Thoughts?

02182009

A few people have already e-mailed me this op-ed cartoon that ran in the New York Post this morning, and I’m not sure what to make of it. It’s possible the cartoonist means that the stimulus package is a mess. I dunno. There would seem to be a less labored way of making the same point.

The reason people have taken issue with this, though, might be obvious. I’m not so sure. (But then, I didn’t get the big deal surrounding that notorious New Yorker cover, either.) I’m gonna assume that it isn’t intentionally racist, but really, really tone deaf.

What say you?

UPDATE: The Post — surprise — is defending its decision to run the piece.

The cartoon in Wednesday’s Post by Sean Delonas shows two police officers standing over the body of a bullet-riddled chimp. One of the officers says the other, “They’ll have to find someone else to write the next stimulus bill.”

Civil rights activist Al Sharpton called the cartoon “troubling at best given the historic racist attacks of African-Americans as being synonymous with monkeys.”

But Sharpton said the Post should clarify the point it was trying to make with the cartoon, which was playing off Monday’s rampage by a pet chimpanzee in Stamford, Conn., that left a woman severely mauled. Police ended up killing the chimp.

In a statement, Post Editor-in-Chief Col Allan said: “The cartoon is a clear parody of a current news event, to wit the shooting of a violent chimpanzee in Connecticut. It broadly mocks Washington’s efforts to revive the economy. Again, Al Sharpton reveals himself as nothing more than a publicity opportunist.”

G.D.

G.D.

Gene "G.D." Demby is the founder and editor of PostBourgie. In his day job, he blogs and reports on race and ethnicity for NPR's Code Switch team.
G.D.

Latest posts by G.D. (see all)

  • ladyfresshh

    my first thought was
    it’s too soon, it’s in poor taste

    the poor woman is still in critical

    and it’s not funny

  • quadmoniker

    Yeah, I don’t think the cartoonist meant it as intentionally racist, but then, few people ever mean their racism to be expressed intentionally. It’s in poor taste on so many levels, and I also think it’s tone-deaf about how people feel about the stimulus.

  • Like ladyfresshh says, it’s not funny. Nor is it incisive.

    Probably not intentionally racist on the part of the artist, but it certainly begs the question: How did this cartoon make its way all the way to the printing press without somebody having a “Hey, wait a minute” moment.

  • A friend just sent it to me… and to be honest i don’t get it. Which means i’m not in a position to get mad, so the intent is irrelevant to me at this point. I just hope folks don’t lose sleep over this.

  • quadmoniker

    Bellini: Maybe you haven’t heard the horrible story of Travis the chimp: http://www.stamfordadvocate.com.

  • Ron

    At least the responses here are pretty much what mine were. Too soon, not funny and a lot of the people who were really outraged hadn’t heard the chimp story.

    The Post just wanted to sell papers and rally the base. Mission accomplished.

  • shani-o

    Yeah, I got about 4 e-mail messages today; everyone from work colleagues to sorority sisters were outraged. I didn’t actually see the cartoon til just now…and like Bellini, I didn’t get it. I vaguely remember the chimp story now, so I guess I can see where it’s coming from.

    A cartoon about killing an animal is in poor taste, and it’s just compounded by the historical comparison of blacks to apes. Then again, no one ever accused the Post of having too much taste.

  • shani-o

    Oh, and another thing… I guess this could relate to that joke about 1000 chimps and 1000 typewriters.

  • Shani-o, you hit the nail on the head.

    I think people who want to seek out racism at every step will. When I saw the cartoon, I totally got it-

    They were saying that the new stimulus bill could have been written by a monkey, or 1000 chimps and 1000 typewriters. Few are happy with the new package and that’s been at the forefront of the news. Travis, poor crazy dear that he was, is also in the news. When I saw that, I “got” that.

    But I can see how the usual suspects would take this as an opportunity to scream “racism”.

    Is the cartoon in poor tastes? Maybe. Depends on how you feel about animals. Was the cartoon a veiled attack at Obama? I don’t think so at all.

    Which begs the next question- for the next few years, is it illegal to draw or mention primates, be they in the news or fit the message that is trying to be sent across for fear of being labeled a racist, trying to go after the president?

  • quadmoniker

    Ms. Tek:
    I think if the cartoonist was careless about the possible comparison of Obama to a monkey it is equally racist as if the comparison was on purpose. Obviously, part of the “joke” was that a monkey could have written the bill. But public support is actually behind the bill, as much as 70 percent according to some polls, so I don’t think it’s actually all of that smart a comment. Secondly, the idea of playing on a chimp attack in which a woman is still hanging in the balance after her face was ripped off is definitely in poor taste.

  • shani-o

    Ms. Tek, I also think it was in poor taste for the reasons QM mentioned; but note that comparisons of apes to African Americans are probably as old as the US itself. The appearance (even if the intent isn’t there) of racism is careless and inexusable. We’re not postracial quite yet.

    Overall, I’d say this cartoon’s message is rather muddled, at best. And far more insidious, at worst.

    I’m very curious about the editorial process in placing this cartoon, but I haven’t heard anything. Has anyone else?

  • I’ll say this is not my favorite cartoon of the day. I think I rather see Spongebob Squarepants.

    And speaking of tom foolery, I am mad that this is what gets the most attention on these so-called cable news stations. It’s just BS really. I guess this is why I don’t watch the news often. They all turned into tabloids.

  • Support of the bill has come into a lot of question which is why Obama had to go on the road again. He thought it was going to be a slam dunk. It wasn’t. There are quite a few people (who aren’t politicians but everyday folk) who are not too happy with it.

    But seeing what I am reading here, what I am observing is true- One can never use a cartoon with an ape because people are so sensitive to it that it MUST be about blacks… or if it isn’t, it could be about them, so it shouldn’t be ever used.

    Wow. It’s in poor taste because a woman got hurt. What I think is in even more poor taste and doesn’t serve the black community is that trying to make that cartoon racist only feeds into the perceptions that some blacks have a chip on their shoulder.

    It takes both sides of a divide to decide to mend and move on. Wrongs are done, but grudges and what happened “way back then” don’t move society forward now. It’s like disliking German people today because of what Hitler did in the 1930′-40’s. That was then, this is now. Just because something has been historically done doesn’t mean that every time you see it later on, it holds the same intent.

    Which goes back- forget freedom of speech. Every cartoonist is on alert now because they cannot draw a primate, newsworthy or not, for fear of being accused of being a racist because if you draw a primate, clearly you are always making a jab at blacks. That’s almost as crazy as the death threats to the men who I believe were in Holland who drew a cartoon of Allah because it offended the Muslims.

    So going forward, to make everyone feel okay, no drawings of monkeys, crackers, tacos, oreos, zebras, raccoons… well the list could go on and on, couldn’t it?

  • quadmoniker

    Ms. Tek, I can’t even enumerate the things I find both ridiculous and offensive about your comment. I’ll only say that you should revise your “way back then” assessment.

  • But seeing what I am reading here, what I am observing is true- One can never use a cartoon with an ape because people are so sensitive to it that it MUST be about blacks… or if it isn’t, it could be about them, so it shouldn’t be ever used.

    Um, who said that? Where was that said?

    What I think is in even more poor taste and doesn’t serve the black community is that trying to make that cartoon racist only feeds into the perceptions that some blacks have a chip on their shoulder.

    Wow, this is condescending. Okay, first. The people who feel that black people have “chips on their shoulder” will think that, regardless. Bigotry/stereotypes exist before the “justification”; the “justification” just provides the bigot a flimsy logical peg.

    Also: “What would racist white people think about your reactions?” Really? That’s your argument? Come on. Do better.

    It takes both sides of a divide to decide to mend and move on. Wrongs are done, but grudges and what happened “way back then” don’t move society forward now. It’s like disliking German people today because of what Hitler did in the 1930′-40’s. That was then, this is now. Just because something has been historically done doesn’t mean that every time you see it later on, it holds the same intent.

    You’ve got to be kidding me. This is really simple: language/symbols do not exist in some ahistorical vacuum untouched by culture. People in the West don’t see swastikas and automatically think Hinduism/Buddhism, because the symbol has a very different meaning here. Likewise, the imagery in the above cartoon is not devoid of other possible readings tethered to a specific history in which it was used to signify something else. See how that works?

    And “way back then”? Yeah, you’re telling on yourself right now.

    Which goes back- forget freedom of speech. Every cartoonist is on alert now because they cannot draw a primate, newsworthy or not, for fear of being accused of being a racist because if you draw a primate, clearly you are always making a jab at blacks. That’s almost as crazy as the death threats to the men who I believe were in Holland who drew a cartoon of Allah because it offended the Muslims. So going forward, to make everyone feel okay, no drawings of monkeys, crackers, tacos, oreos, zebras, raccoons… well the list could go on and on, couldn’t it?

    This, ladies and gentleman, is a textbook example of a strawman, in which one interlocutor argues against a position that no one in a debate has taken.

    Lemme reiterate: do better.

  • ladyfresshh

    Ms Tek – Willful ignorance regarding the state of race relations in this country is not an excuse for insidious political commentary. Responsibility, not censorship, regarding the depiction of apes or monkeys is what is being discussed. The questionable political history of The Post does not help in their defending a piece which depicts a dead animal in it’s references to the current president. It skirts the line of treason at it’s very worse and, as i’ve stated, is insensitive to the current state of the victim mauled. Exaggerated claims of primate censorship is misleading to the real discussion of intention and consequence regarding political humor.

  • ladyfresshh

    Additionally (because like QM i found your comments on history questionable and disturbing)

    Ms Tek – with regards to “moving society forward”. We have learned with the past administration that a lack of information can lead to war. Society cannot move forward unless it understands it’s past mistakes and fully acknowledges it’s current state. The quote below may help you understand the role history should play in societal self awareness as well as personal self awareness.

    “History is for human self-knowledge. Knowing yourself means knowing, first, what it is to be a person; secondly, knowing what it is to be the kind of person you are; and thirdly, knowing what it is to be the person you are and nobody else is. Knowing yourself means knowing what you can do; and since nobody knows what they can do until they try, the only clue to what man can do is what man has done. The value of history, then, is that it teaches us what man has done and thus what man is.” Robin G. Collingwood, 1889-1943, British philosopher

    To further explain history cannot be separated from the current by way of ignoring it’s impact and shaping on current deeds and comments. As GD stated we do not exist in a vaccum and i’ll further state we cannot afford to exist in a vacuum. The state of our world relations, economic failure, race and class relations depend on the acknowledgment and understanding of past mistakes.

  • Jessica

    Well said, Ladyfresshh and GD.
    Definitely even if the cartoonist did not intend racism here, he’d have to be pretty ignorant to fail to realize the possible connotations. I don’t see any excuse for the Post for publishing this thing.

  • So… wait. G.D. and LF, you guys don’t think we blacks should just…get over it? I find that to be a very refreshing notion, and one that I hadn’t considered before.

  • “forgive and forget” is a treacherous and dangerous slippery slope to be sliding down. especially the forgetting part.

    the cartoon, at this point in time, is inappropriate at best. as is the idea that just because obama was elected, we’ve “moved past” racism.

    we haven’t. we haven’t even really begun to grapple with it. the only thing i can hope comes out of this ridiculous cartoon is perhaps a dialog that helps people understand why it could be construed as offensive.

  • robynj

    Shani-o: LMAO.

  • I think this cartoon is racist, intentionally so, though it could be a latent/subconscious intent on the part of the cartoonist.

    Given the Post’s audience, and the collection of cartoons from this guy in the past (Gawker, I think, has a series, but I don’t have the link) – I believe he’s deliberately playing into our basest prejudices. His other cartoons include a gay man and a sheep applying for a marriage license, for example.

    As a white person who still has to unlearn so many ingrained stereotypes about groups – incl. about the Irish, my own “people” – I found this cartoon and the Post’s (and others’) defense of it really disturbing. This is what passes for acceptable, harmless provocative humor? Yikes.

  • Pingback: Is this cartoon racist? « The United States of Jamerica()

  • I think you’d have to be incredibly naive and innocently minded to see this as anything but horribly racist. It doesn’t take a geninus to look at it, and conclude that Obama is being called a monkey. Which, is so incredibly racist. The connotations are ridiculously offensive.

  • Scott

    I think the cartoon is in poor taste considering the terrible injuries to the woman involved but not racist. The focus of the cartoon is Congress the ones that wrote the spending bill in the first place. I find quite a bit of irony in that cartoonists spent eight years portraying Bush with chip like qualities and no one complained about that, not to mention all the chip comments about Bush on the Democratic Underground, like the chipernor and Chimpy McCokespoon.

  • Scott: you’re feigning ignorance here. Portraying Bush as a chimp is untethered to any history of whites being compared to apes.

  • the black scientist

    the thing that really struck me was the police shooting the chimp. that in itself carries quite strong racial imagery to me.

  • @the black scientist – agreed!

  • You proved my point right with this statement:

    “‘What would racist white people think about your reactions?'”

    So if a person thinks that some blacks have a chip on their shoulder and bring up slavery and racism (which, I hate to say, isn’t exclusive to blacks) at every moment as an excuse and a crutch as to why they didn’t get this, or why that didn’t happen, then they must be racist?

    You can’t question because that is racist?

    Straw man? Hardly. Just throwing your argument against you.

    FWIW, my mother is Black, my father is White. I am mixed. I’ve been to black schools and white schools. I’ve experienced racism from all sides. Believe it or not, it works both ways and no one has a monopoly on hurt or rock throwing. But what people can do is “MOVE ON”.

    I wonder, if one sees a primate at the zoo, is that because of an inherent need to cage a black person?

    And I never knew that a popular children story was really about blacks:

    http://pbskids.org/curiousgeorge/

    But carry on… carry on. Sorry to disturb a moment of mutual back patting by presenting an opposing point of view.

    So sad. So friggin’ sad. And silly.

  • “So if a person thinks that some blacks have a chip on their shoulder and bring up slavery and racism (which, I hate to say, isn’t exclusive to blacks) at every moment as an excuse and a crutch as to why they didn’t get this, or why that didn’t happen, then they must be racist?”

    Hmmm. I’m gonna go out on a limb and say that assigning proclivities/characteristics to an entire group of people — like, say, calling them a bunch of excuse-making crybabies — might be a teensy bit racist.

    “Straw man? Hardly. Just throwing your argument against you.”

    Which argument of mine is that? I’ll wait while you point it out. Thanks in advance.

    “FWIW, my mother is Black, my father is White. I am mixed. I’ve been to black schools and white schools. I’ve experienced racism from all sides. Believe it or not, it works both ways and no one has a monopoly on hurt or rock throwing. But what people can do is “MOVE ON.””

    You know why you shouldn’t be taken seriously here?

    1) You brought up your ethnic background in a conversation in which divulging it wasn’t required, which means you clearly think that it’s supposed to give your leaky-ass position some added heft. It doesn’t. You’re telling on yourself.

    2) Your experiencing “racism from all sides” has nothing to do with the conversation surrounding this cartoon, nor does the assertion that black people don’t have a monopoly on pain. No one argued either of those things. You’re just kitchen-sinking it right now. You need more people.

    3) “MOVE ON.” LOL. Oh, Tek. You’re a riot.

    “I wonder, if one sees a primate at the zoo, is that because of an inherent need to cage a black person?”

    Oh, cute. Straw man AND hyperbole. Nice.

    “And I never knew that a popular children story was really about blacks:

    http://pbskids.org/curiousgeorge/
    But carry on… carry on. Sorry to disturb a moment of mutual back patting by presenting an opposing point of view.”

    There’s a difference between presenting an opposing point of view, and whatever the hell it is you’re doing right now. Curious George? Monkeys at zoos? C’mon, sis. What in the sky blue fuck are you babbling about right now?

  • ladyfresshh

    So if a person thinks that some blacks have a chip on their shoulder and bring up slavery and racism (which, I hate to say, isn’t exclusive to blacks) at every moment as an excuse and a crutch as to why they didn’t get this, or why that didn’t happen, then they must be racist?

    *mind explodes*

  • I’m wondering if you have a reading issue as well.

    Never did I say “all” blacks. I’ve been very careful in how I have phased things because I don’t believe in ALL blacks this or ALL whites that or ALL whatever. That’s a sure way to shoot yourself in the foot.

    And why did I bring up my background? Very simple, in response to this statement:

    “Wow, this is condescending. Okay, first. The people who feel that black people have “chips on their shoulder” will think that, regardless. Bigotry/stereotypes exist before the “justification”; the “justification” just provides the bigot a flimsy logical peg.

    Also: “What would racist white people think about your reactions?” ”

    Which means that someone who doesn’t agree with you must be a bigot when that just isn’t the case.

    The point is that the usual hot-heads who like to cause more problems than they solve (Al Sharpton, Jessie Jackson, etc… Which is why they NEVER had a shot at the White House) leech on to this and make a big deal over what a hell of a lot of people who don’t think this way wouldn’t have ever thought of. As I said, that wasn’t the first thing that came to my mind at all.

    Or if I need a bunch of people to back me up on this, I can do that simply-

    If this kind of thought was as popular or as much of an issue as it once was, Barack Obama would have never, ever, ever had a shot at the White House, much less be our current president. He didn’t do it by passing, that’s for sure. The proof right there is that the majority of Americans have gotten over this. Once the old guard finally dies, unless people keep holding grudges and perpetuating the hate on both sides, all of this will FINALLY sink to a sad footnote of American history, casually mentioned in passing for historical context.

    Finally, I brought up curious George because you cannot pick and choose. Because an ape is shot in a cartoon, then it must be something to do with blacks, but if the ape is cute and plays with toys then it does not? I’ll play along then. Is the movie King Kong based on the fear of whites that some Big Black guy is going to steal their women and give them the best time ever, so he must be shot?

    You don’t get to pick and choose. As I said, then ALL references to primates in modern media must go back to this issue, not just the ones that can be twisted to fit your cause.

    Dismiss me all you like- I couldn’t care less if you see my point or not. I’m just stating my opinion on the subject and why it is so. But please, keep it from being personal. I’m not attacking you and…

    I am most def. not your “sis”. 😉

  • Loving

    G.D. … I think I love you :) … p.s. don’t tell my husband.

  • ladyfresshh

    Ms Tek – oh ms tek apparently you haven;t gotten the kingkong memo…

    but this right here:

    The proof right there is that the majority of Americans have gotten over this.

    it does? really?
    so is that black teenager that was shot and killed in oakland by officers just more proof that america is over ‘this’?

    we have a black president now
    so all racism has miraculously ceased to exist?
    this is your conclusion?
    and all incidents henceforth
    should be brushed aside and ‘gotten’ over?
    really?

    could someone please wake me up to our now post racial society?
    i must be in an alternate dimension…

  • Now who is extrapolating? Did I say racism is gone? And what about gay people who are still beaten, or women who still have that glass thing over their heads they have to deal with. And what about fat kids? Once again, I never said racism is gone. Don’t put words in my mouth. But have the MAJORITY (once again, note I didn’t say ALL)gotten over this?

    YES.

    If Barack had run in 1950, like hell he’d gotten elected. But it was 2008 and he did.

    There will never be absolutes to anything in this world. Someone will always hate something. But the flip side of that is that things don’t always mean something else.

    Sometimes, a monkey/chimp/gorilla what have you is just another primate, not the president, not a black person. And sometimes, that chimp is Travis, or in this case, the entirety of the Senate and House of Representatives (which you’ve all seem to have forgotten rewrote much of what Obama originally wanted in that stimulus bill. What passed is what the Senate and the House agreed too with many changes from the original- or have we all forgotten how the US government works here?)

    Then to expand (for those who can’t seem to follow along), then we must say that EVERY TIME a primate gets mentioned it must be racist because of the history. To which I say “get over it”.

    I knew this was going to happen before Obama even got elected. Bush looked like a chimp, but he’s white so its okay to draw him as one. Obama DOES look like a chimp too (it’s the ears that stick out) but no cartoonist in his right mind would dare to draw that because of the repercussions which is once again why I say that the cartoon had NOTHING to do with Obama or racism, or what have you. A chimp was shot this week for going crazy. A stupid stimulus plan was passed with a lot of pork that some people are unhappy with. An easy cartoon to make. Sure this other (wrong) interpretation could have been made but does this mean that for fear of offending people, social observers, for the rest of humanity, time immortal pick only certain crayons to color with?

    Someone is always going to get offended somewhere, but there is a time when this walking on eggshells crap becomes old.

    I repeat, poor taste for the woman who may now need a face transplant, but certainly the intention was not to get some people’s panties into a twist.

    And now that I have the memo, I need to watch King Kong again- however I don’t think I can ever do it without giggling in the middle of it again. Too bad I’m not going to to school for this stuff. That would be a bad ass paper to write- comparing King Kong to racism and I’d kill to be a fly on the wall of the teacher who had to read that. Too funny.

  • I don’t want to sound like a broken record so I’ll just say that I agree with G.D. on this one.

  • ladyfresshh

    But have the MAJORITY (once again, note I didn’t say ALL)gotten over this?

    YES.

    No words in your mouth you are typing it yourself dearie.

    In your rush to some imaginary finish line you continue to clumsily stumble through history like a bull in a china shop. No ma’am you have clearly stated yourself it is not done and it is not over so no, we have not ‘gotten over this’.

    You maybe being a bit stubborn due to the imaginary prize of a black president. ‘I don’t think it means what you think it means’ (c)princess bride. This is a bit like taking candy from a baby at this point or more telling virginia there isn’t a santy claus… No sweetie *takes candy* ‘we’ have not gotten ‘over’ anything.

    The ‘walking on eggshells crap’ is for everyones good. We are about to go back into the last 8 years at this point regarding your ignorance and your the willful refusal to acknowledge, understand and MOST IMPORTANTLY learn from history. Now pay attention because the learning part is key what you term ‘walking on eggshells crap’ the majority of americans understand as racist. This ‘walking on eggshells crap’ is the anthropological remains of a very long history of racism which seems to be annoying and inconvenient to your sensibilities. Clumsy ignorance seems to be your preference but will not serve the reality of the state of this country.

    Now let me attempt clarity though it is not a strong suit of mine.

    Basically to learn from history one does not repeat those mistakes make previously this my dear is how you show progress. How one acknowledges the aspect of learning from history YOU DON’T REPEAT THEM…you call this ‘walking on eggshells’ i believe. If you do not tread carefully um… ‘walking on eggshells’ you make slow regressive steps backwards for any tiny bit of progress accomplished.

    I believe i’m done with the back and forth at this point, I’ve broken this down a simply as I can for you.

  • ladyfresshh

    hold up ya’ll
    brace yourselves
    the Latinos are coming
    and racism will really be over then

    …oh wait…
    i am latino…
    i’m here…
    dammit this must be another dimension