Editoons - *That* Toon . . .
Antonio E. Gonzalez
cartoon that has caused quite a stir the last few days . . .:
<http://thinkprogress.org/2009/02/18/nypost-chimp/>
--
- ReFlex76
Blinky the Wonder Wombat
FWIW, I don't think the NYP intended this to be a racists joke, but
did not stop consider other interpretations.
Regardless of their intent, perception is reality.
Ted Nolan <tednolan>
Of course the irony is:
NYP, which did not make the connection, Obama-Monkey -- racist!
The critics who immediately connected Obama-Monkey -- not racist!
As a special added bonus, I'll bet there's a large intersection between
the set of this cartoon's critics, and those who called Bush "Chimpy".
All that said, it's not a very good cartoon. The punchline is pretty
forced, and it flirts with bad taste just from the association with
a real tragedy.
Ted
Ted
--
------
columbiaclosings.com
What's not in Columbia anymore..
Joseph Nebus
>Of course the irony is:
> NYP, which did not make the connection, Obama-Monkey -- racist!
> The critics who immediately connected Obama-Monkey -- not racist!
>As a special added bonus, I'll bet there's a large intersection between
>the set of this cartoon's critics, and those who called Bush "Chimpy".
Yeah, since representing black people as chimpanzees or apes
has *never* *ever* been seen in *any* racist iconography *ever*. It
certainly isn't a connection that *anyone* who's ever heard of racism
might be able to foresee if he had the ability to predict consequences
that lobotomized doorknobs have. I bet now that poor Post cartoonist
is going to feel like he has to check before submitting his masterpiece
about how them Obamas sho'nuff luv der wattamelloons an' fried chicken
what they grabbed off the peoples from next-door. Won't anyone think
of the real victims?
--
Joseph Nebus
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Jackson
Perhaps there's a well-known - but not to you or me - stereotype of
Texans as chimpanzees?
That would explain eight years of snarky comments about Bush being "all
hat and no bananas."
--
Mark Jackson - http://www.alumni.caltech.edu/~mjackson
Furious activity is no substitute for understanding.
- H. H. Williams
Ted Nolan <tednolan>
I'm not defending the cartoon -- it's not very good. But I understand
the thought process:
Cops shooting chimp in the news
"This stimulus bill reads like it was written by chimps"
"Hey, how about the cops killed the chimp that wrote the stimulus bill?"
Obama doesn't enter into that thought process, especially since one of the
raps on the bill was that it was Nancy Pelosi's wishlist and not from the
Whitehouse.
Blinky the Wonder Wombat
I dunno, when I first saw it, i thought of the old "one million chimps
at one million typewriters" meme, implying that the stimulus bill was
not well-thought out. I also thought it wasn't very funny, especially,
as Ted pointed out, in light of the tragic nature of the chimp
incident in Connecticut.
Joy Beeson
<wkharri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> FWIW, I don't think the NYP intended this to be a racists joke, but
> did not stop consider other interpretations.
Anybody who managed to extract a racist interpretation from this
cartoon is thoroughly obsessed with racism.
And if there were racist content, it would be the Irish-Americans who
were upset.
--
Joy Beeson
joy beeson at comcast dot net
Mike Peterson
unintentional issue here.
1. Any time a professional cartoonist uses a distracting symbol, it
undermines the intended effect. Part of the job is to use symbols and
metaphors effectively. This trumps intentions. When one or two people
misinterpret a cartoon, it might be their fault. When a whole lot of
people don't get it, the cartoonist did a bad job. It's his job to get
his point across.
2. The stimulus bill is not called "The Reid/Pelosi Act" or the "Many
Anonymous Congressional Aides Act." It's referred to as the
President's Stimulus Act and it's associated with him. Cartoons do not
have the luxury of making accurate-but-obscure points. Or even
inaccurate-but-obscure points. The stimulus is associated with the
president, first and foremost.
3. Monkeys can be used to mock a lot of people, but they are
particularly associated with racist attacks on black people. You don't
have to be black to know this. You shouldn't have to be black to
acknowledge it.
4. Racism can mean hatred of people of other races, but it also means
being insensitive to racial issues. See (3) and also (1). The
cartoonist, and his editors, should have recognized the problem. When
the Iraqi doctor who helped Jessica Lynch was brought to her hometown
for a celebration, they threw a ham dinner for him. This is a similar
thing -- intentions aside, it's jaw-droppingly insensitive.
Also, let's ignore the whole racial thing for a moment and concentrate
on the other "what were they thinking?" element here. The attack
happened in Stamford, about 40 miles from the Post's offices. Now, if
the chimp had been smashing windows and trashing cars, maybe it would
be a subject for humor. If there had been some serious injuries but it
happened out in California, maybe it would be a subject for humor on
the other side of the country.
But these were truly horrific, permanent, disabling, disfiguring
injuries to a woman in a community close enough that many people
commute from there to work in the city. For all we know, both the
injured woman and the woman who owned the chimp could have been Post
subscribers.
Taste and sensitivity strike out in all sorts of ways with this stupid
cartoon. What on earth were they thinking?
Mike Peterson
http://nellieblogs.blogspot.com
Mike Beede
<491c4739-ba41-4e26...@u13g2000yqg.googlegroups.com>,
Mike Peterson <racs...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 4. Racism can mean hatred of people of other races, but it also means
> being insensitive to racial issues.
I was with you up until this one. I'm afraid I must disagree.
This seems to be extending the meaning of a useful word to the
point of uselessness. The goal, at least as I've always
imagined it, is a culture that ignores race. Your usage would
seem to imply that that would be the most racist culture
imaginable.
I think that the term you meant was "dumb," which is also
an unfortunate characteristic. I see later in the paragraph
you used "insensitive." That's a good one too.
I agree with the rest of your post. Very reasonable.
Mike Beede
Blinky the Wonder Wombat
> In article
> <491c4739-ba41-4e26-84be-bfa667a61...@u13g2000yqg.googlegroups.com>,
> Mike Peterson <racss...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > 4. Racism can mean hatred of people of other races, but it also means
> > being insensitive to racial issues.
>
> I was with you up until this one. I'm afraid I must disagree.
> This seems to be extending the meaning of a useful word to the
> point of uselessness. The goal, at least as I've always
> imagined it, is a culture that ignores race. Your usage would
> seem to imply that that would be the most racist culture
> imaginable.
>
> I think that the term you meant was "dumb," which is also
> an unfortunate characteristic. I see later in the paragraph
> you used "insensitive." That's a good one too.
>
> I agree with the rest of your post. Very reasonable.
>
> Mike Beede
Although I agree with Mike's basic premise (the cartoon was dumb, and
even if it wasn't the cartoonists intention, the editors should have
recognized the other interpretation and killed it) I have to disagree
with the definition of "racism." Racism isn't the hatred of people of
other races, but the belief of the superiority of one race by another
race. From Merriam-Webster Online:
racism: 1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human
traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent
superiority of a particular race 2 : racial prejudice or
discrimination
Some civil rights activists define racism as the suppression of one
race by another (i.e., you can't be a racist if your race is the one
being oppressed):
http://www.euroamerican.org/library/Racismdf.asp
(Which, BTW, I think is pure BS)
Mike Peterson
<wkharrisjr_i...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Although I agree with Mike's basic premise (the cartoon was dumb, and
> even if it wasn't the cartoonists intention, the editors should have
> recognized the other interpretation and killed it) I have to disagree
> with the definition of "racism." Racism isn't the hatred of people of
> other races, but the belief of the superiority of one race by another
> race. From Merriam-Webster Online:
>
> racism: 1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human
> traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent
> superiority of a particular race 2 : racial prejudice or
> discrimination
>
> Some civil rights activists define racism as the suppression of one
> race by another (i.e., you can't be a racist if your race is the one
> being oppressed):
>
> http://www.euroamerican.org/library/Racismdf.asp
>
> (Which, BTW, I think is pure BS)
The assumption that your race is "superior" can encompass the
assumption that your race is "the default," so that, just as the
superior race can look down on (even "hate") other races, the default
race can treat all other races as footnotes, yes?
It's really the same thing -- the assumption that you matter and they
don't, or that you matter more than they do.
Now, that might mean that they should step down in the gutter and let
you have the sidewalk when you meet downtown, or it could mean that
you can tell them what they should and shouldn't find offensive.
You don't have to think about their opinions or their point of view
because you're really just cartooning or editing a paper for your own
race -- the default, the one that matters. It's an attitude of "We
don't keep'em out, but this is still "our" place and "we" means the
default group." So that women can be in the executive suite if they
act like men, and blacks can be there, too, if they talk right and
dress right. And "right" means according to the default.
Racism, then, is when your attitudes and approach are governed by
considerations of race to an unreasonable extent. It can include
condescension as well as straight-out insults, and it can mean
ignoring as well as condemning.
The goal is not race-blindness ("melting pot") but race-coexistence
and sharing ("cultural mosaic"). For the Irish, except for one day of
idiocy a year, the battle has been won. Nobody is telling Jiggs
anymore that, if he doesn't want to be considered a dumb Mick, he
can't eat corned beef and cabbage but has to go out to the theatre
with Count Uptoten. It's okay to be working-class Irish in your
tastes.
But there are others who still haven't been given the right to be
themselves. So we ignore the obvious implications of using a monkey in
certain circumstances, and then we tell them they are "wrong" to be
offended because the "default" attitude is that monkeys aren't
offensive.
That's making decisions based on race.
Mike Peterson
http://nellieblogs.blogspot.com
I realize it's parsing the term, but I don't think it's stretching it
beyond its normal limits. Sometimes the popular definition doesn't
actually cover the term completely. When I say "aircraft," you may
think of something with wings, but that doesn't mean a blimp isn't a
type of aircraft.
Jym Dyer
>>> intersection between the set of this cartoon's critics,
>>> and those who called Bush "Chimpy".
=v= Gee, some people sure have gotten a lot of mileage out
of that particular bit of empty rhetoric. As a non sequitur
hinging on ad hominem consideration of straw dolls, it's a
triple-threat of complete irrelevancy.
> Perhaps there's a well-known - but not to you or me -
> stereotype of Texans as chimpanzees?
=v= There is no photographic evidence of such well-knownness,
as there is with Chimpy W. McShrubster:
<_Jym_>