The Chimp is CLEARLY Meant to Represent Barack Obama

[Bullet1987]

1. The words...which signifies that the author was talking about ONE person. If the author wanted to represent Congress he could or would have done it with more than just one thing to signify such a large body of people. Not to mention there's no reference to Congress in the picture.

2. Obama. Everyone considers the stimulus bill to have been crafted by Obama. The media depicts it this way, Obama himself talks about as being his. No one talks about the stimulus bill as being of Congress.

3. The monkey shooting and politics have NOTHING in common. The recent Monkey Gone Wild incident has zero to do with the stimulus bill.

[Occam Bandage]

1. Other things that have nothing to do with the stimulus bill: A-Rod, Syrup Smells, and Octomom.

[Spazito]

4. Notice two things in these depictions...

1) He does not depict Congress in the Stimulus Bill one, he depicts President Obama and President Obama alone as the figure responsible for the Bill with the democrats (Congress?) depicted as donkeys supporting him. Gosh if the dead chimp was congress, why does he use Obama and only Obama as the leader in the one you posted yet we are supposed to believe the dead chimp is Congress?

2) He captions the one with the bull "Economy" and the pregnant donkey one with "Stimulus Bill" to ensure his readers 'get it' yet there is no such caption, ie Congress, written across the body of the chimp in the toon that is under discussion. Interesting don't you think?

[Occam Bandage]

11. The chimp is not Congress. The chimp is a chimp. There are no other cues,

be they cues that it is Congress or cues that it is Obama. The chimp represents nothing but the chimp that was shot yesterday. If it were intended to represent something else, such as Obama, I would think it would have a cue, since as you point out he labels everything else he intends to stand for something. The cartoonist is saying, "the bill is so bad, it is as if that deranged chimp had written it."

That is not the same as saying "Obama is a dead chimp," which does not even make sense.

[Spazito]

13. That is certainly the defense given by the Post....

and it is no more believable than yours.

One takes in the totality of this creep's toons and it is obvious he is well aware of how to use charactures and what they mean. One needs only to look at his homophobic toons to see that yet, somehow, he was oblivious to how his toon tying the dead chimp and the Stimulus Bill would be interpreted. I don't think so.

[Occam Bandage]

15. If he were well aware of how to use caricatures,

why did he not use a caricature in this comic? There are literally no cues as to the chimp's identity as anything other than a chimp. Your argument is backwards; you claim that the chimp represents Obama because he did not provide any clues that the chimp stands for anything else. I don't believe that apes are African-Americans unless otherwise denoted.

[Spazito]

20. Yes, I know, the toon is being totally misunderstood....

it is totally innocuous and your country has NO history of using chimps to depict black people in racist propaganda.

I hope you have sent the author of this innocuous cartoon a message of sympathy. He might need it since your interpretation of his disgusting 'artistry' is a minority opinion it seems.

[Occam Bandage]

26. Certainly there is a history of using apes and apelike features in racist imagery,

and people are right to be wary of that. I believe the cartoonist was entirely negligent and deserves every complaint that he gets.

Still, does that necessarily mean that all use of apes are in fact intended as racist representations of African-Americans? Was the real-life chimp that had actually been shot by the police also a racist representation of an African-American?

[Spazito]

32. It depends on the context in which the symbolic caricature is used....

tying it, in this case, to the Stimulus bill is what changes the context given who is seen to be the "owner" of the bill. I see blatant racism, you do not. My debate with you on this is at an end.

[Every Man A King]

35. deserves the complaints?

Yet every time someone complains you defend the cartoon? I think you are confused.

[urgk]

40. I think (if I may)...

That Occam is saying from what he/she's seen, there is no evidence of overt racism. Occam's posts seem to say that while the cartoonist may be guilty of a bad choice and negligence in understanding how it could be read, there is not necessarily provable malevolence toward Obama.

There is definitely room for both.

[Enthusiast]

88. But this one does!

This chimp was meant to denigrate and humiliate Obama. That is perfectly clear to me. I'm not overly sensitive to racial issues, I am a white male, 56 years old. Most of it goes over my head. NOT THIS TIME.

[janet118]

58. And no history of police shooting black men . . .

This is the most disturbing part of the image for me. New York City police have prior history of shooting black men. Combine that with the history of referring to blacks as apes and you have to be completely tone deaf not to realize the implications of those images.

The editor of the Post should be fired for letting this cartoon be published. The cartoonist is the cartoonist. He may or may not be racist. It is up to the editor to view a submission with the eyes of the public and decide whether it is worthy of publication.

This cartoon is too violent and too easily subject to racist interpretation. Maybe it could have been repaired by better labeling of the images, but I doubt it. It was up to the editor to remove any potential misinterpretation of the images or refuse publication.

[Name removed]

67. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

68. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Enthusiast]

87. +1, Spazito! nt

[Every Man A King]

36. He left it deliberately ambiguous

so that racists could get a laugh and people like you could defend him. He always labels the symobls in the other cartoons, why not in this one?

[urgk]

41. Or, maybe he had an itch...

...something incredibly disturbing of a personal nature that demanded his attention just before his deadline. So, rather than labeling the chimp as planned, he scratched in some fur, sent his e-mail off to the publisher and then ran pell-mell for the drugstore to get something soothing and creamy in a tube.

Or maybe it never occurred to him.

There's nothing there that proves my ridiculous first scenario, or even my much milder second, but in the same breath, there's nothing that proves your charge either. Maybe he intentionally left it ambiguous. Sure. Maybe he did. But we can't know.

Occam has done a remarkable job on this post of trying to keep the discussion within the realm of the knowable and rational, rather than letting it slip into a mob-like, emotional landslide.

[catnhatnh]

23. Well, is it the same as suggesting that...

responsible people (represented by the police) should assassinate the author(s) of the stimulus bill???

[treestar]

31. It is as if that chimp had written it is the part that a lot of people are

not going to have as their first reaction. It's hard to believe the cartoonist doesn't realize that. The relation of the chimp to the authors of the legislation is not that clearly to be made.

Whereas the Donkey as Octomom - the concept that it is wasteful somehow is related.

If Congress were clearly deranged, like every member was in a mental institution, then we could have a direct metaphor.

[Political Heretic]

56. EXACTLY!!!!!! omg there is at least SOMEONE here who has not gone bat shit crazy

Thank god.

[Enthusiast]

89. So I'm bat shit crazy for

objecting to what I believe is clearly a racist cartoon? You are about as sensitive as the fuckin' cartoonist!

[applegrove]

2. It is incredibly weird that a newspaper would actually publish this. Someone in

the editorial department is really fucked up.

[KittyWampus]

3. Infinite monkey theorem in popular culture:

I remember Negativland from the late 80's.

It's been mentioned on the Simpsons & Family Guy. I'd be surprised if South Park never touched it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_monkey_theorem_in_popular_culture

[bunnies]

5. The ONE person = the chimp.

As in: the chimp wrote the bill. As in: the bill is so poorly crafted that a chimp could have done it. As in: the chimp did do it. And not just any chimp. A chimp on xanax. THE chimp on xanax.

Obama. See above. The chimp is the author. The chimp is the chimp.

Monkey gone wild. See above. The chimp is the chimp. Same as the a-rod toon and the octomom toon. Current events + stimulus sucks = that authors cartoons.

Seriously.

Its frightening that so many people saw that cartoon and automatically thought "chimp = Obama". And somehow those to whom chimp = chimp are the bad ones.

[Bullet1987]

6. Since when is a chimp a person?

A chimp is an animal not a person. You're doing more logical tapdancing to prove it's NOT racist, than those you claim are doing it because they think it is.

[bunnies]

61. I'm not the one who introduced the word "person"...

into the conversation. I was keeping with the term already assigned. By those who want to see the chimp as Obama.

And I dont know what the hell you're talking about 'tapdancing'. I was very simply expressing my first reaction / thoughts upon seeing the cartoon. Thankfully there are so many wonderful people to tell me that my thought process is wrong simply because it doesnt mirror theirs.

[Spazito]

9. It is equally frightening, imo, that some seem to be totally ignorant of their own country's history

and the use of monkeys to depict black people in racist propaganda.

Edited to correct spelling error.

[EFerrari]

12. In one of those Lincoln specials, they showed cartoons of him depicted

the same way in response to the Emancipation Proclamation. This cartoon is clearly in the same genre.

[Spazito]

16. Exactly! n/t

[Enthusiast]

91. Yes, it is. Same genre. nt

[treestar]

30. This is it

If it had been passed under Bush and that same cartoon had been done, the effect would not be the same at all.

[whistler162]

60. True MANY "Liberals" would be laughing at the

"supposed" reference to George Bush!

[Optical.Catalyst]

106. .

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x2521146#2521890
<>
<>


Like nobody on this board has ever seen these before.

[Number23]

53. I like you.

And the fact that you appear to be a Canadian having to school Americans on their OWN DAMN HISTORY makes me weep actual tears...

[bunnies]

62. you make me laugh.

seriously. :rofl:

[Every Man A King]

37. So thats the joke?

That an actual chimp wrote the bill? Are you serious? No symbolism here whatsoever?

[bunnies]

63. I didnt say it was a good joke, did I?

No. And unlike most people here - I cant claim to know the authors intent. As for symbolism, the chimp doesnt symbolize Obama to me. I just dont see it that way. Sorry.

[Enthusiast]

92. It's a stretch of the imagination

to buy that explanation. Sounds like a W Bush type lie.

[T Wolf]

7. Add #4 - the solution clearly and overtly promoted is to kill the President so that someone

else will be in charge.

[annabanana]

8. I'm sure the FBI found it hysterical

:sarcasm:

(There is little question as to how this was interpreted in the more overtly racist corners of the Country.)

[EFerrari]

10. This cartoon is a roschart test for cultural literacy.

But also for coding. The cartoonist can claim he's making a comparison to the monkey shooting incident all he wants but that's what racists always do. They always have a peg to hang their hat on.

[Occam Bandage]

14. I don't believe there's anyone failing to recognize

the history of depicting African-Americans as apes or having apelike features. The question is whether a reference to an ape in a context of a bill championed by an African-American politician is certainly an intentional reference to that racist cultural tradition.

[EFerrari]

17. And that's where your cultural literacy should kick in.

[Occam Bandage]

27. I don't believe it is culturally literate

to declare that all use of apes in cartoons must be covert references to African-Americans, especially if they are overt references to actual, real-world apes.

[EFerrari]

34. Agreed. That isn't true. n/t

[urgk]

42. Well said.

And, just for the record, I think you're right. There's nothing in the cartoon that proves without a doubt that the intention was racist.

[EFerrari]

50. The problem is, his statement has no bearing on this topic.

No one is making the claim that the use of monkeys or apes is at all times racist in itself.

Racism is about context, always.

[urgk]

55. I have neither the time nor the interest...

To explain how Occam's comment made sense in the context of the thread. I believe that it did and I'll leave it at that.

Occam's over-arching point, however, that it might be intentionally racist, or it might just seem racist, is the more important one and has been well made. I agree that we should reserve anger for racist acts when they are provably racist. I know there are those who worry that this kind of thinking will lead to nothing being called out as racist, but, fortunately for the discussion (and unfortunately for civil discourse), we have plenty of examples otherwise. For instance -- "You know who deserves a posthumous Medal of Honor? James Earl Ray. We miss you, James. Godspeed," as spoken by Rush Limbaugh. "Barack the Magic Negro" as circulated by the potential head of thee RNC. Those are racist. And, sure, let's rage against them. They couldn't have meant anything else. But when it comes to the chimp cartoon, it seems wiser to ask ourselves about it, wonder out loud and then watch the cartoonist for proof.

[EFerrari]

104. In order to engage on such a snipe hunt, you have to ignore two hundred years

of cartoons and the whole last year of cartoons and other artifacts depicting Obama as a simian. Go for it. :)

[Enthusiast]

93. No one suggested ALL depictions of apes

in cartoons are covert, or not so covert in this case, references to African Americans. But the one in question clearly is.

[Hansel]

46. Yep. A lot of this went on during the campaign. Plausible deniability.

While they get their point across to the racists it is aimed at, they make some lame ass claim about the stimulus being "so stupid a Chimp probably wrote it" and the naive buy that as a plausible excuse.

The cartoon lacks wittiness unless you have a pretty perverted mindset. Truly right-wing "humor". And they get away with it again.

Unfortunately, I know the audience this is aimed at and it is clear to me it is meant to be racist. This is aimed at the same people who went to Palin's rallies and the same people I knew growing up. While some on this website can pooh-pooh about it being racist all they want, these fools will have no problem "getting it". Wink wink nod nod. The huge grins on their faces will clearly indicate they know exactly what it means.

What the hell does the cartoon mean on its face? Why are the police particularly upset with the author of the stimulus bill? Who do they represent? Why is the cartoonist using a very recent tragedy that is still unfolding to make a "joke" about something that so clearly he has an ax to grind about? Why all of the blood? Why the violence? Why use this when there was any risk that it would be interpreted as racist? That it could be interpreted as representing Obama? The president? A black president?

Because this cartoonist is a right wing hack and the cartoon sucks?

[Enthusiast]

94. The cartoonist wanted to

push the envelope. Next time the offense will be more egregious. This is how it starts, it creeps. Imagine 1930 Germany. People, Nazi Party members, might have been somewhat guarded in their words about Jews. Not for long.

[horseshoecrab]

98. I believe that you are right Enthusiast

Thanks for saying it. This is just the beginning. The line needs to be drawn here.

Thanks.

horseshoecrab

[Rashel]

100. Great post!

[PretzelWarrior]

18. I think you people are wrong. Don't cry wolf.

save it for verifiable cases of racism.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

19. If we "save it for verifiable cases of racism..."

There'll just be some other dick (or the same dicks) claiming it's not really racism.

[EFerrari]

22. It's never really racism. It's a mistake or an accident or just you being mean

if you use the Lou Dobbs Scale of CYA.

[Occam Bandage]

28. So it's racist because some people say it isn't.

Good argument!

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

29. Well, you say it's racist.

But somehow you're defending the artist with some wishy washy bullshit about the cartoonist not realizing what he was doing.

[urgk]

39. Did you really just call PretzelWarrior a d*ck?

Just like that? Right at the get-go? Because you don't agree with him/her? He/she thinks the cartoon doesn't mean what you think it does, and for that you're willing to throw disparage his/her character?

How about building a logical argument for why you *have* to be right and Pretzel *has* to be wrong? If you can't, you might find out you're acting out of emotion rather than reason. Which is fine. Not particularly helpful, but fine.

[EFerrari]

21. When black Americans are telling you they find this cartoon offensive

maybe you should listen to them. Or, get some sensitivity training or something.

:wtf:

[PretzelWarrior]

24. but they are not even nearly unanimous in that statement of offense

just like we on DU are not. It looks like as vulgar and stupid as the cartoon was...it accomplished it's purpose of raising a huge controversy and getting people to talk about the New York Post.

[EFerrari]

25. Do you believe the black community was united on integration

or the gay community against Warren? Come on.

[whopis01]

48. Well I am a black American

and I find this cartoon incredibly offensive. Quite frankly, I don't see any other way of interpreting it.

[EFerrari]

51. It's horrendous. But, there are always a few people who refuse to see

what is right in front of them for some reason. I don't even pretend to understand why.

[Enthusiast]

96. Well I am a white American

and I feel exactly the same as you do.

[Enthusiast]

95. Who would know better? nt

[whopis01]

49. If you don't think that this is racism

then you are blind. I can not see any way of interpreting this other than an attack against my race.

[grace0418]

69. Okay, so explain the cartoon if it's NOT racism and it's NOT depicting Obama.

What does the story of the chimpanzee going crazy and being shot have to do with signing the stimulus bill? What connection does it have if the cartoonist wasn't drawing comparisons between a chimpanzee and President Obama? While not a funny or clever cartoon on any level, it makes absolutely no sense unless you make that comparison, as far as I can tell.

[Rashel]

71. I could see your point if there were a double meaning to this cartoon.

There is no double meaning, the cartoon makes no sense, the chimp incident has glaringly NOTHING to do with the stimulus bill. The cartoonist strained to find an opportunity to tie a monkey in with the stimulus bill writer there is no connection whatsoever.

Furthermore, the bill was already written. Why does the author say "we'll have to find someone else to write the stimulus bill?"

[noiretextatique]

101. which cases are "verifiable?"

there are always apologists for racism, whether verifiable or not.

[Danger Mouse]

33. Agreed. The cartoon is over the line. Not funny in the slightest.

[ejpoeta]

38. i just don't see how the chimpanzee incident has anything to do with the stimulus

bill. there is no sane reason you would put those two things together!!

[dbmk]

54. I just don't see how you make that leap either

How to get from dead ape to Obama - without having racist brain short circuits. That I don't get.

[grace0418]

70. I know, right? It's not remotely funny, clever or timely. The only way it makes any

"sense" at all is if the cartoonist is either A) saying the chimp is interchangeable with President Obama and should be shot or B) saying that cops are so stupid and racist that they wouldn't know the difference between a crazed chimpanzee and the President of the United States, and would shoot either way.

Neither scenario is amusing. Both are offensive.

[11 Bravo]

43. I don't believe so. It was merely stupid and thoughtless (sound like your typical Repug?)

The stimulus bill and a chimp who got smoked by two cops have both been in the news recently. I see it as just another example of tone deaf, dumb ass, wingnut spew.

[AtomicKitten]

44. IMO it is coincidental, however, should never have printed because the natural inference is horrible

[EFerrari]

52. It can't be a coincidence because this POS went through an editorial process.

[AtomicKitten]

99. I mean coincidence in that it is a juxtaposition of topical subjects,

the stimulus bill and the chimp gone wild being put down appearing simultaneously in the press that came together in an unholy clusterf*ck of a horrendous cartoon.

[TexasObserver]

45. Agreed. Don't piss down my back and tell me it's NY POST humor.

Racist love this IN YOUR FACE stuff. They love to pull this kind of thing, then recoil in false horror when predictably challenged.

[Hansel]

47. LOL. That pretty well sums it up. n/t

[Political Heretic]

57. Hperbolic exaggerators love this stuff too.

And then go all faux-righteous indignation mode when predictably challenged.

sigh. *takes a breath.* Look.....

If no chimp had been shot yesterday, then I could see how the bizarre selection of a chimp and what not would raise some eyebrows. But as it stands, I myself happened to joke to a friend, after seeing the story in the newspaper, "damn, now they'll have to find someone else to write the federal budget!" (as we'll have spending the budget coming up soon and I for one thing the government's "budgets" are fucking ass backwards, regardless of which party is in charge.)

So am I a racist now? No, I'm someone who saw the news story about an actual chimp gone crazy and made a joke. Nothing more or less.

There's no "OMG two holes" like some have said - there's four. There's a "beware of dog" sign because the seen being depicted, the real life picture the cartoon wants us to connect to, has a huge beware of dog sign on a poll just like the one depicted. There are no cues to suggest that the chimp is anything other than a chimp. The text says "someone" not because its referring to Obama and not congress, but because its referring to the ONE. DEAD. CHIMP. on the ground!

The fact that people won't even remotely consider the possibility that perhaps we're just a little tiny bit too hyper-vigillant about the racism we anticipate seeing and that this causes us to see overt racism everywhere we turn (OMG he used black ink! BLACK. INK. THAT RACIST FUCK HEAD!!) is pretty sad, and means I'm in for a long eight years of annoyance.

[tekisui]

64. And, if a tiger had been shot, yesterday rather than a chimp?

It wouldn't have been drawn.

[Political Heretic]

74. Of course not, because our pop culture doesn't equate tigers with bumbling foolishness

While it does equate chimps with such.

[tekisui]

76. Keep your blinders on, they will help you sleep at night.

[Political Heretic]

77. The last refuge of those without a good argument.

Sigh..

I know you are but what am I?

[tekisui]

78. I really don't know what more to say to one who denies blatant racism.

:shrug:

Closing our eyes to it will only make it worse.

[Political Heretic]

103. My eyes are wide open, that's the problem

I'm very in tune with the hyper-reactionary attitude of more than a few here who see racism in every molecule, multiplied if the person under scrutiny has a conservative bent, multiplied even further now that we have a Democratic African-American president. Suddenly every word, phrase, every look, every innuendo - is "blatantly racist."

That wouldn't be a problem really, except for two issues. First, I think it desensitizes people to real issues of racism because the term and experience itself becomes so trivialized. Second, I think its equally offensive to perpetually spin something non racist and suggest that it is in fact "blatantly racist." I think that does more to stir up old stereotypes - when we "see" them everywhere and in everything, illegitimately. I think that's a big problem we're going to have to work through in the future.

The biggest hole in the entire claim of racism is the fact that the cartoon is based on real, current event. It a cartoonist had just out of the blue created a cartoon with a dead chimp connected to the stimulus bill, without context it would be at best in extremely poor taste and at worst purposefully racist.

But that's not what happened here. As NY Post editor writes, ""The cartoon is a clear parody of a current news event, to wit the shooting of a violent chimpanzee in Connecticut. It broadly mocks Washington's efforts to revive the economy."

In order to see it as something more than that, you have to really want it - which I think is what I find most troubling of all.

[Enthusiast]

97. Exactly! nt

[HamdenRice]

66. Exactly. It's ju jitsu. Post racist shit. Hear reaction. Cry about political correctness.

The Post has a well documented history of not just racist cartoons, but racist, sexist and homophobic cartoons, and a blatantly racist editorial and reportorial slant.

In the 80s, they were well known for calling black youths "animals," and helped frame the Central Park "wilding" case kids who years later were all exonerated after the real rapist was found.

The post has always been racist, sexist and homophobic. Why would anyone NOT interpret this cartoon in the light of their history?

[whistler162]

59. More likely it is a reference to the saying

about a chimp and a typewriter writing a new Shakespearean play.

But, everyone has decided it is a racist comment and gone all flap doodle aout it!

[lynne]

65. That's what I was thinking, too!! -

- The saying is if you give each of 100 monkeys a typewriter, one will eventually reproduce a work by Shakespeare.

I think the indignation over this cartoon is more about people not getting the reference.

[Political Heretic]

75. Of course.

[TwilightGardener]

72. I agree. Surely, even if the artist didn't intend that, someone should

have figured it out in the editor's office.

[Kashka-Kat]

82. Aside from racist or political consideration, it sounds like maybe the cartoonist should be fired

simply for having produced bad,ineffective art. A cartoon is supposed to zap people with the visual image and a satirical message. Obviously the artist failed to do that if people can't even figure out what this thing means. If it doesn't represent Obama the crafter of the stimulus bill, then the artist failed to convey an understandable message as to what he exactly DID mean.

[sunnybrook]

73. I think it is idiotic

That you should even have to argue that. The technicalities that people are using that congress wrote the bill, etc... are ridiculous. The very fact that the cartoon could be taken different ways is witness to the fact that a large number of people obviously take it that way. As far as your point #3, about the monkey shooting and politics, this is true, but I have seen alot of editorial cartoons that mix various current events, using one thing to be symbolic of something else. However, this is so obviously something that COULD be perceived to be not only racist but suggesting assassination TO A LARGE PORTION OF READERS. I do not believe the NY Post editors and cartoonist were so naive as to not even think of the idea that this could be interpreted this way. It is disgusting.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

79. It's hard to come to any other conclusion IMHO

What's the *joke* about otherwise? I think that the *toon* is despicable and racist at worst and utterly tone deaf to the racial implications (when tied to Obama's stimulus plan) at best- although I would certainly open to having the author explain what in the world he could have possibly been going for in his *toon*. I hadn't been clued into the police shooting of the chimpanzee until I started talking about the *toon* with my wife but I still can't exactly figure out the "connection" with the stimulus, particularly since the stimulus didn't actually get killed and, in fact, was signed into law.

:wtf:

[LaydeeBug]

80. The word "else" is what does them in, and they were too stupid to save themselves.

This isn't a veil, let alone a thin one. I hope they get what's comin'.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

81. I don't see how it's even debatable.

[horseshoecrab]

83. Can't think of anything more obvious!

Try as I might, I can't think of anything more obvious than that the chimpanzee represents Obama in the cartoon. There's a relatively long history of racist "literature" and "thought" representing black people as animals, particularly as chimps, monkeys and apes.

The cartoonist must have considered that people would relate his portrayal to President Obama - whether they are satisfied or enraged by that portrayal. I'm as much a fan of Lenny Bruce and other comedians who walk the fine line as anyone, but this is way over the line. We are celebrating the first black president of our country! Now, we are confronted by a depiction of police shooting the so-called comic representation of that president? For crying out loud!

The cartoonist passed on the opportunity to forego this blatantly racist portrayal. Let him stew in this. But, of course, he will become a cause celebre so bear that in mind.

Blech. :puke:
:clothespinonnose:

horseshoecrab

[Dreamer Tatum]

84. That is far from clear

Presidents don't write legislation.

Comedians have been calling Congresspeople stupid forever.

Monkeys are associated with simple-minded behavior.

I think the intent of the cartoon is clear.

[kwassa]

85. and in our racist history blacks have been depicted as monkeys

and Barack is clearly behind the stimulus package and having a big influence on it.

Yes, the intent of the cartoon is clear.

[bluedawg12]

105. I saw it, I'm white and it was digusting,offensive, shamfeul and racist.

Just like I knew what the f8ck I saw in the Super Dome in NOLA when the people were treated like animals day after freaking day.

I knew.

Symbolism is powerful. Perception is everything.

We know, it is wrong.

This shit needs to stop in society.

[Enthusiast]

86. You'll get no argument from me.

I don't see how a reasonable person could suggest otherwise.

[pipi_k]

90. You say "toh-may-toe" I say "toh-mah-toe"...

What's "clear" to you isn't clear to someone else.


Tell me what you "see" in the picture below. Would it be fair for me to say I "see" the opposite and then say you are wrong?


Perception is everything. You can't tell someone they're "wrong" for seeing something differently than you do when you don't even know what was in the mind of the artist who drew it.

[NorthCarolina]

102. The Conservatives are busting a gut over Obama's race

There's the bullet riddled chimp cartoon courtesy of the NY Post of course, prior to that it was the Washington Post story about raCoons running around the White House, and before that all the way back to the primaries they put Sarah Palin out there to talk about *Soccer Moms, *Joe Sixpacks, etc., all obviously euphemisms for "White America".

I hope that these discussions about race keep going for a while as we will surely witness the implosion of Conservatives as their verbal attempts to deny their bigotry only serves to expose it.