Thread: Cartoon Said to Link Obama to Dead Chimp

Im pretty sure that is suppose to mean the stimulous bill was so dumb that a monkey wrote it. That doesnt mean its obama unless he really did write it all which I doubt. Then again even if it was meant to be obama its pretty clear they used a monkey to mean how poorly written it was, not because he is part black. People read way too far in to stuff. Its just a cartoon.

I think the cartoon is highly insensitive for vegans and even vegetarians. Clearly the shooting of an innocent animal is nothing to make fun of. To abuse the animal by bringing it into the realm of politics is just another case of animal cruelty showing the most vile side of humans.

This is outrageous!

Raise your hand if you are offended.

Nope, not even slightly racist. Its not as funny, because they shot the monkey, but saying the bill was written be monkey's is however a little funny. Especially since its probably true!

I would have to be familiar with his other cartoons to draw any kind of concrete conclusion.
On face value, though, I think it is in very poor taste.

UM, that was arguably one of the most amazing posts I've ever seen. Well done.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

UM, that was arguably one of the most amazing posts I've ever seen. Well done.

Somebody posted that, or one like it, on a political site I used to go to. I just dug it up on Google Images. I think it's hilarious. It's amazing that somebody put all those pictures together.

I just can't see how it could mean anything but the most negative of implications. What other connection is there between a violent chimpanzee and the writer of the stimulus bill besides the horribly racist ones? The cartoon is either senseless or racist. I see no other option.

I thought the cartoon was great. The stimulus bill is retarded.

I think it can hardly be considered police brutality when a chimpanzee is trying to kill a defenseless woman, because face it, your typical suburban woman is no match for a wild animal 10+ times stronger than her. Sorry, but the ape had to die.

It's a lousy joke and in poor taste because of the recent and tragic event it references (no, not the stimulus bill). Failing to make much sense or be funny, it leaves a hard-to-pin-down bad taste in one's mouth.

But any racial context, overt or implicit? No.

First, no one is being characterized as an ape. Obama did not write the stimulus bill. No one person or clearly identifiable group of people wrote the final bill. If there were a little editorial-cartoon-label identifying the chimp, it would probably read something like "D.C." or "U.S. Government."

Second, when mocking racial heritage, one cites gorillas or sometimes baboons. As UM's post amply illustrates, chimps are used to question intelligence and rationality, as is the case in the bad cartoon.

It's a sloppy, unfocused attempt at topical humor and the cartoonist maybe deserves the flak just for sucking at his job (at least that day), but it takes a powerful racial bias and/or a poor grasp of current events to see the dead chimp as Obama, regardless of whether you're outraged or amused.

Anyone who says racism is dead is a fool when people interpret that picture as racist/calling Obama a monkey because he's black.

Political cartoons are always like that. They are often offense, and most are not all that funny. Though they are not meant to be funny, they are meant to send a message across.

I don't think it's meant to be racist.

I don't see how it matters, either.

Oh it's cool, UM. I figured you weren't the one that made the picture. But, as to the way it was used in context, it was absolutely hilarious.

Originally Posted by Taosaur

Second, when mocking racial heritage, one cites gorillas or sometimes baboons. As UM's post amply illustrates, chimps are used to question intelligence and rationality, as is the case in the bad cartoon.

Now, to that, I will say this: (and I'm playing Devil's Advocate, here, so keep that in mind. I'm not lending any truth to the alleged implication of the article.)

When mocking racial heritage against blacks, the word 'monkey' is used often. This is something I've (as have many blacks, to my personal knowledge) experienced first hand. Racists very seldom make a distinction between what kind of primate they are talking about. Many of them don't even differentiate between monkeys, gorillas, chimpanzees, etc. They simply classify us (blacks) in whichever species rolls off their tongue the most easily. This is the crux of the "racist" allegation.

I simply want to provide a little perspective that the allegation of racism, while likely wrong, is not completely unfounded.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

Oh it's cool, UM. I figured you weren't the one that made the picture. But, as to the way it was used in context, it was absolutely hilarious.



Now, to that, I will say this: (and I'm playing Devil's Advocate, here, so keep that in mind. I'm not lending any truth to the alleged implication of the article.)

When mocking racial heritage against blacks, the word 'monkey' is used often. This is something I've (as have many blacks, to my personal knowledge) experienced first hand. Racists very seldom make a distinction between what kind of primate they are talking about. Many of them don't even differentiate between monkeys, gorillas, chimpanzees, etc. They simply classify us (blacks) in whichever species rolls off their tongue the most easily. This is the crux of the "racist" allegation.

I simply want to provide a little perspective that the allegation of racism, while likely wrong, is not completely unfounded.

I agree. I don't believe there was any racism intended by this cartoon, but it is understandable why some people would take it that way. Especially if they hadn't previously heard of the story of the monkey being shot and killed. They might make the association between the dead monkey and people saying that Obama was going to get assassinated.

Originally Posted by Black_Eagle

They might make the association between the dead monkey and people saying that Obama was going to get assassinated.

And not only the assumption that he might get assassinated, but the glorification of the concept of his getting assassinated. Saying, in essence, that "the primate who is (allegedly) a characterization of Obama has just been shot, isn't this hilarious?? Kudos to the artist for this humorous portrayal!" Subsequently desensitizing people to the idea, and possibly stirring inspiration for the act.

That is how it's being received. I do believe that it was in poor taste - if nothing else, with a complete ignorance as to how it may be received by blacks. Now, I don't believe that it's any more right for anyone to assume that the cartoon was inherently racist than it is to pardon the cartoon for being inherently innocent. There are many different factors contained within that could make it go either way, but it does leave one to wonder if the same cartoon would have been printed if there was a white president in office. This is simply an answer than none of us have, and it's that ambiguity that has proven as a driving force for the allegations.

[Edit]
Also, I changed a word in the title of the OP from "Seems" to "Said". I thought I was quoting the title of the article exactly, but upon a second look, it actually says "said to link..." I don't want to make it seem like I was throwing any sort of bias into the discussion.
[/Edit]

I think it takes a racist person to see that cartoon as racist. It was not intended as such, and you have to dig pretty deep to find any connection to racism. The chimp clearly has nothing to do with Obama. The only reason people may see that is because Obama actually does look a little like a chimpanzee. Race and shameful symbolic history aside, the dude has huge ears.

As UM's post demonstrates, chimps are often used to parody human stupidity. I think it is racist to keep from comparing Obama to a chimpanzee just because he is part black. It would be racist for the editor to say, "We can't run this cartoon that portrays the government as a chimp, because our current president is black."

Originally Posted by Robot_Butler

I think it takes a racist person to see that cartoon as racist. It was not intended as such, and you have to dig pretty deep to find any connection to racism.

But really, how deep do you have to dig? Blacks have been portrayed as "monkeys" all throughout American history. As I said: the idea might be wrong, but how deep is one who's culture has experienced the portrayal all throughout American history really digging, if they make that connection? There has never been a "black" (and I use the quotations, because he is not 100% black, though this is something that even many racists do not acknowledge) President and I, for one, haven't yet seen a cartoon from such a mainstream media outlet that has portrayed a previous president as such.

I agree with everything else you said, though.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

[Lots of bush/monkey pics]

Raise your hand if you are offended.

The monkey sure as hell has good reason to be. Being compared to such a creature with an IQ equivocal to a tipsy donkey.

Perhaps I'm naive or perhaps it's because of the color blind generation I grew up with, but...I didn't find anything personally offensive about that gunned down monkey picture (or the back story behind it). You know, I think Al Sharpton has done a multitude of great things for all people of color...but sometimes I think he should just sit his ass down somewhere.

I guess you just have to have your racism radar up to even pick up on subtle stuff like this. Personally, my PC sensitivity radar sucks in general. I guess someone who had been a victim of racism would naturally be more sensitive to such things. The tired old PC question is, do you cater to this sensitivity or ignore it? Which fuels racism more?

This reminds me of this story from last year,
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,343008,00.html

Originally Posted by Robot_Butler

This reminds me of this story from last year,
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,343008,00.html

Hmm...regarding that link you posted. Do I find it racist? Not at all. Though...it's worth noting that upon first glance of the magazine cover...it jumped out at me as an angry guy roughly dominating a female. The next thing I noticed were their skin colors. If you put two and two together (this is the part that most might consider reaching, I am one of those people) I guess you can say the cover propagates the "Angry black male" image. But racist? Nah...if it had racist undertones or intents...Vogue never would have shown a black guy grabbing a white female in such a way. Riding on what you said RB; I think that people perceive (and judge) the world and people within it according to their beliefs, teachings and past experiences. Metaphorically speaking, this is why a a white woman who might have been mugged by a black man might have some reservations (and judgments) about a black male (and/or the black race) based on that experience. Because of his unjust malicious racist beating, this is also why Rodney King to this day has trust issues with white police officers. Remember when we were younger and touched the hot stove? Burned like hell right? Yeah...we didn't do that shit again. The mechanics behind that learning process is the very same one behind why we make reservations/judgments and formulate opinions about people, places and things. Some constructive to our nature and moral fiber...some destructive. It takes wisdom to know how to sort them. [/End_long_winded_reply]

You know, the more I consider it, the more I think this is a great cartoon about racism. If the cartoon was obvious about a connection to Obama, race, assassination, ect it would just be in bad taste, and dismissed as another example of ignorant racism. The fact that it is unclear if the artist originally intended it to be racist or not is exactly what makes it great. The viewer is forced to make the connections, shining a mirror on their own thoughts, and making them "own" the racist aspects.

I see this as a great metaphor for the current race struggles this country faces. Sometimes, like this cartoonist, we are racist without even knowing it. It is just too ingrained for whatever reason. The obvious hateful racists are easy to dismiss as just idiots. The racism that is ingrained in our history, however, can not be dismissed. It will always exist as a part of who we all are. It will always exist in our memory, symbolism, language, and history. Every time we consider this history by choosing the correct words to use, or the symbolism to avoid, we are forced to take on this historical racism as a part of ourselves. I think that is what makes this cartoon stir up so much emotion.

Kudos to the (idiot) cartoonist for doing his job, and getting people to think about this stuff, laugh at this stuff, get offended by this stuff, and talk about this stuff. That is exactly what comedy like this is supposed to do. Maybe the venue it was published in was inappropriate, but I think, considering all the fuss, this cartoon is a success.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

Now, to that, I will say this: (and I'm playing Devil's Advocate, here, so keep that in mind. I'm not lending any truth to the alleged implication of the article.)

When mocking racial heritage against blacks, the word 'monkey' is used often.

Heh, I was a little facetious with the "it wouldn't be a chimp" argument, though I think that kind of associative reasoning is a major player in this story. Still, for the record: chimps are apes, not monkeys.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

That is how it's being received. I do believe that it was in poor taste - if nothing else, with a complete ignorance as to how it may be received by blacks.

As I pick up more background about the Post (and how many New Yorkers feel about the Post), I'm thinking the cartoonist and his editor weren't totally oblivious, though I disagree that the reception is divided along race lines: by my informal poll of the interwebs, plenty of white people are up in arms and plenty of black people just shaking their heads at the whole circus. It seems like a lot of the initial momentum for this thing came out of standing hostilities between the NYPost and liberal black activists in NYC, particularly one Rev. Sharpton, and it has less to do with race than politics.

Originally Posted by Robot_Butler

You know, the more I consider it, the more I think this is a great cartoon about racism. If the cartoon was obvious about a connection to Obama, race, assassination, ect it would just be in bad taste, and dismissed as another example of ignorant racism. The fact that it is unclear if the artist originally intended it to be racist or not is exactly what makes it great. The viewer is forced to make the connections, shining a mirror on their own thoughts, and making them "own" the racist aspects.

That's pretty much where I'm at: where it was originally just an unfunny, distasteful drawing, now it's this ambiguous image sowing cognitive dissonance. I disagree that people are "owning" the thoughts it stirs up, though. What I'm seeing is a lot of people who made the Obama-->chimp connection on their own or let others talk them into it are now trying to heap their sins on the NYPost and drive it out of the village, with a lot of the Post's standing enemies handing out pitchforks and queuing up the mob.

This thread is the most reasonable discussion of the matter I've come across so far.

Originally Posted by Robot_Butler

I guess you just have to have your racism radar up to even pick up on subtle stuff like this. Personally, my PC sensitivity radar sucks in general. I guess someone who had been a victim of racism would naturally be more sensitive to such things. The tired old PC question is, do you cater to this sensitivity or ignore it? Which fuels racism more?

This reminds me of this story from last year,
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,343008,00.html

I don't believe you have to always cater toward sensitivity, but to honestly acknowledge it might lead to a sort of respectable medium. If you truly understand where someone is coming from, when they express a sensitivity, this might cause you to take a more careful position when dealing with such a subject, if for no other reason than simple empathy. I don't think it has to do with a sort of demeaning kind of "appeal" to that sensitivity, as if it's your job to just make that sensitive person feel better. But when you honestly put yourself in that other person's position, you always have to ask yourself; "how would I react, if I felt such sensitivity? How would I react, if my sensitivity (because we all have things we are sensitive about) was completely ignored or ridiculed?"

And do I think the Lebron/Giselle cover was overtly racist? No. It's probably not even something I would have even thought about, had someone not brought up the King Kong reference. I would have thought of it as Lebron being his normal, driven, dominating self, and Giselle just doing what she does. But, of course, when someone throws in the Kong reference, it does get the mind going. It makes one wonder what the true intention of the composition was. RB, as someone that's no stranger to the creative process, I'm sure you know that a lot of thought goes into a piece like that. People don't just go "ok, you stand here and do this, and you stand here and do this, and it's going to be awesome!" There is always a method to a professional design. They could just as easily have shown Lebron in the middle of a cross-over, or him and Giselle facing off, as if they were playing one on one with each other (which would have been pretty badass, actually. Haha.) but the arrangement does seem to be one that could very easily be considered as a King Kong reference. Again, as you state in the following quote, the ambiguity is what makes the piece such a hot topic.

Originally Posted by Robot_Butler

You know, the more I consider it, the more I think this is a great cartoon about racism. If the cartoon was obvious about a connection to Obama, race, assassination, ect it would just be in bad taste, and dismissed as another example of ignorant racism. The fact that it is unclear if the artist originally intended it to be racist or not is exactly what makes it great. The viewer is forced to make the connections, shining a mirror on their own thoughts, and making them "own" the racist aspects.

I see this as a great metaphor for the current race struggles this country faces. Sometimes, like this cartoonist, we are racist without even knowing it. It is just too ingrained for whatever reason. The obvious hateful racists are easy to dismiss as just idiots. The racism that is ingrained in our history, however, can not be dismissed. It will always exist as a part of who we all are. It will always exist in our memory, symbolism, language, and history. Every time we consider this history by choosing the correct words to use, or the symbolism to avoid, we are forced to take on this historical racism as a part of ourselves. I think that is what makes this cartoon stir up so much emotion.

Kudos to the (idiot) cartoonist for doing his job, and getting people to think about this stuff, laugh at this stuff, get offended by this stuff, and talk about this stuff. That is exactly what comedy like this is supposed to do. Maybe the venue it was published in was inappropriate, but I think, considering all the fuss, this cartoon is a success.

I agree with all of this. Ethical/tasteful/controversial or not, the cartoon was definitely a success. It does force us to address our stances on such a topic, and it does so in a very grandiose way. There is another side to this, though, that I will bring up after Taosaur's second quote.

Originally Posted by Taosaur

As I pick up more background about the Post (and how many New Yorkers feel about the Post), I'm thinking the cartoonist and his editor weren't totally oblivious, though I disagree that the reception is divided along race lines: by my informal poll of the interwebs, plenty of white people are up in arms and plenty of black people just shaking their heads at the whole circus. It seems like a lot of the initial momentum for this thing came out of standing hostilities between the NYPost and liberal black activists in NYC, particularly one Rev. Sharpton, and it has less to do with race than politics.

I don't doubt this at all. I will state, though, that I've heard the NY Post has the largest black following of any mainstream paper in the country. (I believe that is the statistic I've heard. Would have to double-check.) Now, whether that black following is one that include(d) the liberal activists or not is something I dont' know. But, as with many of the black liberal activist arguments I've heard, I don't doubt that the allegation is more politically motivated than anything substantial.

Originally Posted by Taosaur

That's pretty much where I'm at: where it was originally just an unfunny, distasteful drawing, now it's this ambiguous image sowing cognitive dissonance. I disagree that people are "owning" the thoughts it stirs up, though. What I'm seeing is a lot of people who made the Obama-->chimp connection on their own or let others talk them into it are now trying to heap their sins on the NYPost and drive it out of the village, with a lot of the Post's standing enemies handing out pitchforks and queuing up the mob.

Again, I don't doubt this at all. And I'm no stranger to how easily the pitchforks are taken up, in arms, against such content. (I've taken this same neutral position with a few of my family members, about this topic, and was met with a whole lot of opposition on it. Heh.) But there is another side to this covert racism that must be addressed just as openly. Just as there is the biasedly(word?) damning side, there is the biasedly forgiving side. Just as RB said "I guess someone who had been a victim of racism would naturally be more sensitive to such things", the inverse is also true. Someone whose "side" of the argument is constantly the one being demonized (in this case, whites) might naturally be more likely to see the innocence in such an ambiguous cartoon. There are those who are sensitive to "their kind" being discriminated against, and there are those who are sensitive to "their kind" being blamed for discrimination - both, at times, to a fault.