The Atlantic - Latest Comments in About that New York Post cartoon...

Re: About that New York Post cartoon...

Gigi — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 21:22:22 -0000

Okay, so there’s a debate. I’m not so sure what’s up for discussion. The NY Post ran a patently offensive, outrageous racist assault on President Barack Obama and Black people everywhere, and there are some people who would like us to write it off as a satirical effort. Two words: Bull shit.

There. I said it.

What’s even worse is that rather than run a well thought out retraction, the newspaper’s PR department unleashed a torrent of rebuke for Rev. Al Sharpton and anyone else who would find the cartoon objectionable. Now, I’ve had my own beefs with the Right Reverend. But on this one, we stand shoulder-to-shoulder.

The next time someone tells me that now I ”have my Black president” so I can “just shut up about racism in this country”, I will invite them to take a look at this cartoon published by one of the most widely read newspaper in the country.

Once upon a time, I enjoyed the New York Post. Page Six was a morning festish. Breaking news? I used to go there. I say “used to” because I am finished. I’ve spent the day listening to apologists like Ron Christie (the only one of three Black men in America who didn’t support President Obama– Steele and Blackwell) and I’m dayum tired.

Sorry folks. I don’t find a dayum thing funny about it. Not as long as men like Sean Bell as being murdered on the street.

Re: About that New York Post cartoon...

devildownunder — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 19:37:36 -0000

So much for that post-racial America nonsense, not that anyone who wasn't hopelessly, and willingly, naive didn't recognise that idea as a farce anyway.

It's not even about whether the cartoon is, in fact, racist. It's the fact that something whose racial meaning is entirely implicit can stir up such controversy. The baggage is all still there is people's minds, or else no one would perceive any problem.

Re: About that New York Post cartoon...

Anon — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 18:56:14 -0000

I don't know about it's racist or not. However, when PETA finds out they're making fun of chimps being shot, all hell is going to break loose.

Re: About that New York Post cartoon...

Dave — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 14:42:47 -0000

The broader point that must be addressed, and more profound one for that matter, of the chimpanzee cartoon is the fact that it endorses political violence. Whether it's racist or not can be debated forever and I can easily see how it may have been inadvertently racist. (I mean, why not put the Buffalo plane crash as the object if you're aiming to be offensive) But the cartoon certainly endorses and sanitizes the killing of political opponents or killing political debate. What does the monkey's death supposed to symbolize, if the writers of the stimulus is supposed to be the monkey?

In that way it reminds me of the violent reaction of many Muslims to the Dutch cartoonist, or the recent killings by a self-described conservative who shot liberal church members in Tennessee who literally claimed he went in there to kill liberals and Democrats, and was an avid listener of O'Reilly and Hannity, who by the way, are also connected to Murdoch. So Murdoch endorses views of Hannity and O'Reilly. One wonders if he endorses the even worse message that this NY Post cartoon promotes so humorously.... Murdoch owns the NY Post. I would say yes.

You only needed to hear the response of the NY Post artist to the critique that the cartoon might be, even inadvertently, racist. The cartoonist, may have denied the racist charge, but he endorsed political violence.

Re: About that New York Post cartoon...

dragnet — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 10:31:08 -0000

I disagree---I actually thought it was pretty funny. When I first saw it, I defintitely laughed aloud. Of course I'm aware that my people have been compared to monkeys during the history of this country, but that's not at all the first thing that came to my mind.

Just my two cents.

Re: About that New York Post cartoon...

Why oh why — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 08:58:07 -0000

Like I said, I don't think anyone in the right mind would connect the monkey as Congress metaphor.

Who's talking about Congress? The obvious metaphor was about the killing chimp! And FYI I don't buy the NT Post, but see its cover at grocery stores and such.

Re: About that New York Post cartoon...

sy — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 08:26:38 -0000

This controversy is pure manufactured non-sense. This cartoon was published in the NY Post. You know what was on the first page of the NY Post the day before (and of course the only thing on the first page, if you know the NY Post)? That's right, a giant picture of the crazy chimp. So any reader of this newspaper would make the right connection.

What a wonderful reflection of the typical outer-borough Post (rag) reader. Rudy, is that you?

Like I said, I don't think anyone in the right mind would connect the monkey as Congress metaphor.

Re: About that New York Post cartoon...

Katherine — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 02:45:22 -0000

Isn't it fairly common, when presented with a crummy piece of writing, to comment something along the lines of "A monkey could write this"? I think that's the secondary meaning of cartoon, not any slur at Obama.

One can, of course, dispute that perception of the stimulus bill.

Re: About that New York Post cartoon...

Kylopod — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 00:42:40 -0000

When political cartoonists use a strained metaphor, they tend to do things like right "CONGRESS" on the metaphorical object doing the work in the cartoon. This is an old technique known to any teen who has been forced to read the paper for a week for civics class. Writing "CONGRESS" on the monkey would have been easy and cleared up any confusion.

Good point. If you look at cartoons from the nineteenth century, the elephants have "GOP" written on them, because the metaphor hadn't become as well-established as it is today.

I've read a couple of biographies of Dr. Seuss and seen the early stuff he drew in the 1930s and 1940s. It was standard back then for political cartoonists to draw blatantly racist caricatures, and Seuss did depict blacks as monkeys in some of his early cartoons. Although he moved away from that kind of thing in the '40s and became increasingly critical of bigotry against blacks and Jews, he continued to draw racist depictions of Japanese throughout WWII.

Re: About that New York Post cartoon...

Reality Man — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 00:05:04 -0000

Also, to clarify, to the right-wingers who keep on throwing up this garbage, you are a great ally to the left. This isn't the 1950's. Today, there are enough minorities and white liberals out there that you only motivate us more to oppose you and you turn off moderates who might otherwise be open to your agenda.

Re: About that New York Post cartoon...

Reality Man — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 23:47:29 -0000

The only thing someone on the fence would need for them to be convinced this is racist and see how clueless and missing the point this cartoon's defenders are. The New York Post is a right-wing tabloid that has a history of making unfunny, not-clever and racist jokes. If you're a right winger who doesn't understand this, then look in a mirror and realize you are the reason your party has lost two elections in a row. In my office, right-wingers receive e-mail chains from their right-wing friends and read them out loud along these lines: "Sarah Palin was offered $10 million to pose in Playboy. Michelle Obama was offered nothing to pose in National Geographic." Do you see a common theme here?

And one more thing. Let's pretend that there was no history of racism in America, that black men and women have never been compared to apes, etc. Would the cartoon make any sense? Nope.

Re: About that New York Post cartoon...

Why oh why — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 23:20:02 -0000

This controversy is pure manufactured non-sense. This cartoon was published in the NY Post. You know what was on the first page of the NY Post the day before (and of course the only thing on the first page, if you know the NY Post)? That's right, a giant picture of the crazy chimp. So any reader of this newspaper would make the right connection.

Al Sharpton is an hack, quoting him doesn't make you any good.

Re: About that New York Post cartoon...

Eduardo — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 22:59:33 -0000

@bobby,

Your president is black but you don't have 3 more years to say that: you have 3 11/12 years to say that. More like 4 years, really.

Re: About that New York Post cartoon...

rikyrah — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 22:58:47 -0000

I'm losing patience at folks throwing racist s*** like this out there, and then trying to tell Black folks what IS and is NOT racist.

Black folk have been compared to apes/chimps/gorillas/monkeys for forever and a day in America. There is NO misinterpretation.

And, then, there's the visual of the PO-Lice executing said monkey - Oscar Grant anyone?

Don't pee on my leg and tell me it's Kool-Aid.

This was racist, and yes, I reserve the right to be angry about it.

Does someone have to wear a SHEET for folks to step up and say ' this **** is racist'?

Re: About that New York Post cartoon...

Gregory — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 22:52:48 -0000

I honestly thought the author of the comic strip was tyring to imply that white cops are so racist and they dont know the difference between black men and monkeys. But I see why everyone is crying over it. If you think of it like that, it IS racist.

What did the author of the strip say about it?

Re: About that New York Post cartoon...

bobby — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 20:29:00 -0000

who cares - My president is black and i still 3 more years to say that....i will bet on 7 tho...

Re: About that New York Post cartoon...

anna perez — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 19:41:06 -0000

"frankly Scarlet, I don't give a damn."

Re: About that New York Post cartoon...

MoeLarryAndJesusery — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 18:54:28 -0000

Stacy wrote: "I do agree that getting upset about it is playing right into their hands, but doesn't "playing into their hands" prove that they had a somewhat nefarious intent?"

Of course.

Political cartoonists work with symbols all the time, more so than most cartoonists. This clown is an experienced political cartoonist. To think that he didn't know exactly what associations the images would conjure up strains credulity, especially after the long campaign months during which nitwits on the right used the Obama/monkey/chimp/Curious George crap over and over again.

But I'm not upset over it. I look at nonsense like this a little differently now. These are the impotent jokes of the dying racist right. Sharpton's very restrained statement shows that he gets it. He knows that his side has the advantage now. Good for Al. And fuck the Post.

Re: About that New York Post cartoon...

David — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 18:45:07 -0000

I can guarantee that no right-winger will find this cartoon offensive... this is the Rush Limbaugh crowd.

So the Post is not going to lose any ad revenue over this... there will be no apology.

If you go to right-wing, white supremest sites, you'll see the same type of cartoons with down to the crude drawing style.

You racists fool no one.

Re: About that New York Post cartoon...

JC — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 18:24:50 -0000

"Can we get back to grown folk business now?"

I think this is the important part - clearly it's very unfunny, and very stupid.

Still, I at least, don't think it's TNC's job to have to pontificate on any stupid racist cartoons like this, unless something grabs him - especially when the response is so obvious. TNC tends to want to weigh in on things that are at least A BIT more interesting.

Re: About that New York Post cartoon...

sy — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 18:23:12 -0000

I don't think anyone in the right mind would connect the monkey as Congress metaphor in this instance.

Its a good thing most of us don't have to rely on some of you comedians to know the difference between a bad joke, a bad joke with racist overtones and some repugnant, loathsome shit.

Now I'm ready to move on.

Re: About that New York Post cartoon...

Stacy — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 18:07:23 -0000

"And i never said it was innocent."

Well, yes, you did. You said it was innocent of any racial connotations, which is clearly what we are talking about. But then right after that you claim that the artist knew the reaction it would get. So, I don't care whether or not it is racist. It probably isn't. But the very fact that you said getting upset about it would be "playing into their hands" show that they knew exactly what they were doing? I don't need to chill, because I'm not worked up about it. But let's not pretend that they didn't intend for the reaction they're getting.

Re: About that New York Post cartoon...

Deborah — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 17:53:51 -0000

Not understandable, to anyone unfamiliar with the chimp shooting story.

*raises hand* I had skipped this entry for more Roland Burris, but then saw the cartoon at Wonkette. Which immediately raised the question "Why would a monkey writing a stimulus bill be shot by the police?" Is it supposed to be that monkeys are, in the normal course of the day, shot by police? That sounds like it's trying to be offensive in at least 2 directions--blacks are monkeys, white police shooting blacks for no reason--and there's still no connection to a stimulus bill...

So thank you for telling me what they were attempting to do, Stacy...But I'd have to say this qualifies as Epic Fail.

Re: About that New York Post cartoon...

TW — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 17:47:32 -0000

Sorry, but I don't get what the big freakin' deal is. I didn't think that the cartoon what about Pres. Obama, I thought it was a statement related to the ridiculousness of the process in writing the stimulus bill. Are people really that sensitive? I mean, come on.

Stop it. You know what people should ginny up outrage and protest for...domestic abuse, the ridiculous amount of money thrown at public schools with no results, the scary STD/HIV rates among Black women, I could go on.

For this, I won't even raise an eyebrow...it doesn't even deserve a second thought.

Re: About that New York Post cartoon...

Green — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 17:45:56 -0000

Stacy,

Yeah, seriously.

And i never said it was innocent. I dont even know why it should be. It's a cartoon. It's meant to be funny. Maybe thought provoking, though usually not.

Whether you think it's funny is up to you to decide, but it's not racist. They're not calling Obama a monkey anymore than Obama was calling Palin a pig a few months back. The cartoon's not about Obama. It's not about Black people. It's about the Congress, more specifcally the predominantly white Democratic wing of the congress, and about a drugged up monkey in connecticut that bit some lady's face off yesterday.

But, quite predictably any mention of a primate in the year of Obama will likely lead to Rev Al and his ilk stepping out and reminding everybody that might have forgot that with him everything comes back to race. Kind of reminds me of the PUMAs and their oh so astute eyes for the sexism that was oozing from Obama's campaign. Remembering how I used to laugh at their absurdity, even if I didn't like the original cartoon, I can see how the response, in itself, could be funny to the right.

I'm just saying, chill.