DU's a big tent. Even having to ASK if that cartoon is racist is an embarrassment and an indictment.

[omega minimo]

Check in here.



As the bigot bonking, chauvinist clomping loudmouth who has paid dearly for the privilege, I clumsily apologize to our African American community and anyone else who gets it, for the cluelessness of too many folks...

And some can claim ignorance because so much of the racist memorabilia -- imagery in advertising, pop culture, etc. -- has been disappeared from mainstream awareness and is documented in collections, many owned by prominent African Americans, including Oprah Winfrey and the artist, Raymond Saunders. (The pictured poster is quite beautiful).



I had the "privilege" of consulting on framing such a collection in the early 80's for a Boss Hog lookin' white man who claimed to have the largest such collection in the nation.

I looked (unfamiliar and appalled) at sheet music and salt/pepper shakers and advertisements and illustrations and bric a brac and god knows what, so MUCH of it -- and wondered "who would want to own this?"

I understand why African Americans would want to retain these things that have been (mostly) erased from the mainstream mentality. Young people today would be as shocked or more to see it than I was 29 years ago.

Raymond Saunders even managed to transfigure and make the horrific beautiful, in a collage with an actual box of "Darkie Toothpaste."

Even so, the fact that the cartoon:

A. made no sense and caused a "Huh?" response

B. required some awareness of another news story where a monkey had been shot by police (?)

c. required no imagination for racists to picture a black man (even if he's the President) as an ape

D. and yet people want to quibble over whether it was racist or not

is digusting.


I advocate women not having to put up with abuse on DU and I am appalled that we have to have stupid debates about racist issues, as well. Dehumanizing imagery dehumanizes those who can't see what's right before their eyes.

[cliffordu]

1. K&R

[FrenchieCat]

2. More....

[EFerrari]

4. And more

[omega minimo]

8. oh holy fuck

where've I been? Didn't know about this shite :crazy::freak:


hi sfexpat2000! :hug:

[omega minimo]

7. oh my

is that supposed to be Obama? The button.........

Sent a chill down my spine.

[EFerrari]

9. I searched "Obama monkey" and I'd advise against doing that.

:puke:

[LittleClarkie]

215. I'm cutting the sock monkey some slack

as they also had Biden and McCain sock monkeys. It appears that they are equal opportunity as to who they turn into sock monkeys.

Either that or Mr. Pastyface himself is secretly black.

[firedupdem]

3. Those pics make me sick but they need to be seen....

I don't understand it either. When people tell me they are offended by something, who am I to tell them if their feeling is right or wrong? That toon is disgusting as are all this guys toons. He's a rabid racist, homophobe, and sexist piece of shit. There are people even posting additional polls about it because the previous one didn't prove their point. I'm sick of the entire thing.

[omega minimo]

5. his drawing is crappy too

the only justification for this one would be if he were a talented and clueless 6th grader

[timtom]

62. One thing that Cenk Uygur concluded was that he may not

have been aware of what a bad move his cartoon was.

Bushwah!

A sampling of his work forces a different conclusion:

http://gawker.com/5155855/ten-masterpieces-from-sean-delonas

He meant every word of it!

[omega minimo]

69. this guy's sick. not worthy of a talented, clueless 6th grader. Stuck in Truly MAD Magazine mode

:thumbsdown:


Style of the sheep marriage toon is straight out of MAD.

[rosesaylavee]

162. Aw, come on. MAD Magazine is not as bad as this guy.

[omega minimo]

205. Check out #4

http://gawker.com/5155855/ten-masterpieces-from-sean-delonas

[Karenina]

249. Lots of nasty from Delonas in your link...

CONTEXT and "cultural literacy" are two major topics in this brouhaha. I showed the cartoon to my ESL classes who were to a person, abjectly horrified at the image, mostly having different cultural buttons hit by the imagery. One articulated the deep insult to the police
in assuming them all to be agents of corrupt political sociopathy. He felt the union should file a complaint. :rofl:

All-in-all, I find it MUCH easier to have a probing, hands on the table discussion about racism here in Germany (except with Amis). The defense layers aren't constructed of lead. ;-)

As for those twisting their arguments into deformed pretzels to deny the obvious, I say if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, waddles like a duck, has webbed feet like a duck and does the duck gang rape thing, it just MAY BE a duck. :spank:

[CherylK]

70. He wrote a whole article. Even though I disagreed with that one point the rest makes a lot of sense!

Here is How We Can Start Talking About Race
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cenk-uygur/here-is-how-we-can-start_b_168130.html

[omega minimo]

74. thank you for including this. I hope you looked at the cartoons in the link above

"Instead of calling Sean Delonas, the cartoonist at the NY Post, a racist, we should ask him if he understands why his drawing might come across as offensive to some. Not to prove our point, but to start an actual dialogue."

Unfortunately, this cartoonist had plenty of time to connect the dots for himself while carefully shading in that gorilla-looking "chimp." "Gee, I wonder if anyone -- or my Editor -- will associate the Stimulus Plan chimp with Obama?" "His other cartoons prove that his thought process and "humor" are in the gutter that runs from Limbaugh's ass, through FReeperville, to water the fires of Hell.

Sometimes a racist is just a racist.

I don't agree with many of the author's presumptions or his "beyond a reasonable doubt" notion. Why give weight to ignorance and the onus on an informed view to prove a "case"?

There are grey areas, yes. There are ways to discuss that encourage or discourage people from participating or fully listening, yes. We can be "magnanimous" and patient but let's not coddle people who don't want to be openminded or worse -- are willfully ignorant.

"Progressives who empathize with the fight against racism have to do something magnanimous to start this conversation."

The author uses an important word. Empathize. The real trick to understanding or dialogue or basic tolerance for starters is approaching the subject with some basic empathy, relating to another's experience as if it might be your own.

There will always be grey areas. There will always be things we don't say for fear of being misunderstood. There will always be faux pas. And we can own up to them. We don't have to "turn the other cheek" to bigots. We have to have the courage of our convictions, to NOT succumb to the fear that this author presents as a given.

Maybe it helps to have grown up in a time when "IF YOU AIN'T PART OF THE SOLUTION, YOU'RE PART OF THE PROBLEM."

Kinda like democracy.





snips from the article:

Here is how the two things relate to one another. One of the reasons that the country is afraid to talk openly about race is because people are afraid that they are going to be called racists or charged with insensitivity for what they say (or in this case draw). We have to start giving these people a pass even if we suspect that they did not have the best of intentions.

Why? Because if we yell racism every time there is a question about race then people will clam up. Does that mean that nothing should be considered racist anymore or that we shouldn't challenge people on what they have said or done? No, of course not. But it does mean that we should change the way we talk about these issues.

<>

But in order to do this, we have got to lay down our arms first. Progressives who empathize with the fight against racism have to do something magnanimous to start this conversation. They have to turn the other cheek. They have to be open to the idea that people who say or do things that appear racists to them might have a different motivation or perspective. And instead of attacking that person, they have to engage them in a real conversation where you listen to and learn from one another.

Otherwise, none of us are ever going to get all of these feelings surrounding race out into the open. Once the battlefield is joined, everyone retreats to their foxholes.

Now, on the other hand, there are some things that are obviously and clearly over the top racist. And the people involved have no intention of engaging in any kind of productive conversation. This is why I am suggesting a new burden of proof for charges of racism.

I suggest that we move from the civil to criminal standard of proof. In civil cases, you simply need a preponderance of the evidence to conclude someone is right or wrong. If you think one side is 51% right, you can rule on their side. In criminal cases, you need to be sure beyond a reasonable doubt. Some say that means you have to be 98% certain that the person is guilty. That's the standard I would like to move to on issues of racism.

<>

If we're going to have a useful conversation about race in this country, we can't have everyone walking on eggshells. Let's afford people the opportunity to take some risks and to say things they might not otherwise say in mixed company. Because if we get these things out in the open we might find out a lot more quickly how wrong our perceptions of the other side are. And more importantly, move beyond them.

So, let me start this process. Sean Delonas is not a racist. I certainly don't know that his cartoon was racist beyond a reasonable doubt. So, I would like to hear from him what he was thinking when he drew it and if he is concerned about the perceptions of the cartoon. Not just concerned because of what people are saying about him, but concerned that he might have overlooked a valid point about the subtext of this piece that he did not intend.

[timtom]

85. Cenk proposed the assumption that the cartoonist may not

have understood how THAT cartoon might cause discomfort.

"Instead of calling Sean Delonas, the cartoonist at the NY Post, a racist, we should ask him if he understands why his drawing might come across as offensive to some."

But, in the link I posted, there is a corpus of his work that proves conclusively that this was no mere fluke, but, rather, a strong pattern.

Cenk was right in that we must begin to talk about race (which I understood to be what he perceived the AG's message to be).

But, had he looked at some of the cartoonist's other works, he would have not given him the benefit of the doubt.

[Fire1]

125. Fine. So, when 'I' speak my views, I shouldn't be called

racist. Right? Right.

[goclark]

84. I agree ~ as an African American with ancestors that were slaves

it's hard to stomach progressives telling me what is or is not racist and hateful.

[me b zola]

6. It really saddened me today to see the apologies for the racism

...but I'm still not over what I saw/witnessed during the election cycle. :(

[FrenchieCat]

11. AG Holder told the truth today....

Racism doesn't get discussed, it gets "used".

Rev. Wright was a perfect example. Folks in the media didn't want anyone to understand where Rev. Wright was coming from or what he had experienced, they only wanted to use him to have viewers conclude based on the soundbytes provided that this guy was the devil reincarnated, and that therefore, Barack Obama might be too.

They used and stoked the fear of a Black Man sounding as though he was coming unhinged as a tool.

Didn't work the way they had anticipated, but it wasn't from the lack of trying.

[omega minimo]

18. "Racism doesn't get discussed, it gets "used"."

And many don't recall the time not that long ago when at the very least, Rev. Wright would have been allowed to say what he said and we would have been allowed to discuss what he said without it all being CONTROLLED and dictated by megamedia, immediately telling us what he said and what to think about it, without broadcasting what he actually said.

Then printing followup articles saying he said this and that -- without actual quotes -- telling us what he supposedly meant!



You said it best, FrenchieCat: "Folks in the media didn't want anyone to understand where Rev. Wright was coming from or what he had experienced, they only wanted to use him to have viewers conclude based on the soundbytes provided that this guy was the devil reincarnated, and that therefore, Barack Obama might be too."

[EFerrari]

29. The media worked Dr. Wright for all they were worth.

Obama got a brilliant speech out of it and Dr. Wright got a bunch of new fans like me.

But Holder is right. Racism gets used. We have to just keep pushing their disgusting cr@p right back at them.

[Hissyspit]

10. African American painter Michael Ray Charles has a collection, too. Here is one of his works:

[omega minimo]

13. .

:thumbsup:

I saw a show of Raymond Saunders art and some of his collection, including the "Darkie Toothpaste" piece. I have the poster shown at top of OP.

thank you for the image.

[Luminous Animal]

12. Great post...

I'd like to add these for people who do not get it...

Black-ape linkages still influence Americans subconsciously: Study

http://www.topnews.in/black-ape-linkages-still-influence-americans-subconsciously-study-224306

From the book, Invention of Race "The Black-Ape Metaphor".
http://books.google.com/books?id=whglhfmFU...=result#PPA7,M1

[omega minimo]

14. Thank you. And look at all the HEARTS up in heah!

:rofl:

[JDPriestly]

42. Sorry, but I shall forever associate the word "Chimp" and the

image of a "chimp" with George W. Bush.

[SpartanDem]

15. sanity

A couple points to address here

B. required some awareness of another news story where a monkey had been shot by police (?)

This was not some obscures story it been one the most reported stories of the last couple days

c. required no imagination for racists to picture a black man (even if he's the President) as an ape

That may be true, but many of the racially enlightened here jumped to the same conclusion. I know as liberals we pride on being culturally aware, but some times we over do it. Yes given past history maybe it wasn't the most sensitive thing to do, but most are analyzing this far too deeply sometimes an ape is just an ape.

[EFerrari]

19. Thank you for the illustration. n/t

[omega minimo]

25. :spray:

:spray: i was lookin for more artwork!

[Ignis]

81. Oh, it was a piece of work alright.

:dunce:

[omega minimo]

20. not this time

"sometimes an ape is just an ape."

[Luminous Animal]

24. I love this kind of excuse...

Everyone in the entire U.S. knows about the dead monkey. How about telling how in holy hell shooting an out of control monkey is related to the stimulus bill?

Looking at this without any cultural references gives us thus: Travis the monkey has zero, nada, nothing to do with the stimulus bill. The stimulus bill is universally coined as Obama's stimulus bill in every media outlet. Obama's stimulus bill needs a new writer because the monkey is dead.

Looking at it with cultural references reveals an entire different story. A pathetic racist story.

[CrispyQ]

79. Best post I've seen on this topic.

"How about telling how in holy hell shooting an out of control monkey is related to the stimulus bill?"

[FrenchieCat]

26. Yeah, cause an chimp tragically disfiguring a woman permanently

is such satirical foil in providing the perfect opportunity for a cutting political statement. :sarcasm:

Maybe next time the "artist" can use the lastest story of the kidnapping of a child later found dead to provide us with satirical commentary on the next upcoming bill in Washington! :eyes:

[Number23]

37. Your post should be entitled "blindness" instead of "sanity"

[Dammit Ann]

Rethink your reply.

The definition of insanity is doing the same thing again, over and over, expecting a different outcome. How's that been working so for with racism? We have to change our images, they must become obscene. Because they are. People collect art for many different reasons and most are from a prior pain or obsession, so the whole well, black people do it, so it must be alright analogy sucks. I couldn't dream of a moment where a black person in this day and age would not find that incredibly offensive.

[omega minimo]

49. Master bait

"That may be true, but many of the racially enlightened here jumped to the same conclusion."



One thing I love about Obama is how his features change at different angles at different moments. The various backgrounds are there in his face.

[Dammit Ann]

50. YES!!!

He is all of us and we are all of everyone. That's the secret, pass it on...

[Dammit Ann]

55. that was a flag, huh? good catch.

Damn, do you think that they hate us because we are smarter? Or just because we have actually allowed ourselves to evolve?
Seeing the world become more than their mind can wrap around scares the shit out of more people than I care to contemplate.
Wow, that was a dumb sentence. Too tired to edit, so there it is.

Lied, totally edited the easy parts.

[crispini]

61. I had never heard of the story, and I pay attention to the news.

I can't believe you read the OP, looked at the pictures, and are still defending this cartoon.

[Betsy Ross]

131. Sorry, but I didn't hear about the chimp attack

until the cartoon surfaced. I do try to stay up on IMPORTANT news.

[rebel with a cause]

214. That is not how it would have been taken

Had not the reference to Obama's work been mentioned. I did not associate the ape with Barack without the indication of it by the words. They, to me, left no doubt to the meaning of the cartoon. To me it is a representive of racism done in a way that they can claim it is not what it is.

[omega minimo]

230. EXCELLENT point.

[WhoDoYouTrust]

16. Error, you've already recommended that thread.

A kick from me, who has stories to tell about the sixties. A white girl from Oregon made some big mistakes in Alabama!

[smalll]

17. I actually kind of agree with you (even tho ur last OP was pushing the Indigo/Crystal kids folly.)

(At least the last OP I personally saw from you, just a couple of days ago.)

There's no way that cartoon was not racist. If, IF that chimp had some kind of reputation for gourmandization (eating way too much at once) or for something like that, there MAY have been some semi-plausible excuse for the anti-stimulus cartoon. But there wasn't any.

The racist point comes across instantaneously in it. The alleged non-racist point takes some thought.


---

At the same time, that Indigo children stuff is deeply creepy. I don't blame you personally, it's just another symptom of the deep loneliness of many Americans (which loneliness also causes related dysfunctions such as Octomomification, being a "pet parent," being a Furrie, a Foodie, a gamer, etc. etc. etc.)

[omega minimo]

22. much obliged

I ain't anybody's generic anything; I stand by MY words and I DON'T accept being piled on by angry posters looking for a punching bag for all their generalizations and assumptions.

I learned a lot from that experience. How vicious people can be. How much they project without thinking. What a waste it is.

:yourock:

oh and I learned that adults are threatened by the praise of a child

or the concept of supposed "specialness" -- as if it's a threat to them personally --

that they attack in protest of the "dumbing down of America." :crazy:

[Dammit Ann]

21. AMEN.

Kicked and rec'd.
I'm donating in your name in a sec. You DESERVE a star.

[omega minimo]

23. Dammit Ann!!! LOL

:rofl: :yourock:

[Dammit Ann]

27. Thank you, as do you darling! Keep fighting the good fight.

You are an asset to our weird little DU world!

[omega minimo]

28. and you are a foul mouthed rad OPer

:spray:

[Dammit Ann]

30. I try to be demure, what could you possibly mean?

;-)
(thanks)

[omega minimo]

31. xoxo

;)

[Dammit Ann]

33. back atcha babe.

:evilgrin:

[Kind of Blue]

47. What! I'm donating in Omega minimo's name, as well!

:thumbsup: That is so great. After the thrashing she got the other day and still held her own, Omega minimo is a spit fire and I love her Spirit.

[omega minimo]

48. Kind of Blue. Now I can be Marginalized!!

:bounce: :wow: :bounce:

That Moon in Scorpio kicked my ass. :yoiks:

[Kind of Blue]

54. YAY and God moves in a mysterious way!

Girl, you are a trip! :rofl: :rofl: :rofl::rofl: :rofl: :rofl::rofl: :rofl: :rofl::rofl: :rofl: :rofl::rofl: :rofl: :rofl::rofl: :rofl: :rofl::rofl: :rofl: :rofl::rofl: :rofl: :rofl::rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :)

[Kind of Blue]

32. Thanks for this thread, Omega minimo.

I've been trying to process this all day. I cannot reconcile how the shooting death of a chimp on drugs that mauled a woman used to compare Obama and the stimulus bill, but outright and unashamed racism. And for the Post not to answer the question posed by Sharpton, other to attack Sharpton as a publicity seeker, is sickening.

[omega minimo]

34. it's beyond me

I heard about the cartoon first (here) and saw the chimp story in the paper tonight and still didn't get the "connection."

"I cannot reconcile ..... the shooting death of a chimp on drugs that mauled a woman" in the first place. What a bizarre story. I stopped reading when she was stabbing and bludgeoning it. Maybe someone should do a cartoon of the Republicans doing that to the country they supposedly love and care for.

Or Rush Limbaugh mauling the face off Uncle Sam.

And as crappy as the cartoonist' drawing is, when I looked at it, i saw a "gorilla"

[Turborama]

38. If you still can't get the connection...

...maybe this video might help: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x273779

Thanks for the OP btw, it's instigated an interesting debate.

Kicked & Rec'd

[Kind of Blue]

44. Now, those would be cartoons I'd like to see.

I can imagine their outrage as depicting them as other than patriotic, as they've taken the country down. We do live in 2 Americas. I mean I've seen other threads actually taking polls about whether the cartoon is racist or not. Huh? Based on the history of the country, just the plain insensitivity and violence are astounding and I doubt that paper will apologize.

[omega minimo]

45. If this crap is what "sells papers," why are newspapers dying?

[EFerrari]

35. The right wing will continue to pull this disgusting stuff. They will never stop.

We need to confront it every single time. :mad:

[Kind of Blue]

46. You know, I think they've done us a favor :)

They continuously marginalize themselves and that's a beautiful thing. And Obama as president - a Black man, a multi-racial man, multi-cultural man, an elegant man, a beautiful man, a man of peace must hurt their feelings deeper than we can imagine for them to come up with such drivel. All of a sudden I'm seeing many positive outcomes from this but only, as you say, "confront them every single time."

[Number23]

36. It is very difficult to look at those pictures. Thanks for posting them.

But you haven't even scratched the tippy top of the surface of ugly images that black folks have had to look at. Images of ourselves as perpetually dumb, ugly, inferior; and of all things white as beautiful, clean, desirable.

I appreciate this thread. Happy to rec.

[EFerrari]

41. There's nothing like having psychopaths projecting all over you, is there?

[Number23]

57. Psychopaths, racially insensitive dolts. It's all the same really

And it still continues to this day.

[EFerrari]

95. Yep. I should have said "sociopaths" because that's about what the right wing

has left in this country.

[omega minimo]

68. thank you for your post

"But you haven't even scratched the tippy top of the surface of ugly images that black folks have had to look at. Images of ourselves as perpetually dumb, ugly, inferior; and of all things white as beautiful, clean, desirable."

I know. That last "fiendish" expression eating watermelon was bad enough for this OP.

This opens up new ideas about imagery -- inc. objectionable, objectified abuse of women -- and how Obama's (& family's) mere presence in the White House and Oval Office changes internalized concepts, esp. of children.

[4lbs]

39. As I posted in another thread as an example, even some of our most revered cartoons

like Bugs Bunny disparaged African-Americans.






This cartoon came out in the early 1940s. See how the person in this cartoon is drawn with monkey-like features?

[Number23]

56. Oh honey, somebody had to write a book about the level of racism in American cartoons

http://books.google.com.au/books?id=xMWhTUFFuqoC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_summary_r&cad=0

I weep for every child of color that ran to the tv on Saturday mornings just so they could see themselves depicted as the fat, dumb househelp; the Indian savage or the shifty, untrustworthy Asian.

[JDPriestly]

40. Was it racist when some DUers called Bush the Chimp?

[omega minimo]

43. Was it racist when no one pointed out the Bush family looks congenitally defective?

:yoiks:

[depakid]

51. Not racist- obvious

The guy looks like a chimp (which is not a monkey, btw):

[omega minimo]

52. OW!

:rofl::cry: :rofl:

[bluedawg12]

66. OMG! Apes everywhere are offended and looking into their family tree

making sure the shrub clan is not among them.

[JDPriestly]

127. I agree. Bush looks like a chimp. How anyone could associate

Obama with a chimp is beyond me. Obama is elegant, tall, slim and graceful. One of the last people I would think of if I saw a cartoon about a chimp would be Obama. He is the exact opposite of a chimp -- just physically.

[inna]

204. LOL~!! ::: claps hands ::: too funny, thanks for this!! :) nt

[FrenchieCat]

53. Are you really asking this?

Bush being called a chimp had nothing to do with the entire race of White People being compared to apes, now did it?

Doh!

[Kind of Blue]

58. Unbelievable how you miss or choose

to miss the historical context, and what happened as recently as the campaigns, with the monkey dolls and let's not forget the waffle mix sold at a conservative forum.

Notice what is done here, same thing, once again linking an image of violence (militant Islam) with stereotypical packaging of Black people that was the norm in this country for 200years.

[JI7]

59. this is stupid, the whole comparison of Obama to a Chimp has to do with racism

throughout history against blacks. Obama looks nothing like a Chimp so why else would people bring compare him to a Chimp ?

Bush actually looks like a chimp . racism against some whites might be when Dick Cheney joked about West Virginia and incest.

[bluedawg12]

65. I hope you know the answer to that.

[Spazito]

75. It really is dismaying that some posters seem to be totally ignorant of their own country's...

history of depicting black people as chimps in racist propaganda in order to dehumanize them. Is it genuine ignorance or a deliberate attempt to marginalize the calling-out of what is, inarguably, a grotesquely racist cartoon?

[tekisui]

161. IS BUSH BLACK??!?!!

No. It was not racist.

[Marrah_G]

163. Sorry Bush was not a black man- Your comparison doesn't work.

[Richard Steele]

196. You know perfectly well that it was not.

nm

[retread]

60. The "cartoon" is flagrantly racist. I am no longer as surprised at the defense of

racism and misogyny on DU as I once was. I just feel a profound sense of sadness tinged with disgust. I have that luxury because I am a white male.

[bluedawg12]

67. Not only racist but with violent implications. It was putrid.

What ever smug little right wing editor and cartoonist decided to publish that trash, it plays right into the paranoia and violence fantasies of the extreme rabid right.

I wonder, if that same cartoon were published three years ago, with a quip like: " I guess that constitutes torture, even HE would agree." Every right wing hack pundit would have been bloviating on the air about how disrepsectful of shurb some liberuhls are.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

63. Oy Vey.

Embarrassing, yes. But not for the reasons you speak.

This has become ridiculous.

[bluedawg12]

64. That cartoon was outrageously offensive and violent and slimy.

Because of the historic context for the use of the word and the quip bringing it back to contemporary politics
it was racist, wrong and Murdock's toilet-rag publication should be ashamed. If they had a sense of shame.

edit:typo

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

71. I suggest people stop feeding the trolls.

This is like arguing with Creationists. There is a compulsion among intelligent people to try to argue reasonably with them, but they're not interested in having a real discussion, and it's just a waste of time.

There are two reasons why there are people arguing the cartoon is not racist.

They are racist themselves and support the cartoon. "I ain't racist, I just hate the black people."

And then there are the people who see the potential for a flame war, and simply argue it's not racist to cause one.

Either way, they're a troll. In several cases it's a combination of both.

[last_texas_dem]

83. Indeed.

Arguing about this cartoon is similar to arguing with Creationists. Creationists claim to see the hand of God in everything, and their strongest "reasons" for their arguments tend to be simply that it's "obvious" or "clear." If I claim that it's not obvious or clear to me, they bring up the fact that the majority of people interpret things their way, call me names, or tell me I'm hopeless and that it's not even worth arguing with me.

[nxylas]

90. Or three, they accept that there is more than one possible interpretation of the cartoon

I'm not a mindreader and I have no idea what was going through the cartoonist's head. But I'm at least willing to concede the possibility that "the stimulus bill is such a mess that a rabid chimp could have written it" MIGHT be the correct interpretation of the cartoonist's intent, and I'm getting pissed off by the arrogance of those who have closed their minds to such a possibility whilst painting the rest of us as too racist or too ignorant to see that the chimp MUST have been intended to represent Obama and that no other interpretation is possible. Thanks to Occam Bandage for providing a rare voice of sanity.

[last_texas_dem]

91. You aren't pissed off? Outraged? Ready to call everyone who doesn't see things your way

a liar, a racist, or a racist apologist? What are you doing HERE?!?! :-)

[omega minimo]

115. "What are you doing HERE?!?!"

um, so, like, what ARE you doing here. You guys miss a turn off or something?


Since you dropped by, what do you think of this concept?


It's 2009. Even though Republicans ate the face off this nation for the past 30 years

and even though a lot of people have been misinformed and miseducated

and even though hatemongers like Limbaugh the Hut have poisoned the American media landscape and even air waves broadcast to the military

and even though the clock has been intentionally turned back on most of the reforms and successes of the progressive era

it doesn't seem too much to ask

for people to extend themselves

to comprehend

why that imagery IS offensive and damaging

to others

if not

to themselves.

[last_texas_dem]

147. I don't agree with your interpretation of a cartoon.

What do you think of that concept?

[Wednesdays]

158. What is your thought on race relations today? nt

[last_texas_dem]

159. Speaking broadly (and in a slightly cliched manner, I guess), I think

a good deal of progress has been made in recent decades, but there is still a hell of a long way to go. I don't at all think that the election of Obama proved that America was no longer a racist country. I think things are generally moving in a positive direction, but it's a very slow process.

[omega minimo]

166. What is your interpretation of the cartoon?

[last_texas_dem]

168. Honestly, I'm pretty much burnt out on discussing the cartoon, b/c I don't see

much mind-changing going on on either side.

Here are some of my posts regarding the cartoon that I think pretty well describe what I think of it:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=8207112&mesg_id=8207210

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=8209932&mesg_id=8210406

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=8209932&mesg_id=8210608

Essentially, taking everything into account regarding the cartoon, I am not convinced that it was intended to portray Obama in a racial manner (because I am not convinced that the cartoonist was attempting to portray *Obama* at all). It was a hamhanded attempt at political satire, with the cartoonist employing the same schtick he's been employing for the last couple of weeks regarding the stimulus.

Obviously, it was very open to being interpreted as a racist cartoon, regardless of whether or not that was the author's intent. And those who interpreted the chimp as representing Obama have every right to be offended. If I thought that was the cartoonist's intent, I'd be pissed off, too.

I just don't think the fact that I don't interpret the cartoon as including coded racist appeals makes me a liar, a racist, or an apologist for racists, which more than a few DUers have claimed regarding anyone who doesn't agree 100% with their interpretation of the cartoon. And this is why I posted the enthusiastic response to someone on your thread who suggested that the cartoon's intent was subject to interpretation.

I am aware of America's history of racism. I am aware of the use of chimps and monkeys to represent black people. I simply don't believe that the chimp in the cartoon is intended to represent Obama.

[omega minimo]

172. No, just the "author" of the Stimulus Bill........ President Obama.

"I simply don't believe that the chimp in the cartoon is intended to represent Obama."

[last_texas_dem]

173. If that is how you interpret the cartoon, I understand completely

why you consider it to be racially offensive.

[omega minimo]

180. "They'll have to find someone else to write the next Stimulus Bill."

"They'll have to find someone else to write the next Stimulus Bill."

"Someone" who wrote the Stimulus Bill Ape shot dead.

"Someone" who wrote the Stimulus Bill = President Obama.



Like I said, my first impression of the cartoon was "huh"?

I understand not everyone will "see" it the same way.

The best editorial cartoonists don't require mental calisthenics to get the joke.

The reason that I presented the OP with imagery is to help people SEE the references that we share as a people around this subject and FEEL maybe some of the pain the imagery inflicts.

Which is why I suggested to you that in 2009 it's not too much of a stretch for people to acknowledge that or even up and LEARN ABOUT IT if they need to.

Or remain -- I didn't call any names but I consider it -- clueless. Add belligerence and it becomes Willfully Ignorant.

[urgk]

192. When I Google "obama author stimulus bill"

I get no web sites that put those words together in a way that makes it seem he literally wrote it. Same with "obama write stimulus bill." Except in reference to the cartoon. Hmm. Nobody thought/said/claimed he wrote or authored the bill, until believing so made the final piece of the overtly racist cartoon puzzle fit.

Interesting.

[urgk]

175. What is that shiny sparkle in the darkness?

Why, it looks like "reason." I'd heard the myths, but was starting to think I'd never see any.

Thank you.

[last_texas_dem]

177. Thanks, urgk

:hi:

[omega minimo]

181. a burning cross

[last_texas_dem]

184. Do you believe my post was racist?

If so, I'd be interested to know why.

[omega minimo]

186. It seems the sparkle of reason he sees is light without the heat of history, context, meaning

a mutual admiration society based on this is missing something.


a sparkle of "reasonable" cluelessness can spark a wildfire of intolerance.

[urgk]

191. Ok, let me write this slowly so as to not be misunderstood.

I think...that you think...you make a lot more sense...than you actually do.

[last_texas_dem]

197. OK, so... in your book, a person who doesn't believe imagery in a political cartoon

was intended to be racist is tantamount to a cross-burning Klan member?

ON EDIT: Better yet, no... No need to add anything to that, and it's basically a rhetorical question anyway.

[omega minimo]

198. interesting how those championing "reason" tend to use false reversals to try to make a point.......

:spray:

[last_texas_dem]

199. What "false reversal" are you referencing?

(Oh yeah, and the "reasonable" comment that I included in my original post was referring to your use of "reasonable" in your post.)

[urgk]

201. Oh well, last_texas...

At least Omega didn't call you an "obsequious faker." I got that one :)

[EFerrari]

206. Would you believe the AP?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x3747742

Myself, I think it's a bad day when the AP gets something before I do.

[last_texas_dem]

207. Apparently there's no consensus there, either...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090220/ap_on_re_us/ny_post_cartoon

http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/wire/sns-ap-ny-post-cartoon,0,2735752.story

http://uk.reuters.com/article/autoNews/idUKTRE51I61D20090220

[EFerrari]

212. At some point, you have to ask youself why you aren't seeing

what everyone around you sees.

[last_texas_dem]

216. I regularly take into consideration how people other than myself interpret things.

Sometimes their interpretations, particularly if they differ from mine, impact and alter my interpretation.

Sometimes I take others' interpretations into account, but still find myself supporting my initial assessment.

Sometimes I'm right and sometimes I'm wrong, but I don't believe in feigning agreement with an interpretation of something that I don't believe simply because doing so puts my "beliefs" in line with those of the majority.

[urgk]

219. Yes. I agree.

And if it turns out to be that those around you suffer from group-think or some sort of mob-induced mania, you're under no obligation to join them in their hysteria.

At some point, Eferrari, you've got to ask yourself why you can't Google "Obama write stimulus bill" or "obama author stimulus bill" and come up with anything that indicates the majority of people saw him as the author...until after the cartoon was published.

It's like if you Googled Trump Towers, you wouldn't find that people think Donald is the actual architect. They may be his buildings, but there is a definitive difference between backing them and literally drawing up the plans.

It's that kind of disconnect that allows for the possibility that the cartoonist meant congress or, wonder of wonders, literal Travis, the actual chimp.

[EFerrari]

222. I"m sorry. Again, I wasn't speaking to you. n/t

[urgk]

223. Translation:

"I have no logical rebuttal for the point you've made, so I'll close myself off to what you have to say."

Okay, I can live with that.

[omega minimo]

227. Translation:

You're behavior in this thread has damaged your credibility to the point that no one wants to reply to your obvious troublemaking and insults.

Lost-In-Texas does not appear to be a lost cause.




"urgk (292 posts) Fri Feb-20-09 04:02 AM
Response to Reply #212
219.

And if it turns out to be that those around you suffer from group-think or some sort of mob-induced mania, you're under no obligation to join them in their hysteria. "

[urgk]

232. Listen Ignatius J. Reilly...

I've had about enough of your bombastic sweeping generalizations. If you don't like me, fine. But if you can't make a logical point, at least preface your babble with "I know this is an ad hominem attack, but..." so I at least I know to ignore it.

The long and short of it is that neither you nor your sidekick Eferrari have had anything logical to add, so you both continue to throw your personality and opinions around as if they matter. Several times I've invited the both of you into a discussion and each time I've been met with something other than a fact or a factually justifiable position.

I don't care whether you label me a lost cause. You're an online opinion with a cartoony catchphrase...all fluff and no substance.

[omega minimo]

234. Listen OperationMindUrgk

You're behavior in this thread has damaged your credibility to the point that no one wants to reply to your obvious troublemaking and insults.

That "translation" became true and active IMHO back at post #192.

You introduced yourself with attitude and dirty feet from other threads, carping about them, refusing to join -- rather than annoy -- this one.

Your behavior only gets worse and when you descend into personal attacks, there's nothing left to talk about.

Clearly a schtick and sorry, no credibility left.

:thumbsdown:

Goodbye and good luck

[urgk]

236. I will miss both you and your hypocritical double-standards.

I may have to fill the void by creating an overbearing, narrow-minded hand puppet with it's own pithy, self-indulgent catch phrase. Who knows, I may even give it a sidekick who jumps in now and then, not to add to the conversation, but just to make noise. Maybe just a whoopee cushion with a pair of eyeballs glued on.


Please, take your goodbye seriously.

[omega minimo]

238. Right, dig yourself in deeper. I might feel bad for you if I thought you were sincere

:boring:




Please, don't take yourself seriously.

No self reflection? No awareness of your sharp elbows? False accusations? Violation of DU Rules?

No awareness that taunts and insults are conversation killers?

No need to actually look at or respond to what's being said but just keep stirring the shit? including the actual cartoons you posted a link to and then pretended not to be aware DO make the case that the guy's schtick is based on bigotry?

No awareness?

DU's a Big Tent. Maybe you can start a Forum for tough guys like you to all outdo each other, "to fill the void by creating an overbearing, narrow-minded hand puppet," a Forum with it's own pithy, self-indulgent catch phrase... maybe even give it a sidekick who jumps in now and then, not to add to the conversation, but just to make noise."

You've introduced yourself here as the one "...who jumps in now and then, not to add to the conversation, but just to make noise."

I know: Call it the Pot Kettle Black Forum.

ENUFF. IMHO.

[urgk]

243. Remember this?

"omega minimo Response to Reply #175
181. a burning cross"

I apologize for anything over the line after that. But take a good long look at what you wrote.

[omega minimo]

254. You blew it long before that. It's okay. Good luck to you.

:hi:

[urgk]

260. Yeayh, I blew it with a civil discussion.

There's your double-standard. You get to be condescending, close-minded, overbearing, rude and say whatever you want, but when somebody responds in kind, it's their fault.

Frankly, if that's your attitude, you deserve whatever insults come your way.

[omega minimo]

261. Poor dear

"There's your double-standard. You get to be condescending, close-minded, overbearing, rude and say whatever you want, but when somebody responds in kind, it's their fault."


Again, you ignored every gentle hint that you were welcome in this thread and didn't need to (pretend?) to continue what was disturbing you in others.

You kept it going and going and going. Your choice. You ignored stronger comments. Your choice. Civil discussion? No. It was disruptive and antagonistic. Your choice.

Up to a point, then it violates DU Rules, as does YOUR attitude of "Frankly, if that's your attitude, you deserve whatever insults come your way."

That statement undermines any claim of "civil discussion" you wish for here. If that is YOUR attitude, you deserve whatever disinterest comes your way.

Your choice. :thumbsup:

[urgk]

262. I ignored the posts that continually babbled on about the OP...

Because people responded to my first comment. Check the thread. Everyone but you was having a conversation, but there you were on and on about "the OP doesn't have any of that..." when, clearly it did. Clearly, there were those interested in responding and adding to what I had to say.

And you want to talk about going against DU rules? How about the Klan remark? Yeah, that's civil discourse. What really disturbs me is that you honestly believe in the rosy pink bloom of your perfection, when *you* stirred up trouble and were then wholly unable to take any in return. How about trying to tell other people when and where to talk about a subject? As you if *you* are the arbiter of what does or doesn't merit discussion. That's just not the way this party handles things. We talk about them instead of trying to shut people down.

And, by the way, should you need them, I have a series of suggestions about what you can do with that thumb.

[omega minimo]

263. a sparkle of "reasonable" cluelessness can spark a wildfire of intolerance.

"As you if *you* are the arbiter of what does or doesn't merit discussion."
As the OP of a remarkable healthy discussion on a difficult topic, I felt some responsibility to make sure it stayed that way and thank everyone who contributed in that way -- including those who can disagree non-abusively.

"Everyone but you was having a conversation, but there you were on and on about "the OP doesn't have any of that..." when, clearly it did. Clearly, there were those interested in responding and adding to what I had to say."
What part of Don't Drag Other Threads and a Shitty Attitude In Here don't you understand? "Those interested in responding and adding to what I had to say" were doing the same thing -- crashing the thread and continuing conversations complaining about other threads. How dense.................?

"That's just not the way this party handles things. We talk about them instead of trying to shut people down."
Discuss them in the appropriate threads you were referring to rather than crash another and "shut people down" or kill the thread.

The post you cling to was already clarified:

186. It seems the sparkle of reason he sees is light without the heat of history, context, meaning.
a sparkle of "reasonable" cluelessness can spark a wildfire of intolerance.

[urgk]

264. Do you even understand your OP?

"Even having to ASK if that cartoon is racist is an embarrassment and an indictment."

What I posted was absolutely relevant to that premise.

If you can't understand that, can't understand my subsequent responses to your repeated insistences otherwise and can't understand why your KKK dig wasn't appreciated or answered with civility, then we have nothing to talk about.

[omega minimo]

265. Wrong

Already "we have nothing to talk about."

[urgk]

267. They make perfume from a certain type of whale excretia...

Some brilliant, early, branding genius called it ambergris and made the wealthy pay dearly for it. People the world over regarded it as an incencse, a medicine and even an aphrodisiac. One wonders which brilliant marketing mind will develop a name and, perhaps, find a use for your end of this conversation.

[urgk]

268. Thank you for your continued contribution to the thread.

Please kindly accept my own self-gratifying, contextually useless writings in return. The first two selections are from Wikipedia. This third is from a pomobabble generator.

1. The carrot (Daucus carota subsp. sativus, Etymology: Middle French carotte, from Late Latin carōta, from Greek karōton, originally from the Indoeuropean root ker- (horn), due to its horn-like shape) is a root vegetable, usually orange or white, or red-white blend in colour, with a crisp texture when fresh. The edible part of a carrot is a taproot.

2. Historically, the sensations of itch and pain have not been considered to be independent of each other until recently, where it was found that itch has several features in common with pain, but exhibits notable differences.<3> The physiological mechanisms of itch are currently poorly understood and this is mainly due to the lack of animal models of itch.

3. If one examines submaterialist materialism, one is faced with a choice: either reject capitalist socialism or conclude that consciousness is fundamentally unattainable, but only if Lacan’s essay on dialectic theory is invalid. It could be said that many materialisms concerning the futility, and therefore the fatal flaw, of neodeconstructive sexual identity may be found. The subject is interpolated into a that includes reality as a totality.

[omega minimo]

208. LOL

"Myself, I think it's a bad day when the AP gets something before I do." :rofl:

[urgk]

220. What they "got" was that the Post half-apologized.

They reported a fact concerning a press release. There was nothing in that link that said the AP had agreed that the intention was racist.

How is that in any way relevant?

[urgk]

187. Because the burning cross made for a good sound bite.

Which, as we all know, in the rock, paper, scissors game that public debate has turned into, clearly trumps "reason" or "logic."

And Omega needs anyone who disagrees to be hood-wearing Klansmen, lest she have to consider what they have to say. I don't know about you, but if I'm a racist, I'm really bad at it. I'm doing pro bono work for a Civil Rights museum, taking photos for a member of SNCC and spend way too much time complaining about Rush Limbaugh and the racist crap he gets away with all the time.

[omega minimo]

195. you've now confirmed that you arrived in the thread to make trouble and you have

congratulations

[urgk]

200. I'm making trouble?

You accuse the two of us of cross-burning, or at the very least associate cross-burning with something we've said and I'm causing trouble?

Hm.

[Luminous Animal]

244. You many not believe the monkey represents Obama...

but the vile racist white supremecists at Stormfront immediately assumed that Delonas was portraying Obama and praised Delonas for his bravery.

I won't provide a link to the Stormfront thread but it is easy enough to find.

[urgk]

96. Amen, nxylas.

I feel the same way. Looking up the rest of the cartoonist's work, or at least selected works by people who don't find it the least bit amusing, I suspect his intentions *could* be racist. But I have no idea. And there isn't enough in the cartoon itself to convince me that it was his intent.

But what frustrates me about all this is the lack of debate in favor of Middle School name-calling and wild accusations. If people think it's racist, they should use logic and reason to convince those who think it isn't. I hate being called racist just because I'm not convinced. It's a dull-witted, Bush/Rovian way of seeing dissent and, I think, should be beneath the Democratic Party.

I mean, if the cartoon said "Looks like somebody else is going to have to push the stimulus package through Congress," or "Looks like somebody else is going to have to sign the next stimulus plan" I'd be right up there with the screamers...angry and demanding justice. When Limbaugh talks about giving James Earl Ray a medal, it pisses me off. When Indiana Congressmen say there's not a racist bone in Rush's body, I want to yell through the TV set. I'm not a racist, but I'm not convinced the cartoon is overt enough to decry.

There is a middle ground. There is a grey area. Let's talk about it. Let's call each other wrong and throw quotes and links at each other until our fingers are numb. But for crapssake, let's not go calling each other bigots and racists because we don't agree.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

119. Nope.

Sorry.

Not buying it.

[Karenina]

72. Indeed!

[Flying Dream Blues]

73. Great thread, OM! nt

[omega minimo]

76. Great name, Flying Dream Blues.

:hi:

[Flying Dream Blues]

120. Thanks! nt

[AndrewP]

77. There is enough of a history of this comparison that anyone excusing this cartoon isn't very aware

[omega minimo]

80. well put. A one line OP

:applause:

[AndrewP]

101. Thanks

It seems pretty clear to me. Not sure why the confusion on this topic, but that's life I guess.

Maybe next time they'll have the monkey eating a watermelon to make it clearer.

Nah....That wouldn't work either. Then we'll get some types here saying that it just shows that monkey's love to eat and isn't racist at all.

[omega minimo]

112. whaddooIknow I thought Letterman was vicious to Joaquin Phoenix -- a sign of our venal times

you're no Johnny Carson, Dave

[retread]

92. Or they are very aware. n/t

[omega minimo]

97. hmmmmmmmmmmmm ..............................

:think:

[GinaMaria]

78. I remember a documentary

on Irish people that showed drawings and statements about the Irish being 'white apes'. This represented some British people's view of their Irish brothers and sisters. The documentary showed several examples of where this line of thought came from. Very similar to yours. Excellent post. Glad to K and R.

[Redstone]

82. Seconded.

Redstone

[BrklynLiberal]

86. K&R

[pasto76]

87. Howard stern listeners will recall Hateman and Daniel Karver

both love to call Robin a monkey.

There is no debate what this "cartoon" meant.

[BlancheSplanchnik]

88. visual literacy. It's important. K, R, B

(and I have to admit, I haven't even seen the NY Post cartoon. Yet. )

superb OP and discussion. Thank You.

[Enrique]

89. I think it was probably racist

probably intentionally, possibly subconsciously.

Then there's the possibility that there was no racism at all. But even then, it was totally insensitive and irresponsible, given the history you describe in your OP.

In any case, there's no embarrassment imo in discussing it.

[EFerrari]

94. How many people saw this POS before it was printed, do you think?

The artist didn't draw it in secret anew on every copy of that "paper".

[urgk]

93. There IS room for confusion here (first part cross-posted from another thread).

I. I mean, I *get* the connection between the actual crazed chimp and a conservative's view of the stimulus bill, but I guess the lack of any real physical resemblance (historic racist monkey images aside) between the chimp and President Obama threw me a bit. I mean, the monkey just doesn't say "Barack."

That and the fact that I see the bill as the President's people's work, backed by the President rather than authored by the man himself, just doesn't *convince* me that it's racist.

So, given the cartoon itself, I'd accept the possibility of the monkey as crazed-stimulus-author-who-isn't-Obama-but-just-a-crazed-stimulus-bill-writing-monkey. But, the cartoonist is a bit of a jackass as evidenced here: http://gawker.com/5155855/ten-masterpieces-from-sean-de... .

Those could make me re-consider the cartoonist's intentions. In a court of law, I'm not sure I could prove he had racist intentions, but if somebody else proved it, I wouldn't necessarily be surprised.

II. (this is out loud to the thread in general, not necessarily directly to the OP) Instead of calling people who don't see it as overtly racist "bigots" or "racists," how about just framing it so that they/we understand your point of view? I mean, why not have a discussion without debasing the other side? What I see right now is a divide where one side says "I just don't see the overt racism to the point I'm ready to denounce it as racist," and the other side keps saying "It's racist, you racist!"

There are just too many threads where things get personal and posters get insulted and the discussion never goes anywhere. Those with viewpoint A keep viewpoint A and those with B keep B, but both go away angry.

[last_texas_dem]

98. Your post pretty much sums up my feelings on this subject.

:thumbsup:

(And I plan for this to be the last thing I post on the matter, as I've already spent more time than should ever be spent considering the meaning of a right-wing hack's chimp cartoon.)

[jmg257]

99. Nicely done. nt

[retread]

102. The cartoon IS racist. The cartoonist's intentions don't change that. n/t

[JDPriestly]

129. As for the cartoonists's intentions, I agree, he was trying to be racist.

I don't think he succeeded. I realize that historically chimps may have been used to insult African-Americans. But I don't think people today get the reference that quickly. My personal assocation is "Chimp" = "Bush." That is because Bush looks and acts like a chimpanzee. Never, never would I associate Obama and Chimp. It just does not work no matter what the cartoonist's intention was. If that was the cartoonist's intention, he did not succeed.

[urgk]

135. That's an argument I hadn't heard yet.

And it made me smile a little. Maybe that is part of why some of us hadn't read it the same way. We've been classically conditioned to think Bush=Chimp.

[retread]

144. "Historically"!!?? Were you asleep or somehow unconscious during the recent election??

[urgk]

145. Ok, I'm not saying everybody does or should feel this way, but...

Why does it seem to me that Curious George is insulting, but the Sock Monkey just seems like a Sock Monkey? Again, I'm not saying that empirically, that SHOULD be the case, but I'm wondering if anybody feels the same way or can figure out why the difference?

[omega minimo]

105. Well, welcome to the thread you're actually in and not all those other ones pissing you off

Strange that you posted #96 after this post, where apparently some are trying to drag other annoying accusations into this thread, which so far has been free of them. No one here is calling anyone else a racist. You may notice, the OP began with a disclaimer and "clumsy" apology for those unread-but-certain-to-be-pointless-bickering threads that you seek respite from. Come on in!

"I clumsily apologize to our African American community and anyone else who gets it, for the cluelessness of too many folks... and some can claim ignorance because so much of the racist memorabilia -- imagery in advertising, pop culture, etc. -- has been disappeared from mainstream awareness."

The OP provided some visual examples, since discussions of cartoons are about a visual medium. A GOOD editorial cartoon melds image and meaning and events together in an instantaneous explosion of insight. One shouldn't have to run around, think about it, tax the Left Brain and still be uncertain of the meaning. And in this case, the initial response to the cartoon for me and others was, "HUH?"

Anyone looking at the link to the other unfunny cartoons by this "artist" would have to admit those 10 jokes (maybe more) are bigoted cliches.

"But what frustrates me about all this is the lack of debate in favor of Middle School name-calling and wild accusations. If people think it's racist, they should use logic and reason to convince those who think it isn't."

This thread has shown the reasonable approach.

"But for crapssake, let's not go calling each other bigots and racists because we don't agree."

This thread hasn't done that.


Someone in the thread pointed out -- yes CORRECTLY -- that there isn't much excuse for not knowing the history of the use of ape imagery to dehumanize black people. Or recall the history that African Americans were counted legally as subhuman (3/5ths of a person) for centuries.

There are worse images than the OP presented. The last one though, I would ask you to look at and tell us what YOU see. It may be a subjective thing and not everyone would agree or be called "racist for not agreeing."

But when I look at that drawing that pretends to be cute, all I see is the way the face is drawn like someone demented.




"That and the fact that I see the bill as the President's people's work, backed by the President rather than authored by the man himself, just doesn't *convince* me that it's racist."

Lets' review:

Even so, the fact that the cartoon:

A. made no sense and caused a "Huh?" response

B. required some awareness of another news story where a monkey had been shot by police (?)

C. required no imagination for racists to picture a black man (even if he's the President) as an ape

C2. referenced a Stimulus Bill associated with Obama's presidency in a major way (much more common knowledge than the chimp story)

C3. and has no punchline that isn't as convoluted as arguments about racism

D. and yet people want to quibble over whether it was racist or not


is digusting.


The reason I "clumsily" apologized for embarrassment and indictment of a Dem/liberal/progressive community and what were sure to be disgusting and accusatory threads is this:

It's 2009. Even though Republicans ate the face off this nation for the past 30 years

and even though a lot of people have been misinformed and miseducated

and even though hatemongers like Limbaugh the Hut have poisoned the American media landscape and even air waves broadcast to the military

and even though the clock has been intentionally turned back on most of the reforms and successes of the progressive era

it doesn't seem too much to ask

for people to extend themselves

to comprehend

why that imagery IS offensive and damaging

to others

if not

to themselves.

[urgk]

128. Honestly, I'm a little confused by your post.

Maybe one or both of us is/are tired, but I'll try to answer as best I can.

I'll agree that this thread has lacked the vitriol of some of the others I've read. So maybe instead of "this thread" I should edit it to "threads on this topic." Assume I've made the typical error of reading too many threads and combined them all in my head, and then re-read it again with that in mind. See what you think.

And, for the record, I completely understand the ways the cartoon can get misread. What I object to (in other threads as well as this one) is the notion that if I don't find it overtly racist then I'm either racist, close-minded or stupid. The reason that I for one might "quibble" about whether it's overtly racist is that I don't like to see reason thrown by the wayside regardless of which party/ideal is responsible. I mean look at where the OP refers to the fact that it takes knowledge of another news story to get the joke. Ok...so it does, but logically, rationally, how does that make a difference?

[omega minimo]

139. just read the thread. maybe that will help you. if you like.

[urgk]

143. It isn't that I'm lost in the grand scheme of things.

I've read the thread. It's just that your post was a little...oblique I guess. Maybe as a result of the poetry-like format.

Did you read anything I said after the subject line (not asking rhetorically, I'm actually curious)? If so, what did you think?

[Romulox]

109. Thanks for the sanity. This is the BEST post on the subject I've seen. nt

[omega minimo]

118. except it's about other threads. maybe it belongs there.

:think: :kick:

[Romulox]

221. You're reinforcing my supposition that this is more about CONTROL

than whether the cartoon is objectively racist. :eyes: right backatcha!

[omega minimo]

228. "force" "supposition" "CONTROL" -- mebbe those are your issues?

:hi:
you're "supposition" may be due to late arrival.
if you had time to look at the posts sequentially, you would see that every effort was made to invite that poster into the thread he's actually in and discourage dragging in the same shit he's complaining about.

at the point the poster clearly has no intention of contributing constructively, the FORCE of my SUPPOSITIONS about that poster's intentions certainly may look like CONTROL.

here's what he's devolved to: "And if it turns out to be that those around you suffer from group-think or some sort of mob-induced mania, you're under no obligation to join them in their hysteria. "

:puke:

Matter of fact, if you look at the OP and the whole thread, you may notice that at no point did I claim that the cartoon is "objectively racist." I know that different people look at pictures and words in different ways. You can't "control" how people see things.

What I challenge is the notion that folks will not only have their own POV of the cartoon -- but will REFUSE to acknowledge that the cartoon is very likely offensive EVEN IF THEY CAN'T SEE IT and REFUSE to acknowledge the legitimate and historic reasons for acknowledging it.


It's an education issue.


White people telling black people THAT THEY KNOW this is not offensive and acting all uppity about it BECAUSE THEY ARE ENTITLED TO NOT SEE IT AND NO ONE CAN TELL THEM OTHERWISE, IS offensive.

[EFerrari]

116. No, there is no room for "confusion".

"Confusion" is what racists say when they're called on their bullsh!t.

[omega minimo]

124. confusion is what happens when Creationists meet people who have evolved

:yoiks:

From another post:

There are grey areas, yes. There are ways to discuss that encourage or discourage people from participating or fully listening, yes. We can be "magnanimous" and patient but let's not coddle people who don't want to be openminded or worse -- are willfully ignorant.

"Progressives who empathize with the fight against racism have to do something magnanimous to start this conversation."

The author uses an important word. Empathize. The real trick to understanding or dialogue or basic tolerance for starters is approaching the subject with some basic empathy, relating to another's experience as if it might be your own.

There will always be grey areas. There will always be things we don't say for fear of being misunderstood. There will always be faux pas. And we can own up to them. We don't have to "turn the other cheek" to bigots. We have to have the courage of our convictions, to NOT succumb to the fear that this author presents as a given.


Grey areas mean we step out of black and white thinking. :bounce:

[EFerrari]

133. The difficult bit in this negotiation, is that people of good will usually try

to give the benefit of the doubt.

On the other hand, racists who publish this kind of hatred, exploit that good will.

The Magistrate once said (and this is a loose rephrasing) it's good to have an open mind but not so open that your brain falls out. :)

[urgk]

140. Muuuch better :)

"The Magistrate once said (and this is a loose rephrasing) it's good to have an open mind but not so open that your brain falls out."

Now THAT helps the conversation. And I'm serious about that. It's good advice.

I just want Democrats to logically wipe out the irrational, reactionary silliness of the last 8 years. I mean, if the cartoonist's track record shows overt racism (in addition to his habit of making fun of nearly every other stereotype he could possibly attack), then I'm probably going to change my mind and say it's more likely there was racist intent. Until then, I'll empathize with people who feel hurt by the cartoon, but I'll not feel obligated to join in and call it intentionally racist.

[omega minimo]

167. you posted hours ago with a link to the cartoonists work. Haven't you looked at them? #93

You're still saying IF "the cartoonist's track record shows overt racism (in addition to his habit of making fun of nearly every other stereotype he could possibly attack....:


Anyone who looks at those cartoons can recognize what it is: Bigotry.

[urgk]

194. I have seen them. Of course. Posting the link wouldn't make sense otherwise.

And they're sexist. And homophobic. And mean-spirited. But I bet if we did a proper nation-wide search, we could find thousands if not millions of Americans who were sexist, homophobic and mean-spirited, but not racist. Again, not damning, conclusive evidence. It leads me to believe the cartoonist is capable of beinga jackass, but it doesn't make the chimp equal Obama.

[urgk]

134. If you mean "let's not coddle the cartoonist," I agree.

But let's not lower the level of discourse to the point where our future outrage is pointless and underwhelming. If the cartoon was a mistake, let's call out the Post for their lack of judgment. If the cartoon was racist, let's prove it first, then do whatever needs to be done. But let's not run around like chickens with our heads cut off, slamming into one another in our wild efforts to be nowhere useful.

If you mean "let's not coddle those who disagree with us on this cartoon" I also agree. Because coddling doesn't enter into it. Have at them. Throw every rational, logical argument you can at people you don't agree with and see if any of your reason sticks. If it does, congratulations, you've accomplished something worth doing. If not, maybe you weren't right to begin with.

[omega minimo]

138. We're not doing what you're complaining about so get over it PLEASE

Why are you trying to drag that shit in here?

[urgk]

130. EFerrari, honestly...

You have no idea what you're talking about. And you're not helping in the slightest. Hopping around from thread to thread yelling "It's racist, you racist!" does nothing for anybody. Increase the level of your dialogue and maybe something will get accomplished.

Right now, you're just noise making more noise.

[EFerrari]

132. Thank you for your considered opinion.

:)

[omega minimo]

136. ENUFF

:thumbsdown:

[urgk]

141. And who are you to decide?

I mean, if you don't want to stay in the discussion, by all means, don't. I'd neither ask you to leave nor encourage you to stay. But I'm not likely to stop talking about something well within the bounds of the site or sticking up for myself when it's called for.

[omega minimo]

171. I'm the bigot bonking, chauvinist clomping loudmouth who has paid dearly for the privilege

including being harassed by obsequious fakers.

Since you mention "well within the bounds of the site," allow me to point out:

You arrived in this thread from others, bringing your attitude, arguments, even copied a post and criticized another DUer about their behavior "all over the board," in violation of DU Rules.

"Assume I've made the typical error of reading too many threads and combined them all in my head, and then re-read it again with that in mind."

This "typical error" -- projecting on individual DUers what you associate with the topic or buzzwords from other discussions or threads -- causes much of the conflict that you are coming in this thread to complain about. That's why you were gently reminded that this is a DIFFERENT thread where what you're dragging in is not actually occurring.

You were welcomed and invited to participate in this thread.

You are not welcome to turn it into one of the threads you came in carping about.

[urgk]

185. Ohhh, I see the problem here...

I stepped on your thread. And then people responded to what I'd written. At which point, rather than considering what I had to say, you played hall monitor and told me over and over and over that, clearly, I wasn't talking directly about the OP. Hence:

"You are not welcome to turn it into one of the threads you came in carping about."

The threads I talked about dealt with the broad stroke accusation that the cartoon was inherently racist and the implication that anyone who felt otherwise was somehow racist, morally blind or contemptible. Your post echoed some of that. It was milder, but yes, it was one of the threads I was carping about.

If my post wasn't wholly on topic, it was at least correlated.

And when I made the comment about the error, I was trying to make peace. I believe that your sweeping generalizations while less harmful fall into the same category as the ones shouting "racist!"

[omega minimo]

190. Those are just plain lies. Way beyond cluelessness.

[urgk]

203. Well, that settles that then.

Case closed. My fault for using plain lies and cluelessness.

[EFerrari]

142. Let it go. It's so very good to read you, omega. Always a pleasure.

:hi:

[The Wizard]

100. Republicans don't do funny

It's not in their DNA. Example: Dennis Miller. He had a career until he decided to come out of the closet and admit he was a Republicant. Republicans have no sense of irony. Their humor is limited to pie in the face.

[omega minimo]

106. someone here linked the racist waffle box

the arrow "point to Mecca for better waffles" pretty much made your point. Just pathetic

[katty]

103. thank you

[kooljerk666]

104. Hey what about the victem of the attack!

This women lost both her eyes, her nose & it looks like
she will need a face transplant & be blind for the rest of
her life.

There is not 1 f-ing aspect of this case that is even remotely
funny.

Hope the author & his whole family get attacked by a pack
of feral dogs.

I am sure he would get lots of laff riot material from that.

[omega minimo]

107. wow. awful. tragic. not funny is right.

[omega minimo]

108. .

[Better Believe It]

110. Obama portrayed as a monkey is about as racist as one can get

So what's the "debate" about?

[omega minimo]

113. simplicity is best

:spray:

great post.

[urgk]

137. Some people don't see "Obama" in the chimp.

At least not as the *only* possibility. Partially because it looks nothing like him; partially because we don't see Obama as thee author of the stimulus package as much as the one who asked it to be written. Maybe even partially because we think "chimp" and then "Bush." Some of us also see the chimp as the literal drugged up chimp from the news, which, to a conservative, *must* have written such a craaaazy stimulus bill.

And for the record I don't necessarily believe that it was or wasn't racist. I believe that we can't know the intent. We can speculate, but without th cartoon saying something more overt, we just don't know.

Why is it important? Because reason shouldn't die in the face of emotion. Not even when the emotion is understandable. Because reactive, non-consideration of facts is the hallmark of an administration we're trying to forget while we cheer for one that values thought and rational understanding.

[omega minimo]

174. It's not possible to apply "reason" divorced from context, history, awareness of the power of images

[Better Believe It]

111. Duplicate Deleted

Deleted

[Elderon]

114. Opinion

To the Deniers... this isn't very hard to understand...

The cartoon doesn't make sense and is NOT funny at all. And it's supposed to be a cartoon which is funny right?

And the reason the cartoon doesn't make sense and is not funny to NORMAL WELL ADJUSTED NON-BIGOTS is because it's racially motivated and the only people that would get their laughs would be the one's who "GET" the Cartoonists hidden meaning.

The whole "Even a Monkey could do It" defense is the real stretch here.

it's plainly meant to represent "SOMEONE" who had a hand in the "STIMULUS" Bill... Monkey... hmmm

Ask the Cartoonist, Why a Monkey?

To make this cartoon funny to all readers, one wouldn't have to do too much...

Just put a Clown in the place of the Monkey and NO ONE would have drawn the connection to anything racial.

I don't remember seeing any Monkey's / Chimps / Gorillas in congress

But Clowns?

Yes... I think i know a circus when I see one.

...Edited for Grammar...And to apologize to any actively working clowns out there... all except the one that scared the crap out of me when I was 5...

[omega minimo]

117. Yeah! I thought monkeys wrote Shakespeare!

Your'e right. Clowns write policy!

Great post. Welcome to DU :toast:

[Elderon]

121. Thanks!

:toast:

[JJ]

122. Dog Whistle

[noiretextatique]

123. hell yes it was racist

thanks for your post...wish i could recommend it 1,000 times.

[G_j]

126. I agree! nt

[MrModerate]

146. Phooey! Sure it was as racist as all get-out . . . In MY opinion . . .

But that doesn't mean reasonable people can't disagree. Reasonable people disagreeing is *not* embarassing or insulting.

[EFerrari]

148. My whole liberal self wants to agree with that but, it would be a mistake.

It's sort of like going to a crime scene and deciding the blood could have come from anywhere.

You'd have to discount everything you know in order to hold that position. No, it's not "reasonable".

[urgk]

150. I'm not sold on your analogy.

If you went to a crime scene and there was blood, shouldn't you automatically wonder if it was from the victim or the attacker? Seems to me that might be a tad important.

:)

[EFerrari]

152. Sorry? I wasn't speaking to you.

:)

[urgk]

202. Trying to decide between Pfffft! and Thbththtbbbb! (n/t)

[MrModerate]

154. Naaah. Another interpretation is that the authors of the stimulus bill . . .

Were crazed chimps (of whatever color) who needed to be shot to "Save America." Disgusting, stupid, crazy, threatening -- but possibly not racist.

Now I don't happen to buy that interpretation, but my point is not whether the cartoon was racist or not, but whether *asking* if it was racist is itself racist (or insulting, or disgusting, etc.) And my opinion is No. Symbols are inherently ambiguous, and to say that you have definitively interpreted one is overreaching.

And my liberal self says that the friction between "of course it was racist" and "maybe it wasn't racist" has generated both heat and light, bumped up the attention meter, and ultimately constitutes a major slap-down of the Post, the cartoonist, and Murdoch (who is, reportedly, livid that such a stupid thing was done).

And that's what debate does.

[EFerrari]

155. That's too abstract for people viewing a cartoon.

No one is going to see that and think, Okay -- the authors of that stimulus bill are like this ape who was shot here. That's not going to happen. No one makes that kind of association.

And symbols that have been used for two hundred years in the same culture tend not to be ambiguous. That's why they're used. :shrug:

[MrModerate]

156. Well, we'll just agree to disagree . . .

Which is also a form of debate. Extremely nasty cartoon, followed up today by another Fux News troglodyte giggling about monkey scrotums and Eric Holder.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x5093537

These guys are devolving before our very eyes.

[EFerrari]

157. Yes, they are. I agree with you! We will see a lot more of this

before we see less.

[omega minimo]

170. You're right, I apologized for "cluelessness," not reason or disagreement

:hi:

[BlooInBloo]

193. (shrug) And reasonable people can disagree about gravity's reality too.

Not.

[debbierlus]

149. I came across an antique collection of postcards with this type of content

My husband deals in antique and he found a whole collection of these - I was stunned looking at them.

Surreal stuff.

[EFerrari]

151. Someone gave me a whole "completer" set of this stuff.

Salt, pepper, sugar bowl, tray and ashtray. I kept it -- it's about a hundred years old. And because it's good to have a reminder of where we've been as we try to move forward.

[CitizenPatriot]

153. it's not as if it needs to be justified to ANYONE

I saw this cartoon and immediately felt ill. It depicts violence as funny. It makes fun of both the mauling of a woman, a chimp who was shot, and the person who wrote the stimulus bill (our President) being shot.

It's is clear the chimp is supposed to be the President. In all the MSM, it is "obama's stimulus bill".

THIS is the part I don't feel I need to justify: chimp to african american insult.

Say that wasn't the case throughout history. The election proved that THEY think it is. Remember the child molester in line at the Palin hate rally, carrying the curious george stuffed animal which clearly represented Obama? He eventually became ashamed and gave it away after he noticed the camera on him.

They don't know? Then why was he ashamed?

It's ludicrous so say they don't know. They have a juvenile sense of "humor" which is mean-spirited and passive-aggressive. They titter about monkeys and chimps and waffles and watermelons. Yes, they really are that immature, low-level functioning, and horrid.

Those whose lives have protected them from interacting with the dregs of society and therefore don't get this reference, I salute you.

I know what I know, but I'm not interested proving it to anyone.

Just seeing the violence was enough for me. That man (our President) is cleaning up their mess and putting up with their never-ending bullshit. They somehow think this elevates them to make fun of him in this way, but it only speaks poorly about them.

They want the argument to be framed about race, and I'm not taking that bait. I know what it is and I trust the American people to know what it is, as well. I'm calling them on the violence.

ENOUGH.

What really slays me is the right's idea that they are superior to someone else based on the color of their skin. I've truly never heard anything so ridiculous in my entire life. That's an epic fail.

[omega minimo]

164. Excellent. Thank EVERYBODY for the lucid POVs and comments

:yourock:

[tekisui]

160. KNR! Too Many on DU are Apologists for Racism.

I too, am appalled at the level of defense this racist cartoon has received on DU. A true indictment.

[Skittles]

165. I hear you, omega

yes INDEED

[omega minimo]

169. cool

:thumbsup:

[WoodyM]

176. As an eighty-year-old white man

who has lived all his life in the south, I instantly saw the racism in the cartoon. I have seen almost identical drawings and stylization of an ape, as used in the cartoon, used to portray black people. These drawings were in handouts given at KKK clan rallies.

[EFerrari]

178. I wondered if the ape wasn't lifted from somewhere. n/t

[omega minimo]

182. There it is. Thank you WoodyM.

:toast:

[City of Mills]

179. Hi there

Mind if I join you?

[omega minimo]

183. LOL

Loud and clear

[defendandprotect]

188. To tell the truth the only things I could understand about the cartoon . . .

was that it was

RACIST

seemed a

THREAT

against President Obama . . .

[BlooInBloo]

189. White democrats are still white...

Though that watermelon looks damn good. Sigh - months to go yet. :cry:

[mythyc]

209. too late to recommend, but here's a kick

the OP tells it like it is. this issue isn't even worthy of debate. anyone short-sighted enough to play the apologist for that disgusting artist need only browse his other hateful cartoons. thanks for posting, and holding your own throughout this thread and issue. :thumbsup:

:dem:

[omega minimo]

213. thank you for closing this remarkably civilized DU thought experiment

:yourock:

[mythyc]

210. too late to recommend, but here's a kick

the OP tells it like it is. this issue isn't even worthy of debate. anyone short-sighted enough to play the apologist for that disgusting artist need only browse his other hateful cartoons. thanks for posting, and holding your own throughout this thread and issue. :thumbsup:

:dem:

[mythyc]

211. too late to recommend, but here's a kick

the OP tells it like it is. this issue isn't even worthy of debate. anyone short-sighted enough to play the apologist for that disgusting artist need only browse his other hateful cartoons. thanks for posting, and holding your own throughout this thread and issue. :thumbsup:

:dem:

[Political Heretic]

217. So is any cartoon drawn chimp racist or does context matter?

For example, if some police recently shot a live chimp near a police car in Connecticut that had gone crazy, and then a cartoonist spoofs that current event, adding a joke about washington's half-assed efforts to fix the economy .... would that context matter or is just any chimp cartoon racist by default?

Or more likely, racist automatically because we didn't like the joke.

[omega minimo]

225. this might help you answer your own question

http://gawker.com/5155855/ten-masterpieces-from-sean-delonas

[Political Heretic]

235. This has what to do with what, exactly?

[omega minimo]

241. look and you will see (just scroll over the purple and click the red letters)

"So is any cartoon drawn chimp racist or does context matter?"

[Cid_B]

218. Uh huh

Just because some people are digging really really deep to get some racist connotation out of it, the idea that it cannot be questioned is ludicrous. That is the reason that real conversations about race relations are impaired. The moment someone disagrees they are deemed racist and ignorant.

[omega minimo]

224. Not here. This thread considers it "cluelessness" which implies potential to at the very least

acknowledge that it offends others -- including an honest look at the history, context, etc. -- and exhibit some awareness or sensitivity to that, rather than a true "racist and ignorant" attitude which would resist any attempt to learn, grow or communicate.


"Digging real deep"? Now THAT's offensive.

[EFerrari]

226. Some people are racist and ignorant. n/t

[urgk]

233. That's what I've been saying.

I don't see it as overtly racist, but I do think a racist reading is possible. I keep trying to engage the OP in a discussion of why he/she thinks it has to be racist, but the answers haven't added up to anything damning, just suggestive.

[uppityperson]

229. I can't rec but can kick and very much agree with what you wrote...

"Even so, the fact that the cartoon:

A. made no sense and caused a "Huh?" response

B. required some awareness of another news story where a monkey had been shot by police (?)

c. required no imagination for racists to picture a black man (even if he's the President) as an ape

D. and yet people want to quibble over whether it was racist or not is disgusting."

I didn't understand what the police were saying, it made no sense to me. And I immediately took it as racist. And I am appalled that people want to quibble over whether it was racist, or nonsensical and racist, or not.

[omega minimo]

231. that's mighty Uppity of ya

:evilgrin:

Uppityperson :hi:

The part I missed in that list was "required reading the words to piece the point together."

Perhaps what will come out of this is that this cartoonist is terrible at his job.

And a bigot.

Maybe he crafted the image to be nonsensical, racist and deniable.

[dysfunctional press]

237. people see what they want to see and what they're tuned into...

if you go looking for racism, it's EASY to claim that you've found some.

i feel sorry for you that that's how you've chosen to perceive your world.

[omega minimo]

239. Did you read anything at all here? Or just striking out randomly with a prepackaged attitude?

:shrug:


You're comment makes it sound like (you don't know who or what you're talking about and) you deny that racism exists.

[dysfunctional press]

251. racism exists, yes- but not in everything and everywhere- unless that's what you want to see...

apparently, you do. :shrug:

[omega minimo]

252. "unless that's what you want to see apparently you do" & you're basing that on your own blindspot or

what? You have nothing to base that assumption on. :thumbsdown:

[dysfunctional press]

257. you're entitled to your...opinion.

and so am i.

[Karenina]

266. Indeed, you are.

Thanks for the revelation!

[Luminous Animal]

253. Even the racists think it is a racist cartoon...

and the laud the cartoonist for his bravery.

Until a moment ago, the only evidence I had of this was from the actual the discussion thread on the website of white supremacists organization Stormfront and I refused to put up a link (but it is very easy to find). But a couple of minutes ago I found this: http://dailydoubt.blogspot.com/2009/02/white-nationalist-voice-their-approval.html


And this from the Stormfront site for your reading displeasure (The title of the Stormfront thread is NY Post: Look At Today's Political Cartoon! (Monkey posing as obama!):

- The cartoon in today’s New York Post is very good! It is almost as effective as many of those created by `A. Wyatt Mann’, Tom Metzger’s incredible cartoonist in the relatively old `White Aryan Resistance’ newspaper in the 90s.

- You might be a White Nationalist if:
1) You laughed at that cartoon.
2) You laughed harder at outrage.
3) You’re only mad because you didn’t think of it first.
4) You posted it on the office bulletin board.
5) You posted it on your black supervisor’s door.
6) You copied it for Xmas cards.
7) You personally autographed a copy and sent it to your favorite black politician.
8)You only wonder what kind of ammo the cop was using.
9) You keep a copy in your wallet next to the kids’ pics to show your friends.
10) You store it in in the ol’ hard drive and repeatedly use it on Stormfront, (like the Heineken Looter Dude.)

[dysfunctional press]

258. and they're entitled to their opinion(s) as well.

everyone is.

[EFerrari]

247. Yet another fine illustration of Gaslighting 101. n/t

[omega minimo]

240. Thank you DU for a healthy discussion on a difficult topic, showing we can DU it.

:yourock:

[Luminous Animal]

242. What do the white supremacists think?

So I decided to do a little research and (surprise surprise) and I found out that the vile racists at Stormfront immediately made the connection between Obama and the dead monkey. Even praising Delonas for his "bravery".

I will not post a link but put Delonas and Stormfront into google and the discussion should be the first one to pop up.

[EFerrari]

245. Thank you for reading that vile Cr2p for me. n/t

[Luminous Animal]

246. You are welcome.

As a friend on another discussion board responded, "Dog whistle accomplished."

[EFerrari]

248. I agree. What these horrible people aren't counting on, though,

is that during the Bush torture years, a lot of people became very adept at decoding them. They will try to run this game and they will fail. They will be called out every time.

[omega minimo]

255. They think?

:wow:

[JohnnyRingo]

250. I win(?!)... Here's the most racist antique toy in history:

Wrong on sooo many levels.

[omega minimo]

256. A tradition of hiding hatred and violence in "cute" cartoons

[Dastard Stepchild]

259. Kara Walker does some interesting work around these images

I just took note of the cartoon today. I don't at all dispute the anger that people are feeling. There is too much of a history/association with chimps and African-Americans to have that cartoon be appropriate or in good taste.

I started to wonder if the cartoonist was playing on the "give the chimp a typewriter" theme. It's a somewhat esoteric criticism of bad screenplays and stage plays and the like. The joke being that the work could have been created by a chimp banging away on a typewriter. But, this being the NY Post and not the New Yorker, I'm dubious of that explanation. And even if that was the intent, it's too random a reference to not be supressed by the more obvious interpretation.