The cartoon in today's New York Post is troubling at best given the historic racist attacks of African-Americans as being synonymous with monkeys. One has to question whether the cartoonist is making a less than casual reference to this when in the cartoon they have police saying after shooting a chimpanzee that "Now they will have to find someone else to write the stimulus bill.So say we all. Can we get back to grown folk business now?
« Sometimes it feels like another country | Main | Illustrious Company » About that New York Post cartoon...18 Feb 2009 02:16 pm
Getting a lot of e-mails asking me what I think of the cartoon the Post ran. Meh. I think it is what is. A bad cartoon. And a bad joke. Here's Sharpton:
Comments (54)Post a comment |
Today's Headlines From The Atlantic |
The Beautiful Struggle: A Father, Two Sons, and an Unlikely Road to Manhood 
Copyright © 2009 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
"So say we all"?
TeeHee. I told you, BSG creeps up on you! Whatever problems you have with it, the world is very well developed, realistic, consistent, and therefore easy to borrow from.
Not quite yet...
Here was the post's response:
"The cartoon is a clear parody of a current news event, to wit the shooting of a violent chimpanzee in Connecticut. It broadly mocks Washington's efforts to revive the economy. Again, Al Sharpton reveals himself as nothing more than a publicity opportunist."
Sorry, I clicked on the link expecting it to be much ado about nothing, but I was kind of surprised by it. I'm not the over sensitive type at all. That being said, the officer in the cartoon is clearly saying that either a) the monkey they just shot wrote the first stimulus bill, or b)he was in line to write the second one. ??? Either way, it's certainly not funny, doesn't make much sense, and is clearly written to cause a fuss. Really, it is so transparent in its provocative intent, that we probably should just laugh it off.
Sharpton is full of it. A chimp is not a monkey.
racist and unfunny
I can't say if it's racist because it's so BAD that I honestly have no idea what it's trying to say. It doesn't make sense- much less, me laugh- on ANY level.
A cartoonist for the NY Post drops a strip that's racist? I'm shocked, shocked!
@Stacy: I think it is sort of shocking, but I think there is some good in just ignoring this. The NY Post, a terrible paper, pens things like this in order to provoke. You know the editorial folks over there know damn well this could be seen as taboo and they allowed it through so that it would cause controversy and therefore sell a bazillion copies. It's not like the New Yorker cartoon, in which the ed board needed to be schooled because they just didn't get what could be offensive. These people are just clowns, clowning. Better to just let the dumb cartoon die the lame death it deserves.
I could care less about the chimp. But cops shooting a chimp who would generally be interpreted to be President Obama is funny? In a city still trying to heal from police violence against black communities, black men in particular?
This is what the Post readership finds amusing?
Not funny.
Not racist.
Not understandable, to anyone unfamiliar with the chimp shooting story.
My belief is that racism is in the intent. I'm hoping that they'll drag the cartoonist in front of a camera so that he can explain the joke. If he stammers that teh funneh is that the stimulus bill is so bad it was written by crazed chimpanzees, then we can help this poor man find a career more suitable to his talents. Cos he isn't funny.
Or maybe he'll let slip a smoking bellweather.
Let the games begin!
And its only February...of the first year....of his first term....
That cartoon was just dumb. Nothing more needs to be said.
Here's the thing. What is the link between the story of the crazed Chimp and the passage/writing of the stimulus package? Not only is it stupid, and not funny, but it makes no sense.
On some blogs I frequent, some people are defending the cartoonist/cartoon as a joke. Fine I won't call it racist if someone can give me a reasonable/plausible explanation other than racial intent that links the 2 stories.
Im going to say the same thing I have been saying in an email with my friends, if comparing a monkey to the president is racism then there are a lot of racists from the Bush Era. Just put the words "Bush" and "monkey" into a google image search and you will get stuff like this.
http://mypages.blackvoices.com/museum/nss-folder/pictures/monkey-bush-withagun.jpg
Now the cartoon was referencing the incident where a lady who kept a chimp as a pet had to call the police to come and shoot it because it was biting off her friend's face. To me its a horrible attempt at humor but not necessarily racist. Its just not funny.
Also if you look at what most right wingers and even the Republicans in Congress have said they all blame Nancy Pelosi for writing the bill. Go figure.
And I am pretty far from being post racial I might add. Because I am DEFINITELY a lot more pissed about that Michelle Malkin picture of her posing with a dude with a swastika inside the O in Obama's name on a poster which is all over the internet today.
I don't know if this one is racist or not, but that cartoonist has a history of making racially questionable comics, so I'm not inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt.
What a stupid cartoon. It doesn't even make any sense.
"if comparing a monkey to the president is racism then there are a lot of racists from the Bush Era. Just put the words "Bush" and "monkey" into a google image search and you will get stuff like this."
That shows a poor understanding of the nature of racial and ethnic stereotypes. If you call a Jew a "cheap money-grubber," does that stop being anti-Semitic simply because the same description applied to a Gentile wouldn't raise an eyebrow?
And let's face it, Bush does kind of resemble a chimp. Obama, to my eyes, does not.
I think --and I might be very wrong-- that even if the intent was racist it is not just unfunny but also irrelevant. Reminds me of what it was obviously racist, that 1 dollar with the Obama face and watermelon, etc in the election. Poor joke with no effect whatsoever. Racism is as alive and well as it was 2 years ago, but it is really hard for anybody to hang in Obama's neck all the gross prejudices that they might have about Black people. People have had a lot of exposure to the man, so he is not "a black man" but BO, just like a coworker you know well. So someone might have implied that Obama is a not-so-smart chimpance.
And who is going to believe it? Really.
So I think we should fight back when people try maliciously depict Black people --or any other group-- in a bad light. But if they resort to paint Obama as a chimpance, let them do it.
All I want to know is what Billy Dee Williams thinks. Remember that he is the One Spokesperson to Lead Them All(tm), having supplanted Sharpton as the person we should listen to in order to speak for all black people everywhere, forever.
http://ta-nehisicoates.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/07/one_spokesperson_to_lead_them_all.php
It helps to understand the cartoon if you assume that people know that Obama didn't write the stimulus bill, our overwhelmingly white Congress did. It also helps if you've ever heard someone use an expression like "It reads like it was written by a bunch of monkeys," or if you think about the infinite monkeys on infinite typewriters. The cartoon is clearly about the bill being written poorly.
To me, it's hard to believe that anyone would intentionally create this cartoon to imply that the chimp is Obama. People who are bringing Obama into it to criticize the cartoon *are the ones bringing Obama, and hence race, into it.*
That said, the reactions are completely predictable, so it was 100 percent idiotic of the Post to run the cartoon if they didn't want people to threaten to burn their building down, as Gawker is reporting.
I think everyone's overreacting. I don't think the cartoonist was necessarily thinking that Obama himself wrote the bill, just that a bunch of dumb liberals / dumb politicians wrote the bill, and that these nameless people were the mental equivalents of primates.
sorry, some things you do not get the benefit of the doubt on and this is one of them.
I don't know I think people are reading too much into it. Of course its meant to be provacative, it's implying that a bunch of trained monkeys could have written as good of a stimulus bill. And with the cops gunning down a relatively high profile trained monkey yesterday, it's about as apropos as any "trained monkey" joke is gonna get. But there's nothing racist about it. Obama didn't write the stimulus bill and he's not dead, so there's no good reason to jump to the assumption that the monkey is supposed to be a metaphor for Obama. What's the connection? All references to monkeys are secretly deriding obama?
Now did the cartoonist know using a monkey was going to get a bunch of "hyper-pc liberals" to overreacct to a nonissue? Probably. But then you guys are just playing into his hands.
If now's not a good time to make trained monkey jokes, we might as well just retire the expression all together for the next eight years.
"I don't know if this one is racist or not, but that cartoonist has a history of making racially questionable comics, so I'm not inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt."
I don't know if this claim of racism is bogus or not, but Al Sharpton has a history of making questionable racial charges, so I'm not inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt.
And I HATE explaining jokes, but luxurytwist and Green have it right.
Green,
C'mon. On one hand you are saying that's its completely innocent. But then the very next paragraph you claim that cartoonist probably drew it to upset liberals. Well, which one is it? I don't really give a shit, but don't ask silly rhetorical questions when you know the artist was trying to make the connection.
"What's the connection? All references to monkeys are secretly deriding obama?"
Seriously?
DB Cooper,
I agree that that is obviously what the joke is SUPPOSED to be. But it doesn't really make much sense, and it is clearly not funny. But its also clear that the author knew exactly what he was doing when he drew it up, right?
Keep at it, NYP. Given an infinite number of cartoonists, you'll eventually come up with something funny. ;)
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?
Put me down with those who think that the real sin is that the joke is exceedingly lame regardless of whatever intentions the author had.
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.
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.
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.
"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.
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.
"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.
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.
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.
"frankly Scarlet, I don't give a damn."
who cares - My president is black and i still 3 more years to say that....i will bet on 7 tho...
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?
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'?
@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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.