The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
Interpretation, Plausible Denial and racially loaded imagery (NYPost cartoon)
PantsB
Fake Thomas JeffersonRegistered User regular
Fake Thomas JeffersonRegistered User regular
Since its pretty far off the stimulus path ...
Now to me two police officers shooting a monkey (or chimp) and commenting that this monkey wrote the current stimulus bill is beyond racially loaded. I don't think one can plausibly claim the cartoonist wasn't making a racial reference (ie that black people = monkeys, a traditional racist slur) when explicitly saying the author of the stimulus bill, the US's first black President, was a monkey.
Given the nation's and NYC's history of police officers shooting African Americans in cold blood, this imagery is only strengthened.
The cartoonist, who has a history of cartoons that have been called racially tinged and/or bigoted in general, claims he was simply referencing a story where a pet chimp was shot by police after it attack its owners. The connection of this event to the stimulus bill seems beyond tenuous.
So does someone have to come out and explicitly say "Blacks are X" to be considered racist? Or is the thinnest veneer of plausible deniability enough? Or is it "I know it when I see it"?
In my opinion, the cartoonist can't reasonably claim he was not trying to make a racial statement either as a reflection of his own beliefs or to stir up controversy. Either way IMO he should be fired and the editor should be severely reprimanded at the least.
This is the cartoon in question.On a somewhat on-topic note, have people heard about the clever editorial cartoon in NY Post today? And by clever I mean how the fuck could anyone possibly think that was okay in any way?
That's honestly one of the most racist political cartoons I've ever seen and that includes Civil War era cartoons
dot dot dot
If the intention was honestly chimp = black man hur, then yes, it is very racist.
I think it very unlikely that was the intention.
We may disagree.
Though we probably shouldn't do it in here, since it's not really stimulus-related.
Now to me two police officers shooting a monkey (or chimp) and commenting that this monkey wrote the current stimulus bill is beyond racially loaded. I don't think one can plausibly claim the cartoonist wasn't making a racial reference (ie that black people = monkeys, a traditional racist slur) when explicitly saying the author of the stimulus bill, the US's first black President, was a monkey.
Given the nation's and NYC's history of police officers shooting African Americans in cold blood, this imagery is only strengthened.
The cartoonist, who has a history of cartoons that have been called racially tinged and/or bigoted in general, claims he was simply referencing a story where a pet chimp was shot by police after it attack its owners. The connection of this event to the stimulus bill seems beyond tenuous.
So does someone have to come out and explicitly say "Blacks are X" to be considered racist? Or is the thinnest veneer of plausible deniability enough? Or is it "I know it when I see it"?
In my opinion, the cartoonist can't reasonably claim he was not trying to make a racial statement either as a reflection of his own beliefs or to stir up controversy. Either way IMO he should be fired and the editor should be severely reprimanded at the least.
PantsB on
0
Posts
Not just Obama.
People just like looking for racism because it's an easy way to push their agendas.
I just looked at it and thought "wow, that is a dumb comic."
Even if it is racist, though, well, there's free speech and freedom of the press. I'm not a fan of bigots, but we have to allow them their soapboxes as well if we want to have ours.
I WILL get behind this statement.
There's no way that the cartoonist couldn't have realized that it could be taken this way. Either he intended it this way, or he simply didn't care. Either way, he's an ass.
But he's still an ass with the right to express himself.
Huh. Where does he find the time.
I keep wanting to assume it's a "Million Monkeys on a Million Typewriters" thing.
Except it's one monkey
he does often use racist themes (after looking back a month at the cartoons)
hes not really that funny, i did kinda smirk at this one.
When NJ started to allow same sex civil unions
When NYC decided to launch an Arab-themed school (they have other similar themed public schools for gays, Jews and other groups
Midterm elections
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
Agreed.
He MAY not have been trying to be explicitely racist. But you'd have to be pretty dumb not to see the obvious racial context that can be drawn from it.
"Monkey" has taken on a more neutral meaning in the past few decades. I've heard people use it to describe both people doing menial work (register monkey) or idiotic people in general (those monkeys in Washington). I'd like to think that the cartoonist was making the point that the stimulus bill was so poorly constructed that a monkey could have done it, but it also seems odd that a political cartoonist wouldn't be aware of the racial connotations.
My verdict: Not intentional, but the cartoonist is an idiot. Also, it's not a funny cartoon.
You just described 99.9 percent of all political cartoons. Political cartoons need to die.
To me, he took a fantastic news story (cops shooting an ape? bizarre) and used it as a backdrop to criticize the stimulus bill as being incoherent or poorly thought out, as you might expect from a monkey.
edit: Also, not witty or funny
I'd say we'd have to go to that one poster's comment that says "any sufficiently advanced ignorance is indistinguishable from malice" and see if it applies here. It doesn't really matter if he was being a racist or not, although he clearly is against arabs, he's a moron and I'm not sure why he has a job making cartoons that are supposed to be witty.
This.
Really, I can't see what the joke would be, except to use the racist connotations. Either he's calling the President a monkey or... not sure what.
That said, First Amendment, blah blah. This guy can draw racist comics all the live long day for all I care. If people are offended by it, then it's the NYPost's problem for printing it, they'll probably lose business.
How more overt can you get than calling him a monkey? Does he have to be chucking spears in tribal garb? Does the cartoonist just have to write <word we can't say on PA> over and over as his cartoon before its overt?
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
Of course, looking at his other work, it seems that though my interpretation is non-retarded, the cartoonist apparently isn't.
He would probably need to be a lot more explicit that the monkey is Obama for one ...
If you ever need to talk to someone, feel free to message me. Yes, that includes you.
It's not even apparent he was specifically referencing Obama, since it's not like Obama single-handedly wrote the thing. That said, his track record with racist overtones (though they've previously been limited to arab = terrorist) kills some of his benefit of the doubt.
Stimulous bill = written by Obama
Obama = black
Black = monkey
Shot dead by police for no reason = black
Maybe if the paper the day before had headlines involving monkeys that had nothing to do with blacks I would make some other connection and find it funny, but for me this is racist, tasteless, unfunny and unacceptable.
Historical connections/comparison/uses for certain words are not forgotten as easily as you might think, it's the whole reason some people object to being called negro, or black.
+
"This thing is so dumb it could've been written by a bunch of monkeys."
That is what I immediately thought of when I read it. Obama didn't write the stimulus bill. There are hundreds of comics depicting Bush as a monkey. To those taking umbrage at this, you are the reason there is an argument against political correctness.
I don't really see how it could be interpreted otherwise to be honest. I know that years of assholes like Sharpton Crying Wolf has made people resistant to making these judgments but you've got a cartoonist who had painted Obama as the founder of the stimulus less than a week before
I mean to mention this as well. I initially didn't even remember the story about the chimpanzee, my first thought was to two cops shooting an unarmed black guy
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
So does that make Bush the second Black president, after Clinton? I always thought he was a white man from Texas, color me surprised.
Since apparently "noticing blatant racist imagery" is your definition of "political correctness," I would like to thank you for the compliment. Our services are provided for free, you are very welcome.
Yeah, I thought of it along the 'million monkeys on a million typewriters' route rather than 'our President's a black and those people are monkeys' vibe.
That said, I still find it offensive. Just not as someone who disdains racism (which I do) but as someone who enjoys comedy. Hey, douchebag cartoonist? You're doing it wrong.
How can you not find this HI-LARIOUS!?
If you don't lol at the cartoon clearly the libruls have been influencing you with their nefarious political correctness.