaning? It isn't that far of a stretch to say that Obama is one of the authors of the bill. He didn't sit down at a computer and physically write it, but the bill was composed almost entirely of Obama's ideas. Obama physically went to Capitol Hill and told them what to put in the bill. If that does not make him an author of the bill I don't know what does. flazzleBecause you COMPLETELY disregard all other authors and only want to see it soley as Obama. You are seeing it as you want to see it and refuse or fail to have the capicity to consider the monkey represents all the authors of the bill. Do you understand why a monkey was used and not another animal? The stimulus bill is Obama's bill. He is the main author of it, and it is he who represents it. That is why I interpret the chimp as being Obama. And I think that I have considered the idea that the chimp symbolizes all the authors of the bill, but I disagree with that interpretation.
Oh I don't think this is such a blatantly black and white issue that you can automatically assume intellectual dishonesty on behalf of the people who are viewing the cartoon seeing racism. nocoolnamejim
You mean we don't all live in a black & white world? :?
Which is more likely: That the authors of this comic are drawing upon solely Obama, rather than the hundreds of authors of the bill, and comparing him to a monkey because of historical terms that haven't been used in years, or that the authors are comparing politicians in general (particularly the ones who wrote the bill) to monkeys, an animal that traditionally is considered to be stupid or incompetent?Theokhoth
Considering it's the (right-leaning) NY Post, I'd say it's not a stretch to think the author is comparing the monkey to Obama.
And maybe it's because I live in The South, but I still here blacks compared to monkeys
[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]Which is more likely: That the authors of this comic are drawing upon solely Obama, rather than the hundreds of authors of the bill, and comparing him to a monkey because of historical terms that haven't been used in years, or that the authors are comparing politicians in general (particularly the ones who wrote the bill) to monkeys, an animal that traditionally is considered to be stupid or incompetent?LosDaddie
Considering it's the (right-leaning) NY Post, I'd say it's not a stretch to think the author is comparing the monkey to Obama.
And maybe it's because I live in The South, but I still here blacks compared to monkeys
Last I checked, right-leaning newspapers and politicians opposed the bill as well, not just Obama.
Interesting, because I also live in the South and have never heard that comparison in my life.
I want to change my vote. I first said that the ad WASNT racist but now that I got more of the facts I'm sure they were meant the chimp to mean President Obama. Most americans think obama wrote the bill, so they have to say that to make the joke work. Someone pointed out to me that the chimps death pose is strange (look at the weird curve of his arm) If you look closely his arms form a backwards B and an O.
[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]You have every right to disagree with me; that's your perogative and I have no problem with that. But I do feel that my interpretation holds some legitimacy. Theokhoth
Which is more likely: That the authors of this comic are drawing upon solely Obama, rather than the hundreds of authors of the bill, and comparing him to a monkey because of historical terms that haven't been used in years, or that the authors are comparing politicians in general (particularly the ones who wrote the bill) to monkeys, an animal that traditionally is considered to be stupid or incompetent?
If I compared Jeremiah Wright to a monkey, would that be racist?
If I compared Condoleezza Rice to a monkey, would that be racist?
Or would you assume that I would be talking about how I feel about their competence in their previous actions?
By the social context of the comic, I can see only the most obscure links to racism and even Obama that have to be searched for in order to be applied.
The cartoonist's intentions is completely irrelevant and does not factor into my interpretation of the cartoon (nor should it). If you compared Reverend Wright, or former Secretary Rice, or any black person for that matter, to a monkey, I would only consider it racist if I interpreted the comparison to be solely based on race.P.S. I don't think that the idea that blacks are no better than monkeys is no longer prevalent in society, but this is just from my own recent personal experiences.
The cartoonist's intentions is completely irrelevant and does not factor into my interpretation of the cartoon (nor should it). If you compared Reverend Wright, or former Secretary Rice, or any black person for that matter, to a monkey, I would only consider it racist if you based your comparison on race rather than their character.
P.S. I don't think that the idea that blacks are no better than monkeys is no longer prevalent in society, but this is just from my own recent personal experiences.
-Sun_Tzu-
The cartoonist's intentions are obviously a factor here, or there would be no controversy. If this comic compares Obama to a monkey then why wouldn't it simply be based on his character? The writers of that newspaper obviously don't approve of Obama's actions and so would consider him incompetent.
[QUOTE="dnuggs40"]"The cartoonist's intentions is completely irrelevant and does not factor into my interpretation" "I would only consider it racist if you based your comparison on race" Can anybody spot the problem here?-Sun_Tzu-I poorly worded that second sentence. Thank you for pointing that out for me. It should read "I would only consider it racist if I interpret the comparison to be solely based on race".
If we boil everything down to your interpretations then talking to you is a waste of time, as you could conceivably interpret absolutely anything someone says to be offensive, including this. If you don't have an anchor in objective reality and argue solely on interpretation, argument becomes useless. The only reason we're arguing in the first place is because, whether you're aware of it or not, you do have an anchor somewhere in objective reality. The historical meaning of comparing a black man to a monkey, perhaps.
[QUOTE="dnuggs40"][QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"] Yes, I understand. But you took the added step of trying to say that the people who are claiming they are seeing racism really aren't and are just arguing that it is there out of intellectual dishonesty. I'm saying that there is not enough available evidence to make that charge. If lots of people are seeing the same thing, they may all be wrong, but it diminishes the odds that they are intentionally arguing a position that they know internally is false.nocoolnamejimSure there is, look at their arguments. They are either ignoring aspects of the cartoon (to suit their argument), or attaching ideas clearly not represented in the actual cartoon. That's intellectual dishonesty at it's finest. Alternatively, they see things differently than you do. Disagreement with your interpretation is not evidence of dishonesty. It is when you ignore things actually said in the cartoon (to make a point), and when you attach ideas not represented in the cartoon.
[QUOTE="LosDaddie"][QUOTE="Theokhoth"]
Considering it's the (right-leaning) NY Post, I'd say it's not a stretch to think the author is comparing the monkey to Obama.
And maybe it's because I live in The South, but I still here blacks compared to monkeys
Theokhoth
Last I checked, right-leaning newspapers and politicians opposed the bill as well, not just Obama.
And yet the NY Post seems to be alone in attaching monkey imagery with this bill.
Interesting, because I also live in the South and have never heard that comparison in my life.Theokhoth
You mean that 2 people can have 2 different life experiences & opinion even if they come from the same region? :o No way!
I poorly worded that second sentence. Thank you for pointing that out for me. It should read "I would only consider it racist if I interpret the comparison to be solely based on race".[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"][QUOTE="dnuggs40"]"The cartoonist's intentions is completely irrelevant and does not factor into my interpretation" "I would only consider it racist if you based your comparison on race" Can anybody spot the problem here?Theokhoth
If we boil everything down to your interpretations then talking to you is a waste of time, as you could conceivably interpret absolutely anything someone says to be offensive, including this. If you don't have an anchor in objective reality and argue solely on interpretation, argument becomes useless. The only reason we're arguing in the first place is because, whether you're aware of it or not, you do have an anchor somewhere in objective reality. The historical meaning of comparing a black man to a monkey, perhaps.
Wow...very well said.And yet the NY Post seems to be alone in attaching monkey imagery with this bill.
You mean that 2 people can have 2 different life experiences & opinion even if they come from the same region? :o No way!
LosDaddie
What? Plenty of people compare Congress to monkeys because of this bill. Even I do. In addition, people have been comparing politicians to monkeys for years. This is simply a circumstantial ad hominem attack.
I don't think I ever said otherwise. . .
[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]The cartoonist's intentions is completely irrelevant and does not factor into my interpretation of the cartoon (nor should it). If you compared Reverend Wright, or former Secretary Rice, or any black person for that matter, to a monkey, I would only consider it racist if you based your comparison on race rather than their character.
P.S. I don't think that the idea that blacks are no better than monkeys is no longer prevalent in society, but this is just from my own recent personal experiences.
Theokhoth
The cartoonist's intentions are obviously a factor here, or there would be no controversy. If this comic compares Obama to a monkey then why wouldn't it simply be based on his character? The writers of that newspaper obviously don't approve of Obama's actions and so would consider him incompetent.
I personally don't think that the cartoonist's intentions are a factor. Maybe they are to some (i.e. Al Sharpton), but not to me. I am not asking for the author or the Post to apologize for the cartoon just because some people find it to be racist and/or offensive. The cartoonists intentions could of been pure or racially motivated, but quite frankly I don't care about the cartoonist; I just care about the cartoon, which I interpret to be offensive.Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment