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
• 
None of the outrage against the cartoon depends on the racist interpretation being the only interpretation.
If the Post isn’t apologizing for the racist interpretation of the cartoon… then what the hëll are they apologizing for?
They’re either apologizing for the cartoon, or they aren’t. You’re the one hedging for some kind of ambiguity where there is none. I was only referring to the only logical outcome of what you said.
Me? It seems pretty straightforward to take their apology as the issue-settling confirmation offense taken from the cartoon is legitimate. The only mystery seems to be you.
“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.”
Agreed.
“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.”
We already covered this.
“In fact, I think maybe anyone who insists that the dead ape must be meant to be Obama”
To say that it must be Obama would seem as wrong to me as saying that it couldn’t be Obama.
“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.”
covered
“2- Watermelons. Any other fruit, which might be perceived as just trying to sneak watermelons in here, what, do you think we’re stupid?”
No watermelons or bananas, but other fruit are fine, I think.
“3- The president as stupid, lazy, cowardly, or slacking off on the job. Steppin Fetchit, anyone?”
Only if portrayed in a certain way.
“4- You cannot make fun of the way the president dresses.”
It depends on circumstances.
If Obama decides to wear African/Muslim/Hip-Hop/funk/soul/minstrel/slave/afro/black panther clothes, many will want to and will make fun of him. And this will draw some criticism from some quarters, but not as much probably.
On the other hand, if he doesn’t wear such clothes but somebody makes a cartoon/comedy bit depicting him wearing them, this will probably draw more criticism, although some may find it amusing without any racist intentions.
Nazi uniform or red army uniform will also be very controversial.
“5- Do not show the president with a tiger. Especially if it is running around a tree, turning into butter.”
Only if he is holding a whip and wearing a tall hat and a red suit. Or is with someone answering to the names Zeigfrid or Roy.
“6- I know that Sambo was from India. Do not question my good advice!
7- No aprons, waffles, pancakes or references to syrup.”
OK
“8- Do not portray the president as athletically gifted.”
He is already portrayed as such, it doesn’t seem to cause any problem.
“9- Do not use the word “thug”, “crook”, or any other word suggesting criminal behavior on the part of politicians.”
I disagree.. You can use these terms but not gangster or gangsta.
“11- Do not use the words “Uncle” or “cabin”.”
Whites will never use them and blacks inevitably will at some point. This will draw criticism, but since it will all be inside the black community, I don’t think it wil bother you very much.
“12- or the word “golly”. that ones kind of obscure but why take the chance?”
I didn’t know this one has a specifically black connection.
“13- The President can not be shown dancing.”
Sure he can, but not tap dancing.
“9- Do not use the word “thug”, “crook”, or any other word suggesting criminal behavior on the part of politicians.”
I disagree.. You can use these terms but not gangster or gangsta.
There’s already been a dustup over this. Arnold Kling said that Henry Paulson’s $700 billion bailout made him feel that as a taxpayer it was as if his house had been ransacked by a gang of thugs and that now we have a new gang of thugs. He did not cite Obama by name. Vanity Faire’s James Wolcott insisted that this was a racist attack on Obama.
Apparently some people see all thugs as being black and therefore any use of the term must be code for black. And they think they are the progressive ones! oooookay.
brown university’s Glenn Loury points out another classic cartoon visual not allowed–the president sitting in the corner with a dunce cap on. In fact, it’s a bit difficult to imagine how any cartoonist will be able to portray the president as being stupid or ignorant without being hit by a charge of racism. Of course, if Obama is seen as overplaying that hand it could backfire but i think he will be smart about it and let others do the race baiting. If there is a backlash against it his hands will still be clean.
Of course, the best thing would be for reporters and commentators to grow a pair and fight back against any attempt by politicians to suppress criticism but I don’t think that kind of courage is going to be easily found in an industry that is dying on the vine. At any rate, I can’t blame Obama for taking advantage of the craven cowardice of his opponents. I’d do the same, in his position.
There was a time when the most common version of Eeny, Meeny, Miny, Moe among school children wasn’t the tiger version.
The handful of news stories about the lawsuit against Southwest mentioned no calls for a boycott. The chimp analogy portrays blacks as damaged. Eeny, Meeny, Miny, Moe only means blacks were the recipients of racism. Unless blatant, like a cartoon with Obama, a tiger, and a suite of options, I’d be willing to bet associations of a cartoon of Obama with a tiger to Eeny, Meeny, Miny, Moe could reasonably be sidelined as crackpot-interest-only.
“It’s a bit difficult to imagine how any cartoonist will be able to portray the president as being stupid or ignorant without being hit by a charge of racism.”
I don’t think it is hard to imagine ways of making fun of Obama for being stupid or ignorant that wouldn’t have racist subtext, and will not be perceived as such by most. But I can’t guarantee that of all the pundits out there, there won’t be someone who will raise the charge of racism at any criticism of Obama. I also can’t guarantee that there is any criticism of Bush that would not be considered by someone somewhere as treason and unamerican.
“There’s already been a dustup over this. Arnold Kling said that Henry Paulson’s $700 billion bailout made him feel that as a taxpayer it was as if his house had been ransacked by a gang of thugs and that now we have a new gang of thugs. He did not cite Obama by name. Vanity Faire’s James Wolcott insisted that this was a racist attack on Obama.”
How much of a dustup?
“Of course, the best thing would be for reporters and commentators to grow a pair and fight back against any attempt by politicians to suppress criticism”
Not all criticism is fair. Not all criticism of criticism is fair either. But I don’t know if that constitutes suppression.
Not all criticism is fair. Not all criticism of criticism is fair either. But I don’t know if that constitutes suppression.
No, of course not. Some people or institutions act like they are being suppressed when all that is happening is that people are calling thme out for their bad behavior.
In the current case in question, Sharpton is asking the city to not advertize in the post and that hey be investigated by the FCC. Julian Bond wants the editor and cartoonist fired.
(The Drudge report points out that only last summer there was a big story in the Post about how Sharpton allegedly shakes down corporations for donations to his organization, with threats of demonstrations of they don’t cough up the luchre. The rev has a long memory.)
How much of a dustup?
It was big in the blogosphere for a few days, which may not mean much in the Big picture but I’d hate to have the readership of Instapundit, Vanity Faire, Andrewsullivan, etc debating whether or not I was a racist. In this country that can be a career ending charge.
Yeah, tell that to Don Imus or Al Sharpton.
Maybe it was big in the 20%-right-wing blogosphere. The other 80% of the political blogosphere hasn’t peeped on this one.
Democrats have had the majority in congress for 2 years, so it’s too late to refer to a new gang of thugs and have it mean them.
If some guy is calling Obama a thug, he should have something more than Obama holding the wealthy to help in the upkeep of the American infrastructure they benefit disproportionally from. Reactionaries should quit their greedy whining.
And in an… interesting… post script to the story it seems that the post has just fired associate editor Sandra Guzman. She was, back when this story was new, the only editor (or at least the loudest) to break ranks and condemn the cartoon and the paper for printing it.
.
Now, was it retribution? Did the paper waited until the heat from the cartoon had died down and been forgotten until they canned their dissenting voice? Or was it simply that a paper that is losing money and readership chose to cut a less popular section in the paper (the Tempo entertainment section, which she edited, was recently discontinued) and then released an editor that it no longer needed due to staffing numbers VS jobs required?
.
Either way, the blogs discussing this have been laugh out loud funny to read.
I’m not sure what to make of it. I see how easy it is to draw the connection. On the other hand, publishing is a depressed industry. Fired editors in book publishing, in newspapers…hëll, entire newspapers folding…they’re stacking up like cordwood. God knows I’ve no love for the NY Post, but hardly a month passes without more layoffs in the industry. So I don’t dismiss the idea that she was fired because of that…but I’m not quick to embrace it either.
.
PAD