My general rule of thumb is that, when some issue breaks and Al Sharpton becomes involved, I generally take the opposing side. Not out of any personal dislike for Sharpton, but because typically he’s wrong.
The current situation with the New York Post presents a bit of a poser, though. In case you haven’t heard, the NY Post ran an editorial cartoon depicting a couple of cops having gunned down a chimp, and one of them says to the other, “Now someone else is going to have to write the next stimulus package.” This has caused an imbroglio and prompted Sharpton to declare:
“Being that the stimulus bill has been the first legislative victory of President Barack Obama [the first African-American president] and has become synonymous with him, it is not a reach to wonder whether the Post cartoonist was inferring that a monkey wrote it?” Sharpton said in his statement.
The answer, of course, is “no.” Sharpton is inferring it. The question is whether or not the Post cartoonist was implying it. This is a simple grammatical point and it’s mystifying that Sharpton couldn’t grasp it.
My response to the cartoon itself is twofold:
First, it’s the New York Post. Were they attempting to slam Obama personally, associating him in a racist fashion with a monkey? Possible. Then again, there’s the old notion that if you put an infinite number of monkeys in a room with infinite typewriters and give them an infinite amount of time, they could produce the works of Shakespeare. So it could be argued that a dead monkey is an editorial cartoon shorthand for something that anyone could have produced, in a random fashion, and not particularly well.
Second, and more important…it’s the New York Post! Why does anyone give a dámņ what they say about anything? Before they produce the works of Shakespeare, the infinite monkeys will probably produce an issue of the Post. It should be accorded exactly that amount of respect and concern.
PAD
• 
Yeah, I’m with you on the “opposite side of Al Sharpton” philosophy, PAD. I don’t consider myself a racist and proudly voted for Barack Obama. This cartoon isn’t racist in the slightest but instead feverishly imagining it (“There’s a simian! Monkeys are like chimps! Monkeys are associated with certain crude racial stereotypes! The cartoon is something about the Stimulus Bill! Hey, Obama is pushing the Stimulus Bill! IT MUST BE RACIST!”) The line of logic (or lack thereof) is mind boggling. Calling so much attention to the most superficial, and in this case, most unreal, manifestations of racism takes away from legitimate and valid attempts to weed out /actual/ systemic racism which is in front of everyone’s face every day yet no one bothers to get so wildly and publicly offended about.
You know, I have just about as much contempt for Fox News as it’s possible for a human being to have.
That shouldn’t mean it’s okay for Fox to call Obama a monkey.
The same applies to the New York Post. You may consider it a rag unworthy to line a cats litter box. But *not* *everyone* *does*, and if they egregiously step out of line, someone should call them on it, instead of just saying “Well it’s only the Post.”
1. One plausible explanation has been presented on why it’s been urgent for reactionaries to deny the chimp represents Obama: because the offense at the inferred racism is legitimate.
2. By the account of the cartoonist himself, as inferred by his defender in this thread, taking the chimp as representing Obama is perfectly natural.
There seems to be no mystery.
Monkeys are famous for throwing fecal matter.
They won’t need typewriters to produce the NY Post.
I doubt the cartoon was directed at Obama, unless the cartoonist is as ignorant of our political system as are many of his critics.
The president never writes bills. That job solely belongs to Congress.
Haven’t the “racism” shouters ever seen “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington”?
In this era of political correctness run amok, cartoonists need to totally elimate the chimpanzee from their repertoir of iconic stereotypes and go back to the more innocuous “dunce cap.”
As the cartoonist has a record of being offensive with his cartoons, I find that his cartoon is indeed racist, and proclaim he did it on purpose–either consciously or subconsciously. I think we should pelt him with banana peels.
“The argument of apes not being monkeys is irrelavant to the discussion. Granted, apes aren’t technically monkey’s but in general terms many a layman consider them one and the same…”
Let’s discuss the cartoon, sure, yeah, technically the difference between monkeys and apes has nothing to do with the controversy, but I consider most (ahem) people on this board intelligent. Intelligent people know the difference between apes and monkeys and therefore the “layman” argument shouldn’t apply.
Post Hoc Ergo Procter Hoc. 🙂
I can’t really speak to what the cartoonist meant — i don’t think anyone can, even the cartoonist. He’s to busy backpeddling to save his career to say what he really meant. He’s just looking for the “best answer” which there really isn’t one.
The problem I have with the cartoon is that they are trying to connect to unrelated topics that just don’t go together. So to me that’s just bad writing.
Second they don’t make use of signs like other political cartoons to designate who’s who. Are the police really the police or are they representative of republicans, the public, etc. Is the monkey obama, congress, government, or just a monkey. Also bad writing/concept.
Third the use of violence to stop/change/deride government. Because if the monkey wrote or helped create the stimulus bill then he is either representative of Obama (who may not have literally authored the bill, but his campaign for prez was directly related to a stim package and who was campaigning for the stim when it passed), congress and/or the senate (who wrote the bill). That to me is a horrible thing to put forth as an appropriate action and in the old days would be considered treasonous!
fourth, I from looking at the cartoon and reading it am offended by it. And in mulling it over for the last 3 days I am still offended by it and the fact that the cartoonist never considered that he might offend people with his cartoon deeply offends me and shows me that he is out of touch with reality and the tragic parts of our countries history.
When I first saw the cartoon, I understood right away what the artist was going for, but at the same time I had to wonder. Being black I don’t have the luxury to accept cartoons like that at face value. Plus, this artist has a sketchy history to begin with.
One interesting note. Apparently, Rupert Murdoch was extremely angry when he saw this cartoon. The word used to describe him was “livid.” It seems he’s a fan of Obama’s and was very upset with the New York Post’s editor over letting this cartoon be published.
Mike: “[Jerry gets to infer the Chimp represents Obama] So, he’s saying that the monkey is Obama or that it’s Pelosi…”
No, Mike, sorry, but that’s not what I did. The full context reading of that post was my pointing out that the cartoonist’s first comments on the thing were badly worded, didn’t help matters any and would be used out of context by people who wanted this thing to be about Obama and be a racial slur. Much as you like to do with other people’s comments.
And I suspect that you know that, but we’ve all grown used to your penchant for pulling quotes out of context, using that to lie about what others actually said and being an all around brick wall and worthless $&!^ on the boards.
Done with you for this thread. Have a bad day.
I have no reservation against rephrasing:
Thank you for — by the standards of debate as its known to western civilization — finding no other fault in what I’ve said here.
“Luigi Novi: Your words. Not mine. If you’re going to fabricate things that I have not said (and for that matter, deliberately ignore considering ideas that I have suggested), then perhaps discussing this with you is pointless.”
I’m not fabricating anything, Luigi, I’m just not getting anything from your argument other than what seems to be the central point that you keep falling back on.
You weren’t aware of certain facts, some other people might not be aware of certain facts, people might have reacted to it based on an absence of facts.
And, yeah, your central points seem to be that facts don’t really matter here.
“Luigi Novi: My position is that perception of the cartoon as a possible reference to Obama should be considered, and because of a number of subtle things that have nothing to do with people “who can’t be bothered to know what the hëll is happening in their country” or who are “too stupid to know the basic structure that our government has for writing bills and passing laws.” I mentioned these things above, and your interpretation of it does not do them justice. The conveyance of ideas through non-verbal, non-literary, visual means, such as the metaphors found in editorial cartoons and other genres of art, involves things other than empirical knowledge or analytical reasoning.”
See, I’d have no problem with this reasoning if we were just talking about someone’s initial reaction to the cartoon, but we’re beyond that now and discussing matters well beyond that. At some point it gets ridicules to see people who should know better acting like they don’t in order to fan this fire and seeing other people flat out saying that facts don’t matter because they want to see the cartoon the way they want to see it.
The simple facts here are this:
1- Congress writes bills.
2- The President does not write bills.
3- The monkey is identified in the cartoon by characters in the cartoon as the writer of the bill.
4- The monkey = Congress.
But even when this is pointed out to the pitchfork and torch crowd on the left the response is that, no, the monkey has to be Obama so that we can have our little moment of righteous indignation. And when pointed out to you you repeatedly fall back on basically the argument that you weren’t aware of certain facts, some other people might not be aware of certain facts, people might have reacted to it based on an absence of facts.
If I’m misunderstanding what you’re trying to say I’m sorry, but your central argument as presented really comes across to me as you basically saying that the facts or less important than people’s feelings or what people want to see.
I agree that Al Sharpton does seem to like getting himself in the news. To rewrite the philosophical question (Koan?), if there’s a press conference and no cameras or microphones are around, does Sharpton show up?
As to the cartoon in question, it’s obvious the cartoonist tried to tie together two topical references– the rampaging chimp and the stimulus package, but would he have run that same cartoon if the stimulus package had been authored by a McCain administration? Or even a Clinton administration? Or for that matter, if the animal that attacked someone had been, say, a cougar, would a cougar have been used?
I suspect the answer to all these questions is “yes” (though cougars aren’t known to write Shakespeare, an issue of Animal Man, publish the New York Post or co-host the Today show back in the 1950s, so why would they write a stimulus package?), but given the possible racist connotations of using the chimp, I agree with Jerry that if the chimp was supposed to be Congress it probably should have been identified as such.
And I suspect that most people assume that chimps (especially small ones) are monkeys, and that, by extension, monkeys are immature apes. I probably assumed that was the case when I was growing up.
Even if the chimp had clearly been labeled “Congress”, and even if there had never been any racist connotations when it came to comparing anyone to monkeys or apes, the cartoon would still be somewhat confusing. What’s the message? That Congress is out of control and needs to be shot? That doesn’t make any sense.
Now, a bunch of chimps running around Congress while some observer comments about the need to get someone else to write the stimulus bill? That would make sense.
The chimp attack could probably have been used in an allegorical connection with some other news story– one that would have been a better fit.
I’ve no idea if any racist connotations were intended, but it seems to me that (the race question aside) the cartoonist tried to connect two topical issues without considering whether that connection made sense. To my way of thinking, it doesn’t.
Back to Sharpton. About a decade ago, there were many stories in the news locally about an 11-year-old boy named Nathaniel Abraham who’d shot and killed an 18-year-old man. He became the youngest person to be tried as an adult for first degree murder in the U.S. (he was convicted of second degree murder, but sentenced to juvenile detention). It was something like two years after the shooting that the trial took place, but for most of that time, nothing (to the best of my recollection) was heard from Sharpton. Until one day when there was a rally outside the Oakland County Court (presumably when a firm decision had been made to try him as an adult; I don’t recall the particulars). That’s when Sharpton decided to appear.
Apparently. I covered that rally, but he didn’t show up at the designated time, and I had a dentist appointment to get to. So my story ran with comments from the local people.
Who, frankly, were the only relevant ones.
It’s possible Sharpton hadn’t heard about the case prior to his coming to town, but that seems unlikely. I think it more likely that it hadn’t become “big” enough before then.
Rick
“It’s referencing a pet chimp that went wild and was shot and killed by police.”
Somedays, a dead ape is just a dead ape. (Was the ape from Brazil, by any chance?)
Cheers.
There’s no reason for me to not repeat an unobstructed truth:
The only mystery is the hardship in calling racism what it is.
Some people (Al Sharpton is a perfect example) go out of their way to look for ways to be offended and outraged.
These people need to be ignored, not trotted out on TV and, god forbid, listened to.
Unfortuneately, by keeping the racial flames fanned, it helps keep otherwise reasonable people from looking at what is happening in the halls of power and being rightfully outraged at the Nero’s in Washington D.C. fiddling while America burns…
Looking at how much talk this has generated, the NY Post should give the cartoonist a bonus check, which they can write off as a “publicity expense”…
When has Al Sharpton ever been a credible source for information? Credible for being a hypocrit – maybe. Really would anyone have noticed the cartoon if it wasn’t pointed out to us. And the easiest connection to make about the chimp would either be the former president or this weeks weirdest new event. This being racist is probably equivalent to claims that Resident Evil 5 is racist.
With a preemptive apology if this harms his credibility, I think Bill Mulligan’s comments are completely right.
The “ņìggárdlÿ” situation happened in Washington, DC, in 2000. Mayor Anthony Wilson and the City Council became apoplectic that David Howard, Wilson’s own appointee spoke so cruelly. When it was explained to them that the word came from ancient Nordic, predated the other word by several centuries and was spelled differently they remained outraged that anyone had dared to use a word they were prone to misunderstand. Thank God he didn’t use other words like “intelligent,” “well-educated” or “smart.” Those would have thrown them into a murderous rage, so foreign are they to that body.
Any suggestion that political cartoonists be banned from saying anything which might be understood or misunderstood to offend anyone is idiotic. Political cartoons are meant to be provocative and to make a political statement. Thomas Nast made the Grant Administration, William Marcy Tweed and others uncomfortable. Too bad. Ding Darling made all of the Democratic and most of the Republican Presidents between Teddy Roosevelt and Harry Truman uncomfortable, and good for him. Herblock must have made Strom Thurmond feel unwanted. That’s a good thing.
This isn’t a matter of political correctness, racial sensitivity or good taste, but one of whether free speech extends beyond one’s own prejudices.
With a preemptive apology if this harms his credibility, I think Bill Mulligan’s comments are completely right.
The “ņìggárdlÿ” situation happened in Washington, DC, in 2000. Mayor Anthony Wilson and the City Council became apoplectic that David Howard, Wilson’s own appointee, spoke so cruelly. When it was explained to them that the word came from ancient Nordic, predated the other word by several centuries and was spelled differently they remained outraged that anyone had dared to use a word they were prone to misunderstand. Thank God he didn’t use other words like “intelligent,” “well-educated” or “smart.” Those would have thrown them into a murderous rage, so foreign are they to that body.
Any suggestion that political cartoonists be banned from saying anything which might be understood or misunderstood to offend anyone is idiotic. Political cartoons are meant to be provocative and to make a political statement. Thomas Nast made the Grant Administration, William Marcy Tweed and others uncomfortable. Too bad. Ding Darling made all of the Democratic and most of the Republican Presidents between Teddy Roosevelt and Harry Truman uncomfortable, and good for him. Herblock must have made Strom Thurmond feel unwanted. That’s a good thing.
This isn’t a matter of political correctness, racial sensitivity or good taste, but one of whether free speech extends beyond one’s own prejudices.
I haven’t read everything.
Jerry, with respect, I think Luigi’s case is stronger than yours.
There are two questions:
1) Is it as OK to depict Obama as an ape as it is to depict Bush or Congress?
The answer is that since the image of the ape has been used in the past quite often for racist purposes to refer to black, then using it to refer to the first black president is not the same as using it to refer to a white president, and is in bad taste even if there was no real racist intention.
Had Hilary been elected president, then certain images that may have been appropriate in the case of a male president may have been considered in poor taste because of the history of the treatment of women. Similar instances can be imagined for Jews, Hispanics etc. I think that a cartoon depicting someone as having a big nose or counting/lending money might be considered more questionable if the person in question is Jewish than of a non-Jew politician, even if there was no actual antisemitic intent. A depiction of Bush dressed as a member of the KKK would have probably created an uproar more than of him as a chimp, for obvious reasons.
2) Is it reasonable to view the ape as referring to Obama in the absence of a label?
The answer is yes, since Obama is publicly viewed as leading the charge on the stimulus bill despite the fact that the bill is written in congress.
3) Is it right to force censorship because people like Al Sharpton/feminists/jewish organizations/lefties/politically correct are oversensitive?
Censorship is never right, and people like Al Sharpton did a disservice to blacks by crying wolf so often. However, this does not mean that when someone draws a cartoon or says something that is in poor taste if not racist, he or she should not be criticized. Criticism is not censorship. Threatening with violence is. That’s the difference between the rioting in response to the Danish cartoons (which were also in poor taste), and Al Sharpton calling the Cartoonist racist.
Micha, I would have moved your #2 to the #1 spot as it has to be hashed out before any other question can be addresses.
2) Is it reasonable to view the ape as referring to Obama in the absence of a label?
The answer is yes, since Obama is publicly viewed as leading the charge on the stimulus bill despite the fact that the bill is written in congress.
Let me ask you several questions.
1) As the cartoon establishes the monkey’s identity as the writer of the bill and the bill was written by Congress; would that not more strongly point towards the monkey being a representation of Congress?
2) In the last two years that Bush was in office we had editorial cartoons depicting the Democratic Congress as a flea bitten hound rolling over and playing dead when the issue was their caving in to Bush or as a dancing monkey doing what the organ grinder wanted them to do. Oddly, no one seemed to be confused that the dog or monkey was Congress back then.
During the six years prior to that we had any number of editorial cartoons that poked fun at Bush while others poked fun at the Republican controlled Congress. Oddly, even with the badly done cartoons, even when Bush and the R Congress had more or less the same goal, no one seemed to confuse when the cartoons were about Bush and when the cartoons were about Congress.
How is this cartoon different than all the ones created in the eight years before it? How is it that what is clearly spelled out for the reader now suddenly isn’t good enough?
What, is it because it uses a monkey? Is it because you can say that monkeys have been used in the past as racial slurs against blacks? Soooooo…. From now until Obama is out of office no one can use a monkey depicting anything to do with Washington DC because any use of a monkey will be called a racial slur and a depiction of Obama?
I’m sorry, but there’s nothing in this cartoon to reasonably suggest that Obama is the monkey. Quite the contrary as the words in the cartoon only fit Congress.
“However, this does not mean that when someone draws a cartoon or says something that is in poor taste if not racist, he or she should not be criticized. Criticism is not censorship.”
I have no problem with the cartoon be criticized. It was not well done, it pulled two very different news events together into one confused looking mishmash and it wasn’t funny or witty. But the idea that it was racist is a very, very weak one when one looks at what the cartoon itself says.
Criticism is not censorship. Threatening with violence is.
Well, how about people pushing to get the cartoonist fired or even pushing to get the paper’s sponsors to pull their advertising and funding?
Micha: Criticism is not censorship. Threatening with violence is.
Luigi Novi: Well, not exactly. Threatening with violence is….well, violence. I agree with the overall point you’re making mind you, in that criticism is not censorship. But being having a knife stuck in your chest for making a movie or being threatened for a cartoon is worse. 🙂
You’re trying to benefit from observations mutually exclusive of each other.
So we’re entitled to our jobs now, comrade?
“As the cartoon establishes the monkey’s identity as the writer of the bill and the bill was written by Congress; would that not more strongly point towards the monkey being a representation of Congress?”
“How is it that what is clearly spelled out for the reader now suddenly isn’t good enough?”
I disagree with your claim that the ape in the cartoon is clearly and unambiguisly identified as congress. This is your interpretation, and it is valid, but it is not the only one, or we wouldn’t be having this discussion.
I agree with Luigi that many people do not know who actually writes the bills.
Moreover, congress is an institution. I assume bills are passed in congress but are in fact written by by specific members or their aids and then go through a process in which others add an change things. So if we ask who wrote the bill, we can say that congress wrote the bill, if the point we wish to convey is about the congress as a place where bills are created; or we could say that the democratic party wrote it, if the point we wish to make is about that party; or we can point to the politician or the politicians who were most instrumental in drafting the bill, if they are the target of the point we wish to convey. Since Obama is at least one of the politicians associated with the stimulus plan, it is not inconceivable to say that he wrote it, without this statement being considered so absurd that any person interpreting the cartoon in this way would be considered out of his mind or extremely stupid.
In any case, the cartoon in question in question was not clear enough so that we can interpret it without doubt as refering wither to congress, as an institution, the democratic party, or the politicians who pushed for the bill.
You refer to other cartoons which used animal imagery. But since I have not seen them I have know way of knowing if the use of the imagery was clearer in them than in this one. I don’t think it was as clear as you say in this specific cartoon. maybe we have here just a case of a bad cartoonist. But since the association of racist monkeys and blacks is, I think, pretty well known, then if not the cartoonist, than someone else in the paper should have realized the possibility of the racist interpretation. That none did suggests that if they are not racist they are also not very smart or sensitive. Which one of these interpretations is the truth, I have know way of knowing.
“What, is it because it uses a monkey? Is it because you can say that monkeys have been used in the past as racial slurs against blacks? Soooooo…. From now until Obama is out of office no one can use a monkey depicting anything to do with Washington DC because any use of a monkey will be called a racial slur and a depiction of Obama? “
There are two questions here:
1) Assuming that the ape is not actually refering to Obama, should cartoonists refrain from using it to refer to others in Washington for fear that it would be seen as refering to Obama?
2) If the ape does refer to Obama, is that not OK.
The answer to the first question is that people whose business is convaying messages should concern themselves whether or not the message they were trying to convay could not be misunderstood in a way that would be embarassing to them. For example, a politician like Obama should be concerned that a point he makes about the role of religion in american culture would not be perceived as looking down on religious people.
The answer to the second question is that the fact that Obama is black does make the use of certain imagery more difficult for writers and artists, because there is a language of imagery that is associated with racism, and using it to refer to Obama would be considerd in poor taste and not innocuous. However, I don’t think this strips completely the imagery writers and artists can use to make fun of Obama. Like I said, had Obama been a woman, or Jewish, or latino, or Muslim, or a southerner, or Irish etc. then other imagery might have been considerd inappropriate when used to refer to him.
“Well, how about people pushing to get the cartoonist fired or even pushing to get the paper’s sponsors to pull their advertising and funding?”
In the Imus case, which was less ambiguous, I felt it was against the interest of blacks to be perceived as if they are trying to or able to force Imus out of his job. However that did not mean they shouldn’t have voiced their understandable anger about what he said for fear that they would be perceived as bullying him. It’s a thin line, but important. I also find it difficult to tell people who are outraged by a statement made by someone, that hey should continue paying for his pr her work. It is a very individual decision on a case by case basis.
a few years ago, a certain Norwegian writer whose book I’ve read wrote an article which many, myself included, felt was antisemitic. He of course denied it, but I do not accept his denial. At a certain point I was so angry I wanted to send his book, which I owned, back to his address. I didn’t do it because I’m too dámņ lazy, but I doubt I could reread it or would recommend it to others. What I wouldn’t do is try to institute a boycott of his books or anything like that. More because I would consider it counterproductive than because of a concern that such a boycott would actually be a form of censorship.
Since I’m not the offended party in this case I have know way of knowing what’s the appropriate level of outrage for it. However, since it’s meaning is uncertain, it would be wise to adjust the level of outrage accordingly. This might be a case of stupidity and insensitivity, like the Spanish eye gesture.
One last point. Many people feel annoyed by being forced by political correctness or other social norms to be sensitive or perhaps over-sensitive to the feelings of certain groups. That’s understandable since there are all too many who have turned thin skin into a weapon. However not all sensitivity is over-sensitivity, and being sensitive to the feelings of others is not always a bad thing, even by cartoonists.
Had a cartoonist used an image of a pig to refer to Obama, this might not have been considered in bad taste, but had Obama been Muslim it would have. An image of a mouse might be problematic if Obama was Jewish, while a fat cow would have elicited mich criticism if he was a woman.
Let’s discuss the cartoon, sure, yeah, technically the difference between monkeys and apes has nothing to do with the controversy, but I consider most (ahem) people on this board intelligent. Intelligent people know the difference between apes and monkeys and therefore the “layman” argument shouldn’t apply. Post Hoc Ergo Procter Hoc. 🙂
I think you mean “Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc.” After it, therefore because of it.
PAD
Look, I’m not going to change any minds here and at this point I don’t think I’m even really trying at this point. But this thing just looks goofy as hëll to me.
There’s an established history of humor like this with monkeys that goes back for decades. A monkey pounding away at a typewriter (or a computer) has been a punch line payoff so often that it’s a cliché. And it’s of course never about things that people think are good. It’s always following the ”Who wrote this garbage?” type of line about bad books, bad scripts, bad regulations in the workplace or bad laws.
The Right, presumably who this cartoonist is a member of and for whom the cartoon was targeted to, has been screaming about this bill being a bad bill. From that POV the monkey gag makes sense.
The same week that the Stimulus Bill gets passed we have a bizarre monkey attack that’s all over the news for a day or two. The two things didn’t really seem like they worked well together at first, but I can see how an arch conservative viewpoint could see them as compatible. With that incident you have a pet monkey that went crazy and attacked innocent people. Under the Republican talking points of the last month-plus we have, by their POV/talking points, a Democratic Congress that’s gone crazy with spending. They say that with this stimulus package we have bill that attacks capitalism, personal responsibility and the founding principles of our society.
So a conservative minded cartoonist takes the two things and blends them. The result is, to me, people losing their minds.
I’ve been watching both sides argue this thing in a lot of different places for the last two days in all honesty the Right is actually looking like the sane side for a change. The Right has had a lot of people putting forth arguments that are at least reasonable and logical. The Left has been putting forward arguments that are, to be kind, in many cases irrational and based on emotion and hyperbole. There have been two arguments from those that want this cartoon to be racist that could be reasonable but kinda fall apart a bit when any thought is put to them.
1- Monkeys have been used to depict blacks in racist manners in the past. This cartoon has a monkey in it. This cartoon depicts the monkey as pro-stimulus. This monkey must be Obama.
My dog has four legs. My cat has four legs…
The problem with this is that there’s nothing in the cartoon itself to definitively establish that the monkey is Obama. Quite the opposite actually. And the monkey is not being used in a manner resembling how the racist depictions of blacks were set up nor is it drawn to look at all like Obama . It’s just a dead chimp.
2- Some people may think that the monkey is supposed to be Obama because they don’t know enough about how bills are written, Obama is the public face of the bill, etc.
I can accept that as an excuse for the early confusion or assumptions about what the cartoon was or was not supposed to be. If you don’t have knowledge about the subject matter that the cartoon that you’re looking at is based on then you’re bound to be a little lost and fill in the blanks yourself. However, there’s a problem with that POV in several ways.
A number of the people banging the racism drum do know better. Sharpton knows how the system works. The Huffington Post staff knows how the system works. Keith Olbermann staff knows how the system works. The talk radio crowd of the left knows how the system works. The talking heads on CNN and MSNBC know how the system works. The ignorance card doesn’t work with them because they’ve shown in the past that they know about the monkey at the typewriter and the way bills get written and become laws.
It also doesn’t work for the general public after about a day. Someone can say, as (not picking on you, just using you as an example since it’s in the thread) Luigi did, that they didn’t know A, B or C before this flap started. They get told. Now they know. If you can tell someone a logical, rational, reasonable and true reason for why something may more strongly be ‘A’ rather than ‘B’ and their reaction is to say, as was Alan Colmes’ statement the other night, that they don’t care what the facts are because they want to believe the monkey is Obama and therefore it’s racist; you’re dealing with stupidity and not racism.
Keeping it sort of peterdavid.net related…
The funny thing about art is that you see what you want to see in it. You can sometimes see things in it, either good or bad, that the artist never intended to be there.
A few (okay, more than a few) years back there was an art exhibition that just got savaged by the conservative talkers because of the nature of the artwork. One piece was the Virgin Mary with a lump of elephant dung over the left breast. That one got a lot of grief about being anti-Christian. The artist did several interviews where he defended the piece quite eloquently. He pointed out that he was from two different cultures that had two different belief systems and that this work was a merging of those two belief’s religious symbols. There was a bit more to it than that, but it’s not that important now.
There was one interesting piece of art that even put me off when I saw a picture of it. It was a mannequin that was child sized and covered with dìldøš. The eyes, ears, nose and mouth were even dìldøš. That one was very easy to see as the critics were describing it. They were, depending on who was speaking, going on about how it was sexually objectifying children and promoting pedophilia. It looked so weird that it was easy to write it off as that as well.
And then I was reading my CBG and Peter (I think it was Peter) mentioned the flap in his BID column. One of the pieces he mentioned was the mannequin. He had an interesting twist on what it represented that was a complete 180 from the conservative talk crowd. His take was that it represented the idea of how much we as a society have bombarded our children with sexual images and sexuality. That actually made sense when you looked at it.
That’s the funny thing about art sometimes. We often see in art what we want to see. The art becomes a reflection of the viewer rather than a reflection of the artist’s intent. The art ends up exposing what we are rather than what the artist is.
I don’t see this as a racist piece. There’s too much there that makes the pies look the monkey is congress. I also wonder at this point what that piece says about so many on the Left in this country that they’re so desirous and determined to see racism in things no matter what.
“As the cartoon establishes the monkey’s identity as the writer of the bill and the bill was written by Congress; would that not more strongly point towards the monkey being a representation of Congress?”
“How is it that what is clearly spelled out for the reader now suddenly isn’t good enough?”
I disagree with your claim that the ape in the cartoon is clearly and unambiguisly identified as congress. This is your interpretation, and it is valid, but it is not the only one, or we wouldn’t be having this discussion.
I agree with Luigi that many people do not know who actually writes the bills.
It may not be the only one, but it is the one that, based on the way our system is structured and how things are done in regards to writing bills, is the most logical or reasonable reading. And I agree as well that some people may not know that. I’ve said as much. But I’ve said two or three times now that this doesn’t excuse the people fanning the flames who do know who writes the bills in our system. It also doesn’t excuse the ones who say that they don’t care about those facts because they want to see it as an offensive cartoon. And at some point it shouldn’t excuse the pitchfork and torch crowd’s ignorance either.
I’m reminded of an incident that happened back in 1995. Remodeling at an area school uncovered a certain symbol that had been set into the floor or a wall (I don’t recall which) back in the 19-teens or 1920s. A symbol used by (among other groups around the world) Native Americans. A symbol that, among other things, stood for good luck.
The swastika. With the arms pointing to the left, unlike the twisted Nazi version that came into the international consciousness in the 1930s.
And upon this discovery there came a hue and cry by the stupid people (and those who never met a TV camera they didn’t like; which are sometimes the same group) who tried to make connections between this 19-teens or 1920s work of art and a then obscure political party half a world away.
“We can’t allow this thing to remain in plain view,” they cried. “It’s all about evil and Hitler and it’s wrong. And won’t somebody think of the children?”
No, you idiots. This school had the original left-pointing good version of the swastika, not the Nazi one. But did the school (or the school board for that matter) use this discovery as an opportunity to teach how a once positive symbol had been turned negative by– if nothing else– putting up a plaque or something describing the history of the swastika? Nope. They caved. The symbol was covered up/painted over/whatever.
Lord forbid that a school should embrace any opportunity to teach people.
I can only hope that the issue of how symbols and the meanings behind them can change was discussed in various classes in that school (and others in the area) as a result of that discovery, even if the symbol in question was covered up as soon as possible.
I’d like to think the more rational in the community would have agreed that some sort of explanatory plaque should have been put up near this uncovered artwork, to put it into context. Unfortunately, anything they might have said was drowned out by the ignorant “pitchfork and torch crowd.”
Though it wouldn’t surprise me if some (if not all) of those who loved the cameras were nothing more than opportunists who knew the truth about the different versions of the swastika, but were only interested in inflating their own self-importance.
Rick
Interesting corollary lie (talking point): Congress writes the Bills, every Bill, always. Save the quote for the next argument that involves Clinton 😉
I disagree with your claim that the ape in the cartoon is clearly and unambiguisly identified as congress. This is your interpretation, and it is valid, but it is not the only one, or we wouldn’t be having this discussion.
The ironic thing is that the cartoonist could have avoided the whole thing by doing what cartoonists typically do in order to make their point: They label the symbols. At this point it’s no longer necessary to slap GOP or Dems on an elephant or donkey, but very often a cartoonist will draw in some large guy and write “special interests” or “Medical coverage” or “gas prices” or something like that on him so we know exactly the point he’s trying to make. The cartoonist could have written “congress” on the chimp and that would have been that. He might want to consider that so that whatever point he’s trying to make in the future doesn’t get lost in a hue and cry of supposed misinterpretation.
Plus, y’know, a woman’s face got chewed off by a chimp that was the companion of a widow who took baths with it and had to see it get blown away. The original story is dementedly tragic enough; hardly the stuff of humor. It’s like doing a cartoon the day after 9/11 showing two people jumping off the top of a crumbling tower and one of them is saying, “Well, at least we don’t have to listen to any more George W. Bush speeches.”
PAD
“Post Hoc Ergo Procter Hoc.
I think you mean “Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc.””
My version: Post Hoc Ergo Emily Proctor.
Ultimately jerry, the difference between us is that I don’t accept your assumption that by using the verb “write” the cartoonist made the interpretation that the ape refers to Obama completely invalid. This is not because of ignorance as to who writes bills. I think the connection between Obama and the stimullus bill is strong enough that casually saying that he wrote the bill would not be such an absurdity as to make the interpretation that the ape refered to Obama invalid.
You could argue that prefering the racist interpretation over the others is a relection of what’s in the hearts and minds of the viewers. I agree, but I think the interpretation you prefer is also a reflection of your own psychological motivations.
I agree that people like Al Sharpton have a cynical political interest to latch on to the most racist interpretation. But there are others who are not Al Sharpton, whose sensitivity toward racist inuendo was hard earned. Are they being oversensitive. Perhaps sometimes, but not always and not without cause.
I’m willing to give the cartoonist the benefit of the doubt,and assume that this is just a badly executed attempt to combine two news stories. But I do think the racist interpretation should have been expected, so the cartoonist and paper are either guilty of stupidity or insensitivity.
This also applies if the cartoonist later explaied himself. People may or may not accept his explanation that he was not refering to Obama and had no racist intent, but, as in the case of the Spanish team, he should have known better.
The incident with the picture of Mary made of manure is a good and bad example. Bad because artists aim for ambiguity and often provocation. good, because, as in the previous case, we have a situation in which the possibility that Christians will be greatly offended by the image, was not unforseeable. In the case of an artist, he may have prefered his artistic vision over tthe possibility of offense. Editorial cartoonists have it more difficult since they represent newspapers.
A few days ago some Israeli comedian made some sketch or joke on Christianity, and the Vatican and others were apparently offended. I haven’t seen it. I don’t think he had any ill intent — Israelis are pretty ignorant of Christianity beyond the basic story, and it probably never occured to him that it could be offensive. It is also possible that the Vatican has there own political reasons to take offense. But, it was still insensitive. More then a decade ago tthere was a pretty funny but kind of obnoxious comedy show that was very popular, which made fun of a lot of Israeli things. They had one bit about the Virgin Mary which was very funny. But in retrospect I feel it was wrong to make that sketch in a country like ours, just as some of the other sketches would have been in poor taste if made in other countries, because they are about Israeli society. I think if that (older)sketch was made in a Christian country, it would have been considered funny. But context is important.
” Ultimately jerry, the difference between us is that I don’t accept your assumption that by using the verb “write” the cartoonist made the interpretation that the ape refers to Obama completely invalid. This is not because of ignorance as to who writes bills. I think the connection between Obama and the stimullus bill is strong enough that casually saying that he wrote the bill would not be such an absurdity as to make the interpretation that the ape refered to Obama invalid.”
Let me throw a hypothetical at you. Let’s say that you are looking at the mess going on in DC and that you decide to try and do a political cartoon. You’ve been watching the various Republicans in Congress getting on the chat shows and saying that we need to do A, B and C if we’re going to get out of this mess and not the same old same old that blah, blah, blah. It strikes you as funny that the “new” proposals to get us out of this that the Republicans are pushing is just the same stuff they did do for most of the last eight years and that they also act like they still think that they’re the party that was supported by a majority of Americans in the last two elections.
You draw a monkey in a monkey cage flinging (what looks like) its feces at a couple of passing tourists. There are several other monkeys grouped together in a corner just looking at the lone monkey with expressions of disgust and pity on their faces. There’s a sign over the cage itself that reads ”Washington DC Animal Zoo” and a sign on the bars that reads ”Primatus Politicalus”. Your two ducking tourists each have a line of dialogue themselves.
The woman is asking, “What’s wrong with him?”
The man replies, “He thinks he’s still in charge.”
The cartoon gets picked up and run by a newspaper. The next day you’re being crucified by the liberal blogs and the left of center talkers in the media. They’re saying that you portrayed Obama as a monkey flinging his feces at the American people and that both you and your cartoon are vile and racist. Some people point out to the pitchfork and torch crowd that you clearly have the people referring to the monkey as thinking that it was still in power and that it is far more likely that your monkey is the Republican minority as they lost the majority two years ago and have now lost the power of the Presidency as well. It is, they say, clearly not Obama that you portrayed as a monkey. The pitchfork and torch crowd respond that they don’t care about the word ”still” in the cartoon. Monkeys have been used to portray blacks in the past by racists and there’s a good portion of conservative talkers still saying that Obama is an illegitimate President and, due to the birth place stupidity/controversy, isn’t constitutionally able to be President. (Hëll, Alan Keyes was in the news yesterday saying that he won’t call Obama President since he’s illegally taken that position and is in fact of Kenyan birth.) And many Conservatives see the stimulus bill as dangerous to America and its well being. Therefore you drew Obama as a monkey and had some people saying that Obama only thinks he’s in charge.
How fair to you would it be to discount one word, but a very important word, in your cartoon and label you and it as a racist? Sure, the drawing itself could be taken any number of ways, but you wrote a line of dialogue that narrows the reasonable interpretations and people are saying that your dialogue doesn’t count since they want to see the meaning of the cartoon in the worst possible light. Is that reasonable? Is that fair to the cartoonist or to the debate?
” You could argue that prefering the racist interpretation over the others is a relection of what’s in the hearts and minds of the viewers. I agree, but I think the interpretation you prefer is also a reflection of your own psychological motivations.”
Actually I think it’s just a reflection of my first reaction to the thing. I’d heard the stink about it for hours while running errands before getting a chance to see it. The talking heads on the left were going on about this thing and describing it as though the thing were actually a dead ringer caricature of Obama himself. They were playing it up as there was no other way to see the thing at all. I finally got home and pulled it up on the net in the evening and had one immediate reaction to it.
That’s it?
I also sat down and watched the news channels and saw a lot of garbage being done that should earn some people more scorn than the artist is receiving. Some reporters and hosts, especially on MSNBC and especially the ones with past bones to pick with Rupert Murdoch, News Corp and News Corp employees, seemed to be joyfully fanning racial flames and portraying this thing as only being one possible thing and that thing was a racial slur/attack against Obama. I didn’t see it that way when I first saw the thing and I don’t see it that way now.
I also have that one thought about situations like this being discussed six months ago rattling around in my head. A lot of conservative critics of Obama and Hillary looked at how some of their most zealous supporters attacked any criticism as raciest or sexist in origin and basically said that this was going to be the Left’s SOP if either of them got elected. A number of the talkers and pundits on the Left said that this was a bunch of hogwash.
Now we have stupid, unfunny little cartoon that wouldn’t have been worth the time of day before being held up by those same talkers and pundits on the Left and being declared as unavoidably, inescapably and indisputably racist and an attack on Obama or, at worst, an endorsement of violence against or assassination of Democrats.
It just doesn’t like a good sign of things to come.
” The incident with the picture of Mary made of manure is a good and bad example.”
Okay, but I wasn’t using that one as the example. I cited that one since that was, at least in America, the most famous/infamous of the works in that show. That’s the one that people would remember because every Conservative talking head was going off their trolleys about that one. I was using as an example the more ambiguous mannequin one.
If you don’t have a certain cultural background, you are not likely to see a situation the same was as the affected person. Intellectually, I can see why PAD is possionate about the recent Israel conflict, but I can’t feel it like he does; I am not Jewish. I am also not black.
From a local paper, here is an opinion piece written by a black woman.
http://toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090221/COLUMNIST24/902210354
“Two police officers, one with a smoking gun, stand over a dead chimpanzee lying in a pool of blood with bullet holes in his chest.”
“African-Americans have long been ridiculed by racists as ape-like. Unarmed African-Americans have been fatally shot and killed by police officers far too often.”
Jerry, I think you’re attitude toward this whole event is very strongly influenced by your reaction to talking heads and the general irrational hysteria that seems to surround every political issue these daus. I know how you feel. I feel the same about political discourse in my country. However, in general I don’t get exposed to your talking heads as much, and on this issue all I know is a headline, the cartton itself and what I’ve heard here. So, for better or worse, these issues don’t affect my reaction to the cartoon.
We’re going around in circles as to the weight of the verb write to the understanding of the cartoon. How will history remember the stimulus bill? will it be remembered as congress’s bill, Pelosi’s bill or Obama’s bill?
I don’t think this precedent or Obama’s presence in the White House will impoverish political discourse beyond its current sad state.
“I don’t think this precedent or Obama’s presence in the White House will impoverish political discourse beyond its current sad state.”
I don’t think that it’ll get that much worse, but it can sure get uglier for a while.
Alan Coil: “If you don’t have a certain cultural background, you are not likely to see a situation the same was as the affected person. Intellectually, I can see why PAD is possionate about the recent Israel conflict, but I can’t feel it like he does; I am not Jewish. I am also not black.”
And even if you are black…
The Question: “Rev. Al Sharpton, Do you believe that political leaders such as Condoleezza Rice and Colin Powell are viewed as “house negroes” by other African Americans, by going along with the President against their beliefs?”
The Answer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rdVjrBY5-F0
From an interview with Harry Belafonte.
‘House slaves’
“Harry Belafonte at 80 still has a righteous, burning anger. After all, close friends of his have been killed for their beliefs. But has nothing changed, I asked him?
“A lot has changed. I can sit here in New York and talk with you, people of two different races, which when I was born there were laws that prohibited such associations.
“But if you talk about racism it’s far from over. The evils of racism are as commanding as ever”.
He dismisses the appointment of Condoleezza Rice and before her, Colin Powell, to positions of genuine power in George W Bush’s administration.
He has described them as “house slaves”, and doesn’t feel their presence has helped his cause in any way.”
**********
NAACP Chairman Julian Bond once stated that the Republican Party was like the Nazi Party and called Rice and Powell tokens.
Jeff Danziger often depicted Rice as an ignorant, barefoot “mammy,” reminiscent of the stereotypical black woman of racist propaganda.
Syracuse University professor and blogger Boyce Watkins appeared on the CNN and attacked NPR host and Fox News contributor Juan Williams for being a regular on Bill O’Reilly’s show and sometimes defending Bill’s more questionable comments. He said, “Juan Williams sitting there, is sort of the ‘Happy Negro’ agreeing with Bill O’Reilly, doesn’t impress me at all.”
“… The matter is that, when Bill O’Reilly gets Juan Williams, the eternal happy Negro, on his show to congratulate him on his racism, that’s like Hugh Hefner getting a stripper to come on the show and tell him that he’s not a sexist.”
Interestingly, the protests, marches and outrage seemed to be lacking then from 90% of the people who are “outraged” now. This isn’t about race for most of the people fanning the flames right now. This is about power and who is on what political side.
The Post apologized for the cartoon, to everyone who was offended. Not just to those personally involved in the chimp incident. By the offenders’ account, the offense taken from the cartoon is legitimate. That’s an issue-settling fact.
Mike,
It’s only an “issue-settling fact” if you want it to be, are determined to have the issue “settled” because you cannot debate the issue on any level, especially on such silly things as logic and merits AND haven’t actually read the “apology”.
While the Post stated they did not intend to offend anyone they apologized to anyone who did interpret the cartoon different from what they intended. That was just classy to me, not an admission of guilt.
They also added that they KNOW this is being used by those who have had a bone to pick with the Post for years as a way to advance their agenda/fan racial flames/beat the Post into submission and muzzle their opinions.
They made it clear that to these critics, “NO APOLOGY IS DUE”.
And you know what? Good for them.
So, they’re weasels, therefore the cartoon can’t be offensive racially?
So, they’re weasels, therefore the Post has upheld the public trust on equal imposition on the public as it goes to race?
Dude, that’s goofy. How is that also not evidence the offense taken from the cartoon is legitimate?
Jerome Maida: “They made it clear that to these critics, “NO APOLOGY IS DUE”.”
Yeah, and they were then blasted by the “outraged” the very day of the apology for giving a no apology-apology that didn’t mean anything and basically just attacking the $&!^ stirrers with that no apology-apology.
One of the few times I’ve ever been on the Post’s side in an issue.
…and the Post’s account is that taking insult from the cartoon is valid. Therefore, the issue of whether the cartoon is offensive is unambiguously settled… except for you insisting that taking insult from the cartoon is invalid.
Why is it so hard for you to allow anyone else’s account of what they are going through when it’s completely compatible with observable reality? Why can’t someone give an account of their own experience without you trampling it with your own account of what they’re going through?
“Interestingly, the protests, marches and outrage seemed to be lacking then from 90% of the people who are “outraged” now. This isn’t about race for most of the people fanning the flames right now. This is about power and who is on what political side.”
This guys are sincere. They get so caught up in their idelogy, and ideological jargon, and cliches, and their world view becomes so rigid it cannot accomdate anything that doesn’t fit their nice framework.
Let’s step back and possibly take a different tack on the cartoon. I can understand why some here (possibly with a chip on their shoulder to begin with) automatically throw the race card as Sharpton always does. Sharpton is a non-issue since his opinion can be discarded due to his own black racism, and notoriety as a poverty pimp.
I do believe that the cartoon is being misinterpreted in that the current welfare (definitely NOT a stimulus) bill is the insane monkey, and should be shot/killed on sight. Considering the completely out of control method with which it was concocted, hustled out of committee, and passed without more than a handfull of people actually knowing what they were voting FOR in the first place….this is definitely a mad monkey bill, and needed to be put down with extreme prejudice…Unfortunately this monkey is now turning into King Kong.
The stimulus bill is The Monkey King!
There are two questions:
1) Is it as OK to depict Obama as an ape as it is to depict Bush or Congress?
No. It would be deliberately provocative. This doesn’t mean I think it should be grounds for overthrowing the first amendment but anyone doing it had best be prepared for the consequences.
2) Is it reasonable to view the ape as referring to Obama in the absence of a label?
I’d say no, for all the reasons I mentioned. In fact, I think maybe anyone who insists that the dead ape must be meant to be Obama…well, they may have some issues of their own to work out. But I won’t assume that they must have racist views, since I can’t know what’s in their hearts…a courtesy they would not extend to others, I might add.
Anyway, because I just came back from a great convention in Chatanooga, won the makeup wars contest and am full of love for the world, a simple list of things that all editorial cartoonists should avoid for at least the next 4 years:
1- Monkeys, apes. Duh.
2- Watermelons. Any other fruit, which might be perceived as just trying to sneak watermelons in here, what, do you think we’re stupid?
3- The president as stupid, lazy, cowardly, or slacking off on the job. Steppin Fetchit, anyone?
4- You cannot make fun of the way the president dresses.
5- Do not show the president with a tiger. Especially if it is running around a tree, turning into butter.
6- I know that Sambo was from India. Do not question my good advice!
7- No aprons, waffles, pancakes or references to syrup.
8- Do not portray the president as athletically gifted.
9- Do not use the word “thug”, “crook”, or any other word suggesting criminal behavior on the part of politicians.
10- I know, I know. #9 hurts. Sorry.
11- Do not use the words “Uncle” or “cabin”.
12- or the word “golly”. that ones kind of obscure but why take the chance?
13- The President can not be shown dancing.
This list is by no means complete. Cartoonists ignore it at their own peril.
Mike,
First, calling them “weasels” does nothing to advance the discourse.
Second, I would consider it an honor to be considered a weasel rather than a black racist, opportunist, and/or defending a woe-is-me, victicrat attitude. Many of the critics of the cartoon specifically and the Post in general easily earn all three titles.
It’s funny that the same people screaming bloody murder about this were silent about SNL’s skewering of N.Y. Gov. Paterson. True, there were some critics even of that. But no Sharpton, no Spike Lee, no serious threat to target SNL’s advertisers.
The sad thing is part of me wanted to believe Obama and his disciples when he and they said he wanted to “transcend race”.
He could easily have taken a step toward doing that by telling everyone to either calm down or grow up and emphasizing that he didn’t consider the cartoon racist and that we have more important things to worry about.
Instead, we have an Attorney General who seems determined to fan racial flames and we have devoted time, ink, energy and effort talking about a cartoon while we are in two wars, Pakistan looks like it’s caved to the Taliban, Iran is still making progress toward a nuclear weapon, Russia is flexing it’s muscle and hindering our efforts in Afghanistan and North Korea is feeling it’s oats as well.
All this happened in the last week or so, yet we are focused on a cartoon and giving time to the same people making the same tired arguments yet again.
Of course, the reason they do so is because they have a vested interest in doing so and definitely have a vested interest in destroying, weakening and/or delegitimizing the views of one of the few right-leaning papers in America.
Come to think of it, that’s probably the reason Obama hasn’t said anything in defense of them, because they are one of his harshest critics.
Of course The One would never stoop to making decisions based on political calculations or seeing a nemesis getting flayed even if he thought it was unjust. How could I EVER think of such a thing.
Jerome, I think it’s unfair to blame Obama for this cartoon imbroglio. Yes, he could defuse the situation with a statement but A- I don’t really want the president to get involved in every stupid manufactured media tiff (he’d have time for nothing else) and B- If he has paid any attention to this whatsoever I think he might feel that the best way to deal with people like Al Sharpton is to ignore them as much as possible and not get dragged into their sad little existence (there’s a lesson there that could be applied to certain internet trolls as well).
Holder’s statement ws dumb, no question. Doesn’t seem to have upset people as much as Phil Gramm’s “Nation of whiners” gaffe but what the hey. At least he’s paid all his taxes, which is the new minimum standard I’m adopting for politicians, a hurdle both low and too high for many to jump.
So where are we now? Well, here’s a note from the editors of the Washington Post: “The headline, illustration, and text of ‘Below the Beltway,’ a column in The Washington Post Magazine today, may cause offense to readers. The magazine was was printed before a widely publicized incident last week in which a chimpanzee attacked a badly mauled
a woman in Stamford, Conn. In addition, the image and text inadvertently may conjure racial stereotypes that The Post does not countenance. We regret the lapse.”
The illustration in question can be seen at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/16/AR2009021600936.html. A woman is carried off by what appears to be a simian of unknown species. She is thrilled. A man holding flowers stands dejectedly in the background.
That’s it. They really were afraid that people would see the ape as a Black man. Wow.