Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

So apparently, people are angry at the NY Post because of a comic strip the made with two officers shooting a chimp (Supposedly the chimp that mauled that woman's hands and face). And one officer says to the other: "They'll Have to find someone else to write the next stimulus bill"

Now there is a huge controversy over it. People are saying its racist against our president because the chimp in the comic is black...Hello!? Chimps ARE BLACK.

They are also saying it's wrong to refer to the president as a chimp.


I for one think it's Fing hilarious.

Thoughts?

Here's a link to it.

Obama/Chimp

You get black and white chimps?

Anyone who doesn't see that they meant the bill was written by monkeys and that it's a tie in to another news report about a monkey shot by police is an idiot and should be shot in the face violently...by chimps

Troubling at best given the historic racist attacks of African-Americans as being synonymous with monkeys.

Originally posted by jaden101
You get black and white chimps?

Anyone who doesn't see that they meant the bill was written by monkeys and that it's a tie in to another news report about a monkey shot by police is an idiot and should be shot in the face violently...by chimps I had that same argument in one of my law classes just yesterday. Yeah, it failed there, too.

So, we get to have a shit ton of Chimpanzee caricatures of Bush as a chimp, a retard, etc., but we can't have a Chimp of Obama because he's black?

This kind of shit pisses me off. So much so that I'm going to start doodling chimp caricatures of Obama out of spite.


Double standards suck.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Troubling at best given the historic racist attacks of African-Americans as being synonymous with monkeys.


Good that Chimps are apes then, right?

Originally posted by dadudemon
This kind of shit pisses me off. So much so that I'm going to start doodling chimp caricatures of Obama out of spite.


Double standards suck.

Yes, yes they do.

Except that the stereotype of looking like a primate has historically been used as ammo anti-black prejudice. There is a history behind calling a black guy chimp-esque that isn't there for a white guy.

Originally posted by Red Nemesis
Except that the stereotype of looking like a primate has historically been used as ammo anti-black prejudice. There is a history behind calling a black guy chimp-esque that isn't there for a white guy.

Good thing it was insult to his political intelligence, then, right?

No matter WHAT animal would have been chosen, it would have been called racist. Seriously. That's how stupid "black" double standards are.



Just what animal do you think they should have "caricaturized" to convey their idiocy?




I guess they could have used a caveman, but that would infringe upon the world of Geico.





Edit- If I see a dude climb up a tree like a pro, you bet your sweet ass I'll call him a monkey, regardless of race.

P.S. I was called a monkey all my childhood for my big ears and my tree climbing prowess.

P.S.S. F*** the overly sensative. F*** political correctness.

P.S.S.S. LOL...I was almost written up for not being politically correct at my job. Nothing racist, nothing sexist, or anything like that. Just too rude with how I worded things.

Originally posted by dadudemon
No matter WHAT animal would have been chosen, it would have been called racist. Seriously. That's how stupid "black" double standards are.

There's no good basis for that. And he did choose a monkey which was (if nothing else) very stupid.

Originally posted by Red Nemesis
Except that the stereotype of looking like a primate has historically been used as ammo anti-black prejudice. There is a history behind calling a black guy chimp-esque that isn't there for a white guy.

George Bush was criticized heavily for being an old white guy. Most Republicans are in fact.

Originally posted by inimalist
George Bush was criticized heavily for being an old white guy. Most Republicans are in fact.

The guy knew what that the reference might infer to some people. It's just a way to get attention.

There are plenty of ways to write a smart cartoon without using a monkey to describe the first minority president (now certainly, this could mean Congress and the Senate also which is full of all sorts of people, but these comics are always directly addressed to the head of state). They knew this is the reaction they would get from some outlets. Black people have been called all sorts of monkeys in U.S. popular culture even six decades ago. Certainly, this was going to rub some people the wrong way regardless of the watanabe "smartness" of the comic.

Poor moral judgment. Good commercial move.

That's all it is.

I personally didn't think the cartoon was about Obama. He didn't write the stimulus bill. I think people's own desperation to be outraged by something caused this drama more than the cartoonist. Cartoon wasn't really in the greatest taste anyway but I think people saw a monkey and associated it with Obama and him being black and that wasn't the intention of the cartoon at all.

And I'm black

Originally posted by SelinaAndBruce
I personally didn't think the cartoon was about Obama. He didn't write the stimulus bill. I think people's own desperation to be outraged by something caused this drama more than the cartoonist. Cartoon wasn't really in the greatest taste anyway but I think people saw a monkey and associated it with Obama and him being black and that wasn't the intention of the cartoon at all.

And I'm black

How much of the public do you think understands who wrote the bill? We might know it was not Obama (although he influenced it plenty) but those sorts of things always address the head of state.

Every news story says something something "Obama signs stim....", "Obama says pass the...", "Obama, etc."

Yeah, they could have placed the blame on the Chimp who wen crazy.

ah cmon what about all the jokes pics drawings over the years about bush being curious george that little learning monkey...lol...they have been doing drawings of political leaders like this in the U.S. probably since washington..lol..where do u think the donkey and elephant came from... a cartoonist...personally I think the republicans loved that as they labeled all democrats as being a jackass..lol..not sure of the details but its just funny... not discriminating...thats what cartoonists do and I think its kewl..jus my opinion

Originally posted by chithappens
The guy knew what that the reference might infer to some people. It's just a way to get attention.

There are plenty of ways to write a smart cartoon without using a monkey to describe the first minority president (now certainly, this could mean Congress and the Senate also which is full of all sorts of people, but these comics are always directly addressed to the head of state). They knew this is the reaction they would get from some outlets. Black people have been called all sorts of monkeys in U.S. popular culture even six decades ago. Certainly, this was going to rub some people the wrong way regardless of the watanabe "smartness" of the comic.

Poor moral judgment. Good commercial move.

That's all it is.

I don't disagree.

Originally posted by chithappens
The guy knew what that the reference might infer to some people. It's just a way to get attention.

There are plenty of ways to write a smart cartoon without using a monkey to describe the first minority president (now certainly, this could mean Congress and the Senate also which is full of all sorts of people, but these comics are always directly addressed to the head of state). They knew this is the reaction they would get from some outlets. Black people have been called all sorts of monkeys in U.S. popular culture even six decades ago. Certainly, this was going to rub some people the wrong way regardless of the watanabe "smartness" of the comic.

Poor moral judgment. Good commercial move.

That's all it is.

I agree with this post. He should have used better judgement...but damn these double standards.

I saw that strip yesterday while looking researching the attack. There's nothing that suggests the chimp is Obama...this is ridiculous. People's hypersensitive minds are connecting an ape and a black guy, even though there's nothing implying that's who it's supposed to be. Ludicrous.

Originally posted by MightyEInherjar
I saw that strip yesterday while looking researching the attack. There's nothing that suggests the chimp is Obama...this is ridiculous. People's hypersensitive minds are connecting an ape and a black guy, even though there's nothing implying that's who it's supposed to be. Ludicrous.

Indeed. If I saw that, I wouldn't have even thought about racism in the slightest.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I agree with this post. He should have used better judgement...but damn these double standards.

I disagree that it is a double standard.

Yeah, the bill has some stupid things in it, but the reference to a monkey is very suggestive because of who the head of state currently is. George Bush being called a monkey doesn't hold any racial context because white people in U.S. popular culture have never been used as monkeys that suggested an inherent inferiority based on race.

I read your post earlier and wholeheartedly understand what you mean, but I think it's safe to assume the New York Post had enough foresight to predict this reaction.

Originally posted by chithappens
George Bush being called a monkey doesn't hold any racial context because white people in U.S. popular culture have never been used as monkeys that suggested an inherent inferiority based on race.

however, one cannot deny that Bush and Republicans do get criticized for being white old men.

The double standard is that the race of a white leader is allowed to be mocked. No, I am no equating the severity of the stereotype, just that there are some essentialist ideas about white men that are not as often questioned as those that even passingly pertain to blacks.

Originally posted by inimalist
however, one cannot deny that Bush and Republicans do get criticized for being white old men.

The double standard is that the race of a white leader is allowed to be mocked. No, I am no equating the severity of the stereotype, just that there are some essentialist ideas about white men that are not as often questioned as those that even passingly pertain to blacks.

It still doesn't follow.

George Bush Jr. is 62 years old; John McCain is 72 years old., for example.They wouldn't be allowed to work in a lot of places because of their age.

Age is a fact. Age can not be considered a double standard in any sense. Politicians as a whole, in the U.S. , are generally older white men, not just Republican.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Good thing it was insult to his political intelligence, then, right?

No matter WHAT animal would have been chosen, it would have been called racist. Seriously. That's how stupid "black" double standards are.







.

Exactly! I just knew that once Obama took office anybody challenging his policies or just mocking him would be labled a bigot.

Sigh, you guys are missing the point. People had already been criticizing Obama. The bill did not exactly pass with flying colors. Obama has already had appointees refuse their nomination. He has received criticism.

Response from artist John Legend:

John Legend said it was racist? Oh, it must be racist then. rolleyes1

It's intresting that you criticise that, but don't propose any form of countner to his words. It's because you can't, isn't i?

just the fact the al sharpton wants me to be offended at this is enough motivation not to do so

Originally posted by Final Blaxican
It's intresting that you criticise that, but don't propose any form of countner to his words. It's because you can't, isn't i? No, its because I, unlike most people, don't take my socio-feelings from singers and actors. Good try, though.

But you don't' deny that the man makes a good point.

I agree with you, for the most part. I'm just trying to figure out wither or not you're dismissing his words on the basis that he is a celebrity, which would be hypocritical, or because you genuinely disagree with him.

Originally posted by Final Blaxican
But you don't' deny that the man makes a good point.

I agree with you, for the most part. I'm just trying to figure out wither or not you're dismissing his words on the basis that he is a celebrity, which would be hypocritical, or because you genuinely disagree with him. I genuinely disagree with him. I'm just not going to be swayed against my own feelings because a celebrity wrote something that was opposite to them.

Good on you for that. I think that, there needs to be more people like that. The media has a grip on the people of the world that can be frightening.

Out of curiosity, do you think that it was a bit foolish of the artist to publish the cartoon, even though there is a history of this country connecting african americans with apes, despite what his actual intentions were (I don't think the artist was trying to make a racist insinuation)?

Originally posted by chithappens
It still doesn't follow.

George Bush Jr. is 62 years old; John McCain is 72 years old., for example.They wouldn't be allowed to work in a lot of places because of their age.

Age is a fact. Age can not be considered a double standard in any sense. Politicians as a whole, in the U.S. , are generally older white men, not just Republican.

I'm talking about race and not age.

Originally posted by Final Blaxican
Good on you for that. I think that, there needs to be more people like that. The media has a grip on the people of the world that can be frightening.

Its more rampant around election time, when celebrities come out of the wood work to sway people.



Of course it was, though I tend to blame the editor for publishing it in the first place. But like I said in a previous post, I argued that being called a monkey (not an ape) was an insult to someone's intelligence, as in the people who wrote the bill were a bunch of idiots, not Obama. Its only when one takes it in the context of history that they see the racism: I'm not saying its not there, but one is reading it like that, not because it was actually intended to be racist. The artist was simply taking two unlike stories in the media, and blending them into one (admittedly unfunny, not because of the supposed racism but just because it was stupid) cartoon.

On a different note, however, I also think there is a double standard, but I won't argue that here.

just so there's no confusion as to the cartoonist's intentions, here are 10 other cartoons from the same artist, sean delonas

http://gawker.com/5155855/ten-masterpieces-from-sean-delonas

the comic is meant to be provocative, it's meant to offend, it's obviously meant to tread the thin line between conventional racism and accidental coincidence. if you believe that he some how accidentally stumbled upon stereotype after stereotype then i have some beach front property in idaho i'd like to sell you

at the same time if we have the same kneejerk reaction we always have and act deeply offended then we only create a market for such humor to prosper, cause that kind of racial humor is not funny if you remove the offensive element. sean delonas made this cartoon with the intentions of causing controversy, and dumb **** al sharpton as always is the first one at the scene to exploit this issue for his own benefit with no regard for the good of his community.

i'll join the ranks and speak out against the cartoon if just one person here can explain to me exactly how creating a controversy around this cartoon will do anything besides reinforce the stereotype that black people are equivalent to monkeys. here we have a case where some people are actually not making the connection, and failing to notice the old racial stereotype of comparing black people to monkeys, and for political reasons we tell these people "NO, YOU LISTEN HERE, BLACK PEOPLE ARE COMPARED TO MONKEYS ALL THE TIME." who does that benefit? how does that improve race relations? you're just reinforcing an age old stereotype that is apparently just now beginning to be forgotten.

Originally posted by Darth Macabre
I genuinely disagree with him. I'm just not going to be swayed against my own feelings because a celebrity wrote something that was opposite to them.

His words actually have a good point and solid reasons for that point. I didn't put it up because it was a celebrity. Who gives a shit?

You look like a douche by not even addressing what was said in what I quoted.

Do you disagree with the opinion without reading the reasons? You certainly never addressed them.

Originally posted by inimalist
I'm talking about race and not age.

but...

Originally posted by inimalist
however, one cannot deny that Bush and Republicans do get criticized for being white old men.

The double standard is that the race of a white leader is allowed to be mocked. No, I am no equating the severity of the stereotype, just that there are some essentialist ideas about white men that are not as often questioned as those that even passingly pertain to blacks.

I don't understand what you were trying to do here.

Originally posted by chithappens
His words actually have a good point and solid reasons for that point. I didn't put it up because it was a celebrity. Who gives a shit?

You look like a douche by not even addressing what was said in what I quoted.

Do you disagree with the opinion without reading the reasons? You certainly never addressed them.

A) I give a crap, because you know how many people would be swayed just because he is a celebrity? I know that wasn't your intention, hence me not criticizing you, instead I was criticizing the idea of a celebrity thinking that he's actually important to me.

B) Again, like I said, I wasn't addressing what he said, I'm addressing the idea of what he did. Again, like he's actually important enough for me to give a crap about what he thinks.

C) I didn't address them because for what purpose would that be? For you to try and rebuff me, saying that you think its racist? I don't think its racist...that's my argument. This is really a cut and dry subject: you either thinks it racist because of this point, or you don't think its racist because of this point. You might not agree with that, but, when it comes down to it, that's what it is.

Originally posted by Darth Macabre
A) I give a crap, because you know how many people would be swayed just because he is a celebrity? I know that wasn't your intention, hence me not criticizing you, instead I was criticizing the idea of a celebrity thinking that he's actually important to me.

B) Again, like I said, I wasn't addressing what he said, I'm addressing the idea of what he did. Again, like he's actually important enough for me to give a crap about what he thinks.

C) I didn't address them because for what purpose would that be? For you to try and rebuff me, saying that you think its racist? I don't think its racist...that's my argument. This is really a cut and dry subject: you either thinks it racist because of this point, or you don't think its racist because of this point. You might not agree with that, but, when it comes down to it, that's what it is.

Again, you did not address any points that he made or that I have made previously. You are objecting but not giving reasons for your objection.

Isn't that pointless?

Originally posted by chithappens
Again, you did not address any points that he made or that I have made previously. You are objecting but not giving reasons for your objection.

Isn't that pointless? I wasn't even the one talking to you, though. Do you want me to debate you? That was not my intention: I don't intrude on other people's debates, I only state my opinion and answer if spoken to. I've done that for the four years that I've been here. Do you wish me to address his points, or your points for that matter? And, before you or someone else tries to call me a hypocrite, the John Legend thing was not within your debate, it was an add in, hence me not quoting it.

I may not be able to debate because I forgot what we were talking about but I bet I can drink you both under the table!...meet u at the milk bar!

Originally posted by Final Blaxican
But you don't' deny that the man makes a good point.

I agree with you, for the most part. I'm just trying to figure out wither or not you're dismissing his words on the basis that he is a celebrity, which would be hypocritical, or because you genuinely disagree with him.

He also makes a few completely pointless...points...Obama receives death threats everyday?...Big deal...every president received death threats every day...It's part of being the president. They get briefed every morning about the biggest and most potentially real threats facing the US and many of them are assassination plots (and countless hundreds of what are considered empty threats are also received but not discussed)

So what was the point in mentioning that as being directly and only attributable to Obama?

Originally posted by jaden101
He also makes a few completely pointless...points...Obama receives death threats everyday?...Big deal...every president received death threats every day...It's part of being the president. They get briefed every morning about the biggest and most potentially real threats facing the US and many of them are assassination plots (and countless hundreds of what are considered empty threats are also received but not discussed)

I agree.



As I said before,

It's quite obvious that he wasn't or at least it is to rational thinking people. Obviously it's not to knee-jerk reactionists like John Legend

Originally posted by chithappens
I don't understand what you were trying to do here.

its really a dumb point now that I think about it. I don't think it applies to this situation as well as it could.

Basically, my interpretation of it, is that when people describe Republicans or conservatives, the term "white" is used pejoratively, as is "man" and "old". Basically, "Old white man" becomes the symbol for a constellation of negative political and social views, some of them associated with the person's "whiteness".

Its like how Palin et al. used Obama's middle name and his "different colour" to blast Obama in the election. and ya, probably not as applicable here, though it is a double standard.

"I'm not voting for another old white man" is acceptable, though "I'm not voting for a young black man" is not.

Originally posted by inimalist
Basically, my interpretation of it, is that when people describe Republicans or conservatives, the term "white" is used pejoratively, as is "man" and "old". Basically, "Old white man" becomes the symbol for a constellation of negative political and social views, some of them associated with the person's "whiteness".

The connotation of "old white men" in politics is the same as "dead white men" in literature. It refers to more of the same because it happens to be almost universally true. Their views are irrelevant, the fact that they're all the same is the point. Washington was as much an "old white man" as Lincoln and Reagan.

Originally posted by inimalist
"I'm not voting for another old white man" is acceptable, though "I'm not voting for a young black man" is not.

Yes, that's a double standard. However one is typically said due to racism and the other due to disillusion. Obviously neither is a good reason to vote for the other person.

Oh yes, because its only racism when it involves black people (weather it is really racist or not is irrelevant).

All other ethnicities are just not that important. I mean, its absolutely fine to throw shit at Arabs, Jews, Asians, South Americans...as long as they're not black.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
All other ethnicities are just not that important. I mean, its absolutely fine to throw shit at Arabs, Jews, Asians, South Americans...as long as they're not black.

Fine, we can put negroes back onto the acceptable targets list.

Originally posted by chithappens
I disagree that it is a double standard.

Fair enough. However, I think, for the very same reasons you think, that it was not intended as racism. They may have planned it to garner attention and it did just that. Maybe they didn't even think of a backlash at all, being innocent in their idea? (Seriously)

Originally posted by chithappens
Yeah, the bill has some stupid things in it, but the reference to a monkey is very suggestive because of who the head of state currently is. George Bush being called a monkey doesn't hold any racial context because white people in U.S. popular culture have never been used as monkeys that suggested an inherent inferiority based on race.

Nah. Red necks have been depicted as un-educated oafs for quite some time now. In fact, you can change out "red neck" for any peasant or low class citizen in every culture through out histry. Black people got it almost the same as everyone else in the "no money, no education" class.(Remember the Irish Immigrants?) However, the treatment and idea of African Americans in the U.S. in recent and even present history makes that cartoon an exercise in poor judgment.

On another note, couldn't they have gotten the same idea across by making the person a neanderthal looking fella? I've mentioned this already...but it could overlap into the Geico advertisement area so you're only left with the Ape comparison...I mean..what else could they use? A redneck? Doesn't work too well as a drawing as some people may not see that. An ape is the best character for the the representation, imo. I and seriously hard pressed to think of something better.

Originally posted by chithappens
I read your post earlier and wholeheartedly understand what you mean, but I think it's safe to assume the New York Post had enough foresight to predict this reaction.


This, I agree with. Maybe they counted on double standards not being applied and just used poor judgment in that aspect???

Originally posted by inimalist
its really a dumb point now that I think about it. I don't think it applies to this situation as well as it could.

Basically, my interpretation of it, is that when people describe Republicans or conservatives, the term "white" is used pejoratively, as is "man" and "old". Basically, "Old white man" becomes the symbol for a constellation of negative political and social views, some of them associated with the person's "whiteness".



Really it is "old rich (typically low to middle high class) white man" is the symbol you speak of, yet it's not like that is not the case if we speak of politicians and do not also include the people who support them. Democrats and Republicans are mostly old rich white men, but that speaks more to the system that the "stereotype" since most U.S. politicians fit the shoe. This speaks more to what the politicians do, just happens most of them are white.

That is an issue with the system that is a separate issue altogether, but if that's the majority of U.S. politicians, you can't associate any other group with those particular stigmas.


Originally posted by inimalist


"I'm not voting for another old white man" is acceptable, though "I'm not voting for a young black man" is not.

Acceptable where? Until 2008, no one had a choice but to vote for a white guy. This totally dependent on where you are. Not voting for a black man was completely fine is a load of places across the country (a lot of people put up videos of Obama's true Muslim origin, how he was is going to bring Bin Laden into office, etc.)

I guess you mean to get at the mainstream media in terms of acceptable ways of conduct. If a white person said they wouldn't vote for a black guy they would get all sorts of flak but that goes vice versa.

Contrary to what it seems a lot of you here believe, other the majority of minorities in the U.S. do not want to bother with that sort of nonsense. However, there a lot of suggestive moments that should be addressed. No one is meeting the middle when these sorts of things happen. No honest discourse. That's why the racial tension remains.

The U.S. is still a voluntarily segregated country.

Originally posted by dadudemon

Nah. Red necks have been depicted as un-educated oafs for quite some time now. In fact, you can change out "red neck" for any peasant or low class citizen in every culture through out histry. Black people got it almost the same as everyone else in the "no money, no education" class.(Remember the Irish Immigrants?) However, the treatment and idea of African Americans in the U.S. in recent and even present history makes that cartoon an exercise in poor judgment.


I do not disagree that other white people have been depicted as "less than", but not like a lower level of species. Minstrel shows were very popular entertainment in the early 20th century which include the blackface crap and so on. I'm not saying white people are never made fun of or seen as not as "white/American/ (?)" but it is a different extreme is all.

Make fun of anyone, but just be careful in how it might be understood by the masses. I guarantee you that at some church this Sunday, a minister is going on and on about how the white media is still racist and will be using this cartoon as the main example.

There is no reason to give unnecessary molotov to fuel the fire. I can see why a lot of people would say it is not racist, but you can not say that a person who does not know about Travis (the chimp that was shot) might not easily make that connection of chimps.

"Of course they wouldn't be that dumb, right?" is what some might think, but more blunt stuff has happened even in very recent history.


Originally posted by dadudemon


This, I agree with. Maybe they counted on double standards not being applied and just used poor judgment in that aspect???

Shrug. Personally, I don't give a damn, but it matters to me in a macro sense because this is the sort of dumb shit is what keeps people from being able to talk to each other comfortably. When these things happen, people should talk about these things openly.

My roommate is a white guy and he is a really close friend of mine. We laughed earlier this week about how only white people would have a chimp as a pet. He even joked that even white Michael Jackson knew chimps can't be domesticated. We knew about that incident already.

He saw the cartoon whatever day it came out and didn't see the possible racism because he thought of Travis. I saw it later (without him mentioning it) and looked at it about 10 times with a raised eyebrow (never thought of the chimp incident). I mentioned what it might mean, he explained he didn't see it. I said what I thought, he retorted. We met halfway and basically came to the conclusion of a shrewd commercial move. No hard feelings. Still love the guy.

This rarely happens with larger groups and that is more the issue than anything.

Originally posted by jaden101
You get black and white chimps?

Anyone who doesn't see that they meant the bill was written by monkeys and that it's a tie in to another news report about a monkey shot by police is an idiot and should be shot in the face violently...by chimps

I find it hard to believe that no one in the publishing room thought that the chimp might be seen as a dig at Obama's race.