Chimp cartoon not racist
The controversial New York Post chimpanzee cartoon is touted as “racist” by some, despite the fact that the target of the satire is the badly written stimulus plan, not the president.
Popular Super Bowl ads feature a beleaguered office employee surrounded by inept co-workers portrayed by chimpanzees. The company that sponsored those ads was not pilloried for being “racist.”
Moreover, I do not recall any cries of outrage against the innumerable political cartoons that depicted George W. Bush as a monkey. Surely Al Sharpton can find something better to do with his time.
Christine C. Garton
Greensboro
Comments (19)
To report abuse of the comment feature on this site, please use the feedback form at the bottom of any page.
No, not even in the face of the many horrific problems found in any country on the African continent can Al Sharpton find anything better to do with his time and skills -
Posted on February 26, 2009 5:03 AM
I don't see how anyone can defend the cartoon or its publication. If you don't see racism, that is your point of view. However, many, and I for one, do see it as not only racist but also promoting violence.
I was never a supporter of GWB. However, I never liked cartoons or TV shows which portrayed him as an idiot. I didn't think the many emails and videos with his many verbal blunders were funny. I thought it was embarrassing for him and for the USA. I believe in freedom of speech and freedom of the press. Too bad many use these freedoms to make fun of and belittle others.
Posted on February 26, 2009 7:00 AM
The American public has been brow beaten into reading racism into everything. Gone is the intellect that was once taught in the 5th grade, that it is the Congress that writes legislation, not the President.
Posted on February 26, 2009 7:24 AM
Christine,
Did any of the chimps in the commercial you used as an example get shot? No? Then you fail in the apples to apples comparison. You are not the first one to try to make light of a serious issue.
I do not know of any satirical "cartoon" in which GWB was "killed". Although, like Carol, I do not agree with making fun of people, it seems to have become an American norm (sad commentary on America). However, there is a big difference between poking fun and killing. I am truly sorry you cannot see that difference.
Posted on February 26, 2009 7:31 AM
It's simple people . . . there are a few black folks here who insist thier president is a chimp . . . we can't tell 'em otherwise . . . chimp chimp chimp . . . we didn't say it . . . you did.
. . . and a fart while smelly is actually laughing gas . . .
. . . we think so much of your opinion on this cartoon . . . we fart in your general direction.
Posted on February 26, 2009 8:24 AM
Like the Muslims who raise heroin for a living but are offended by alcohol, or who televise the beheadings of non-combatants, liberals are easily offended by a cartoon. Cartoons which lampoon conservatives are fine, of course, but never one which might poke fun at a liberal or Mohammed, pi$$ be upon him.
Posted on February 26, 2009 9:25 AM
Uh-oh, should have spell-checked. Looks like I misspelled peace. Hope no Muslims are offended by this innocent mistake.
Posted on February 26, 2009 9:30 AM
This won't stay here long, but for all you p.c. pussies who are offended by cartoons, here's reality:
http://barenakedislam.wordpress.com/2008/09/01/beheadings-r-us/
Posted on February 26, 2009 9:47 AM
The reason is that the two cultures do not share the same history in this country. Images of chimps have been used in the past by racists to depict African Americans. A cursory glance in any history book will attest to that. I recently read an article that said that some political cartoonists were fixated on Obama’s lips for some reason. If you think about something as innocuous as watermelon and chicken and you think about the negative, certainly racist, images that have been affixed to these two items and African Americans, you can understand the powerful imagery. Just ask Fuzzy Zoeller. He lost his K-Mart sponsorship, because in an alcohol fueled comment, he suggested that Masters Champ Tiger Woods should put collard greens and fried chicken, or “…whatever they eat,” on the winner’s menu.
Crow’s Nest. Alabama Porch Monkey. Coons. Tar Baby. The dreaded N word. I am stumped for more. So, I will ask Molene Gunch and JPRT for their assistance. American history is littered with several terms of endearment for African Americans. Such a proud history!
Posted on February 26, 2009 11:02 AM
conundrum,
Your post is right on point, but now that you asked for help from the two bottom feeders you mentioned, be prepared to get more of their vile and disgusting responses. That seems to be their only reason for existing.
Posted on February 26, 2009 11:57 AM
Heh, the artist sure got what he was after, didn't he? How many other cartoons are this famous?
For what it's worth, while the artist may not have intended any racism be prtrayed, I personally have a hard time seeing how it couldn't be interpreted. Bad choice for running it, by hey, who am I?
What I absolutely, unequivocally do NOT see, however, is any kind of glorification of violence or threat to harm the President.
The chimp, the real one that is, got shot for attacking a woman. By ripping her face off. Ripping her face. Off. By ripping. And then he came after the cops. Just after ripping an innocent woman's face off. Ripping it.
Now, if that isn't justification for shooting an animal, then I surely can't imagine a scenario that would be justified.
Shooting a deranged animal who is ripping off faces is not only allowable, but should be celebrated and encouraged. Rewarded, even. I am a strong advocate for the shooting of such chimps.
Having a cartoon about shooting a face ripping chimp is not a glorification of violence. That chimp, perhaps more than any other chimp in history, needed shooting. The chimp was not shot because cops love to shoot chimps, but because it began ripping the faces off people.
So, no glorification of violence. However, when the artist tied it into the President, intentionally or not, it certainly gained an aura of racism. But still not a drop of violence glorification, in my opinion.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, I know who wrote the bill. I know Obama didn't. But we also know whose bill it was. It's Obama's stimulus bill. It's his baby. It's success or failure will result in his personal success or failure. And that is exactly what the Republicans want. Fine. We'll see if it works. We'll see in 4 years what people think of Obama's stimulus bill. But it is his bill. Author or not.
I can't think of anymore logical ways to continue discussing the chimp that ripped a face off, so I'll end it here. I had a good run though.
Posted on February 26, 2009 12:18 PM
Conundrum is right . . . but here is the odd thing . . . most blacks these days are calling each other these names you mentioned . . . not me, not us . . .
. . . some blacks are suffering from "negroitis" as that black judge up north can attest, these were her words . . . not ours . . .
. . . when will the suffering stop, Ahhwwaa when . . . when . . . when . . . will black America leave us alooooon-n-n-e . . . LAWD . . . LAWDY . . . we whitey's are oppressed with your blackness of DOUBLE STANDARDS . . . are so confused we must no accept gov'ment handouts to heals us as offened whites . . .
Posted on February 26, 2009 1:15 PM
"I never liked cartoons or TV shows which portrayed him (GWB) as an idiot. "
I never liked realist portrayals of him either.
Posted on February 26, 2009 2:16 PM
"Images of chimps have been used in the past by racists to depict African Americans. A cursory glance in any history book will attest to that. I recently read an article that said that some political cartoonists were fixated on Obama’s lips for some reason."
Historically I will agree with you but contemporary depictions of black people are exactly the opposite due to political correctness.
http://www6.lexisnexis.com/publisher/EndUser?Action=UserDisplayFullDocument&orgId=574&topicId=100021144&docId=l:929936702&start=22
This might explain the lips conundrum:
"I worked for 20 years as a cartoon illustrator, doing drawings for books, magazines and advertising. I was often given clear guidelines on how I was supposed to draw African-Americans: with "small noses" and "thin lips." I was instructed to make any crowds of cartoon characters racially diverse, but only diverse in color, not in facial features. Thick lips and wide noses on African-American faces would be returned to me for correction, with a polite reminder of the corporate policies on depictions of minority facial features."
Even though it is physically true that most black people have wider noses and thicker lips (Michael Jackson being a definite exception) depicting them in this manner doesn't meet PC standards.
Blue lips are racist as well, I was unaware of this:
"Readers of my blog explained to me that blue lips are racist and pointed out an old racist expression "blue gums," which was a new one for me."
Posted on February 26, 2009 3:08 PM
Here's a caricature of hope and change that satisfy His enthusiasts:
http://www.guzer.com/pictures/gods_hand_cloud.php
Posted on February 26, 2009 6:22 PM
Typo: that "should" satisfy His enthusiasts.
Posted on February 26, 2009 6:25 PM
All I can say is if I were Jimmy Carter fan I would defintely be pi$$ed by this:
http://funnyto.com/pictures/presidents/jimmy_carter_minnie_pearl.jpg
Posted on February 26, 2009 7:45 PM
Hey Molene, I agree, Islam is complete garbage.
But Christianity is also. Here's reality about that nonsense:
http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/murderers.htm
Posted on February 26, 2009 9:29 PM
dude: thanks for your post/ infusion of common sense! Made my evening reading--! :)
Posted on February 26, 2009 10:40 PM