New York Post, Obama

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:

Open Letter to the New York Post

Dear Editor: I'm trying to understand what possible motivation you may have had for publishing that vile cartoon depicting the shooting of the chimpanzee that went crazy. I guess you thought it would be funny to suggest that whomever was responsible for writing the Economic Recovery legislation must have the intelligence and judgment of a deranged, violent chimpanzee, and should be shot to protect the larger community. Really? Did it occur to you that this suggestion would imply a connection between President Barack Obama and the deranged chimpanzee? Did it occur to you that our President has been receiving death threats since early in his candidacy? Did it occur to you that blacks have historically been compared to various apes as a way of racist insult and mockery? Did you intend to invoke these painful themes when you printed the cartoon?

If that's not what you intended, then it was stupid and willfully ignorant of you not to connect these easily connectible dots. If it is what you intended, then you obviously wanted to be grossly provocative, racist and offensive to the sensibilities of most reasonable Americans. Either way, you should not have printed this cartoon, and the fact that you did is truly reprehensible. I can't imagine what possible justification you have for this. I've read your lame statement in response to the outrage you provoked. Shame on you for dodging the real issue and then using the letter as an opportunity to attack Rev. Sharpton. This is not about Rev. Sharpton. It's about the cartoon being blatantly racist and offensive.

I believe in freedom of speech, and you have every right to print what you want. But freedom of speech still comes with responsibilities and consequences. You are responsible for printing this cartoon, and I hope you experience some real consequences for it. I'm personally boycotting your paper and won't do any interviews with any of your reporters, and I encourage all of my colleagues in the entertainment business to do so as well. I implore your advertisers to seriously reconsider their business relationships with you as well.

You should print an apology in your paper acknowledging that this cartoon was ignorant, offensive and racist and should not have been printed.

I'm well aware of our country's history of racism and violence, but I truly believe we are better than this filth. As we attempt to rise above our difficult past and look toward a better future, we don't need the New York Post to resurrect the images of Jim Crow to deride the new administration and put black folks in our place. Please feel free to criticize and honestly evaluate our new President, but do so without the incendiary images and rhetoric.

Sincerely, 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?

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.

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.

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)?

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 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?