I think you're the first. I just skimmed the wiki on his death. How does his case help us answer the question of whether and to what degree the comic in the OP has a racist message?
Ok it's time to stop this stupid argument. Honestly. If the monkey is intended to be Obama it is nigh impossible to deny the racial overtones present in the comic. Any sane person would grant this. Your argument that the monkey does indeed represent Obama is specious
Which is why I linked to the page immediately adjacent to the cartoon (full page article with a huge headline directly calling it Obama's plan) and the cartoonists work from the previous week that explicitly indicate Obama as the source of the stimulus.
It has nothing to do with the comic actually and everything to do with the fact that this has been corrected several times and yet PEOPLE STILL GET IT WRONG.
NERDRAGE!!!
Its both irrelevant to the discussion and consistent with the informal usage of "monkey."
I think you're the first. I just skimmed the wiki on his death. How does his case help us answer the question of whether and to what degree the comic in the OP has a racist message?
The history of police shooting unarmed black men was one of the first things that sprang to my mind.
Did anyone point out that the "Million monkeys at a million typewriters" reference would indicate that the stimulus bill was good? Since the million monkeys are supposed to eventually retype Hamlet? Like, Million Monkeys at typewriters is that with complete randomness and lack of understanding eventually things would line up and make a brilliant work of literature.
So I doubt that was the intent.
Also when I saw this I was appalled at the racism. I still don't really see how anyone can say that there's clearly no at least racially insensitive overtone, even if the cartoonist was just a colossal retard and has no idea what visual symbols can mean and didn't intend it.
Also when I saw this I was appalled at the racism. I still don't really see how anyone can say that there's clearly no at least racially insensitive overtone, even if the cartoonist was just a colossal retard and has no idea what visual symbols can mean and didn't intend it.
I think you're the first. I just skimmed the wiki on his death. How does his case help us answer the question of whether and to what degree the comic in the OP has a racist message?
The history of police shooting unarmed black men was one of the first things that sprang to my mind.
Yeah, that was one of my first thoughts too, but I didn't really mention it since this is apparently based off an actual monkey shooting.
My second thought was 'he was holding a banana, it looked like a gun!' and then was disappointed when there wasn't a banana in the cartoon.
Did anyone point out that the "Million monkeys at a million typewriters" reference would indicate that the stimulus bill was good? Since the million monkeys are supposed to eventually retype Hamlet? Like, Million Monkeys at typewriters is that with complete randomness and lack of understanding eventually things would line up and make a brilliant work of literature.
You're misconstruing that metaphor. It's actually a criticism of literature itself, in a sense, saying that given infinite opportunity, anything can happen, so nothing is really all that special.
You're misconstruing that metaphor. It's actually a criticism of literature itself, in a sense, saying that given infinite opportunity, anything can happen, so nothing is really all that special.
No that's really really wrong. You're not even in the correct hemisphere.
You're misconstruing that metaphor. It's actually a criticism of literature itself, in a sense, saying that given infinite opportunity, anything can happen, so nothing is really all that special.
No that's really really wrong. You're not even in the correct hemisphere.
You're misconstruing that metaphor. It's actually a criticism of literature itself, in a sense, saying that given infinite opportunity, anything can happen, so nothing is really all that special.
No that's really really wrong. You're not even in the correct hemisphere.
I may have been exagerating a bit.
The fact is, though, that the infinite monkeys parable is a commentary on probability, and NOT a compliment towards monkeys. For the parable to have the most impact, it needs to be taken as a given that monkeys are dumb creatures.
The point of the parable being that, through simply random keystrokes made by an infinite number of monkeys on typewriters, given infinite time, those key strokes will come out in the exact order of the complete works of shakespeare at some point. This occurs simply because, on an infinite timeleine, anything that is at all possible will happen, and it is possible, though insanely improbably, for a monkey banging on a typewriter to, by shear chance, hit the exact keys that would type out the works of the bard.
The history of police shooting unarmed black men was one of the first things that sprang to my mind.
But wouldn't that be a criticism of police, then?
Only if shooting black people is bad, which portraying one as a monkey (or APE) would suggest is not actually the POV being expressed.
Do you realize how many conclusions you are jumping to in pursuit of your accusations?
In no particular order:
the monkey is meant to represent black people
the moneky is specifically supposed to be obama
the writer advocates police killing unarmed black people
There may be more, but I'm just having trouble wrapping my mind around how you can honesly believe all of this to be ABSOLUTE truth, without any evidence outside of the comic itself. There is definitely a possibility of some or all of these things being true, but there is no hard evidence for any of them, and that last one, there's really NOTHING suggesting that, other than the fact that it fits with what you WANT the comic to mean.
You're misconstruing that metaphor. It's actually a criticism of literature itself, in a sense, saying that given infinite opportunity, anything can happen, so nothing is really all that special.
No that's really really wrong. You're not even in the correct hemisphere.
Yes he is.
No he isn't. The expression regards the problems regarding limits to infinity and probability. It has almost nothing to do with literature.
You're misconstruing that metaphor. It's actually a criticism of literature itself, in a sense, saying that given infinite opportunity, anything can happen, so nothing is really all that special.
No that's really really wrong. You're not even in the correct hemisphere.
I may have been exagerating a bit.
The fact is, though, that the infinite monkeys parable is a commentary on probability, and NOT a compliment towards monkeys. For the parable to have the most impact, it needs to be taken as a given that monkeys are dumb creatures.
The point of the parable being that, through simply random keystrokes made by an infinite number of monkeys on typewriters, given infinite time, those key strokes will come out in the exact order of the complete works of shakespeare at some point. This occurs simply because, on an infinite timeleine, anything that is at all possible will happen, and it is possible, though insanely improbably, for a monkey banging on a typewriter to, by shear chance, hit the exact keys that would type out the works of the bard.
The monkey is still the same dumb monkey, though.
Yes.
But it's not saying that Hamlet is just some dumb random shit.
But the comment was on the stimulus bill, the work of the monkeys, if we're assuming it's a "million monkeys" thing. So the monkey would still be the same monkey, but it would be still a support of the bill.
The idea isn't that the stimulus is on par with hamlet.
The idea is the PREMISE of that story, which is that a monkey at a typewriter produces completely random results. In this sense, he is saying that the stimulus plan is "so poorly written, they may as well have set a monkey at a typewriter."
The idea isn't that the stimulus is on par with hamlet.
The idea is the PREMISE of that story, which is that a monkey at a typewriter produces completely random results. In this sense, he is saying that the stimulus plan is "so poorly written, they may as well have set a monkey at a typewriter."
Except there's no typewriter, or really any good reason to associate the face-mauling chimp with the stimulus bill. Honestly, jumping to the conclusion that this cartoon was a reference to a million monkeys typing up Shakespeare is somewhat less plausible than jumping to the conclusion that the dead chimp represents Obama. The cartoon was so vague about what it was going for that the confusion and recrimination was probably inevitable.
The idea isn't that the stimulus is on par with hamlet.
The idea is the PREMISE of that story, which is that a monkey at a typewriter produces completely random results. In this sense, he is saying that the stimulus plan is "so poorly written, they may as well have set a monkey at a typewriter."
Except there's no typewriter, or really any good reason to associate the face-mauling chimp with the stimulus bill. Honestly, jumping to the conclusion that this cartoon was a reference to a million monkeys typing up Shakespeare is somewhat less plausible than jumping to the conclusion that the dead chimp represents Obama. The cartoon was so vague about what it was going for that the confusion and recrimination was probably inevitable.
I think the problem here, even before we address racism or the content involved, is that it is a shitty cartoon, and terribly composed.
The idea isn't that the stimulus is on par with hamlet.
The idea is the PREMISE of that story, which is that a monkey at a typewriter produces completely random results. In this sense, he is saying that the stimulus plan is "so poorly written, they may as well have set a monkey at a typewriter."
Except there's no typewriter, or really any good reason to associate the face-mauling chimp with the stimulus bill. Honestly, jumping to the conclusion that this cartoon was a reference to a million monkeys typing up Shakespeare is somewhat less plausible than jumping to the conclusion that the dead chimp represents Obama. The cartoon was so vague about what it was going for that the confusion and recrimination was probably inevitable.
A monkey having written anything is an old and common symbolic device. Anyone who refuses to see that could be at play here is only seeing what they want to at this point.
I'm not saying that's what it IS, I'm saying that it is a possibility.
I didn't see the racism at all. Are people aware of the "news event" where a woman's pet monkey escaped? Eventually the cops had to shoot it. The cartoon links that story to the stimulus bill. It's essentially saying the stimulus bill is so stupid, a monkey probably wrote it. Like I said, it's just linking two news stories.
I'm willing to be a lot of people who think its racist are not familiar with the other event the cartoon is referencing.
I can see the artists intent, and it doesn't appear to be racist. I'm surprised any editor let the cartoon go to print, though. You would think they would err on the side of caution.
I didn't see the racism at all. Are people aware of the "news event" where a woman's pet monkey escaped? Eventually the cops had to shoot it. The cartoon links that story to the stimulus bill. It's essentially saying the stimulus bill is so stupid, a monkey probably wrote it. Like I said, it's just linking two news stories.
I'm willing to be a lot of people who think its racist are not familiar with the other event the cartoon is referencing.
It doesn't really matter what the intent was, though. An editior should have seen the possible links to racism in the cartoon and yanked it. It was very poor judgment, or negligence, to let it go to print.
I didn't see the racism at all. Are people aware of the "news event" where a woman's pet monkey escaped? Eventually the cops had to shoot it. The cartoon links that story to the stimulus bill. It's essentially saying the stimulus bill is so stupid, a monkey probably wrote it. Like I said, it's just linking two news stories.
I'm willing to be a lot of people who think its racist are not familiar with the other event the cartoon is referencing.
It doesn't really matter what the intent was, though. An editior should have seen the possible links to racism in the cartoon and yanked it. It was very poor judgment, or negligence, to let it go to print.
That's certainly a fair statement, and one I won't disagree with. But I still find it very unlikely that this was intentionally or subconciously racist.
I can see the artists intent, and it doesn't appear to be racist. I'm surprised any editor let the cartoon go to print, though. You would think they would err on the side of caution.
I can see the artists intent, and it doesn't appear to be racist. I'm surprised any editor let the cartoon go to print, though. You would think they would err on the side of caution.
We're talking about the New York Post here.
And what strikes me as odd as people aren't really looking at the artist, Sean Delonas, and his previous work.
Take a gander (fair warning, this collection IS from Gawker):
Guy clearly has no love for the gays, or the brown-skinned folks, or women who have the nerve to not like him. Let me make this blunt: Sean Delonas is a bigot, and knew damn well what he was doing when he drew that "shooting the chimp" comic.
I can see the artists intent, and it doesn't appear to be racist. I'm surprised any editor let the cartoon go to print, though. You would think they would err on the side of caution.
We're talking about the New York Post here.
And what strikes me as odd as people aren't really looking at the artist, Sean Delonas, and his previous work.
Take a gander (fair warning, this collection IS from Gawker):
Guy clearly has no love for the gays, or the brown-skinned folks, or women who have the nerve to not like him. Let me make this blunt: Sean Delonas is a bigot, and knew damn well what he was doing when he drew that "shooting the chimp" comic.
we've looked through his previous work.
and while I will agree that he is a bigot, he also hasn't seemed to be interested in hiding it in the past. His characterizations of Arabs are about as blunt as possible.
Why would one man be so obvious on all other groups (comparing Gays to dudes wanting to marry their sheep) and then try to hide an attack on Blacks?
Honestly, what I really think happened here is that he wrote the comic, realized after the fact that it might be taken as racist, and then decided that he didn't care if it was. If his INTENT had been racism, I think it would have gone further. He would have at least stuck the Obama "O" on the chimp.
Wouldn't it be fun if he actually wasn't trying to be racist here, but realized after it was too late that it could be construed that way, and failed to stop the presses despite a mad dash across NYC? I wish that I could somehow verify this so that I could laugh at him, Nelson style.
I can see the artists intent, and it doesn't appear to be racist. I'm surprised any editor let the cartoon go to print, though. You would think they would err on the side of caution.
We're talking about the New York Post here.
And what strikes me as odd as people aren't really looking at the artist, Sean Delonas, and his previous work.
Take a gander (fair warning, this collection IS from Gawker):
Guy clearly has no love for the gays, or the brown-skinned folks, or women who have the nerve to not like him. Let me make this blunt: Sean Delonas is a bigot, and knew damn well what he was doing when he drew that "shooting the chimp" comic.
we've looked through his previous work.
and while I will agree that he is a bigot, he also hasn't seemed to be interested in hiding it in the past. His characterizations of Arabs are about as blunt as possible.
Why would one man be so obvious on all other groups (comparing Gays to dudes wanting to marry their sheep) and then try to hide an attack on Blacks?
Honestly, what I really think happened here is that he wrote the comic, realized after the fact that it might be taken as racist, and then decided that he didn't care if it was. If his INTENT had been racism, I think it would have gone further. He would have at least stuck the Obama "O" on the chimp.
What if he's secretly a cyborg from the future sent back in time to slowly weaken our resolve and cause racial strife to aid in the robot takeover of the future?
If "I didn't mean it that way!" is plausible deniability, there's no way to prove intent. Your defense of his cartoon could be applied to any activity. "I didn't realize that lynches and burning crosses were symbols of racism, you're just being paranoid and accusing everyone of racism any chance you get!"
The comic is heavily mired in racist imagery. Perhaps the cartoonist used it intentionally, perhaps he used it unintentionally after having been exposed to similar images throughout his life, unaware on how they would form his thoughts, and perhaps he's just completely oblivious to the history of racist imagery in America.
Those are all possibilities. Aaaaand for the record I give a flying fuck all which it is.
The guy SHOULD HAVE known. His job is to use images to represent ideas in a political context, knowledge of American history, imagery, and symbolism is a pre-fucking-requisite for the job. Maybe he knew, maybe he didn't, but he SHOULD HAVE, and I don't really see much merit in arguing whether he's an ignorant douche who accidentally stumbled across racist imagery or a racist douche who ignorantly stumbled across racist imagery.
And, as far as public opinion goes, hypersensitive nutcases who cry racism at stuff like this only serve to feed the eyerollers who scoff at actual racism.
I like that there's a barometer for whether something is racist enough. If it's not high enough on the racist-ometer, you should just shut up and let it be, because really the problem is with people being offended by the racism, not the racism itself.
My assertion is that it's not racist at all. Not even a little. I even threw in a note that people who think it is racist are nutcases, also known as tardbags. As far as the barometer goes, there's just nothing there at all.
RACISM LOLZ:
and take note of how much of an actual comparison this is, as opposed to that dollar bill Illuminati bullshit people are trying to pull in here
How is that racist? Obama did not write the stimulus bill, that's not even his job. His job is just to sign it and endorse it, and try and get members of congress on his party's side.
The comic is calling congress a bunch of monkies or chimps or whatever that is in the comic.
This comic could be there regardless of who the current president happened to be. As it's not about the president.
I understand how people could see racism in it though. But people should take a step back, and realize that it is not.
There's a theory that Anne Coulter is so ridiculous that she's actually engaged in a decades-long piece of performance art (and also trying to raking in truck loads of money).
Some of this guy's comics are so over the top, I wonder if he's trying to lampoon the opinions that they communicate on their face. If that's his intent, he's not doing it very well.
And a note about whether the editors should have pulled it. Political cartoonists enjoy and unparalleled amount of latitude on what they print, in the US at least. For better or worse they traditionally free to write whatever they want as long as it doesn't violate the paper's obscenity standards. That obviously works better in some cases than others.
And, as far as public opinion goes, hypersensitive nutcases who cry racism at stuff like this only serve to feed the eyerollers who scoff at actual racism.
I like that there's a barometer for whether something is racist enough. If it's not high enough on the racist-ometer, you should just shut up and let it be, because really the problem is with people being offended by the racism, not the racism itself.
My assertion is that it's not racist at all. Not even a little. I even threw in a note that people who think it is racist are nutcases, also known as tardbags. As far as the barometer goes, there's just nothing there at all.
RACISM LOLZ:
and take note of how much of an actual comparison this is, as opposed to that dollar bill Illuminati bullshit people are trying to pull in here
Did Obama write the Stimulus bill? No, but he's the public face of it. It is viewed as his bill and he is viewed as the "writer" of said bill. So, when a cartoonist says the writer of the bill is a chimp, there is a very good reason to believe that he was making an Obama=chimp connection rather than a congress=chimp connection.
As someone who has lived with a racist most of my life (my father), the first thing I thought was "That's racist as fuck." It's a joke my father would have made if he didn't like Obama. Also, judging by the cartoonist's other works, yeah, I'm going with "racist as fuck."
Wednesday's Page Six cartoon - caricaturing Monday's police shooting of a chimpanzee in Connecticut - has created considerable controversy.
It shows two police officers standing over the chimp's body: "They'll have to find someone else to write the next stimulus bill," one officer says.
It was meant to mock an ineptly written federal stimulus bill.
Period.
But it has been taken as something else - as a depiction of President Obama, as a thinly veiled expression of racism.
This most certainly was not its intent; to those who were offended by the image, we apologize.
However, there are some in the media and in public life who have had differences with The Post in the past - and they see the incident as an opportunity for payback.
To them, no apology is due.
Sometimes a cartoon is just a cartoon - even as the opportunists seek to make it something else.
Wednesday's Page Six cartoon - caricaturing Monday's police shooting of a chimpanzee in Connecticut - has created considerable controversy.
It shows two police officers standing over the chimp's body: "They'll have to find someone else to write the next stimulus bill," one officer says.
It was meant to mock an ineptly written federal stimulus bill.
Period.
But it has been taken as something else - as a depiction of President Obama, as a thinly veiled expression of racism.
This most certainly was not its intent; to those who were offended by the image, we apologize.
However, there are some in the media and in public life who have had differences with The Post in the past - and they see the incident as an opportunity for payback.
To them, no apology is due.
Sometimes a cartoon is just a cartoon - even as the opportunists seek to make it something else.
I was willing to give the guy the benefit of the doubt until I saw those other comics someone posted in the thread.
Yeah, same here. At first sight it was possibly questionable, but looking at other work the guys done? Guys a straight up cartoon caricature of a bigot. There's no question what his intention was.
Posts
I think you're the first. I just skimmed the wiki on his death. How does his case help us answer the question of whether and to what degree the comic in the OP has a racist message?
Which is why I linked to the page immediately adjacent to the cartoon (full page article with a huge headline directly calling it Obama's plan) and the cartoonists work from the previous week that explicitly indicate Obama as the source of the stimulus.
Not explicitly but to the history of similar incidents.
Its both irrelevant to the discussion and consistent with the informal usage of "monkey."
ed
The history of police shooting unarmed black men was one of the first things that sprang to my mind.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
Did anyone point out that the "Million monkeys at a million typewriters" reference would indicate that the stimulus bill was good? Since the million monkeys are supposed to eventually retype Hamlet? Like, Million Monkeys at typewriters is that with complete randomness and lack of understanding eventually things would line up and make a brilliant work of literature.
So I doubt that was the intent.
Also when I saw this I was appalled at the racism. I still don't really see how anyone can say that there's clearly no at least racially insensitive overtone, even if the cartoonist was just a colossal retard and has no idea what visual symbols can mean and didn't intend it.
Seeing how no one has said it...
Yeah, that was one of my first thoughts too, but I didn't really mention it since this is apparently based off an actual monkey shooting.
My second thought was 'he was holding a banana, it looked like a gun!' and then was disappointed when there wasn't a banana in the cartoon.
But wouldn't that be a criticism of police, then?
You're misconstruing that metaphor. It's actually a criticism of literature itself, in a sense, saying that given infinite opportunity, anything can happen, so nothing is really all that special.
Only if shooting black people is bad, which portraying one as a monkey (or APE) would suggest is not actually the POV being expressed.
No that's really really wrong. You're not even in the correct hemisphere.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
Yes he is.
I may have been exagerating a bit.
The fact is, though, that the infinite monkeys parable is a commentary on probability, and NOT a compliment towards monkeys. For the parable to have the most impact, it needs to be taken as a given that monkeys are dumb creatures.
The point of the parable being that, through simply random keystrokes made by an infinite number of monkeys on typewriters, given infinite time, those key strokes will come out in the exact order of the complete works of shakespeare at some point. This occurs simply because, on an infinite timeleine, anything that is at all possible will happen, and it is possible, though insanely improbably, for a monkey banging on a typewriter to, by shear chance, hit the exact keys that would type out the works of the bard.
The monkey is still the same dumb monkey, though.
Do you realize how many conclusions you are jumping to in pursuit of your accusations?
In no particular order:
There may be more, but I'm just having trouble wrapping my mind around how you can honesly believe all of this to be ABSOLUTE truth, without any evidence outside of the comic itself. There is definitely a possibility of some or all of these things being true, but there is no hard evidence for any of them, and that last one, there's really NOTHING suggesting that, other than the fact that it fits with what you WANT the comic to mean.
No he isn't. The expression regards the problems regarding limits to infinity and probability. It has almost nothing to do with literature.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
Yes.
But it's not saying that Hamlet is just some dumb random shit.
But the comment was on the stimulus bill, the work of the monkeys, if we're assuming it's a "million monkeys" thing. So the monkey would still be the same monkey, but it would be still a support of the bill.
The idea isn't that the stimulus is on par with hamlet.
The idea is the PREMISE of that story, which is that a monkey at a typewriter produces completely random results. In this sense, he is saying that the stimulus plan is "so poorly written, they may as well have set a monkey at a typewriter."
Except there's no typewriter, or really any good reason to associate the face-mauling chimp with the stimulus bill. Honestly, jumping to the conclusion that this cartoon was a reference to a million monkeys typing up Shakespeare is somewhat less plausible than jumping to the conclusion that the dead chimp represents Obama. The cartoon was so vague about what it was going for that the confusion and recrimination was probably inevitable.
A monkey having written anything is an old and common symbolic device. Anyone who refuses to see that could be at play here is only seeing what they want to at this point.
I'm not saying that's what it IS, I'm saying that it is a possibility.
I'm willing to be a lot of people who think its racist are not familiar with the other event the cartoon is referencing.
NintendoID: Nailbunny 3DS: 3909-8796-4685
It doesn't really matter what the intent was, though. An editior should have seen the possible links to racism in the cartoon and yanked it. It was very poor judgment, or negligence, to let it go to print.
NintendoID: Nailbunny 3DS: 3909-8796-4685
That's certainly a fair statement, and one I won't disagree with. But I still find it very unlikely that this was intentionally or subconciously racist.
We're talking about the New York Post here.
And what strikes me as odd as people aren't really looking at the artist, Sean Delonas, and his previous work.
Take a gander (fair warning, this collection IS from Gawker):
Hot, spicy bigotry
Guy clearly has no love for the gays, or the brown-skinned folks, or women who have the nerve to not like him. Let me make this blunt: Sean Delonas is a bigot, and knew damn well what he was doing when he drew that "shooting the chimp" comic.
we've looked through his previous work.
and while I will agree that he is a bigot, he also hasn't seemed to be interested in hiding it in the past. His characterizations of Arabs are about as blunt as possible.
Why would one man be so obvious on all other groups (comparing Gays to dudes wanting to marry their sheep) and then try to hide an attack on Blacks?
Honestly, what I really think happened here is that he wrote the comic, realized after the fact that it might be taken as racist, and then decided that he didn't care if it was. If his INTENT had been racism, I think it would have gone further. He would have at least stuck the Obama "O" on the chimp.
What if he's secretly a cyborg from the future sent back in time to slowly weaken our resolve and cause racial strife to aid in the robot takeover of the future?
If "I didn't mean it that way!" is plausible deniability, there's no way to prove intent. Your defense of his cartoon could be applied to any activity. "I didn't realize that lynches and burning crosses were symbols of racism, you're just being paranoid and accusing everyone of racism any chance you get!"
The comic is heavily mired in racist imagery. Perhaps the cartoonist used it intentionally, perhaps he used it unintentionally after having been exposed to similar images throughout his life, unaware on how they would form his thoughts, and perhaps he's just completely oblivious to the history of racist imagery in America.
Those are all possibilities. Aaaaand for the record I give a flying fuck all which it is.
The guy SHOULD HAVE known. His job is to use images to represent ideas in a political context, knowledge of American history, imagery, and symbolism is a pre-fucking-requisite for the job. Maybe he knew, maybe he didn't, but he SHOULD HAVE, and I don't really see much merit in arguing whether he's an ignorant douche who accidentally stumbled across racist imagery or a racist douche who ignorantly stumbled across racist imagery.
My assertion is that it's not racist at all. Not even a little. I even threw in a note that people who think it is racist are nutcases, also known as tardbags. As far as the barometer goes, there's just nothing there at all.
RACISM LOLZ:
How is that racist? Obama did not write the stimulus bill, that's not even his job. His job is just to sign it and endorse it, and try and get members of congress on his party's side.
The comic is calling congress a bunch of monkies or chimps or whatever that is in the comic.
This comic could be there regardless of who the current president happened to be. As it's not about the president.
I understand how people could see racism in it though. But people should take a step back, and realize that it is not.
Some of this guy's comics are so over the top, I wonder if he's trying to lampoon the opinions that they communicate on their face. If that's his intent, he's not doing it very well.
And a note about whether the editors should have pulled it. Political cartoonists enjoy and unparalleled amount of latitude on what they print, in the US at least. For better or worse they traditionally free to write whatever they want as long as it doesn't violate the paper's obscenity standards. That obviously works better in some cases than others.
Opinions vary. For instance, I think your opinion on this issue is ignorant.
As someone who has lived with a racist most of my life (my father), the first thing I thought was "That's racist as fuck." It's a joke my father would have made if he didn't like Obama. Also, judging by the cartoonist's other works, yeah, I'm going with "racist as fuck."
Assholes?
Assholes
So much sincerity there.
It's the NY Post. That's kind of their thing.
Yeah, same here. At first sight it was possibly questionable, but looking at other work the guys done? Guys a straight up cartoon caricature of a bigot. There's no question what his intention was.