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
• 
My reaction is that the cartoonist probably was not thinking about comparing Obama to the chimp (wasn’t that Bush anyway:-)
But, some editor along the line should have realized the implications and put a hold on the cartoon.
Thank you for saying this. As I am a man who voted for and supports President Obama, You are the first person I have seen or hear say the cartoon is could be referencing the “infinite monkeys in a room” connection. I figured Oberman would take that point of view last night until I found out it was a Murdoch company (oh and the cartoonist said it wasn’t the Pres. but maybe the speaker of the house, which was a REALLY dumb thing to say) and he took the racist ball and ran.
When I saw the article I thought of the infinite number and Shakespeare, but now don’t know what to think because of what the Post editor and cartoonis said. Just don’t like siding with Sharpton, even if he made the ’04 Democrat Debates fun to watch. Man can make a speech.
Keep up the good work, Mr. David!
Chimps aren’t monkeys. They are apes. Good rule of thumb: monkeys typically have tails.
1I’ve been debating this with an online “friend”, as well. Tried to make the thousand typewriter comparison, had trouble getting it thru. I’m currently at the point where I’m simply asking why she would think a chimp MUST be Obama. Interesting how that’s not where MY mind first goes.
Sharpton’s grammatical error excepted, I gotta go with him on this one. There’s a long history of racists describing African-Americans as being little more than monkeys or apes, and I’d say that it’s a far more direct link between that tradition and Obama than Obama and an infinite number of monkeys with an infinite number of typewriters *not* producing the works of Shakespeare, but rather producing another stimulus bill. It’s a very short trip to the racist connotation, and a long stretch to go to the infinite number theory.
Or, as a poster on another site said in 2008, “Here is the official way to figure out if comparing a black person to a monkey is racist. Go up to the largest meanest looking African American you can find and say “What’s up you look like a monkey” Depending on how many teeth you have left when you regain consciousness you can tell exactly how racist it is. Seriously though… African Americans were legislated in the past as less than human and compared to monkeys on more than a few occasions. That’s why it is much more offensive to call a black person a monkey. Try it at your work and see what happens.”
All you guys talking about monkeys and typewriters….
http://www.milehighcomics.com/cgi-bin/backissue.cgi?action=fullsize&issue=03787542074%2025
Unfortunately, the cartoon is not directly referencing the “infinite monkeys with typewriters” connection.
It’s referencing a pet chimp that went wild and was shot and killed by police.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/02/17/chimpanzee.attack/index.html?iref=24hours#cnnSTCText
This doesn’t make the cartoon better or worse, but it is the context for the visual part of the cartoon.
Obama did not write the bill. It’s doubtful that any one human could, since it’s apparently too big to read (leading to Chuck Schumer now calling for changes to it after discovering some provisions that will probably hurt New York’s interests.). At any rate, the critisizm that many have had about the bill was that it wasn’t the coherent work of one person but, rather, a hodgepodge of whatever could be shoved in under the guise of “crisis”.
In an amusing juxtaposition, the Attorney general said that Americans are “cowards’ when it comes to discussions of race. Give the likelihood that anything you say on the subject will encourage race-baiters like Sharpton to accuse you of racism–a career and reputation damaging charge–one can certainly understand why people might have a bit of reticence on the subject. Hëll, apparently even NOT discussing race will get pickets protesting your racism.
I don’t think Sharpton believes the cartoon was racist. It’s a pre-emptive strike. And it gets his face in the news–with a black man now in the White House who will be going to Al Sharpton for “the view of black people” or whatever reason it was that his face kept popping up? If I want to know what black people think about world events i can now just listen to the president’s press conference.
Also in the news, regarding censorship–some sap got pulled over for a sign on his truck that said “Abort Obama, not the unborn”. His sign was confiscated, he was informed that he was part of an investigation and the secret service toured his home and interviewed him.
Just a simple case of overreaction on the part of a police officer, in my opinion, but had something like this happened a year ago it would have been presented by some as proof of the trampling of our rights by the Chimpy McBushitler regime (Simian analogies having been previously encouraged, unlike the more enlightened times of now).
Sigh. If we can’t mock politicians and the policies they politicize it’s going to be a long 4-8 years. I mean, look at soon to be ex-Senator Burris! And Gov Patterson, who has been turned into comedy gold on SNL! I’d vote for that guy just to be able to hear a few more years of jokes about New Jersey.
The NY Post has been a constant embarrasment for NYC. That a city like ours would call a waste of paper like the POST a “news paper” and not plain old bird cage liner amazes me.
I thought it was referring to Nancy Pelosi, since she was the one who wrote the stimulus package. I thought Obama was upset with her for sort of hijacking “his” bill. I suppose an infinite number of Nancy Pelosis could produce the works of Shakespear.
Or, as a poster on another site said in 2008, “Here is the official way to figure out if comparing a black person to a monkey is racist. Go up to the largest meanest looking African American you can find and say “What’s up you look like a monkey” Depending on how many teeth you have left when you regain consciousness you can tell exactly how racist it is. Seriously though… African Americans were legislated in the past as less than human and compared to monkeys on more than a few occasions. That’s why it is much more offensive to call a black person a monkey. Try it at your work and see what happens.”
Um…is there really anyone debating that it’s racist to call a black person a monkey?
Also, gauging the wrongness of something by the violence it provokes is not a very good method. Find the biggest, meanest looking shogun toting confederate flag wearing redneck and call him gay. the resulting lack of teeth will not indicate that “gay” is a bad word, only that said redneck may have issues. Walking through Iran and yelling out “Hi, Jew!” to a turban wearing scary curved dagger holding rug dealer with a one eyed monkey might end poorly as well, but again, this tells us nothing about Judaism as a religion. (You are all invited to make up your own stereotype ridden analogy).
Lastly, again, it never occurred to me that the cartoonist was referring to Obama since, as I said, Obama did not write the bill.
Actually, lastly once more–I’m sorry that the whole Chimp thing will end up being another dreary race debate when it’s a really good opportunity to drive home the apparently unlearnable lesson that people should not keep wild animals as pets! Along with raising and animal from birth does not mean he isn’t a wild animal and its corollary domesticated doesn’t mean he knows how to drink from a glass, you dimwit. Look it up. He’s got arms like a steel bar wrapped in fur and is at least 5 times stronger than a human. How the hëll do you THINK this story is going to end?
I feel terrible for the poor woman who was attacked. If you know anything about how chimps usually attack humans or other chimps you have a pretty good idea of what was done to her and it is probably more horrible than can be imagined.
The cartoon has a valid point. The political process that produced the stimulus was out-of-control. And the Obama stimulus fraud is a threat to our safety.
I am glad the cartoon was printed. It’s not racist. The New York Post MUST NOT back down on this. Don’t apologise. If anyone in this brouhaha should apologise it’s the “Rev” Al Sharpton that windbag has caused America more than enough grief.
i remember a few years ago in a city council meeting someone used the word “ņìggárdlÿ” in its correct context in the presence of black co-workers. they lost their minds.
now it isn’t that you can’t use it but just be forewarned someone may see it differently (whether the are wrong or right) and you could have a problem on your hands.
then again, i think white people do stuff all the time they know is racist and hide behind some technicality. “what? i like water melon, too.”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ssAmDNmNw68
You know what’s sad? It’s possible that the new York Post could become new York City’s only paper. The Daily news loses money (as does the Post but Murdoch has deep pockets) and you can now buy stock in the new York Times for less money than the cost of the Sunday edition of the New York Times.
I haven’t read the other comments yet, but certainly my take is that it was a commentary on that incident a few days ago where the chimp went nuts and tore some poor woman’s face off.
Hence, “stimulus package = written by someone/something insane.”
I don’t see it as particularly racist. I do understand why people could make that connection, but I can’t agree with it.
Its biggest problem, frankly, is that it’s a terminally unfunny and uninteresting cartoon. It’s already gotten about 1000X the attention it’s deserved on the merits.
I’m with you on the Sharpton Position, but this cartoon was spectacularly inappropriate.
As a Brit in NY, the first thing I thought was that he was referring to Congress as a ‘bunch of monkeys’ but that’s not a phrase I hear on this side of the pond too much, so I may be mistaken.
I doubt it was intentionally racist, but I suspect it was aimed at the President without thinking through the implications.
As for the “infinite number of monkeys” analogy, I think that that’s giving the Post way, way, way too much credit for intelligent cartoon design. About ten monkeys can produce an average issue of the Post in an hour, I think.
Oh, and Lyn? While Al Sharpton may not be your favorite person (nor is he mine), he IS an ordained minister, so putting “Rev” in quotes is incorrect. The rest of your post is something I’ll leave for hardier souls than mine.
I watched a decent chunk of the media cycle on this last night, and most of the talking heads seemed to be of the position that yeah, the comic was stupid on many levels, but the main problem was how the Post and the cartoonist responded to the initial reactions. Like, “Shouldn’t an editor at some point have realized that people might react poorly to this?” Or “Why did the cartoonist have to make a statement that could be interpreted as advocating shooting Pelosi?”
Peter David: Second, and more important…it’s the New York Post! Why does anyone give a dámņ what they say about anything?
Luigi Novi: Because people do read that rag, and therefore, it does have influence, just as its parent company in general does.
Peter David: 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.
Luigi Novi: Even if that was the cartoonist’s intent, I see two problems with this in terms of its communication with the reader:
First, because monkeys/apes are so strongly associated as a visual racist epithet with people of color, whereas by contrast, our society is not so literate that most of it will as immediately familiar with the monkey-typewriter-Shakespeare aphorism, the former is going to be the more common interpretation, and not the latter.
Second, a reader’s proper understanding of the cartoon as a metaphor for the poor quality of the stimulus’ package would hinge on that poor quality being widely known, as a type of meme. If it were, then the cartoon might have a better chance of working in that manner. But while we’ve been hearing of plenty criticism of the bill by Republicans, I don’t get the sense that it’s widely known in this manner.
For these reasons, I think the cartoon, as a way to convey a reference to that story, may work with Post readers, since The Guardian says that they had been running stories on that incident for a couple of days, but for those not familiar with that story, it falls flat, and has the appearance that cartoonist Sean Delonas simply took the easy way out with a gratuitously inflammatory image.
Bill pointed out that Obama did not write the bill. But how many casual readers know that? The bill is closely associated with Obama, so that connection will likely be made. Given that Gawker once dubbed Delonas the “Picasso of Prejudice” for the cartoon seen at http://gawker.com/205418/post-draftsman-the-picasso-of-prejudice, I’m not sure how much of the benefit of the doubt I should afford the guy.
I don’t believe the Post had racist intent — the killer chimp is in the news as is the stimulus bill. It’s a two-fer joke.
But even if it was a direct reference to Obama, so what? People — including me — have compared Bush to a chimp frequently over the past 8 years. Is it now disrespectful to do so to the President? Yes, there’s racist baggage but don’t you move past it by saying that we’re all on an even playing field?
For instance, if a cartoon depicted the CEOs who gave themselves bonuses as greedy shysters, is that suddenly racist if one of them happens to be Jewish and there’s baggage regarding that stereotype, as well?
But Luigi, it seems like the argument is that yes, there was no racist intent on the part of the cartoonist and it’s true that the cartoon did not target Obama but since people are too uninformed and bigoted he deserves condemnation for the brouhaha.
I hate to be defending Delonas, who is about as funny as a toothache, but it sets an ugly precedent for cartoonists to be held responsible for the ignorance of their readers.
In my opinion, this is the inevitable result of the Mohammed cartoon violence of the last year or so. the lesson was learned; make enough noise, threaten enough violence, back up the threats with some actual violence, and people will fear you and try to avoid making your life more difficult. (Not that Sharpton has threatened violence but he hasn’t always been able to keep his mobs under control.) And don’t expect those people who go on national TV to say their free speech is being suppressed when they are criticized to do much when their skin is genuinely on the line.
“Shouldn’t an editor at some point have realized that people might react poorly to this?”
Maybe. So?
“Why did the cartoonist have to make a statement that could be interpreted as advocating shooting Pelosi?”
Why not?
When did the right not to be offended get so enshrined? Does this apply to everyone or do you have to prove historical oppression to qualify?
I am just geeky enough that I upon reading PAD’s post here, my mind first jumped back to the issue of X-Factor in which Val Cooper and Havok have an exchange over the difference between “implied” and “inferred”.
I think this is much ado about nothing. The stimulus bill is the biggest thing in news right now and the monkey story was the weird news flavor of the week story. Someone who does editorial cartoon work was bound to mix the two just because of the way those guys brains work. Still, I’d have expected him to write “Congress” across the monkey’s belly just to make it clear to the dimmer folks out there. Not an uncommon thing by the way. I have about twenty consecutive years of collected editorial cartoons as well as a few from many decades gone by and it’s a very common practice to label animals in cartoons of this nature.
However, Cartoonist Sean Delonas hasn’t helped matters any with his less than clear clarifications on the cartoon.
The New York Post countered Sharpton’s statement and declared it was standing behind the cartoon. The publication’s editor-in-chief issued the following response:
“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.”
Cartoonist Sean Delonas went on to call Sharpton’s accusations “absolutely friggin’ ridiculous” during a phone interview with CNN Wednesday afternoon.
“Do you really think I’m saying Obama should be shot? I didn’t see that in the cartoon,” he said. “It’s about the economic stimulus bill. If you’re going to make that about anybody, it would be [House Speaker Nancy] Pelosi, which it’s not.”
So, he’s saying that the monkey is Obama or that it’s Pelosi, but just not about shooting her? Not helpful at all. That’s so badly worded that it’s just going to give ammunition to the people that want this to be racial (“He even said the monkey is Obama and not Pelosi!”) or, as Keith Olbermann tried to imply last night, that he’s trying to introduce the idea of armed responses to unpopular politicians as an acceptable action into the political discussion around the Stimulus Bill.
I don’t know what was in this guy’s mind or what his intent really was, but I don’t think he was trying to be racist here. If anything, this entire mess just underscores to me what a pain in the neck the next four to eight years are going to be for political humor and political discussion. If the majority party or its cheerleaders don’t like something it will branded as racist. The fact that you can find, as is the case here, thousands of examples of editorial cartoons where the artist used animals (and monkeys in particular) to represent government bodies or specific people (like, say, some guy named W) doesn’t matter. It’s racism and the target of their ire will be tarred and feathered for it.
This idea was brought up by total blowhard @$$holes like Rush before the election and everyone, myself included, said that they were full of it. Unfortunately, if this becomes the standard SOP for things like this under Obama, those blowhards might have been closer to the truth here with this than just about anything else that they’ve ever said.
(Side note for Bill M. – About done with second read through. Feedback to come, but looks pretty good.)
If this cartoon was referring to the monkey/typewriter analogy, why was the typewriter absent from it? What was the hardship in including a typewriter in the cartoon?
Or, maybe there’s such a thing as racism, and this guy suffers from it.
It’s like Peter said: this is the NY Post. They’re crappy. The cartoonist admits to the reasonable inference of Obama as a chimp, and there’s no typrwriter. What’s the hardship in calling racism what it is?
Why’s it so important for the NY Post to be crappy, but still above racism? Why must the subset of mediocrity be impossible to attribute for the general attribution of mediocrity?
Luigi Novi: “First, because monkeys/apes are so strongly associated as a visual racist epithet with people of color, whereas by contrast, our society is not so literate that most of it will as immediately familiar with the monkey-typewriter-Shakespeare aphorism, the former is going to be the more common interpretation, and not the latter.”
See, this is where I think the argument gets silly. There have been numerous cartoons in the last few years, let alone the last few decades prior, where monkeys in general and occasionally circus monkeys specifically have been used to represent congress. Even the most casual reader of news papers would have seen these before and dámņëd sure would have seen the countless ones in the last few years where W. was the target and drawn as a chimp. It’s a common thing in editorial cartooning. Why is it different now?
Luigi Novi: “Second, a reader’s proper understanding of the cartoon as a metaphor for the poor quality of the stimulus’ package would hinge on that poor quality being widely known, as a type of meme. If it were, then the cartoon might have a better chance of working in that manner. But while we’ve been hearing of plenty criticism of the bill by Republicans, I don’t get the sense that it’s widely known in this manner.”
The “poor quality” may not be widely known, Luigi, but the argument of the other side that it’s of poor quality or even dangerous to the country is more widely known about it than anything other than the fact that Obama was for its passage. And since the target readership would likely also be talk radio followers, I’d say that the odds of them knowing that fact are pretty dámņëd high.
Luigi Novi: “Bill pointed out that Obama did not write the bill. But how many casual readers know that? The bill is closely associated with Obama, so that connection will likely be made.”
Luigi, there is such a thing as not giving people enough credit and making your argument look way too weak in the process. Somehow, and this may just be me, I don’t think that even the average person out there thinks that Obama himself wrote tens of thousands of pages of writes and rewrites in the short time he’s been in office and done all the other things he’s been on TV doing. Besides, the wall to wall coverage on this has been that congress has been writing the bill and that the war over what would be or wouldn’t be in the bill has been between the Republicans and Democrats in Congress.
And then of course there all those episodes of School House Rock that we grew up on telling us how a Bill becomes a Law.
Still, I’d have expected him to write “Congress” across the monkey’s belly just to make it clear to the dimmer folks out there. Not an uncommon thing by the way. I have about twenty consecutive years of collected editorial cartoons as well as a few from many decades gone by and it’s a very common practice to label animals in cartoons of this nature.
yeah, but I always hated that. It’s like having the stuff literally spoonfed to you. It’s like watching bad college avante garde theatre or Soviet Posters from the cold war or Chinese tractor production videos from the Cultural revolution. It’s like having some guy who “puts” “every word” in “quotation marks”.
I think the infinite monkeys idea is a better one than what went through Delonas’ dreary imagination. I think it went something like this:
The stimulus bill is stupid! You know what else is stupid? Monkeys! They just shot one in New England the other day! What if the stupid monkey was the one who wrote the stupid stimulus bill? I think it would go something…like…this…
Well, Mike thinks it’s racism. That should wrap it all up and end all argument. Granted, we’re talking about the same guy who refused to use White-Out in school because he saw using it to cover up mistakes written in black ink as the process of subconsciously propagandizing White Power to school children.
Hmmm. Maybe it’s not clearly racism after all.
Have a nice day!
Before they produce the works of Shakespeare, the infinite monkeys will probably produce an issue of the Post.
I think that is by far the funniest thing I have read so far this year!
“yeah, but I always hated that. It’s like having the stuff literally spoonfed to you.”
Yeah, but that spoon feeding does tend to help avoid stupidity like this from happening because of the dimmer set or the set that wants to take advantage of the dimmer set’s outrage for political/social power reasons.
I haven’t asked anyone to take my word for anything.
Bill Mulligan has already made some of these points but I do think Powerlineblog.com sums it up nicely:
There are several problems with this critique. Most obviously, Obama didn’t write the “stimulus” bill. If anyone is being called a chimp, it is Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid.
Beyond that, one can only marvel at the Democrats’ new concern for civility in political discourse. After all, while this cartoon had nothing to do with Obama, we do have a lot of experience with people referring to a President of the United States as a “chimp.” That was President Bush, of course, for whom “chimp” was one of the liberals’ favorite epithets. The insult was commemorated in the name of this web site(http://www.smirkingchimp.com/). Graphic depictions of President Bush as a chimpanzee were legion; a Google Images search turns up page after page of examples.
Democrats will no doubt continue to use Obama’s race to try to silence criticism, but they can rest assured that conservatives will never unleash the kind of mindless hate against Obama (or anyone else) that we have all witnessed from the Left over the past six years.
What black person called George Bush a chimp? There’s no hypocrisy in black-protest of the cartoon.
By the cartoonist’s own account, the inference of Obama as the chimp is reasonable. It doesn’t matter what powerlineblog’s wishful thinking is.
The New York Times’ article/reaction to the cartoon, including a comment from the governor of NY who admits he “hasn’t seen it yet.”
http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/02/18/chimp-stimulus-cartoon-raises-racism-concerns/
including a comment from the governor of NY who admits he “hasn’t seen it yet.”
…nah, too easy.
Here’s a telling quote from the NYT page:
While messes like this are left to Al Sharpton to clean up, I’m going to withhold ridicule of him.
…nah, too easy.
Believe me, I did an actual double take when I read it.
“…nah, too easy.”
“Believe me, I did an actual double take when I read it.”
Your vile prejudice against the differently abled amongst us is just sickening. Why, You should be outed on CNN this instant!
…or 24 months from now. You can always keep it fresh.
1 Unfortunately, I happen to live in an area in Southwest Virginia where quite a few people refer to black people as “monkeys”. Even people within my own department have used this term in conjunction with the “n” word to describe black people. These epithets are tossed around so casually that I have nearly accepted the idea that people in my area are all hate-mongering racists.
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… much like how many in the area I live view blacks and monkeys/apes as the same.
I cringed at the sight of the New York Post cartoon. I find it repulsive… just as I cringe when my fellow officers and citizens vocally associate blacks and monkeys/apes.
Truly,
Glen Richardson
For some reason, I too see Sharpton’s take on most issues as divisive and overzealous…
…but my first reaction upon seeing the cartoon was “oh no he didnt!”.
While I agree there is enough room for debate here, I cant resist the temptation to point how some months ago people in these comments refused to aknowledged the fine print regarding an alleged racial slur, while now they seem to be more understanding. This has nothing to do with their stance on racial issues, but but with their better perception of said fine print when it comes to a message producced within their own cultural background.
Bill Mulligan: But Luigi, it seems like the argument is that yes, there was no racist intent on the part of the cartoonist and it’s true that the cartoon did not target Obama but since people are too uninformed and bigoted he deserves condemnation for the brouhaha.
Luigi Novi: If by “the argument” you mean my argument, I would clarify by saying, “There was no racist intent on the part of the cartoonist and it’s possible that the cartoon did not target Obama, but since I don’t know if people are informed enough to know about the killed monkey story or the Shakespeare-typewriter aphorism, and Delonas might’ve considered this, I don’t think it was a well-communicated idea.” 🙂
Bill Mulligan: In my opinion, this is the inevitable result of the Mohammed cartoon violence of the last year or so.
Luigi Novi: I don’t know about that. Racist cartoons have been around for as long as there have been cartoons, and in “legitimate” publications too. I hate to be defending Sharpton, who is about as pleasant as a pilonidal cyst, and who may not need much reason to make a play for publicity, but if he didn’t know about the monkey story or that Obama didn’t write the bill, he might’ve reacted the way he did genuinely.
Tommy B: I am just geeky enough that I upon reading PAD’s post here, my mind first jumped back to the issue of X-Factor in which Val Cooper and Havok have an exchange over the difference between “implied” and “inferred”.
Luigi Novi: And I think he used it before then in a Trek novel, too.
Jerry Chandler: If anything, this entire mess just underscores to me what a pain in the neck the next four to eight years are going to be for political humor and political discussion. If the majority party or its cheerleaders don’t like something it will branded as racist.
Luigi Novi: Jerry, “Doesn’t like something” is one thing. An animal that is notoriously used as a racial epithet is another. Just because a cartoon involving the specificity of the latter caused this flap doesn’t mean all matters involving the more general former is going to do so. Using monkeys to represent incompetence, whether of Congress or Bush, is one thing. Using it to convey that Bush looks like one is not a very deep or intelligent political statement, and not the sort of idea to which you’d see an editorial cartoon devoted. But using it to represent a black man is simply a different type of visual cultural meme, and is going to cause a different reaction. It may be idiosyncratic, but that’s culture.
Jerry Chandler: The “poor quality” may not be widely known, Luigi, but the argument of the other side that it’s of poor quality or even dangerous to the country is more widely known about it than anything other than the fact that Obama was for its passage.
Luigi Novi: Okay, this seems like a contradiction to me. The argument that it’s of poor quality or even dangerous to the country is not, in my perception, widely known at all, or at least, not widely mentioned. I don’t know if the typical reader would get that from the cartoon.
Jerry Chandler: I don’t think that even the average person out there thinks that Obama himself wrote tens of thousands of pages of writes and rewrites in the short time he’s been in office and done all the other things he’s been on TV doing.
Luigi Novi: Why do you assume that the average person out there knows that it’s tens of thousands of pages long, or its rewrites? I didn’t know that, and I watch/listen to/read he news regularly.
Jerry Chandler: Still, I’d have expected him to write “Congress” across the monkey’s belly just to make it clear to the dimmer folks out there.
Bill Mulligan: yeah, but I always hated that. It’s like having the stuff literally spoonfed to you.
Luigi Novi: Unfortunately, when you’re trying to convey visual metaphors to a large, commercial crowd, this is necessary, and unavoidable. If you draw a cartoon of Bush’s “Mission Accomplished” photo op by depicting him landing on an aircraft carrier, in a cutaway view that shows that, below the water line, that carrier is actually a gigantic sea beast, you could get away with not putting “terrorism” on that beast, but then the reader wouldn’t know if it stood in for terrorism, Democrats, low approval ratings, anti-war protestors, Afghanistan, badly treated injured vets, etc. Visual communication is not that easy, and in the conveyer belt grind of a daily newspaper, I’m not surprised that such labels would used as a visual shorthand. To me, it helps convey the concept. Hëll, I practically see such labels as an inherent part of the genre. One of my favorites is from the Lewinsky scandal, and involved Bill Clinton, with an “Oops” look on his face, as he held a giant tube of toothpaste whose contents had apparently been accidentally squeezed out. Now if that tube didn’t have “Trust” written on it, it wouldn’t have worked, and I don’t feel I was “spoonfed” anything to me. With the chimp, I think putting “Congress” on it would’ve made it clearer who Delonas was referring to, and would’ve precluded this flap.
Just because it’s a cartoon doesn’t mean clarity doesn’t count.
Powerline.blog.com (via James Tichy): Beyond that, one can only marvel at the Democrats’ new concern for civility in political discourse. After all, while this cartoon had nothing to do with Obama, we do have a lot of experience with people referring to a President of the United States as a “chimp.”
Luigi Novi: I only know of one time when I saw actual ink devoted to this: It was when the Village Voice did a cover feature years ago. Wondering what the point, if any, was to the cover image depicting him as a chimp, I remember being disappointed that it was just a one-page bit devoted to various pics of Bush in different angles and expressions, juxtaposed with correlating photos of chimps. I remember that a more substantial story about him in the same issue didn’t rate the cover. If blogs and other sources do this, then I would similarly not pay them any credence as political commentators.
For what it’s worth, James, I think the Bush-chimp thing is stupid, and always thought so. I trivializes all legitimate criticism that should properly be leveled at him in favor a child’s insult about his appearance.
That said, if a chimp is perceived to be a dig at Obama, it’s going to be seen as a far more inflammatory idea, since racism is codified in our politically correct society as a greater crime than making a dig about one’s appearance resembling that of an animal. That’s just the culture, and it doesn’t need Democrats “using” anything.
“There was no racist intent on the part of the cartoonist and it’s possible that the cartoon did not target Obama, but since I don’t know if people are informed enough to know about the killed monkey story or the Shakespeare-typewriter aphorism, and Delonas might’ve considered this, I don’t think it was a well-communicated idea.” :-
you know, it never occurred to me that anyone would not know about the chimp attack but, upon reflection, it may not have been as big a deal nationwide as I thought. I’ve been eating this story up but you’re absolutely right, not everyone frequents the kind of places that keep one up to date with any and all late breaking animal attack news.
Though I’d guess that the Post has had a few stories on it, as it’s the kind of thing they live for. Did they use the “Monkey Goes Bananas” headline.
One of my favorites is from the Lewinsky scandal, and involved Bill Clinton, with an “Oops” look on his face, as he held a giant tube of toothpaste whose contents had apparently been accidentally squeezed out. Now if that tube didn’t have “Trust” written on it, it wouldn’t have worked, and I don’t feel I was “spoonfed” anything to me.
But that one works because it’s NOT obvious that the toothpaste indicates “trust”. I’m cool with that. What I’m talking about…there was another cartoon that (I’m going from memory here) had some people at what was supposed to be the Lincoln memorial (We could see that the staue was a man sitting in a chair) and from the angle shown you could tell that the statue included a young lady kneeling in front of it. (It was funnier than I’ve described it). If the artist had written “Lewinski” on one of her legs it would have been stupid.
But you know what? I’m more worried that this will become a trend. With genetic engineering and the fact that we are just a tiny percentage of DNA removed from a chimp it won’t be long before someone boosts their cranial capacity and you know what happens? I’ll tell you what happens. Eventually one of them will be standing in the burning wreckage of a city proclaiming “Where there is fire, there is smoke. And in that smoke, from this day forward, my people will crouch and conspire and plot and plan for the inevitable day of Man’s downfall – the day when he finally and self-destructively turns his weapons against his own kind. The day of the writing in the sky, when your cities lie buried under radioactive rubble! When the sea is a dead sea, and the land is a wasteland out of which I will lead my people from their captivity! And we will build our own cities in which there will be no place for humans except to serve our ends! And we shall found our own armies, our own religion, our own dynasty! And that day is upon you NOW!”
Luigi Novi: Jerry, “Doesn’t like something” is one thing. An animal that is notoriously used as a racial epithet is another. Just because a cartoon involving the specificity of the latter caused this flap doesn’t mean all matters involving the more general former is going to do so. Using monkeys to represent incompetence, whether of Congress or Bush, is one thing. Using it to convey that Bush looks like one is not a very deep or intelligent political statement, and not the sort of idea to which you’d see an editorial cartoon devoted. But using it to represent a black man is simply a different type of visual cultural meme, and is going to cause a different reaction. It may be idiosyncratic, but that’s culture.
Luigi, I have literally hundreds of editorial cartoons that stretch back decades where different cartoonists have used monkeys to represent Congress, politicians as a group or the Washington system as a whole. The fact that it’s suddenly a questionable thing to do and that people on the left are crying about racist intent is laughable. We have the first black president in our history and the upshot of this is that we have to censor ourselves and start viewing things that were just fine six months ago as questionable in their usage and possibly insensitive? Screw that.
This cartoon looks like hundreds of them that have come before it. The fact that there’s a stink from the Left about it this time just gives the fringe Right the opportunity to claim that they were right when they said that any criticism of Obama or his policies by a Right of Center critic would be leapt upon and assailed as racist. Kinda like exactly what happened here. It’s stupid and it makes a lot of the advocates of “equality” look more like advocates of “It’s our turn to be the oppressors now.”
Luigi Novi: Okay, this seems like a contradiction to me. The argument that it’s of poor quality or even dangerous to the country is not, in my perception, widely known at all, or at least, not widely mentioned. I don’t know if the typical reader would get that from the cartoon.
(1) It’s not a contradiction. I agree with you that the actual nature of the bill is largely unknown since most people couldn’t tell you what is and isn’t in the bill. Hëll, the people that voted for it haven’t even read most of the thing. However, the general public has been saturated with Right Wing talkers playing up the “poor quality” and “dangerous nature” of the bill.
(2) Where have you been the last two months? Every TV news spot about it, every cable news program talking about it and every Republican talking about it to his or her supporters has covered the fact that most of the Right thinks that the bill is dangerous to our country’s founding principles and will severely damage our country. The talk radio zoo on the right has been doing almost nothing but banging that drum up to and including making up complete and total lies about what is and isn’t in the bill.
The “average” American out there could only be completely unaware of the Right’s views of the bill and what they claim it will do only if the “average” American is blind, deaf and dumb. Yes, people as a whole are stupid, but they’re not that stupid.
Luigi Novi: Why do you assume that the average person out there knows that it’s tens of thousands of pages long, or its rewrites? I didn’t know that, and I watch/listen to/read he news regularly.
Why do you assume that they don’t? One of the big TV, radio, newspaper and net Conservative talking points about the bill since last weekend has been playing up its size and the fact that it was “rushed through” before anyone could really look at it or read it. This thing is the biggest news story of the last month. Are there people out there who really are that disconnected from the world as to not know anything about this bill at all? Yeah. But considering that the original source of much of the “outrage” about this was from Left leaning blogs and editorialist; I doubt that the people showing that outrage are all that disconnected from the arguments around the debate.
And, beyond anything else here, look at what you’re arguing for here, Luigi.
(1) You have a cartoon where two cops are standing over a dead monkey that they’ve just shot (referencing the monkey attack story in the news) and one of the cops is saying that they’ll have to find someone else to write the next stimulus bill.
(2) The idea expressed in that scene is that the monkey was the author of the bill.
(3) We live in a country where the Congress writes the bills and they are then signed into law by the President. Thus, the author of the bill would in fact be congress.
When we look at 1, 2 and 3 together; we can reasonably assume that the monkey represented Congress or the Washington system as a whole.
Yet your argument basically comes off as (at best) defending criticism of the cartoon because there are people in this country who can’t be bothered to know what the hëll is happening in their country or that there are just way too many people out there that are just too stupid to know the basic structure that our government has for writing bills and passing laws.
Short version: We should dumb stuff down or not do some things at all because the dimmest bulbs amongst us might be so ignorant that they won’t get it or know what’s being discussed/parodied and take offense.
As a fan of political humor and someone who still thinks that Yes Minister/Yes Prime Minister is the greatest program ever created about politics I’ll just say this:
If that’s where we’re going… Shoot me now.
You yourself referred to the benefit of denying the chimp referred to Obama.
If the metaphor is so neutral, why was it the least bit urgent for reactionaries to deny the chimp was meant to represent Obama, and why did that denial make the least bit of sense to you?
One plausible answer has been presented. What is the hardship in calling racism what it is?
PAD wrote: Before they produce the works of Shakespeare, the infinite monkeys will probably produce an issue of the Post.
You mean they haven’t already?!
PAD wrote: Before they produce the works of Shakespeare, the infinite monkeys will probably produce an issue of the Post.
Well, they’re both good at flinging poo around.
Jerry Chandler: Luigi, I have literally hundreds of editorial cartoons that stretch back decades where different cartoonists have used monkeys to represent Congress, politicians as a group or the Washington system as a whole. The fact that it’s suddenly a questionable thing to do and that people on the left are crying about racist intent is laughable. We have the first black president in our history and the upshot of this is that we have to censor ourselves and start viewing things that were just fine six months ago as questionable in their usage and possibly insensitive? Screw that.
Luigi Novi: And as I said, using monkeys to represent Congress, politicians as a group or the Washington system (which I have not seen that often across the editorial cartoons I’ve seen) is not going to invoke the same reaction as using one to represent a single, particular black man. The issue is the different reaction that different visual ideas create, even ones that are subtly different, not that it’s “suddenly” a questionable thing, since the modern implications of using an monkey to represent a black man is not “sudden”, and was not “just fine six months ago”.
As to whether we have to censor ourselves, well, I never prescribed that solution, or any solution. Merely observed what the reactions to cartoons made under these circumstances is going to be, and opined that Delonas didn’t exercise as much judgment or creativity as he could have.
Jerry Chandler: (1) It’s not a contradiction. I agree with you that the actual nature of the bill is largely unknown since most people couldn’t tell you what is and isn’t in the bill. Hëll, the people that voted for it haven’t even read most of the thing. However, the general public has been saturated with Right Wing talkers playing up the “poor quality” and “dangerous nature” of the bill.
Luigi Novi: My statement was about the ostensibly poor quality of the bill, at least as conveyed by the bill’s critics, and not any inherent, objectively measured nature of it. I’m talking about the bill’s one line, shorthand caricature, as Mark Evanier put it, and not any objective truth about it.*
My point is that the public is not necessarily familiar with the Right Wing take on the bill. I’ve been following news about the package the entire time, and I get that some have problems with it, but not that the bill is incompetently written, since that is the idea behind monkeys that you’re suggesting. This criticism of the bill is largely partisan; Obama and the bill’s supporters obviously do not have this view of the bill, which is why that idea on the part of the cartoon doesn’t work; It requires us to understand that the sentiment expressed by the police officer is something that “everyone knows”. That’s just my perception though; I can’t speak for others.
Jerry Chandler: Why do you assume that they don’t?
Luigi Novi: I don’t.
The only one of us assuming one or the other is you.
But I do consider things that you apparently reject, including the fact that general things about news items might be known, and not the minutiae about them, or that while some people might know minutiae, they might not be widely known by the readers targeted by editorial newspaper cartoons, etc.
Me, I don’t know whether the average reader either knows this or doesn’t know this. But I didn’t know this. I just never considered it. But if these things were not only widely known, but immediately so, then don’t you think there’d be no flap at all? Sources other than Sharpton have chimed in. Have any of them mentioned these points?
Jerry Chandler: .
(1) You have a cartoon where two cops are standing over a dead monkey that they’ve just shot (referencing the monkey attack story in the news) and one of the cops is saying that they’ll have to find someone else to write the next stimulus bill.
(2) The idea expressed in that scene is that the monkey was the author of the bill.
(3) We live in a country where the Congress writes the bills and they are then signed into law by the President. Thus, the author of the bill would in fact be congress.
When we look at 1, 2 and 3 together; we can reasonably assume that the monkey represented Congress or the Washington system as a whole.
Luigi Novi: There are a couple of problems with this.
First, the initial response to the cartoon on the part of many people is going to be reactive, not analytical. People are going to have an immediate reaction to the cartoon based in part on non-intellectual, emotional, or instinctive, visual cues.
Second, your analysis requires that people’s reaction emphasizes the knowledge that Congress writes bills. Again, a lot of people don’t know this, or know it, but may forget it when seeing the cartoon. I know that bills start in Congress (yeah, I saw those “Schoolhoue Rock” cartoons as a kid), but I didn’t know that only they write it. In addition, your analysis emphasizes the word “write”. Regardless of whether the policeman said this, the bill is associated in the public mind not with Congress, but with Obama.
I’m sorry, but I get the sense that you don’t see how it could remotely be interpreted as a reference to Obama, and I don’t think that’s realistic.
Jerry Chandler: Yet your argument basically comes off as (at best) defending criticism of the cartoon because there are people in this country who can’t be bothered to know what the hëll is happening in their country or that there are just way too many people out there that are just too stupid to know the basic structure that our government has for writing bills and passing laws.
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.
Sources other than Sharpton have chimed in. Have any of them mentioned these points?
You mean out of the ones that aren’t determined to make this about racism no matter what? Lots. The funny thing is that I’ve been making a point of listening to a lot of the Left Wing talkers today. Even some of their audience have said that saying that it’s Obama doesn’t make sense since Congress writes bills and not the POTUS.
But I do consider things that you apparently reject, including the fact that general things about news items might be known, and not the minutiae about them, or that while some people might know minutiae, they might not be widely known by the readers targeted by editorial newspaper cartoons, etc.
How are the facts of this matter minutiae? Every news story around this thing has discussed how the bill was being fought over in Congress by Congress and that after much wrangling and compromise the Republicans still refused to vote on the thing. Every news story about this thing has mentioned the Republicans hatred/opposition against this thing. Every news story about this thing has discussed what Congress has been doing with this bill in the process of writing it.
And, again, some of the biggest $&!^ stirrers in the early moments of this were and are people that know this and, in some cases, reported on it themselves.
And as I said, using monkeys to represent Congress, politicians as a group or the Washington system (which I have not seen that often across the editorial cartoons I’ve seen) is not going to invoke the same reaction as using one to represent a single, particular black man.
And if the facts and just a few seconds of thought would say that maybe the target was Congress and not a single, particular black man named Obama; we should just ignore the facts?
I’m sorry, but I get the sense that you don’t see how it could remotely be interpreted as a reference to Obama, and I don’t think that’s realistic.
No, I see how some could think it and how even more could be talked into thinking it as well. However, there does come a point when you look at the facts of the matter. When that point comes you end up seeing who bases their POV on facts and who bases their POV on whatever politically suits their bias.
Not but a few hours ago I heard a caller on the Alan Colmes show basically lay out the points I did above.
1) The monkey incident was a quick but big blip in the news.
2) The bill’s passage has been big in the news.
3) The Right’s hatred of the bill and what they believe it will do to harm the country has been in the news.
4) The cops in the cartoon specifically reference writing the bill.
5) Congress writes bills. The President does not write bills.
6) The monkey was a representation of the Democratic Congress and not Obama.
Colmes response almost word for word? He didn’t care what the facts were. He sees the monkey as being Obama so that’s how the cartoon was meant to be seen.
Tell you what, Luigi, why don’t we ban the word ‘picnic’ as long as we’re going to insist that facts don’t matter any more. After all, several black groups tried to get school picnics ended or renamed a few years ago because they wrongly claimed that picnic was a shorthand derivation of “pick a n****r” and it came from when the well to do whites would go to town and purchase slaves or watch the slave sales while eating their packed lunches. Who cares if they were wrong? They believed it and that should be enough.
And maybe you should start bugging Peter to track down mister pj and apologize for that racial slur Peter hurled at Italians a few months back. Sure, when we all looked at the facts of what was said we could see that Peter did no such thing, but then facts don’t apparently matter when someone wants to claim to be offended by someone else’s racist remarks.
Jerry Chandler: How are the facts of this matter minutiae?…We should just ignore the facts?…Tell you what, Luigi, why don’t we ban the word ‘picnic’ as long as we’re going to insist that facts don’t matter any more.
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.