# Recipe: Racist Pudding



## Bill Mattocks (Feb 19, 2009)

This recipe will make a lovely hate stew or a racist pudding, depending on how you choose to serve it.

You will need the following ingredients:

1 Recent news story - Pet chimp goes bananas, hurts people, attacks police, is shot and killed by police.

1 Recent news story - President Obama signs Stimulus Bill into law.  Some say it misses the intended mark by so much, it looks like it was slapped together by a bunch of monkeys.

Add to this: February is Black History Month in the USA.

Add to this: President Obama happens to be black.

Create one editorial cartoon that is frankly not very funny.  One editor who missed how it might be interpreted.  One American public on edge due to a downward-spiraling economy, rising unemployment, a new president, a complete reversal in old political fortunes between the right and the left, two wars at the same time, and stir thoroughly.

Serves: Angry mobs everywhere.

Bring your own pitchfork!

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article5766822.ece


> February 19, 2009
> Protesters picket New York Post over chimp cartoon
> Protesters gathered outside the New York Posts Manhattan office last night chanting shut the Post down after they claimed a cartoon in the tabloid compared President Obama to a chimpanzee.
> 
> The Post's Editor-in-Chief insists his cartoonist was simply mocking the authors of the fiscal stimulus Bill as no better than a team of trained monkeys. But the newspapers critics say Sean Delonass sketch was tantamount to calling for Barack Obama to be assassinated.


----------



## MA-Caver (Feb 19, 2009)

That does fall into the category of "Worse Tasteless Cartoons Ever!" and there have been quite a few in various publications. 

This is racist... intentional or not.


----------



## JBrainard (Feb 19, 2009)

MA-Caver said:


> That does fall into the category of "Worse Tasteless Cartoons Ever!" and there have been quite a few in various publications.


 
I'm amazed that **** like this actually makes it's way to print.


----------



## CoryKS (Feb 19, 2009)

Nancy Pelosi is a monkey?  I don't get it.


----------



## SFC JeffJ (Feb 19, 2009)

Eh, better this than censorship.

Edit:  Not that I don't think this is rather tasteless.


----------



## seasoned (Feb 19, 2009)

We are heading in a very bad direction, at a very fast pace. You are correct Bill, it does seem that many different issues are coming together at the same time. It is a slippery slop, and gaining momentum.


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Feb 19, 2009)

JBrainard said:


> I'm amazed that **** like this actually makes it's way to print.


 

Nothing that makes its way to print that doesn't deserve to surprises me anymore.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Feb 19, 2009)

Here is CNN's take on it, some interesting comments here:

http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/02/19/chimp.cartoon.react/?iref=mpstoryview


----------



## CoryKS (Feb 19, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Here is CNN's take on it, some interesting comments here:
> 
> http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/02/19/chimp.cartoon.react/?iref=mpstoryview


 
From the article:



> "He was trying trying to jam two stories together, and unfortunately this is what a lot of lame editors like," Rall said. "The comparison he had in mind: The guy who wrote the package wasn't *Obama*; it was a bunch of white economic advisers, and he [Delonas] wasn't thinking about Obama."


 
You can be certain that this is much ado about nothing when even a moron like Ted Rall understands the point of the cartoon.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Feb 19, 2009)

CoryKS said:


> You can be certain that this is much ado about nothing when even a moron like Ted Rall understands the point of the cartoon.



Here's something interesting, though...sort of a side-note.

*WAS* it a bunch of 'white' economic advisors who wrote the Economic Stimulus Bill?  Do we know that, or did Mr. Rall assume it?  And if he did assume it, is that also a form of racism?

I mean, think of it like this: _"Oh, of course the cartoonist didn't mean a black man, all the economic advisers are white guys ('cause you know, they're smart and stuff)."_

I don't know.  Just noticing.


----------



## Andrew Green (Feb 19, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I mean, think of it like this: _"Oh, of course the cartoonist didn't mean a black man, all the economic advisers are white guys ('cause you know, they're *smart* and stuff)."_



Wait... smart?


----------



## Gordon Nore (Feb 19, 2009)

> They'll have to find someone else to write <not, "sign"> the stimulus bill.


That choice of words is slender the reed upon which the Post's defense is perched. I don't buy the editor's explanation. I think this was quite deliberate. There's a tone to the argument that goes like this: _Oh gosh, people are so sensitive nowadays. They just don't get satire._

I get satire. This isn't it. This is low-brow homour aimed at people who are chronically bitter and not terribly literate -- akin to that Sharpton parody song that played on Limbaugh's show. Those who find this amusing will take refuge in their First Amendment rights and cry PC at anyone who objects to this. 

One doesn't have to be terribly culturally sensitive or politically correct or intellectually effete to fail to see the humour in a thinly veiled representation of a black male shot dead on the street with two cops standing over him. One can love the Hell out of free speech and see through this.

There is a good way to handle this, of course. People can stop buying the Post or viewing its website. They can refuse to patronize those who advertise on its pages, thus compelling advertisers to look elsewhere. Other media outlets can refuse to publish advertising for the Post.


----------



## Carol (Feb 19, 2009)

Not my style of humor, or commentary.  Personally, I like intelligent commentary.  I can appreciate opinions or humor that doesn't reflect my political view, if its done to a standard that doesn't offend me.  I find this to be in very poor taste.

But is it truly taste that was the point at issue or is it ideology?  

Where was the outrage that called for the ending of the Palestinian media when they published this depiction of Secretary Rice?






Where is the outrage that calls for the ending of About.com when they published this depiction of Secretary Rice?  Or the calling to end the LA Times when their staff cartoonist Jeff Danziger released this cartoon for circulation?  Or when Aussie cartoonist Pat Oliphant produced this depiction for U.S. syndication?

http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/images/blpic-uncledubyarice.htm&usg=__jRvor5PZxojpeac9KG-Pj-FGrFo=&h=500&w=400&sz=42&hl=en&start=2&um=1&tbnid=TSDu8tIV70yfiM:&tbnh=130&tbnw=104&prev=/images%3Fq%3Deditorial%2Bcartoons%2Bcondaleeza%2Brice%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DN


----------



## Empty Hands (Feb 19, 2009)

I doubt the editor missed how this might be interpreted.  In fact, I would be willing to bet he counted on it.  This is the New York Post after all.  Circulation is down these days, they need the controversy to boost sales.


----------



## Monadnock (Feb 19, 2009)

I'm more saddened by the chimp story from Connecticut. That was just aweful. To use it as a comical political cartoon is pretty bad taste, to me.

But I see no racist undertones. In fact, I think Bush was called Chimp more than Obama ever has.

I guess the professional vicitm crowd is still grabbing at anything to help their cause.


----------



## Empty Hands (Feb 19, 2009)

Monadnock said:


> But I see no racist undertones. In fact, I think Bush was called Chimp more than Obama ever has.



Here's a hint: calling a white man a chimp is not particularly racist.  Why?  Because white men have not been systematically associated with chimps in a degrading way.  The same cannot be said for black men.

Like I said in another thread: *stop being disingenuous.*


----------



## Monadnock (Feb 19, 2009)

Empty Hands said:


> Here's a hint: calling a white man a chimp is not particularly racist. Why? Because white men have not been systematically associated with chimps in a degrading way. The same cannot be said for black men.
> 
> Like I said in another thread: *stop being disingenuous.*


 
Seems like more of an explanation than a hint.

Systematically? Which system? Names, dates, and recognized authorities would be helpful.

Here's my hint: crybabies


----------



## Big Don (Feb 19, 2009)

Carol Kaur said:


> Not my style of humor, or commentary.  Personally, I like intelligent commentary.  I can appreciate opinions or humor that doesn't reflect my political view, if its done to a standard that doesn't offend me.  I find this to be in very poor taste.
> 
> But is it truly taste that was the point at issue or is it ideology?
> 
> ...


Well, shoot, she deserved it for being a republican. Just like Michael Steele deserves it now. 
As to the current cartoon, racist? I think not. Yeah, no one has ever heard the phrase "a trained monkey could do that" nor heard the (btw, idiotic) idea that given enough monkeys smacking enough typewriters you could reproduce the works of Shakespeare.


----------



## Gordon Nore (Feb 19, 2009)

Carol Kaur said:


> Not my style of humor, or commentary.  Personally, I like intelligent commentary.  I can appreciate opinions or humor that doesn't reflect my political view, if its done to a standard that doesn't offend me.  I find this to be in very poor taste.
> 
> But is it truly taste that was the point at issue or is it ideology?
> 
> Where was the outrage that called for the ending of the Palestinian media when they published this depiction of Secretary Rice?



I have not seen these before; however, your point is well-taken. FWIW I think the other cartoons are crude at best. They are at least honest in that the authors are forthright about whom they are satirizing. The Post cartoon resorts to subterfuge, which the Post's editor has hidden behind in defending his decision.

It would be interesting though, if the Post editor had said, "We have a Constitutional right to editorialize however we want, and readers have the right to tell us to STFU. We stand behind our cartoonist and our decision to publish the article." That's the entire Freedom of the Press argument. That's the defense, but they're being totally disingenuous, when they say, 'The monkey is not Obama, it's some other guy... whom the police should shoot.' 

The ball has to be in the court of consumers to hold their media accountable. Personally, I shan't purchasing the Post anytime soon.


----------



## Big Don (Feb 19, 2009)

Empty Hands said:


> Here's a hint: calling a white man a chimp is not particularly racist.  Why?  Because white men have not been systematically associated with chimps in a degrading way.  The same cannot be said for black men.
> 
> Like I said in another thread: *stop being disingenuous.*


Yeah, calling President Bush a chimp for eight years was the height of intellectual discourse, calling President Obama a chimp, even without, you know, actually calling him one, is RACIST. Your double standards might be entertaining were they not so idiotically arbitrary.


----------



## Twin Fist (Feb 19, 2009)

anyone that thinks the cartoon is racist is, well, looking for racism or needs to lay off the pipe.


----------



## Empty Hands (Feb 19, 2009)

Big Don said:


> Yeah, calling President Bush a chimp for eight years was the height of intellectual discourse, calling President Obama a chimp, even without, you know, actually calling him one, is RACIST. Your double standards might be entertaining were they not so idiotically arbitrary.



It's not a double standard.  *STOP BEING DISINGENUOUS!  *Really, it's embarrassing, and makes you look really stupid.  You know damn well that calling black men apes has a long, racist history.


----------



## grydth (Feb 19, 2009)

I don't like this particular cartoon, but only because it plays off a private tragedy where an innocent woman was horribly maimed and the police attacked. Sean Delonis has produced some scathingly funny cartoons in the past, most especially the ones targeting the Clintons. This one missed.

I voted for President Obama and I wish President Obama success in pulling this country out of the whirlpool we're going down in... so I don't agree with Delonis on this topic politically, either.

But was Delonis being a racist here? Of course not. You'd have to believe that not only was Delonis comparing President Obama to a monkey but also that Delonis was advocating violence against the President.... and if that were even remotely implied, you can bet that the Secret Service would've been at the Post's offices long before the first screech hit the media.

AG Eric Holder was just complaining that Americans are too cowardly to discuss race.... hey Eric, here's precisely the reason why!


----------



## JadecloudAlchemist (Feb 19, 2009)

As Empty Hands said here is a slang word proving his point in history.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=porch+monkey


----------



## Empty Hands (Feb 19, 2009)

JadecloudAlchemist said:


> As Empty Hands said here is a slang word proving his point in history.
> 
> http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=porch+monkey



Nonsense!  You're just whining.


----------



## Archangel M (Feb 19, 2009)

Hmm..perhaps we can roll some issues from the "Americans are Cowards" thread into this one huh? 

Anything that could possibly be seen as racist must be eliminated regardless of the intent (unless its about a Republican)?

But I do agree, what idiot editor couldn't see this storm coming? I think it's possible that it could be an intentional publicity stunt.


----------



## Carol (Feb 19, 2009)

Gordon Nore said:


> I have not seen these before; however, your point is well-taken. FWIW I think the other cartoons are crude at best. They are at least honest in that the authors are forthright about whom they are satirizing. The Post cartoon resorts to subterfuge, which the Post's editor has hidden behind in defending his decision.
> 
> It would be interesting though, if the Post editor had said, "We have a Constitutional right to editorialize however we want, and readers have the right to tell us to STFU. We stand behind our cartoonist and our decision to publish the article." That's the entire Freedom of the Press argument. That's the defense, but they're being totally disingenuous, when they say, 'The monkey is not Obama, it's some other guy... whom the police should shoot.'
> 
> The ball has to be in the court of consumers to hold their media accountable. Personally, I shan't purchasing the Post anytime soon.



I agree with you strongly about consumers holding the media accountable.

Personally I have no issue with someone not liking a particular politician, or their ideas.   I can also see why some see the depiction of a gorilla is being racist...its not like such a comparison hasn't come up before in a major market.  

But to me it is just as disingenuous (if not more so) for a person who is unmistakably a black woman to be depicted in such a denigrating manner.  I think its even more telling that many folks haven't seen these images or heard the outrage.  Michelle Obama took a very active role campaigning and politicizing during the election season, if a cartoonist were to refer to her as one of Scarlett O'Hara's slaves or a submissive parrot to (say) Rahm Emanual, there would be a loud mainstream reaction....and not just a muted protest whose most prominent national exposure was an editorial on FoxNews.com. :asian:


----------



## Twin Fist (Feb 19, 2009)

just because something CAN be taken in a racist way doesnt mean it was MEANT in a racist way

and the fact is, race baiters like Sharpton ALWAYS look to take something as a racial slur, so they dont have much credibility with me


----------



## Kreth (Feb 19, 2009)

Twin Fist said:


> just because something CAN be taken in a racist way doesnt mean it was MEANT in a racist way
> 
> and the fact is, race baiters like Sharpton ALWAYS look to take something as a racial slur, so they dont have much credibility with me


Agreed. I thought it was pretty obvious that the artist was comparing the authors of the stimulus plan to the proverbial monkeys eventually randomly banging out the complete works of Shakespeare.


----------



## crushing (Feb 19, 2009)

Kreth said:


> Agreed. I thought it was pretty obvious that the artist was comparing the authors of the stimulus plan to the proverbial monkeys eventually randomly banging out the complete works of Shakespeare.



The chimp the police shot was pampered, dined on filet mignon, and drank out of wine glass; the comparison to any number of politicians/lobbyists is compelling.


----------



## Gordon Nore (Feb 19, 2009)

Carol Kaur said:


> But to me it is just as disingenuous (if not more so) for a person who is unmistakably a black woman to be depicted in such a denigrating manner. I think its even more telling that many folks haven't seen these images or heard the outrage. Michelle Obama took a very active role campaigning and politicizing during the election season, if a cartoonist were to refer to her as one of Scarlett O'Hara's slaves or a submissive parrot to (say) Rahm Emanual, there would be a loud mainstream reaction....and not just a muted protest whose most prominent national exposure was an editorial on FoxNews.com. :asian:



Agreed on all counts. :asian:


----------



## Gordon Nore (Feb 19, 2009)

Big Don said:


> Yeah, calling President Bush a chimp for eight years was the height of intellectual discourse, calling President Obama a chimp, even without, you know, actually calling him one, is RACIST. Your double standards might be entertaining were they not so idiotically arbitrary.



Actually, it's not, but nobody ever said all liberals or Democrats were above appealing to the same sort of rabble that thinks the Chimp cartoon is funny, or even insightful. 

Critiquing the former President's policies and leadership can be accomplished -- quite colourfully, I might add -- without characterizing him as a chimp or comparing him to Hitler or any of the BS.


----------



## crushing (Feb 19, 2009)

CoryKS said:


> Nancy Pelosi is a monkey?  I don't get it.



So it wasn't racist, but sexist?  There is some history of comparing Pelosi to a monkey:






Ya really gotta wonder about people that jumped to the conclusion that chimp = Black man.  The OP (along with bloggers and Sharpton) poisoned the well before we got to the cartoon.  I wonder if reactions be the same had the cartoon stood alone?  Would as many still seen a Black man when looking at a monkey?


----------



## jetboatdeath (Feb 20, 2009)

Better? 






I am not offended for some reason...


----------



## jarrod (Feb 20, 2009)

i saw that cartoon on the morning news, thought about it for a moment, then thought "how is that not racist"? 

not that i think everything is racism. it makes a lot more sense now having read how some folks on this thread have interpreted it. i was looking at it somewhat literally: yes politicians have been compared to monkeys. but chimps are apes, not monkeys, so the racist cannotations came to my mind before anything else. i still didn't make the jump from chimps-->monkeys-->politicians until it was spelled out for me here. i also missed that the cartoon said "write" instead of "sign". 

in any case, i think it's in poor taste for a number of reasons, & i'm sure the editor was well aware of it. it's main problem though is just that it's not funny.

jf


----------



## elder999 (Feb 20, 2009)

crushing said:


> Ya really gotta wonder about people that jumped to the conclusion that chimp = Black man. The OP (along with bloggers and Sharpton) poisoned the well before we got to the cartoon. I wonder if reactions be the same had the cartoon stood alone? Would as many still seen a Black man when looking at a monkey?


 

Well, no, you shouldn't wonder at all.

*Here's an article* from the American Journal of Psychology that explains the idea that the association of blacks with apes is deeply ingrained in American society's consiousness:



> Crude historical depictions of African Americans as ape-like may have disappeared from mainstream U.S. culture, but research presented in a new paper by psychologists at Stanford, Pennsylvania State University and the University of California-Berkeley reveals that many Americans subconsciously associate blacks with apes.
> 
> In addition, the findings show that society is more likely to condone violence against black criminal suspects as a result of its broader inability to accept African Americans as fully human, according to the researchers.


 

The article goes on to explain that the theory is the product of a study done by Stanford, U Penn and UC Berkley......

In *Another article on the study* they say the following:



> While the explicit images of Blacks as apes have disappeared from the U.S. media, the images still may continue in coded language," the researchers said in the study. "Perhaps subtle metaphors that go largely unnoticed in the media continue to have great effect  and even be linked to life-and-death decisions."
> As recently as the early 1990s, California state police euphemistically referred to cases involving young Black men as N.H.I.  No Humans Involved, according to the study. A police officer involved in the 1991 Rodney King beating had just come from a domestic dispute with a Black couple and referred to it as "something right out of (the movie) Gorillas in the Mist."
> *" If you look at some political cartoons of Condoleezza Rice, Barack Obama and Colin Powell, you see that they are represented in ape-like caricature," *noted Goff "It is not explicit depiction and therefore not seen as offensive.


 
Then of course, there's this:


----------



## CoryKS (Feb 20, 2009)

crushing said:


> So it wasn't racist, but sexist? There is some history of comparing Pelosi to a monkey:


 
Well, if eight years of the Bush administration has taught us nothing else, it's taught us that calling white people monkeys is A-OK.


----------



## elder999 (Feb 20, 2009)

.....and this A-OK, too, I suppose... :lol:


----------



## crushing (Feb 20, 2009)

elder999 said:


> .....and this A-OK, too, I suppose... :lol:


 
A t-shirt showing Bush peeling a banana and supporting Obama?


----------



## elder999 (Feb 20, 2009)

crushing said:


> A t-shirt showing Bush peeling a banana and supporting Obama?


 

Curious George, I think.....


----------



## CoryKS (Feb 20, 2009)

Look, all this discussion about physical characteristics is irrelevant to the cartoon.  The cartoonist wasn't trying to make the point that the authors of the "Stimulus" plan look like apes.  That would be the equivalent of calling someone a big doody-head, and doesn't exactly make for cutting political commentary.  What he was saying is that the authors of the "Stimulus" plan, of whatever race they may be, collectively have the intellectual capacity of a chimp on Xanax.  I agree, though I would give the advantage to the chimp.


----------



## elder999 (Feb 20, 2009)

CoryKS said:


> Look, all this discussion about physical characteristics is irrelevant to the cartoon. The cartoonist wasn't trying to make the point that the authors of the "Stimulus" plan look like apes. That would be the equivalent of calling someone a big doody-head, and doesn't exactly make for cutting political commentary. What he was saying is that the authors of the "Stimulus" plan, of whatever race they may be, collectively have the intellectual capacity of a chimp on Xanax. I agree, though I would give the advantage to the chimp.


 

While I can certainly accept your _conjecture_ about the cartoonist's intentions as one possibility, and maybe even a likelihood, it doesn't exclude the other. The discussion isn't about "physical characteristics" at all, although *your thinking it to be so might just be telling*. The discussion is about more than a century of stereotyped images and association of blacks with apes in the American consciousness.


----------



## CoryKS (Feb 20, 2009)

elder999 said:


> The discussion isn't about "physical characteristics" at all, although *your thinking it to be so might just be telling*.


 
Nice try. Well, no - actually rather inept. 



elder999 said:


> The discussion is about more than a century of stereotyped images and association of blacks with apes in the American consciousness.


 
The discussion is also about whether that association is applicable to the cartoon. My position is that it is not. YMMV.


----------



## elder999 (Feb 20, 2009)

CoryKS said:


> Nice try. Well, no - actually rather inept. .


 

I'm not trying anything, Cory-you were the first one to use the words "physical characteristics" in this thread-why not explain what you meant by "all this discussion about physical characteristics," _since there hasn't been any._???


----------



## CoryKS (Feb 20, 2009)

elder999 said:


> I'm not trying anything, Cory-you were the first one to use the words "physical characteristics" in this thread-why not explain what you meant by "all this discussion about physical characteristics," _since there hasn't been any._???


 
I suppose this is the part where I'm supposed to drop out of the argument and drop a few "uh, uh, I'm not racist, what I meant was --" posts. *yawn*

Go back upthread and look at the pictures, some of which you posted yourself.  Specifically, what is it about the Vogue cover that bothered you?  How does it relate to the other poster?


----------



## crushing (Feb 20, 2009)

elder999 said:


> I'm not trying anything, Cory-you were the first one to use the words "physical characteristics" in this thread-why not explain what you meant by "all this discussion about physical characteristics," _since there hasn't been any._???


 
Clever!  Cory does appear to have been the first one to use those exact words in this thread.

But, before he used the words this link:  http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1126535&postcount=22

As we see in the link above and a few of your own posts one doesn't need to use the words "physical characteristics" to actually bring physical characteristics in to the thread.


----------



## Carol (Feb 20, 2009)

Yet these depictions of black Americans are supposedly acceptable?


----------



## elder999 (Feb 20, 2009)

Carol Kaur said:


> Yet these depictions of black Americans are supposedly acceptable?


 

Well, no, they're not.


----------



## elder999 (Feb 20, 2009)

CoryKS said:


> I suppose this is the part where I'm supposed to drop out of the argument and drop a few "uh, uh, I'm not racist, what I meant was --" posts. *yawn*


 
Nope.it's the part where you explain, and you did.





CoryKS said:


> Go back upthread and look at the pictures, some of which you posted yourself. Specifically, what is it about the Vogue cover that bothered you? How does it relate to the other poster?


 
Nothing about the Vogue cover bothered _*me*_/. Personally, I'm generally immune to such things, though conscious of them-I didn't know about the Vogue cover for quite some time. I even like my _Little Rascals_ and _Our Gang_ with all the racist jokes and sight-gags, rather than edited out.

In any case, it did bother enough people:

1 - 10 of 44,400 for lebron james vogue cover,controversy who did notice it.

Apparently, the photographer, Annie Liebowitz, is known for occasionally duplicating images from history in this way-I don't know about that, or how that photo came to be on the cover-or if it's _intentionally_ racist, if at all. While one can see some similarities between the poses in the photo and the poster, and the attire of the women in each of them, for me, that's where the "physical characteristics" end, and I _still don't know what you meant._


----------



## Carol (Feb 20, 2009)

Whoaaaa.....OK the controversy was completely lost on me.   Even with the side-by-side image I didn't pick on the alleged King Kong and Fay Wray reference.

Of course my first reaction was staring at LeBron and thinking mmmmm....muscles....:lol2:


----------



## elder999 (Feb 20, 2009)

Carol Kaur said:


> Whoaaaa.....OK the controversy was completely lost on me.  Even with the side-by-side image I didn't pick on the alleged King Kong and Fay Wray reference.
> 
> Of course my first reaction was staring at LeBron and thinking mmmmm....muscles....:lol2:


 
Yeah, and I was regretting Giselle Bundchen wasn't more......_exposed?_ :lfao:


----------



## Phoenix44 (Feb 20, 2009)

I truly believe that this cartoon was an allusion to the recent chimpanzee attack in Stamford where the chimp was killed by the police, and not intended as a racial slur.

However, last night I was listening to the Sirius-XM program, "Make It Plain," hosted by Mark Thompson, an African-American political talker.  His viewpoint, and the viewpoint of most of his callers of all races, was this:

In the past, racist cartoons which were intended to denigrate black people frequently featured monkeys.  Therefore, the cartoonist and editors really should have recognized that possible historical reference.  So even if the cartoonist harbored no racist intent, someone should have realized it could be hurtful to black people.


----------



## Archangel M (Feb 20, 2009)

It sometimes seems like people are LOOKING for a racial issue in everything...and if there isnt one they manufacture one.


----------



## MA-Caver (Feb 20, 2009)

Well at least the Post is sorry... partially.



> *NY Post apologizes  to some  over Obama cartoon*
> 
> By KAREN MATTHEWS, Associated Press Writer        Karen Matthews, Associated Press Writer               Fri Feb 20, 4:43 am ET
> http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090220/ap_on_re_us/ny_post_cartoonNEW YORK  After two days of protests, the New York Post apologized Thursday for a cartoon that some have interpreted as comparing President Barack Obama to a violent chimpanzee gunned down by police. But the newspaper also said its longtime antagonists exploited the image for revenge.
> ...


Either way the damage is done I think.


----------



## elder999 (Feb 20, 2009)

Archangel M said:


> It sometimes seems like people are LOOKING for a racial issue in everything...and if there isnt one they manufacture one.


 

Some people (-cough-*Sharpton!*-cough-) have made a career of  LOOKING. Sometimes, though, they don't have to look too hard......


----------



## Nolerama (Feb 20, 2009)

I think the argument in this post lies in the fact that the OP was trying to make a funny, but went over a line to a point where his humor might be seen as racist by some people.

The OP originally struck me as "holy cow turds Batman, that's racist!" And when viewed by some, it can be seen that way. But it's just a joke gone bad; just like the cartoon. Humor, and the way it affects individuals, is a very broad spectrum. Eliciting a chuckle from someone with Joke A can and will get a Boo from another.

However, there's a matter of taste, and the fact that this forum is a very diverse group of people.

What does the OP have to say in response? It would shed a great deal of light as to the original intentions of the post.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Feb 20, 2009)

The thought occurs to me that sometimes situations like this tell us a lot more about ourselves than about the situation itself.  By listening to the tone, tenor, and observing the shape of the arguments on both sides, we see where we are as a society and perhaps, what we might consider in terms of finding the path.


----------



## Archangel M (Feb 20, 2009)

elder999 said:


> Some people (-cough-*Sharpton!*-cough-) have made a career of  LOOKING. Sometimes, though, they don't have to look too hard......



You are right. But I think that sometimes stuff like this is "part and parcel" of the "we are cowards on race" issue. It sends the message that you will be branded/labeled/attacked if you say or do anything that could be seen as racist...intended or not.

Ive seen/heard of confrontations over someone saying something like "These are black days"..."lets call a spade a spade"..etc. And there is the "oh its a BLACK thing!" response. I cant decide if the offended party REALLY thinks the other person is biased or if its just an easy argument winner? Either way...if one side appears ready to take offense at any slip of the tongue and the other side is worried aout how they phrase their opinion...how is there going to be any frank discussion?


----------



## Cryozombie (Feb 20, 2009)

I think there is a simple solution to all this

Lets ban the words Monkey, Ape and Chimp.

This thread has made the levels of hate very clear to me... so much so in fact that people hated bush enough for 8 years to refer to him as a negative black racial stereotype, inferring hes no better than a black man.

Its sad.

Gee, look how easily one can FIND racism if they wanna.  That initial cartoon was in bad taste, but in no way racist like many of the cartoons posted following it trying to "prove" it was.  That cartoon said "The Stimulus package was written by a monkey" 

Anyone reading anything else into it is doing so intentionally. Especially when you consider Obama neither wrote, nor READ the damn thing, only signed it.


----------



## Carol (Feb 20, 2009)

Archangel M said:


> You are right. But I think that sometimes stuff like this is "part and parcel" of the "we are cowards on race" issue. It sends the message that you will be branded/labeled/attacked if you say or do anything that could be seen as racist...intended or not.
> 
> Ive seen/heard of confrontations over someone saying something like "These are black days"..."lets call a spade a spade"..etc. And there is the "oh its a BLACK thing!" response. I cant decide if the offended party REALLY thinks the other person is biased or if its just an easy argument winner? Either way...if one side appears ready to take offense at any slip of the tongue and the other side is worried aout how they phrase their opinion...how is there going to be any frank discussion?



Perhaps that is part of Mr. Holder's concern.  A flipped-out emotional response isn't a frank or reasonable discussion.


----------



## elder999 (Feb 20, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> The thought occurs to me that sometimes situations like this tell us a lot more about ourselves than about the situation itself. By listening to the tone, tenor, and observing the shape of the arguments on both sides, we see where we are as a society and perhaps, what we might consider in terms of finding the path.


 

And that's a fact-who knows what the cartoonist intended, or even if his intent and what he says his intent was are the same thing? In the meantime, it's sparked some interesting conversation-to some it's obviously racist, to some it's obviously not. I'm somewhere in the middle-I can see how it could be (mis)construed to be racist, but I don't get how it's "obviously not," unless you're the cartoonist......


----------



## Archangel M (Feb 20, 2009)

elder999 said:


> And that's a fact-who knows what the cartoonist intended, or even if his intent and what he says his intent was are the same thing? In the meantime, it's sparked some interesting conversation-to some it's obviously racist, to some it's obviously not. I'm somewhere in the middle-I can see how it could be (mis)construed to be racist, but I don't get how it's "obviously not," unless you're the cartoonist......



I agree. In this day and age someone should have seen the potential there...which still leaves the question...do we edit out ANY "potentially" offensive material regardless of intent? If so then why the lack of uproar over the cartoons Carol posted? It smacks of a double standard. (not anybody HERE...directed to those who took offense at this comic but ignored the others)


----------



## elder999 (Feb 20, 2009)

Archangel M said:


> I agree. In this day and age someone should have seen the potential there...which still leaves the question...do we edit out ANY "potentially" offensive material regardless of intent?


 
I don't know.I don't even have a guess.



Archangel M said:


> If so then why the lack of uproar over the cartoons Carol posted?


 
I don't know, and no one is going to like my guesses: Many black people's opinions of Clarence Thomas and Condoleeza Rice are in line with the sentiments of the cartoons and magazine cover. The magazine's target audience is black people. Some may even feel that way about Colin Powell (it's possible that even Colin Powell felt that way for a time, but that's another story.....)

It's also possible that they didn't see them........the only places I've seen the Condoleeza Rice ones is here on other threads.....



Archangel M said:


> It smacks of a double standard.


 
The world is full of ugly little double standards around things of this nature-it doesn't just "smackl of a double standard," _it simply *is* a double standard._


----------



## Archangel M (Feb 20, 2009)

What I think it all boils down to is that we all want to be able to choose what offends us WHEN its most beneficial to us...the rest of the time we will just let it slide. Which is fine (or at least uncontrollable) until we get to the point where public policy and politics are involved in it. If those cartoons were for a black audience I think its just as wrong for one side to be able to play with a stereotype while damning the other side...back to that double standard issue I guess. 

I do not go around intentionally offending people. I do my best to be polite, but ill be damned if i will be made to feel embarrassed over a slight I never intended and may in fact have been manufactured by the other party for their benefit.


----------



## Carol (Feb 20, 2009)

Of course there is the potential there.  My observation as a former broadcaster - controversy generally sells better than news does.  I have yet to see any wall-to-wall bailout coverage but hell....some drug-happy model loses her life to her own voluntary indulgences and we had wall-to-wall Anna Nicole Smith on every network for a week. :idunno:

The NY Post without a doubt is a for-profit business...but its also the "3rd NYC paper" that has died and resurrected more often than Elvis.  The most recent time it was brought back to life, I heard a local business broadcaster ask a NYC media analyst why there are people that keep trying to revive the Post.

Short answer - its not always about profit, its about prestige. Owning a NYC newspaper earns one a spot at the mayor's table.  Owning a newspaper in the world's #1 media market earns one access and credibility that money (alone) can't buy.  

If a person has what it takes to be a decision maker in the world's A-numbah-one media market that's a person that's way too smart to really think  "but...but...but...I dinna know..." is an honest defense.


----------



## Carol (Feb 20, 2009)

Archangel M said:


> I agree. In this day and age someone should have seen the potential there...which still leaves the question...do we edit out ANY "potentially" offensive material regardless of intent? If so then why the lack of uproar over the cartoons Carol posted? It smacks of a double standard. (not anybody HERE...directed to those who took offense at this comic but ignored the others)





elder999 said:


> I don't know.I don't even have a guess.
> 
> I don't know, and no one is going to like my guesses: Many black people's opinions of Clarence Thomas and Condoleeza Rice are in line with the sentiments of the cartoons and magazine cover. The magazine's target audience is black people. Some may even feel that way about Colin Powell (it's possible that even Colin Powell felt that way for a time, but that's another story.....)
> 
> ...



In fairness...esp. to my recently posted images...

The magazine "emerge" has gone belly up.  It is no more.

The website, blackcommentator.com, is still around...but is currently in beg-a-thon mode, reporting that they will be 50K in the red for FY2009.

While I don't think that is a complete justification to the (lack of) ourtage over the images, it may also show that there are way too many black Americans that are too busy studying, working, and/or taking care of their families...too many to be bothered with a media outlet that will sometimes focus on "victim politics"  

However, this is a demonstration of another inequality.  Take, for example, Mr. Juan Williams.   He is a longtime correspondent for NPR news, as well as a regular at Washington Post and Fox News television.  He has often voiced a conservative opinion, and has frequently been critical of the Obamas.

Yet google his name and you will also find references to him as a "sellout" or a "race-traitor" or other unsavory labels.  You'll also find people that question why he is being labeled as such, when Rush Limbaugh makes more money than gawd as a white guy that criticizes other white guys, often in a cruder fashion...yet he escapes such labels.

I'm glad that I saw in my lifetime the day where a person of color was fairly elected as leader of the free world.  I hope someday I can see the day when a person of color can be a conservative without being shot down with the very racial labels and epithets that most Americans (black or otherwise) find offensive.  :asian:


----------



## elder999 (Feb 20, 2009)

Carol Kaur said:


> I heard a local business broadcaster ask a NYC media analyst why there are people that keep trying to revive the Post.
> 
> Short answer - its not always about profit, its about prestige. .


 
 Founded by Alexander Hamilton



> New York Post, established 1801, describes itself as the nation's oldest continuously published daily newspaper. ............*The Post was founded by Alexander Hamilton with about US$10,000 from a group of investors in the autumn of 1801 as the New-York Evening Post*


*

That's a lot of prestige.........for a dismal, third-rate rag. :lfao:*


----------



## Gordon Nore (Feb 20, 2009)

Carol Kaur said:
			
		

> _Yet these depictions of black Americans are supposedly acceptable?_


 


elder999 said:


> Well, no, they're not.


 
For many years in Canada, we had the regrettable tradition known as the Newfie Joke. The Newfie joke parodized the people of Newfoundland, which joined Confederation as a Province of Canada in 1949.

The jokes typically portayed Newfoundlanders as incompetent but good natured drunks. The practice of telling these jokes was ubiquitous. When someone discovered that my mother came from Newfoundland, they would typically say, "Have you heard the one about the Newfie...?" If one were to register any disapproval, the teller would say, "It's ok. I heard it from a Newfie."

No, it isn't OK. It may be legal and protected speech, but it isn't OK.


----------



## Archangel M (Feb 20, 2009)

Gordon Nore said:


> For many years in Canada, we had the regrettable tradition known as the Newfie Joke. The Newfie joke parodized the people of Newfoundland, which joined Confederation as a Province of Canada in 1949.
> 
> The jokes typically portayed Newfoundlanders as incompetent but good natured drunks. The practice of telling these jokes was ubiquitous. When someone discovered that my mother came from Newfoundland, they would typically say, "Have you heard the one about the Newfie...?" If one were to register any disapproval, the teller would say, "It's ok. I heard it from a Newfie."
> 
> No, it isn't OK. It may be legal and protected speech, but it isn't OK.



I dont know about that. I have Polish and Italian heritage and I like a good "Polack" or "wop" Joke every now and then ("its OK Im Polish AND Italian")...It seems like the "purer" the heritage the more offense people take. 

Do Newfies tell Newfie jokes between themselves? Is that OK?

Black comedians can make "white jokes"...but White comedians can "cross the line" at the drop of a hat...is that OK?


----------



## Carol (Feb 20, 2009)

Gordon Nore said:


> For many years in Canada, we had the regrettable tradition known as the Newfie Joke. The Newfie joke parodized the people of Newfoundland, which joined Confederation as a Province of Canada in 1949.
> 
> The jokes typically portayed Newfoundlanders as incompetent but good natured drunks. The practice of telling these jokes was ubiquitous. When someone discovered that my mother came from Newfoundland, they would typically say, "Have you heard the one about the Newfie...?" If one were to register any disapproval, the teller would say, "It's ok. I heard it from a Newfie."
> 
> No, it isn't OK. It may be legal and protected speech, but it isn't OK.



Although it was often more acceptable (at least, among Anglophones...) if the Newfie joke ended by making fun of the Fren.....just kidding!  I do know what you mean, after growing up in Buffalo and at one point employed by a large Canadian corporation, yeah, I heard them.

But I reserve my right to laugh at the Molson I Am Canadian commercials even though I bloody well know is us Yanks being lampooned.... :rofl:


----------



## Gordon Nore (Feb 20, 2009)

Archangel M said:


> Do Newfies tell Newfie jokes between themselves?


 
Yes, they do. Not all Newfoundlanders agree on this issue. I haven't heard anyone try to tell me an actual Newfie joke in years, which is fine.



> Is that OK?


 
IMO No. But I'm not talking about people's right to say things. If a Newfoundlander objects to hearing a joke from anyone, I'm sure s/he will deal with it.

In these situations I simply tell people they don't to hear the joke. Don't know that a Newfie joke is racist, but I think like racial/ethnic humour is low-brow.

I've got a co-worker. He's the sort of guy who insists on telling me about the game last night, which I finally told him to stop doing... And telling jokes. I heard a couple of his jokes and then told him not to bother anymore.


----------



## Archangel M (Feb 20, 2009)

Another aspect of the issue I was just considering is the total clampdown there seems to be on anything racial. Take this conversation for instance...so far it has been very civil and levelheaded but I would wager that anybody here discussing racial issues would spell out the "N" word here. Its to the point where we cant even use the word when discussing language. Using it as an insult is one thing..talking about the historic use of a word is another..yet its taboo to say/spell it. That is unless you are a rap musician or its part of your cultural lexicon. Is this a "right for me not for you" situation? Should it be a "right for all or a right for none" situation?   

Don Imus and his recent scandal has a small portion of this going on...while the man should have had some better common sense than to say what he did (unless it was an intentional PR stunt)...I would also think there was a bit of "its used in popular culture (just not YOUR popular culture numbnuts) so why cant I say it?" Going on there.


----------



## elder999 (Feb 20, 2009)

Archangel M said:


> IBlack comedians can make "white jokes"...but White comedians can "cross the line" at the drop of a hat...is that OK?


 
I hear this all the time, and it's really a misconception-sure, people can cross the line, but white comedians tell "black jokes" all the time. Showtime has a regular comedy feature called "White Boyz in the Hood," where mostly white comedians perform in front of largely black audiences-you can Google it, catch some youtube clips, or see it on Showtime's webpage, and see black people laughing their asses off at white comedians making black jokes.

On the other hand, when the guy who played Kramer publicly combusted a while ago, yelling _"Look, he's a ******"_ at a heckler, well, that was "crossing the line," and here's the difference:

_The comedians on Showtime are *funny*._ _He was *not........*_

.......one could say as much about the majority of those cartoons, including the one in the OP.....just not funny.


----------



## Archangel M (Feb 20, 2009)

True..thats why I didnt say that white comedians couldnt tell ANY black jokes. But they do walk a finer line IMO. I cant think of the last time I heard of any black comedian being skewered for a racial incident.


----------



## girlbug2 (Feb 20, 2009)

Monadnock said:


> In fact, I think Bush was called Chimp more than Obama ever has.


 
that's true:

http://blogstersguild.blogspot.com/2008/04/president-bushs-many-chimp-faces.html

http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/images/blbushplanetchimp.htm

There's a lot more where those came from.


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Feb 20, 2009)

Archangel M said:


> Should it be a "right for all or a right for none" situation?
> 
> .


 
Yes. That's the way it has to work.


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Feb 20, 2009)

Empty Hands said:


> I doubt the editor missed how this might be interpreted. In fact, I would be willing to bet he counted on it. This is the New York Post after all. Circulation is down these days, they need the controversy to boost sales.


 
Wasn't the New York Post the one that made that controversial cover of Obama during the election last year?  Oh wait, no, that was the New Yorker, my bad.


----------



## elder999 (Feb 20, 2009)

RandomPhantom700 said:


> Oh wait, no, that was the New Yorker, my bad.


 
And that was borderline, but it was clever, if not funny.

I also think the "Obama campaign" could have been a little thicker skinned at that point in the game.....


----------



## jarrod (Feb 20, 2009)

Archangel M said:


> I dont know about that. I have Polish and Italian heritage and I like a good "Polack" or "wop" Joke every now and then ("its OK Im Polish AND Italian")...It seems like the "purer" the heritage the more offense people take.



i think you're right about the correlation between "purity" & offense.  you might laugh at polish or italian jokes, but you are not polish or italian, you are an american with polish/italian ancestry.  & being white (i'm assuming), you are part of mainstream america at that.  a better test might be how italians & poles in italy & poland feel about such jokes.  

i have scottish & irish ancestry, & i've chuckled at some jokes about the irish.  but no one in my family's memory was denied work based on their irish- or scottish-ness, or cohersed into giving up their native language, or forced to live under british oppression.  so i'm not really qualified to say whether such jokes are okay.



elder999 said:


> And that was borderline, but it was clever, if not funny.
> 
> I also think the "Obama campaign" could have been a little thicker skinned at that point in the game.....



well that makes sense at least.  "obama" sounds like "osama", he went to a muslim school...i get it.  but a singular ape is supposed to represent multipule monkeys, which represent politicians as a whole...the joke just doesn't build a very good bridge.  it's bad writing.

jf


----------



## Carol (Feb 20, 2009)

And the cover was less about the Obamas and more about the one-note Samba of "Obama is a terrorist" coming from those that didn't want a debate on the issues.


----------

