New York Times Political Cartoon

[Master Eq]

So as some of you may know, I am VERY political. Not that I belong to any one party, but I enjoy staying current on what's going on. So today on the local news, they were talking about a new cartoon published by the New York Times. In the cartoon, 2 police officers are standing over the body of a chimp that has been shot. One cop is still holding his gun, and the other says something like, "Now their going to have to find someone to write the next stimulus plan."

Now there are several groups outraged, because they see it as a racial depection of Barack Obama. So I thought I would bring this to all of you wonderful people here. My question is.....

....Was this, in your opinion, a racial remark towards the president, or rather was the artist stating that anyone could write out a stimulus plan.

[denuseri]

Sounds like both to me!

Perspective could sloce it eaither way.

Very poor taste on the writer/artist and editors parts only continuing to confirm my low regard for the media in general in its quest for advertising dollars.

[craven]

my first reaction, and this is just my personal take is that they underlying message is that the cartoonists is implying that the rescue plan could have been drawn up by a chimp, as in deriding the plan rather than attacking via the use of visual stimulus barack obama in a racial way per se,

poor taste and not too well thought out, but that is how i took the cartoon anyway.

I agree with den, shows an incredible lack of sensitivity and awareness, which is all too common in todays media

[Belgarold]

I agree, it IS very insensitive and looks racially motivated to me as well. And just to clarify, it was the New York POST, not the Times. The Times would not have run such a cartoon in my opinion.

The Post is run by Rupert Murdoch of NewsCorp. Much more of a scandal sheet reputation.

[Thorne]

I see this more along the lines of, "If you put a monkey in a room with a typewriter, given enough time he'll write Hamlet," or a stimulus package. I don't see anything there referencing Obama or anyone else, except maybe those who actually did write the thing.

Don't believe for a minute that Obama actually wrote that package. It's doubtful he even read it. That stuff is done by staffers, who present (at best) briefs to their bosses laying out what they want them to believe is in there. So I don't see any criticism of Obama personally, only politically.

The cartoon strikes me as perhaps more revealing about the viewer than the cartoonist. Those who are always looking for the tiniest slight, always trying to put words into other people's mouths, or those who themselves view blacks as being at a lower level of evolution and are ashamed of their views will, I believe, tend to see this as more demeaning than it was meant to be.

People just need to stop taking themselves so seriously!

[denuseri]

As someone who has been on the recieving end of discrimination before in the past (just last week in fact) I can say that it is very hard to overlook certian visual presentations in the media as being anything other than veiled forms discriminatory evocations.

Blatant in many regards considering this very same depiction has been used so often in the past in a racist manner and is paticularly sensitive to the people aginst which it was used.

Now there is a difference as Thorne pointed out between looking for the tiniest slight and reading between the print so to speak. IMHO this is not one of those times.

If the cartoon had been made during any other Presidents administration would it have had a far different meaning? Perhaps not but it was printed during this presidents admisistration just hoping for an inflamatory response.

Ole Abe for instance was often portrayed by his detractors as a long armed babboon.

Of course the use of our less developed evolutionary cousins (all animals) in getting a point accross is commonplace.

The way its done however and the message such images portray should be thought out much more closely as they will have lasting effects in some cases on our culture.

Intelectual disconectedness aside, there is no one that could convince me that the cartoon in question was not willfully depected exactly the way it was on purpose (borderline rasict depection at best) knowing exactly how inflamatory it would be precived.

Regardless of which scource the Times or the Post (both of which in my opinion are two sides of the same evil coin in every way) the cartoon was just plain wrong.

Several people I am sure had to sign off on it before it hit the public via what is supposed to be a respected news scource. rme &smh

(On a side bar: If your wanting to pick favorite fish wrapers mine was allways the "Cristian Science Monitor", I know I know it doesnt have the magazine high gloss form but at least its not 100% biased in all of its reporting like so many of its counterparts.)

[mkemse]

Thisi s a real tough one, on one had yes it may bewrong, tastelss ect on the other hand we live in a Free Society with Freedom of the Press, ect you will never please eveyone all the time on anytning
THIS DOES NOT MAN i accept or condone the Cartoon, butthereality is unless a direct threat was made to someone, this is one advantage to living in a Society with complete (in most cases) Free of Speech and Express,
And as absolutely tastless as it is EVEN the Supreme Court ruled afew years back Buring the Amiercan Flag is Protected by The Consitution As Freedom of Speach and is NOT illegal, in a Free Society the Street goes both ways you don't have to like it, but that is reality of Freesom of Speach and Expression with the exception of 3 things NOT covered as Freedom of Speech by the UnitdStates Constitution, only 3 things that come to mind rightnow that are NOT legal to say in Pubic without fear of arrest
Enojy what we have here, very few countries do

[Belgarold]

I see this more along the lines of, "If you put a monkey in a room with a typewriter, given enough time he'll write Hamlet," or a stimulus package. I don't see anything there referencing Obama or anyone else, except maybe those who actually did write the thing.

Don't believe for a minute that Obama actually wrote that package. It's doubtful he even read it. That stuff is done by staffers, who present (at best) briefs to their bosses laying out what they want them to believe is in there. So I don't see any criticism of Obama personally, only politically.

The cartoon strikes me as perhaps more revealing about the viewer than the cartoonist. Those who are always looking for the tiniest slight, always trying to put words into other people's mouths, or those who themselves view blacks as being at a lower level of evolution and are ashamed of their views will, I believe, tend to see this as more demeaning than it was meant to be.

People just need to stop taking themselves so seriously!

Obama did NOT write the stimulus package, Congress did, and he HAS read it, I am sure. But that is not the point. Obama has note complained about the cartoon, the public has.

And as denu pointed out this is not a case of "the tiniest slight." It is a common depiction used in rascist circles. And even if you take away the rascist element. It is inciting a violent act, a killing, to get a point across.

I am appalled by the sore losers out there that are inciting all sorts of acts because they disagree with the President and his administration.

Jim Adkiison shot up a Knoxville, Tenn. Unitarian church because he wanted to "kill liberals" a few weeks back.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-07-27-442570771_x.htm

And Alan Keyes just this weekend said that Obama was not President (using bogus claims to justify his wild accusations) and basically said that Obama needs to be done away with.

Tiny slights, I don't think so. I believe the cartoon IS rascist and there seems to be many that think that way. But even if the Post can support the claim that it is NOT rascist, it is still proposing killing to support one's viewpoint. Which is disgusting.

[mkemse]

Obama did NOT write the stimulus package, Congress did, and he HAS read it, I am sure. But that is not the point. Obama has note complained about the cartoon, the public has.

And as denu pointed out this is not a case of "the tiniest slight." It is a common depiction used in rascist circles. And even if you take away the rascist element. It is inciting a violent act, a killing, to get a point across.

I am appalled by the sore losers out there that are inciting all sorts of acts because they disagree with the President and his administration.

Jim Adkiison shot up a Knoxville, Tenn. Unitarian church because he wanted to "kill liberals" a few weeks back.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-07-27-442570771_x.htm

And Alan Keyes just this weekend said that Obama was not President (using bogus claims to justify his wild accusations) and basically said that Obama needs to be done away with.

Tiny slights, I don't think so. I believe the cartoon IS rascist and there seems to be many that think that way. But even if the Post can support the claim that it is NOT rascist, it is still proposing killing to support one's viewpoint. Which is disgusting.

True but Congress is Controlled by the Democrats, all Obama did wastell them what he wanted and needed and he must of liked it or he would have vetoed it, but the Deomcrats Control Congress, as 1 Republican who supported it said "No it is NOT perfect, but something right now is better then nothing right now"
I think the Repbilcans are "angry" or "Upset" because they no longer Control Congress like they did before the last 2 Elections

[mkemse]

True but Congress is Controlled by the Democrats, all Obama did wastell them what he wanted and needed and he must of liked it or he would have vetoed it, but the Deomcrats Control Congress, as 1 Republican who supported it said "No it is NOT perfect, but something right now is better then nothing right now"
I think the Repbilcans are "angry" or "Upset" because they no longer Control Congress like they did before the last 2 Elections

Alan Keys has less to offer Ameircans then anyone else I can think of with the possiblity of Rush Limbough, who is a case study in himself but he seems to like Oxicondin alot
Alan Keys Ran for the Senate In Illinos a few years back and sufferd the worst shlacking of any race in Illinois History, he then movedo n to Arizona and planned to run there only to be disquialified because he was to new to the stae, so he keeps moving from one state to another

[mkemse]

Sorry, did not mean to quote myself,I pressed the wrong key

[Master Eq]

This is what I enjoy, a civilized conversation on a topic that has been blown out of proportion by many organizations. Ok, here is my take on the issue...

I think that the artist was not intending the cartoon to be taken as "racest" but rather he/she was trying to combine 2 news stories in a comical fashon. What the cartoon depicted was wrong, no doubt about that, but as said earlier it is his right under the first amendment. That being said, the editor who allowed that cartoon to be published should have had enough sense not to publish it. Maybe something that has not been said, perhaps the editor saw this as an oppurtunity to increase the papers sales. I know that I will be keeping a closer eye on it.

Thanx to everyone for your opinions.

[Thorne]

I understand other people's viewpoints and I can, and do, see how this could be taken as a racist statement. But my feeling is that it's all in the eye of the beholder. While I am intellectually familiar with the idea of equating some races with monkeys, when I looked at that cartoon I didn't see a racist depiction. It's not until other people screamed about racism that the idea ever even occurred to me.

Like Master Eq, I see the cartoonist combining two recent news stories in a supposedly humorous way to bring attention to both. Was he trying to be racist? I don't know, and no one but the cartoonist knows, either. And what if the cartoonist is black himself? Does that still make the cartoon racist?

And why isn't anyone making disparaging comments about the two cruel police officers who killed a helpless animal? Couldn't we view this as an animal rights issue?

C'mon, people. You can read into that thing almost anything you want to read into it. And it isn't until somebody starts making a lot of noise about what they perceive is wrong that most people will pay attention. If nobody had made any comments about this cartoon, who would have even noticed it? Just a relative handful of New York readers, and it would have died a natural death.

In fact, just as a point of interest, how many people here actually saw that cartoon when it was initially published, and how many didn't see it until after all the noise started and the accusations of racism were thrown around?

[mkemse]

And if the Monkey incident had not happened all would be quiet on the Western Front

[damyanti]

Now there are several groups outraged, because they see it as a racial depection of Barack Obama. So I thought I would bring this to all of you wonderful people here. My question is.....

....Was this, in your opinion, a racial remark towards the president, or rather was the artist stating that anyone could write out a stimulus plan.

It was a critic of a stimulus plan....done in an extremely poor taste...or to put it bluntly, its a disgusting, poorly veiled racial slur. Is the person who did it a manevolant racist? Probably not, but he/she is very juvenile, irresponsible and mindfuckingly stupid jerk....who (together with his editor) has no business working in a newspaper. Journalistic integrity really seems to have reached rock bottom.

On the other hand, I have very little patience or understanding for groups whose whole purpose is to be "outraged" and who blow things out of proportion and use it to instigate people and promote their agenda.

Whatever happened to civil dialogue?

[damyanti]

Was he trying to be racist? I don't know, and no one but the cartoonist knows, either. And what if the cartoonist is black himself? Does that still make the cartoon racist?

Was he trying to be racist? I answered that in a post above. But being a racist/holding prejudices is not exclusive to the "white" and holding negative racist prejudices towards "one's own" is scarily common.


In fact, just as a point of interest, how many people here actually saw that cartoon when it was initially published, and how many didn't see it until after all the noise started and the accusations of racism were thrown around?

I saw it before "accusations of racism were thrown around" and it was pretty clear to me.

[MMI]

I have not seen the cartoon, and I rely upon the description given. The following opinion is given while I was unaware of the "accusations" that have been thrown about.

I agree that the cartoon was meant to imply that the stimulus plan could be written by a monkey ... that it is a trivial endeavour.

I do not believe the cartoonist, or the editor of the Post, or anyone else who was involved - of whatever hue - could possibly have been unaware of the racist undertones, or of the personal implications regarding Obama, and they published anyway.

[DuncanONeil]

Why is there even any complaint at all? Over the past eight years the media has often depicted the President as a chimp, and there was narry a single word of protest. So why now????

[DuncanONeil]

By the way there is no rescue in the plan, if one can even call it that. Before the election we were treated to the fact that the deficit & debt was disasterous and mortgaging our children's future. Now doubling the defict in one year and tripleing the debt is a good thing. How is that even possible?

[DuncanONeil]

But the Times has run cartoons of the President depicted as a chimp. Just look it up.

[DuncanONeil]

Because you choose to see it that way!

[DuncanONeil]

Obama did not read it!

There is an open question regarding Obama's ability to run. No one is willing to take the time to track down the truth of the questions. The evidence presented to settle the issue is not convincing. Were this on the other side the clamor for an investigation would be unending, much like the 2008 campaign for President that has not yet ended

[damyanti]

Why there was no protest when the former president was compered to a chimp?

Reason number one: Chimps don't have an "outraged" lobby group.

Reason number two: http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3037/2986918749_f9a72c7b7d.jpg?v=0

[DuncanONeil]

The animal was not helpless, in fact it was attacking people. The people that lived with it and loved it!

[DuncanONeil]

Neither is this outrage from any lobby group. Rather from a group that seeks things to be outraged about. Blowing to great proportions the slightest thing.

[Master Eq]

Why there was no protest when the former president was compered to a chimp?

Reason number one: Chimps don't have an "outraged" lobby group.

Reason number two: http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3037/2986918749_f9a72c7b7d.jpg?v=0

absolutly 100% agree with you (and love the pic of bush)

[Dr_BuzzCzar]

[COLOR="Magenta"][B]I saw it before "accusations of racism were thrown around" and it was pretty clear to me.

Ditto, I saw it and the very 1st thought I had was "that's going too far even for the Post".

[Dr_BuzzCzar]

Why is there even any complaint at all? Over the past eight years the media has often depicted the President as a chimp, and there was narry a single word of protest. So why now????

There have been some internet bullies that have made the Bush facial expressions equate to chimps but never the "media" if that can actually be defined. If I'm wrong about that please show me a link or a quote from a main-stream media source please.

[Dr_BuzzCzar]

But the Times has run cartoons of the President depicted as a chimp. Just look it up.

I tried but couldn't find any NY Times or Washington Post political cartoons depicting Bush as a chimp/monkey. I did find them on About.com but not as political cartoons, just offensive anti-Bush pictures not really trying t make any particular political point.

You've apparently seen them? Maybe you can give me a link?

[damyanti]

The "chimp" part isnt the problem. When I first saw it, the incredulity at what I was seeing caused a small gasp. It was depicting "cops shooting just another n*****", suggesting Obama would be that easy to get rid off. To do so when there have already been arrests of not too bright individuals who owned guns and plotted to kill the President...

They knew what they were doing. Political satyr is one thing, and Obama shouldnt be given a special exemption from it, but this wasnt it. This wasnt a critical commentary, at best it was a disgusting and hypocritical abuse of the freedom of speech.

[Thorne]

It's interesting to me how so many supposedly enlightened people can so easily equate chimps with race. I grew up during the racial problems of the 60's and 70's and I would never have put those two together if it hadn't been for all the uproar.

Are we then to assume that all those Tarzan movies with chimpanzees running around all over the place contain hidden racial slanders? Is Planet of the Apes perhaps a warning against allowing the "lesser" races to have too much power? Should we ban the word "chimp" from our language because some people see it as a racial slur? Maybe we should condemn the cartoonist to unending torment, as the Muslims did to the bomb-in-the-turban cartoonist?

Come on people! It's a freaking cartoon! It's not funny, and it's not even well drawn, but it's no worse than some of the bashing I've seen here, against both Bush and Obama. If you choose to see a racial slur in there, fine. Deal with it. But don't automatically assume that everyone does, or that you know what the artist (I use the term loosely) was trying to say.

[Belgarold]

No one said EVERYBODY saw the cartoon as racist, but it is and had been a common slur to equate blacks with monkeys and chimps and other simians. And for an editor not to see that either means he was totally and ridiculously out of touch or he KNEW that it would be misconstrued that way and did not care.

And besides the racial overtones it could be seen as inciting violence against the president or against other government officials. ANd I am constantly amazed at the capacity for hypocrisy by conservatives and Republicans (I am listening now to Republican Congressman, who wrote the book on earmarks and pork, talking about Obama's Stim bill).

Just one incident here, but there were many others: The Dixie Chicks were vilified and sent DEATH threats by idiots when they had simply stated they were embarassed to be from the same state as Bush. And you would have thought they killed someone.

And now this awful cartoon is seen as not a big deal.

[AdrianaAurora]

This cartoon is not subtle in it's depiction of the President being assassinated and someone else having to write the next Stimulus. Sean Delonas (a famed cartoonist) and the folks at the NY Post knew this before publishing it.

The cartoon is tying three things together (a real dying economy, a real monkey that ran amok in Connecticut the other day, and the racist stereotype of animalistic tendencies in blacks) to anticipate a recession-driven increase in crime and the need for some good old right-wing law-and-order. Meaning, two white cops. Of course, this would have nothing to do with Eric Holder taking over the Justice Department and, among other things, bringing a critical eye to the prison-industrial complex, or more simply, the incarceration of black males for minor drug offenses. ...Economy in meltdown - perpetrated by white guys on Wall Street? Play the fear card.

For some strange and interesting reason, many white people I've talked to will defend the cartoon as if they drew it. They keep saying the same thing, "I don't see what all the fuss is about." After all aggressive, reckless, racially insensitive nature of the chimp cartoon is just business as usual at the Post.

The idea of course is to get the tongues furiously wagging, get enraged emails, letters and phone calls pouring in, and then put forth the predictable defense calling this and other inflammatory cartoons a parody, a free speech right, and harmless spoofery.

The furor might have drawn little more than a public yawn and shrug except for two small points. One is the long, sordid and savage history of racist stereotyping of African-Americans. A few grotesque book titles from a century ago, such as The Negro a Beast, The Negro, a Menace to American Civilization, and the Clansman depicted blacks as apes, monkeys, bestial, and animal like. The image stuck in books, magazines, journals, and deeply colored the thinking of many Americans of that day.

It's true that was a long time ago, and as Mr. Allan intimated in his lame defense of the Post cartoon, no sober person could seriously believe that anyone would liken the president or for that matter any black to a chimp. Unfortunately, a lot still do - including a lot of GOP members, they even released the album containing such "hits" as Obama the 'Magic Negro', thus this cartoon is just a natural continuation.

Second Sean Delonas could so casually and easily depict Obama as a monkey because that image didn't die a century, half century, decade, or even a year ago. In fact, exactly a year ago, Penn State researchers conducted six separate studies and found that many Americans still link blacks with apes and monkeys. Many of them were young, and had absolutely no knowledge of the vicious stereotyping of blacks of years past. Their findings with the provocative title "Not Yet Human: Implicit Knowledge, Historical Dehumanization and Contemporary Consequences," in the February 2008 issue of Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, was published by the American Psychological Association.

The researchers found that participants, and that included even those with no stated prejudices or knowledge of the historical images, were quicker to associate blacks with apes than they were to associate whites with apes.

This was not simply a dry academic exercise. The animal association and blacks has had devastating real life consequences. For example, in hundreds of news stories from 1979 to 1999 the Philadelphia Inquirer was much more likely to describe African Americans than Whites convicted of capital crimes with ape-relevant language, such as "barbaric," "beast," "brute," "savage" and "wild." And jurors in criminal cases were far more likely to judge blacks more harshly than whites, and regard them and their crimes as savage, bestial, and heinous, and slap them with tougher sentences than whites.

The Post cartoon was the complete package. It depicted violence, death, brutality, incitement, and animal like imagery. The topper was the not so subtle inference that the target of the chimp depiction and more was an African-American male, namely President Obama.

In the page preceding a New York Post cartoon that depicts drafters of the stimulus legislation as a gun-downed chimpanzee, the paper published a large photo of Barack Obama signing that very piece of legislation. The succession of the story and cartoon creates a rather jarring visualization.

Criticizing policy, even making fun of the President is one thing. But we mustn't trivialize this issue and have to resist the propaganda that "it is just a cartoon". There's simply too much money in racial trash talk (and cartooning), and too much silence from the higher ups that send a tacit signal condoning it. I am bewildered that anyone would think that this is okay.

[Belgarold]

Well-researched and well-presented post AdrianaAurora, thank you for that.

:-)

[Master Eq]

I have to say, even though I don't agree with everything you said, that has to be the best written response to my question. Thank you very much for your opinion and all of the facts you brought to the table AdrianaAurora.

[Thorne]

I agree with Belgarold and Master Eq. Well done, AdrianaAurora. That told me more than I ever suspected about the situation. It also tells me that my capacity for over-estimating the average American has not diminished. I seem to give people far more credit than they deserve.

I apologize if my comments offended anyone. I did not intend to defend the cartoon, or the cartoonist. I only wanted to point out that it's doubtful there would have been any real problem if persons in positions of authority didn't make such a fuss. Maybe I'm wrong.

For the record, I did not find the cartoon funny, but I also didn't see any hidden racial messages. Others did, I understand that. Put it down to my own naivete.

I guess this is why I don't get along with people.

[Master Eq]

No Thorne, your comments were well put, and I think we are all mature enough to take what one says as their opinion. Thank you everyone for your thoughts and opinions. I'm glad to have found a place where I can express my thoughts and get some positive feedback. Thanks again.

Master Eq

[DuncanONeil]

There have been some internet bullies that have made the Bush facial expressions equate to chimps but never the "media" if that can actually be defined. If I'm wrong about that please show me a link or a quote from a main-stream media source please.

"For several years now, George Bush has been portrayed as a big eared, close-set eyed chimp. Of course some folk were outraged, most however, were amused.

But when an artist uses the headlines (Run-amok Chimp Gunned Down By Police,) to produce a cartoon about the stimulus plan, he is labeled a racist assassination monger."
(http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474977604935)

[DuncanONeil]

The "chimp" part isnt the problem. When I first saw it, the incredulity at what I was seeing caused a small gasp. It was depicting "cops shooting just another n*****", suggesting Obama would be that easy to get rid off. To do so when there have already been arrests of not too bright individuals who owned guns and plotted to kill the President...

They knew what they were doing. Political satyr is one thing, and Obama shouldnt be given a special exemption from it, but this wasnt it. This wasnt a critical commentary, at best it was a disgusting and hypocritical abuse of the freedom of speech.

You do realize that a chimp was actually shot, do you not?

[DuncanONeil]

No one said EVERYBODY saw the cartoon as racist, but it is and had been a common slur to equate blacks with monkeys and chimps and other simians. And for an editor not to see that either means he was totally and ridiculously out of touch or he KNEW that it would be misconstrued that way and did not care.

And besides the racial overtones it could be seen as inciting violence against the president or against other government officials. ANd I am constantly amazed at the capacity for hypocrisy by conservatives and Republicans (I am listening now to Republican Congressman, who wrote the book on earmarks and pork, talking about Obama's Stim bill).

Just one incident here, but there were many others: The Dixie Chicks were vilified and sent DEATH threats by idiots when they had simply stated they were embarassed to be from the same state as Bush. And you would have thought they killed someone.

And now this awful cartoon is seen as not a big deal.

"it is and had been a common slur to equate blacks with monkeys and chimps and other simians." Really!? Not in my life!

[DuncanONeil]

Bullshit! The economy is not dying! Nor is it racist! It is merely political for heavens sake!

[DuncanONeil]

"no sober person could seriously believe that anyone would liken the president or for that matter any black to a chimp. Unfortunately, a lot still do - including a lot of GOP members, they even released the album containing such "hits" as Obama the 'Magic Negro', thus this cartoon is just a natural continuation. "

This is apocryphal, without support! Further the GOP released no such album or song!

[mkemse]

"no sober person could seriously believe that anyone would liken the president or for that matter any black to a chimp. Unfortunately, a lot still do - including a lot of GOP members, they even released the album containing such "hits" as Obama the 'Magic Negro', thus this cartoon is just a natural continuation. "

This is apocryphal, without support! Further the GOP released no such album or song!


And my guess is the longer the GOP does stuff like this, the longer it will take them to regain power in either Congress or the White House
And Micheal Steele, the new RNC National Chairmen siad just last week, that the GOP needs to Change or Adjust it's Platform to be more Current and updated or the GOP will continue to loose elections
And how "ironic" is it, and NO slight is meant bythis that he is chosen after Obama is Inuagrated, and Stelle happens to be Black, first time ever for the RNC just likw the forst time eer for Presdient
To many old time GOPers stil in office who will neevr change their stand on issues

[denuseri]

And my guess is the longer the GOP does stuff like this, the longer it will take them to regain power in either Congress or the White House


Blinks?? what on earth does the GOP have to do with this cartoon? Or the video mentioned earlier for that matter?

[Dr_BuzzCzar]

Blinks?? what on earth does the GOP have to do with this cartoon? Or the video mentioned earlier for that matter?

He's referring to Chip Saltzman while he was a candidate for RNC chairmanship distributing a CD to other Republicans as a Christmas gift with the song "Barack the Magic Negro" on it.

Cite: http://www.wikio.com/video/722831

[moosehunter]

I believe the stimulus bill was mostly written by Nancy Pekosi as Speaker of the House. So perhaps this cartoon was sexist and in bad taste. My question is how can President Obama tell Governors to spend the money wisely and not wastefully when the Congressional Buget Office considers it to be poor bill.

[Dr_BuzzCzar]

"For several years now, George Bush has been portrayed as a big eared, close-set eyed chimp. Of course some folk were outraged, most however, were amused.

But when an artist uses the headlines (Run-amok Chimp Gunned Down By Police,) to produce a cartoon about the stimulus plan, he is labeled a racist assassination monger."
(http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474977604935)

As I said, internet bullies and sophomoric humor sites made the Bush = chimp pictures but to the best of my ability to locate through Google or archive searches, never by any main stream media.

The political cartoon that the Post published was in my opinion a very deliberate attempt to stir up the exact thing we're seeing here, lots and lots of discussion. The Post needs exposure very badly being the much smaller NY paper during a very difficult time for newspapers in general to stay afloat.

[mkemse]

I believe the stimulus bill was mostly written by Nancy Pekosi as Speaker of the House. So perhaps this cartoon was sexist and in bad taste. My question is how can President Obama tell Governors to spend the money wisely and not wastefully when the Congressional Buget Office considers it to be poor bill.

Some epole like the bill others don't
They had s Poll On Monday night and only 56% of those Polled liked the Bill, aftr hisspeach last night the repolled thismoring and the plans poll went up to an 85% approval base on what peole said ws they now know what is going to happen woth the money, thingsare much clearer

The reality is not everyone wil ike it, but in anything in life you will never ever please everyone all the time
And one of the 3 Republicans who supported the Bill said "No I do ont like it, but SOMETHING, ANYTHING right now is better then NOTHING at all

[Dr_BuzzCzar]

I believe the stimulus bill was mostly written by Nancy Pekosi as Speaker of the House. So perhaps this cartoon was sexist and in bad taste. My question is how can President Obama tell Governors to spend the money wisely and not wastefully when the Congressional Buget Office considers it to be poor bill.

The bill was written by staffers based on a compromise between the Senate and House versions.

The CBO did not say it was a bad bill. They said that the stimulus bill designed to have short -term impact would indeed have short-term impact in boosting the economy. What has been twisted by some commentators and politicians to try and make this a negative was a single sentence in the letter to Judd Gregg that said that by 2019 the impact of the additional debt would be to reduce the baseline expected GPD to be reduced by .1% to .3%. According to the Heritage Foundation (a very conservative think tank) based on CBO estimate s the worst case would be that by 2019, GPD would be growing at 2.2% annually instead of the expected 2.5%.

If the Obama administration makes good on even part of their budgetary promises these numbers will change substantially as there would not be the amount of debt calculated by the CBO. Therefore that debt would not squeeze out private investment thereby positively changing the impact on GDP in the out years.

Cite: http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/96xx/doc9619/Gregg.pdf

[mkemse]

Blinks?? what on earth does the GOP have to do with this cartoon? Or the video mentioned earlier for that matter?

Someone mentioned earlier in THIS thread both the videos that the GOP ran on a site, my reply wasto that comment made

[mkemse]

Blinks?? what on earth does the GOP have to do with this cartoon? Or the video mentioned earlier for that matter?

no sober person could seriously believe that anyone would liken the president or for that matter any black to a chimp. Unfortunately, a lot still do - including a lot of GOP members, they even released the album containing such "hits" as Obama the 'Magic Negro', thus this cartoon is just a natural continuation. "

This is apocryphal, without support! Further the GOP released no such album or song!

my post was a rply to this post above by DuncanOneil if you look up highier on this thread, thi page, i replied to his cmments it is 5-6 posts up from ths ne toward the top or midleo f this page

[denuseri]

I have read the whole thread mkemse thanks, I just didnt realize anyone from the gop itself had instigated such a thing in the name of the party or any other offical capacity, and I obviously found the idea that someone would to be kinda silly, it sounded more to me like somthing Rush or one of his pundents would have started.

That being said based on the context of the preceding posts Duncan was answering a post from another member I was asking for more inromation before making my own opinion.

After further reaserch I see the video in question “Barack the Magic Negro” by conservative satirist Paul Shanklin who created it was popularized to some extent by Rush and Saltsman later distributed it to his friends as a Christmass Greeting of all things and the GOP itself as a whole actually had no part in it and shouldnt be villified as such.

Now as for Shanklin, Rush and Saltsman... I only can say shame on all three of them for propogating such racist bull%$#@. They are no better than the people at the Post. But hey they are part of the same media beast that promotes discontent and divsion as a means of lining thier own pockets to the expense of actually following any sense of journalist virtue ironic only if such a thing ever actually existed in any way other than name only.

[Belgarold]

"it is and had been a common slur to equate blacks with monkeys and chimps and other simians." Really!? Not in my life!

Your ignorance of the slur does not mean it hasn't been VERY prevalent. And the "Barack the Magic Negro" incident is NOT apocryphal, it happened. And it cited in this very thread.

And a simple google search found this as the first listing. I could cite more if you would like.
http://www.racialslurs.com/search?q=monkeys&sort=slur

[Belgarold]

And as a follow-on. The racist overtones of the cartoon are disturbing enough, but not a one of the people who have supported this cartoon, talked about the violence it incites.

It condones, in a way, the assassination of political figures.

The cartoon is and was and always will be disgusting.

[mkemse]

I have read the whole thread mkemse thanks, I just didnt realize anyone from the gop itself had instigated such a thing in the name of the party or any other offical capacity, and I obviously found the idea that someone would to be kinda silly, it sounded more to me like somthing Rush or one of his pundents would have started.

That being said based on the context of the preceding posts Duncan was answering a post from another member I was asking for more inromation before making my own opinion.

After further reaserch I see the video in question “Barack the Magic Negro” by conservative satirist Paul Shanklin who created it was popularized to some extent by Rush and Saltsman later distributed it to his friends as a Christmass Greeting of all things and the GOP itself as a whole actually had no part in it and shouldnt be villified as such.

Now as for Shanklin, Rush and Saltsman... I only can say shame on all three of them for propogating such racist bull%$#@. They are no better than the people at the Post. But hey they are part of the same media beast that promotes discontent and divsion as a means of lining thier own pockets to the expense of actually following any sense of journalist virtue ironic only if such a thing ever actually existed in any way other than name only.

OK all i was doing was replyin to his thread, which was question you osted of me in trhis thread thatsss all

[Thorne]

And as a follow-on. The racist overtones of the cartoon are disturbing enough, but not a one of the people who have supported this cartoon, talked about the violence it incites.

It condones, in a way, the assassination of political figures.

The cartoon is and was and always will be disgusting.

Again, I don't see it! Except for the fact that it references the actual occurrence of a chimp having to be shot to protect a human, I just can't see how this promotes violence or the assassination of anyone! Perhaps it says more about the state of mind of those readers who do see such things than about the cartoonist himself. Or perhaps it says more about my state of mind that I don't see it, until it's thrust in my face by the strident voices of those who are more interested in getting their faces on the news than in actually instigating any meaningful dialog. (Not directed at those here, btw. So far all the statements I've read here seem well reasoned and honest. I'm referring more to the likes of Rev. Al Sharpton, and his ilk.)

I'm reminded of a little piece written by Isaac Asimov as an introduction to one of his stories. He was constantly being shown all kinds of treatises on his works and what he was trying to say and the hidden meanings in his works. He said, flat out, that there were no hidden meanings, no secret messages, no grand schemes. He was simply writing stories.

Barring any evidence to the contrary, I'm inclined to assume the same of the cartoonist: he wasn't inciting assassinations, or promoting violence. He was simply drawing a cartoon, drawing attention to two unrelated news topics. Reading anything else into it is simply guesswork.

[mkemse]

And as a follow-on. The racist overtones of the cartoon are disturbing enough, but not a one of the people who have supported this cartoon, talked about the violence it incites.

It condones, in a way, the assassination of political figures.

The cartoon is and was and always will be disgusting.

I agree it simpy was not needed

[Belgarold]

Thorne,

I know you are being honest about not seeing it, your posts have always been respectful disagreement and not inflammatory. And I know sometimes my posts can seem strident. I don't intend that.

Two points: The getting their face in the news, opportunistic posturing cuts both ways. Limbaugh, O'Reilly and the Fox crew, as well as the Editor of the Post, have downplayed this issue and inflated others to ridiculous status.

And second, there are those of us that DO see it and are disturbed by the implications. ANd my worry are the nutjobs out there. For example, the madman that shot up the Unitarian church to kill Liberal Leaders.

If we see it there is some nutjob out there that will see it, and my fear is him acting upon it. And I think if I say or do something that can be misconstrued, whether I mean it or not. I WILL feel obligated to apologize for that. I think a LOT of racism and violence is subconscious these days.

Just my thought on the issue. I truly believe there are people out there waiting for something to justify their insanity to the point of acting on it. And Limbaugh, The Post and any of Murdoch's holdings, have straddled the line in inciting these dangerous folk.

[Thorne]

Thorne,

I know you are being honest about not seeing it, your posts have always been respectful disagreement and not inflammatory. And I know sometimes my posts can seem strident. I don't intend that.
I understand that, and my comment about "strident" voices was not aimed at anyone here at all.


Two points: The getting their face in the news, opportunistic posturing cuts both ways. Limbaugh, O'Reilly and the Fox crew, as well as the Editor of the Post, have downplayed this issue and inflated others to ridiculous status.
I agree with you completely, here. The strident conservatives are no less guilty of this than strident liberals. Both sides are pulling at the same rope in a never ending tug of war, and they all wind up with mud on their faces.


And second, there are those of us that DO see it and are disturbed by the implications. ANd my worry are the nutjobs out there. For example, the madman that shot up the Unitarian church to kill Liberal Leaders.

If we see it there is some nutjob out there that will see it, and my fear is him acting upon it. And I think if I say or do something that can be misconstrued, whether I mean it or not. I WILL feel obligated to apologize for that. I think a LOT of racism and violence is subconscious these days.
I understand your concerns, and the concerns of others here. I think one of my failings is that I don't always see the seamier sides of these issues. I always want to believe that most people tend to think clearly and logically, not letting themselves be swayed by inane rhetoric. Naive, as I've noted before.


Just my thought on the issue. I truly believe there are people out there waiting for something to justify their insanity to the point of acting on it. And Limbaugh, The Post and any of Murdoch's holdings, have straddled the line in inciting these dangerous folk.
That's what they do. How they make their livings. The really sad thing is that there are, apparently, so many who are willing to let these people do their thinking for them. I can never understand how someone could be proud to be called a "dittohead!"

[Belgarold]

Just wanted to say Thorne, sorry for the confusion. I was just recognizing my own ability to get a little strident now and then, not to imply that I felt that you were directing your comments at me. And I agree with all you said. I would like to think that most people are thinking rationally too, but fear it is not always the case.

I apreciate your comments :-)

[DuncanONeil]

And my guess is the longer the GOP does stuff like this, the longer it will take them to regain power in either Congress or the White House
And Micheal Steele, the new RNC National Chairmen siad just last week, that the GOP needs to Change or Adjust it's Platform to be more Current and updated or the GOP will continue to loose elections
And how "ironic" is it, and NO slight is meant bythis that he is chosen after Obama is Inuagrated, and Stelle happens to be Black, first time ever for the RNC just likw the forst time eer for Presdient
To many old time GOPers stil in office who will neevr change their stand on issues

Does stuff like what? Gop change stand on issues? You mean like the Democrats, ahem, "change" their position?

[DuncanONeil]

Polls on this are all over the place from 90% against to 60% in favor. With some numbers in between of 68% against and 37% and 51% in favor. The bigger piece of information is what are the questions asked. Meaning are the people in favor of "a stimulus" or in favor of the reckless manner in which this has been crafted with all its give aways?

[DuncanONeil]

I agree it simpy was not needed

The very same thing can be said of all political cartoons!

[DuncanONeil]

Thorne,

I know you are being honest about not seeing it, your posts have always been respectful disagreement and not inflammatory. And I know sometimes my posts can seem strident. I don't intend that.


Two points: The getting their face in the news, opportunistic posturing cuts both ways. Limbaugh, O'Reilly and the Fox crew, as well as the Editor of the Post, have downplayed this issue and inflated others to ridiculous status.

And second, there are those of us that DO see it and are disturbed by the implications. ANd my worry are the nutjobs out there. For example, the madman that shot up the Unitarian church to kill Liberal Leaders.

If we see it there is some nutjob out there that will see it, and my fear is him acting upon it. And I think if I say or do something that can be misconstrued, whether I mean it or not. I WILL feel obligated to apologize for that. I think a LOT of racism and violence is subconscious these days.

Just my thought on the issue. I truly believe there are people out there waiting for something to justify their insanity to the point of acting on it. And Limbaugh, The Post and any of Murdoch's holdings, have straddled the line in inciting these dangerous folk.

Your comments regarding "nut jobs" is more of the kind of thing that decides that people are not responsible for their own actions. People see what they want to see in any image, or comment. The true facts is that people see in comments and images their own personal understanding of the world rather than that actually presented.

[DuncanONeil]

That's what they do. How they make their livings. The really sad thing is that there are, apparently, so many who are willing to let these people do their thinking for them. I can never understand how someone could be proud to be called a "dittohead!"[/QUOTE]

If that is truely the case how is that more violent action comes from the left side of the spectrum than the right?

[Thorne]

If that is truely the case how is that more violent action comes from the left side of the spectrum than the right?

Who said anything about violent action? I was merely talking about those individuals who seem content to let so-called celebrities (many of whom have criminal records of one sort or another) determine what is right for them. That goes for political topics as well as fashion statements.

[Belgarold]

That's what they do. How they make their livings. The really sad thing is that there are, apparently, so many who are willing to let these people do their thinking for them. I can never understand how someone could be proud to be called a "dittohead!"

If that is truely the case how is that more violent action comes from the left side of the spectrum than the right?[/QUOTE]

And where do you get the information that more violent action comes from the left than the right. Could you please justify your opinions with something like a fact or something.

You seem to wish to be inflammatory and making unjustifiable accusations. We are trying to have a civil discussion here.

[DuncanONeil]

Ok Thorne! Did not come across that way.

[DuncanONeil]

If that is truely the case how is that more violent action comes from the left side of the spectrum than the right?

And where do you get the information that more violent action comes from the left than the right. Could you please justify your opinions with something like a fact or something.

You seem to wish to be inflammatory and making unjustifiable accusations. We are trying to have a civil discussion here.[/QUOTE]

First of all the quote attributed to me is not something I would ever say. I would never use the term "dittohead"

As for violent action from the left, that is a matter of observation.

Why should I bother further to provide you and supportive data when you refuse to do the very same thing. Also when data is provided you simply pretend it is either Whole Cloth or does not exist. Perhaps I should then accuse you of resorting to calling names.

It has become apparent that you are not worth my time nor effort. It appears that you have no inclination to consider anything that does not fit into your preconceived world view.

[Belgarold]

As for violent action from the left, that is a matter of observation.

Why should I bother further to provide you and supportive data when you refuse to do the very same thing. Also when data is provided you simply pretend it is either Whole Cloth or does not exist. Perhaps I should then accuse you of resorting to calling names.

It has become apparent that you are not worth my time nor effort. It appears that you have no inclination to consider anything that does not fit into your preconceived world view.

LOL. Yep, I didn't think you had any support for your position. And I HAVE supported my statements. I just did not support them with evidence that YOU like, so you son't seem to see it. Please stop trying to incite.

I get that you don;t agree with me, but unsubstantiated quotes and incitements do not change my opinion. THorne and the others in this thread are having a fairly civil debate. I am going to try to say this respectfully. You do not seem capable of doing so. Instead of providing support for what amount to opinions you turn around and want to "take your ball and go home." That is fine. But do NOT suppose that makes you right. You should read your last paragraph and apply it to yourself. You have a view that you cannot substantiate and I don't agree with you. BUt you take that as a personal affront.

I don't agree with Thorne on everything. But I respect him and will listen to him and we may not change each other's opinions but we will still, hopefully, respect each other.

AND the quote is NOT yours. It was from Thorne, and I disrespected him by attributing it to you, it was an editing error. I apologize to Thorne and you.

[Dr_BuzzCzar]

As for violent action from the left, that is a matter of observation.

Why should I bother further to provide you and supportive data when you refuse to do the very same thing.

Just for fun let's take the U.S. over the last 50 years.

Here's a few that I recall.

Right-Wing Extremist Violence:
Murder of Emmit Till
Attack on peaceful lunch counter sit-ins in NC, GA, MS.
Murder of Medgar Evers
Fire bombing of black churches in MS, AL, GA by KKK
Attacks on "Freedom Riders" (volunteers registering blacks to vote in the south.
Birmingham, Ala., Commissioner of Public Safety Eugene "Bull" Connor uses fire hoses and police dogs on peaceful black demonstrators.
Murder of Four young girls (Denise McNair, Cynthia Wesley, Carole Robertson, and Addie Mae Collins) attending Sunday school.
James E. Chaney, 21; Andrew Goodman, 21; and Michael Schwerner, 24, had been working to register black voters in Mississippi and were murdered.
Selma, AL - Fifty non-violent marchers are hospitalized after police use tear gas, whips, and clubs against them.
Martin Luther King is murdered.

In the U.S., violence directed toward abortion providers has killed at least 7 people, including 3 doctors, 2 clinic employees, a security guard, and a clinic escort.

According to statistics gathered by the National Abortion Federation (NAF), an organization of abortion providers, since 1977 there have been 17 attempted murders, 383 death threats, 153 incidents of assault or battery, and 3 kidnappings committed against abortion providers.

Bombing of Murrah Federal building claimed 168 lives and left over 800 people injured.

Cites:
http://www.factmonster.com/spot/civilrightstimeline1.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-abortion_violence
http://www2.indystar.com/library/factfiles/crime/national/1995/oklahoma_city_bombing/ok.html

[Belgarold]

Thanks Dr. BuzzCzar. You embarrass me for my laziness in not finding these. Great work. Thank you for your post.

[Belgarold]

And even though Bush was destroying this country I heard of no one proposing violence. But during the campaign, assassination and violence was implied against Obama a few times. And even more recently Alan Keyes has said, "Something must be done about Obama." Implying something violent. "Joe the Plumber" was implying proposing using the military against Congressmen and women, maybe it was in jest. But that stuff 'ain't funny.'

Now the good Dr's post was well-cited. But this is like your, uh, support. observation. Who have you seen on the left proposing violence? I truly would like to know.

[DuncanONeil]

"LOL. Yep, I didn't think you had any support for your position."

Bull hockey. I gave you facts and figures and you just said they were fake. Didn't show they were fake, just said they were. Anytime I gave you anything you did not like you just pretended it did not exist. You claim you support your position but all you have is sound bites. The inability to engage in a reasoned debate is why you have been cut off not the inability on one of us to engage!

[DuncanONeil]

Ok then you want to accept radical personages that have attacked either specific individuals or entities and ascribe all of that to the entire conservative spectrum?
There are over the top radicals in every grouping. Timothy McVeigh does not speak for me as I presume Greenpeace trying to sink a ship at sea does not speak for you. This I hold true in all cases; Hamas, hezbollah, and al Queada do not speak for the Arab that owns a business here in my town.
That being said many actions taken by the "radical" right, "radical" left, "radical" environmentalist, and "radical" Islamists are wrong actions.

[Belgarold]

"LOL. Yep, I didn't think you had any support for your position."

Bull hockey. I gave you facts and figures and you just said they were fake. Didn't show they were fake, just said they were. Anytime I gave you anything you did not like you just pretended it did not exist. You claim you support your position but all you have is sound bites. The inability to engage in a reasoned debate is why you have been cut off not the inability on one of us to engage!

Okay a few things:

When have I been 'cut off'?

Please show me your posts that showed facts and figures, if I missed them I would like to see them and I will apologize.

And where have I ignored these facts. Again, if I have done as you said, I will apologize.

Now I will admit Dr. BuzzCzar was VERY complete in his citations and I have, admittedly been lazier and just noted a few incidents, but they are NOT just 'sound bites.' And I truthfully cannot see any facts, any citations to support your views. I would love to see them, if you have.

Now I am going to try not to get into a baseless argument with you (I think I am already too deep into that area now) but I AM having a reasoned argument with others.

Please explain your accusations.

[Dr_BuzzCzar]

Ok then you want to accept radical personages that have attacked either specific individuals or entities and ascribe all of that to the entire conservative spectrum?
There are over the top radicals in every grouping. Timothy McVeigh does not speak for me as I presume Greenpeace trying to sink a ship at sea does not speak for you. This I hold true in all cases; Hamas, hezbollah, and al Queada do not speak for the Arab that owns a business here in my town.
That being said many actions taken by the "radical" right, "radical" left, "radical" environmentalist, and "radical" Islamists are wrong actions.

Your original point was that there was more violence from the left side of the political spectrum than from the right. You asked for specifics and proof. I gave you some actions that can be charged to right wing extremists. Since you seemed sure of your point I was expecting a similar list of violence perpetuated by left-wing extremists. To me any violent action by either side would be wrong and has no place in political efforts. I was simply giving you what you asked for as I don't agree with your premise regarding violent acts. In my admittedly less than humble opinion you're wrong and I think the facts back me up.

[Dr_BuzzCzar]

Thanks Dr. BuzzCzar. You embarrass me for my laziness in not finding these. Great work. Thank you for your post.

I left out what was done to union organizers and members, AIM (native Americans), The Orangeburg Massacre, Kent State, etc etc. The list is much longer once you start thinking about it. There's been violence from the left as well, although I believe it to be much less than the reactionary right has perpetrated.

Thank you.

[DuncanONeil]

It appears that the facts I had in mind are largely in another thread but these were included in this one.
" DuncanONeil
Registered User

Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 65
Thanks: 3
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

Polls on this are all over the place from 90% against to 60% in favor. With some numbers in between of 68% against and 37% and 51% in favor. The bigger piece of information is what are the questions asked. Meaning are the people in favor of "a stimulus" or in favor of the reckless manner in which this has been crafted with all its give aways? "

[DuncanONeil]

Greenpeace actions at sea!

[DuncanONeil]

"much less than the reactionary right has perpetrated."

And here you make my point that violence comes from small extremist fringe. But you choose to use that to paint with a much larger brush.

[Dr_BuzzCzar]

"much less than the reactionary right has perpetrated."

And here you make my point that violence comes from small extremist fringe. But you choose to use that to paint with a much larger brush.

No, I don't make your point. You are simply trying to change the point to something that can be defended. Your original point was there was more violence from the left than the right. I listed violence from the right, you've done nothing to back up your assertion. I will take that lack of response as proof you are wrong and accept your apology.

[steelish]

Bummer. My original reactive post to this thread was wiped out in the library crash. So...here is a re-post, although I don't think I will remember word for word what I originally said. (It will be very similar though, my thoughts on the matter have not changed).


Does it matter what the intent of the cartoonist is? If his/her intent was to imply racism, then everyone who reacts in that manner has lent weight to the cartoonist's work. The way we react is what matters.

For myself, the reaction was that an idiot wrote the stimulus package (which I agree with). My thought was of intelligence and common sense, NOT race.

Oh, and btw - Obama wasn't the one who wrote the stimulus package!