Recipe: Racist Pudding

[Bill Mattocks]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[SFC JeffJ]

Eh, better this than censorship.

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

 

[seasoned]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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/lib...rial+cartoons+condaleeza+rice&um=1&hl=en&sa=N

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]

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]

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.