New York Post, 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.

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

As I said before,

(I don't think the artist was trying to make a racist insinuation)

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.