Blatant and thoughtless Racism is alive and well

[Mr.G]

That's a tough one but I'm surprised an editor didn't pause before giving the ok.

[clanglee]

It depends on how one reads the cartoon, I suppose. I think it's a huge over-reaction and the artist was using the time-tested analogy of monkeys to thoughtlessly imbecilic ineptitude and inefficiency, but if the fellow has a history of art that could be construed as homophobic it certainly won't help him. It's always a hard line to walk in these cases, because you never know when someone is just seeing racism in the image because they're very sensitive about race, or missing it because they are not sensitive enough to the issue. It's not really that tough tho'. Even if the artist didn't mean it racially (which he probably didn't) Someone on the paper should have known that many people would see it as such. Like I said. .I'm surprised it made it through the editors. I just can't believe that many people just dropped the ball. Someone should have seen it and gone "ummmmm. . no"

[AcesandEights]

Like I said. .I'm surprised it made it through the editors. I just can't believe that many people just dropped the ball. True. I guess they just can't throw up their hands and be like: "Hey, what do you expect, it's the Post." I think that's what everyone in the city says about the Post a few times a week.

[Mike70]

It's not even that funny, so I say the artist doubly fails at his job. yep. it's a double fail. it seems to be in poor taste if anything and if this cartoonist didn't have a rather poor track record on these sorts of issues, i'd say just let it go. SRP's right: most politicians have more in common with weasels than any species of primate. i think that likening them to any sort of primate is giving them far, far too much credit.

[J0hnnyReb]

Funny, how come when millions of editorial cartoons showed Bush as a chimp, they even called him McChimpy it was ok? Whats good for the goose is good for the gander I should suspect. Unless you're all saying Obama's partial blackness deserves special conditions where he is above satire that was used to eviscerate Bushs public appeal.

[Mike70]

Funny, how come when millions of editorial cartoons showed Bush as a chimp, they even called him McChimpy it was ok? probably because chimps, gorillas and monkeys have been used as racist symbols for black people for a long, long time. things like this strike a chord in a lot of people and remind them of the bad old days. besides, equating bush to a chimp is giving bush way too much credit. he's more akin to a tapeworm or some other nasty parasite.

[J0hnnyReb]

probably because chimps, gorillas and monkeys have been used as racist symbols for black people for a long, long time. things like this strike a chord in a lot of people and remind them of the bad old days. besides, equating bush to a chimp is giving bush way too much credit. he's more akin to a tapeworm or some other nasty parasite. Ahh, so Obamas race makes him immune to satire. I see. I guess some people do have it easier.

[Mike70]

Ahh, so Obamas race makes him immune to satire. I see. I guess some people do have it easier. uh, no it doesn't make him "immune" to satire. however, using a chimp or any other lower level primate in place of a black person is slippery ground as far as taste goes and probably says more about the artist than the subject of his intended satire.

[MinionZombie]

If Bush had been drawn as a slave-driver whipping black people, for example, that'd be pretty damn racist - the term "cracker" is a racist term against white people, but it's either ignored as such, or somehow accepted ... because racism only goes one way, just like discrimination (shockingly enough). Or if Bush was drawn to be some other kind of white-skin racial stereotype, that'd be pretty darn racist. What was really done though, is jokes and cartoons relating to his intelligence (or apparent lack thereof - I don't think he's an idiot though) were spewed out into the world of political satire (and any two-bit jokester doing a show even) ... so the use of Bush as a chimp is purely based on people considering chimps to be dim (even though they're relatively quite intelligent, as well as genetically damn close to humans), and also in terms of physical appearance. I've got no real political view on Bush one way or another...he's not God, and he's not the Devil...and I look forward to seeing an in-depth and properly unbiased biopic of him in a few years ("W." doesn't count, it had a confused stance and message, and was made up of a lot of hearsay and hypothetical dialogue). Just as an aside, while it's not race, Tony Blair was always shown as having a gigantic smile and big ears, Margaret Thatcher always had a witch-like nose, John Major was embodied by the colour grey, and Gordon Brown is often depicted as a fat, barge-like buffoon. uh, no it doesn't make him "immune" to satire. however, using a chimp or any other lower level primate in place of a black person is slippery ground as far as taste goes and probably says more about the artist than the subject of his intended satire. If the cartoon was making some other kind of point, I don't know what it was. All I know is what I thought of when looking at that cartoon: 1) Black people have often been referred to, in a racist way, as monkies/chimps etc. 2) It's a stereotype (but also based on true past and present events) that (some) cops shoot black people because of their skin colour, or give them a harder time because of their skin. So when you've got a cartoon involving both, it's hard to tell what the message is supposed to be? At most it's pretty darn racist, at least it's a horribly and inappropriately delivered piece of political satire.

[Yojimbo]

LOL it's actually kinda funny. Perhaps to you, but not to me. probably because chimps, gorillas and monkeys have been used as racist symbols for black people for a long, long time. things like this strike a chord in a lot of people and remind them of the bad old days. Damn straight. At least the cartoonist in this particular instance cannot claim ignorance of the racial implications behind use of a chimpanzee or monkey as a symbol, unlike Cyrus who hides behind the lame excuse of making a goofy face.

[J0hnnyReb]

uh, no it doesn't make him "immune" to satire. however, using a chimp or any other lower level primate in place of a black person is slippery ground as far as taste goes and probably says more about the artist than the subject of his intended satire. Not sure I agree, I think the slippery slope is when we start setting standards for taste and enforce them. If Bush was a chimp, then Obama is a chimp. No one is seeing the primate thing in comparison to black people except you and a few others, I saw it as well as the Bush Mcchimp thing more as a trained monkey a la the hurdy gurdy or curious george than anything. but I guess you see blacks more like apes or monkeys, I dunno, I don't. Perhaps to you, but not to me. Damn straight. At least the cartoonist in this particular instance cannot claim ignorance of the racial implications behind use of a chimpanzee or monkey as a symbol, unlike Cyrus who hides behind the lame excuse of making a goofy face. The artist just throws something out there, we all add the paint with our own imaginations, if you see blacks as chimps then see this as racist thats your thing. I saw this more like with bush that Obama like Bush are just trained monkeys performing for their insane bases.

[strayrider]

http://www.kansascity.com/news/polit...y/1046805.html Maybe cartoonists could come up with a more appropriate symbol for Barry Hussein? With those ears and jawline a jackass might work nicely. -stray-

[clanglee]

No one is seeing the primate thing in comparison to black people except you and a few others,. What?!?!? Seriously? It's the first thing I thought of when I saw it. It's the first thing that a LOT of people think when they see it. Whether or not it was his intention, it shows a decided lack of awareness or sensitivity on the artist's and the paper's part. A few others. .

[J0hnnyReb]

What?!?!? Seriously? It's the first thing I thought of when I saw it. It's the first thing that a LOT of people think when they see it. Whether or not it was his intention, it shows a decided lack of awareness or sensitivity on the artist's and the paper's part. A few others. . You make my point for me, you and a number of others immediately thought of blacks = chimps.. see what i'm driving at?

[clanglee]

No I don't. That particular racial slur has been around forever. It is obvious, and people should indeed be sensitive to it. Of course I don't see black people as apes. But I am aware that this is a common rascist comparison. Nice try tho.