Ladies & Gentlemen-If a significant portion of black people find something offensive, it's offensive

[EffieBlack]

There is no requirement of unanimity - 100% of black people do not have to be offended by it for the item to be offensive.

By the same token, even if absolutely no white people at all think it is offensive, if it offends a whole lot of black people, it is offensive.

Of course, in cases where a whole lot of white people ALSO find something offensive, the fact that ALL white people and ALL black people and ALL other people don't think it's offensive does not obviate the offensiveness of the item.

In other words, it is beyond annoying and, in fact, in itself offensive, to be lectured to by those who for whatever reason don't think it's problematic for a violent, murdered monkey to be depicted in a way that has led many reasonable people of all races who don't know each other and have no collective desire to band together to pick on a particular cartoonist to infer that it was intended to mock America's first African-American president in a way that African Americans have often been mocked throughout the centuries and told that it is WE who are the problem.

The fact that some black people weren't offended by it or that the cartoonist didn't scrawl the N-word across the page or that sometimes people are accused of being racist when they're not or or that YOU weren't offended by it or any of the other excuses we've been hearing the past 24 hours does NOT mean that those of us who feel differently are delusional.

If something offends, it is by definition offensive. It does not require unanimous consent before it can be deemed as such.

[TechBear_Seattle]

1. Does the same apply to gay people?

I mean, McClurkin, Warren, putting aside DOMA and DADT until "possibly late 2012".... If a majority of gay people find something offensive, it is offensive, right? Even if it is President Obama and/or his administration being offensive?

Just curious, because the double standard could not be more obvious.

[tekisui]

3. Yes, absolutely, the same measure applies.

[YOY]

5. Totally.

n.t.

[MrModerate]

7. Maybe the OP should define "significant portion"

The fact of the matter is, in a world of 5+ billion people, it's not hard to find millions who are offended by one thing or another. Cartoons of Mohammed, anyone?

Expressing an opinion that something is offensive isn't regulated in any meaningful way. If people find something offensive they generally express themselves, even in the most repressive societies (risks are higher, of course).

IMO the cartoonist knew exactly what he was doing in playing to a hateful stereotype -- he was trying to get people pissed off, and he was successful.

[EffieBlack]

14. Let me clarify - I don't believe that a "significant" number of people have to be offended

in order for something to be offensive. My point was that in cases where a significant number of people are offended by something you can just assume it is offensive. Depending upon the circumstances, something can be offensive to just one person and no one else but still be enormously offensive. In this case, however, given the broad and deep reaction across all quarters, it it outrageous for some people to continue to insist that this cartoon was not offensive, just because they aren't troubled by it. If it offends, it is offensive.

[MrModerate]

24. Well, your reasoning is a little squidgy for my tastes . . .

But I still agree with you: "it is outrageous for some people to insist that this cartoon was not offensive."

[Numba6]

145. Only a fool (& Murdoch) doesn't see the racism

[QC]

36. OMG! The gays are about to go nukular again! n/t

[Maven]

59. Silly! Of course not. If Melissa Etheridge or Chris Crain says it's OK

then the many other gay people objecting to bigotry are just being hysterical.

[dsc]

63. I find it interesting you have yet to get an answer from the OP on this

Gee shocking.

[noiretextatique]

65. why would she answer such an assinine question?

it's not shocking, just off topic. why even ask that question in this thread? there doesn't have to be a competition of tears for every single topic. if there was a homophobic cartoon in the NY Post today, i would hope that many DUers would condemn it also.

[dsc]

69. because that particular poster on multiple occassions

told us that we were wrong to be offended by what we thought were anti gay things due to some particular gays found the actions OK. Evidently only black folk get to be offended around here.

[EffieBlack]

76. That is flat out untrue and I defy you to find any instance in which I ever said such a thing

Noire is exactly right - I chose not to answer the question because I refused to go hopping after the red herring you tried to throw in the water.

Nevertheless, I will assume that this time around you were just mistaken. But I suggest you check your facts before you blatantly mischaracterize my position or comments about anything in the future since I won't be so gracious about such a thing the next time it happens.

[Lyric]

86. How is it a "red herring?"

It's a perfectly reasonable question, especially considering some of the rhetoric thrown at the GLBT community around here.

Your "red herring" comment sounds like evasiveness. You don't have to "hop" after anything. Just a simple yes or no would do.

[JohnnieGordon]

118. My impression is you've been even-handed

Offended by, and opposed to, all forms of bigotry. You concentrate more on racism just like I concentrate more on homophobia. Not because I care more about homophobia, but because I can only speak authoritatively about what I've personally experienced. There's some people around here who are definitely dog-whistle homophobic, but I haven't thought that about you.

[EffieBlack]

124. Thank you - I appreciate that.

You are right - I oppose all forms of bigotry, but not only have I much more personal experiences with and insights into racial bigotry, I have also learned in my life that I am much more effective if I focus on one thing. But I certainly have NEVER told anyone who was offended by anti-gay comments or behaviors that they were wrong to feel that way, for any reason and don't appreciate being accused of such.

[QC]

114. No. Things are only homophobic if straight people think so.

Otherwise it's just the damn whiny queers harshing everybody's buzz again.

[TechBear_Seattle]

117. Indeed, you are right. Silly me. n/t

[QC]

122. You really need to try harder, you know. n/t

[PVnRT]

136. Special-interest group whining, not queer whining

[QC]

142. But lately around here a whiny special interest is anyone who sullies

the fan-club atmosphere with talk of things like policy, strategy, human rights, etc.

[PVnRT]

143. I was referring back to the Warrne flap...

...more than a few DUers decided that anyone angry about it was just fighting for the GLBT "special interest" group.

[QC]

150. Oh yes,Iremember that as well. We were filled with "poutrage" and "faux outrage"

and in general just harshing everybody's buzz.

That was one of the ugliest times in DU's history, and it went on for weeks.

[tekisui]

2. Agreed. knr!~

[kikiek]

4. I find it hard to believe anyone would defend that "cartoon".

[liberalmuse]

11. Unfortunately...

Some here on DU last night were getting miffed at people who, "see racism in everything", and "I wasn't bothered by that cartoon in the least. What is wrong with you people?" :mad:

[babylonsister]

6. Rec'd. You are right, and as a white person, I was very offended. nt

[AnneD]

10. It's unspoken message....

was very clear to me as a white Southerner. Lot's of cliches

[Zodiak]

33. Yeah, that's probably why I got so pissed so fast

I'm from the south, too, and I can hear the dog whistles in the cartoon loud and clear.

[Numba6]

147. Yes, southerners understand it -- as well as anyone who knows anything about the 300 years of

Racism in America

As conservative commentator David Gergen put it in response to McCain's racist attacks on Obama during the campaign:

"As a native of the south, I can tell you… that’s code for, ‘he’s uppity, he ought to stay in his place.’ Everybody gets that who is from a southern background. We all understand that. When McCain comes out and starts talking about affirmative action, ‘I’m against quotas,’ we get what that’s about.”

cited w/ more at

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=8213555&mesg_id=8214125

[goclark]

141. As a African American I was offended and so was

everyone that I have spoken to about it.

People of all colors have expressed outrage.

[liberalmuse]

8. Thank you!

That was very well said!

[newfie11]

9. Hell I find that cartoon offensive and I am white n/t

[Captain Hilts]

19. Same here. nt

[Hepburn]

50. Ditto...

...I was mad, sad and disappointed to see such obvious racial garbage as this ~~ it was like some junior high school joke out of the 1950s that some dumb, white clown thought was just funny as all hell. It was offensive then ~~ it is still offensive now.

JMHO

[akbacchus_BC]

88. Ditto to that and am not white. Here is a heart for you.

[Lasher]

12. OK how about interracial dating?

Let's say a significant portion of people think that's offensive. Does that make it offensive, or is there some meaningful way this is different?

[SunsetDreams]

17. can you clarify for me please.

[Lasher]

48. Reply downthread.

This link will take you there.

[Rashel]

21. Why would you choose that analogy?

This is about racial stereotypes/insults and the dehumanizing of people.

[SunsetDreams]

22. Welcome to DU Rashel :)

[Rashel]

39. Thank you! It's my third welcome today.

I had to resign my account and I got zero welcome first time around (cue violin) and the welcomes are so nice.

[SunsetDreams]

42. You're welcome :)

I'm sorry you didn't get any welcomes before, welcome back.

[AspenRose]

27. Why, indeed....thanks for bringing that up.

Oh, and for Facebook people, there's a group:

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?sid=3e8d269d36ed2ab0a0bf0b3c8463642e&gid=4717573685

[Rashel]

40. It's sad that Obama will be subjected to the same crap as every trailblazer

before him has been subjected to, from Rosa Parks, to Tiger Woods. I take a perverse pleasure in all of the bigots who are going stark raving crazy over the fact that our President is Black.

I thought I'd never see the day, and I'm sure they were betting THEY never would. Tee hee.

[Lasher]

45. No it's not.

This is about whether it is proper for one group of individuals to have a trump card to declare something 'offensive', regardless of contrary views of others - even if a significant majority does not agree. I chose interracial dating as an example to demonstrate that such authority can work against us.

But this isn't just about race. For example, lots of people thought Elvis Presley's performances were 'offensive' back when he first became famous. I'm grateful they weren't able to censor dissenting views on the subject.

[Hepburn]

52. Hi and welcome to the DU!

Hope you enjoy the place as much as I have over the years! :hi:

[stillcool]

77. Then it would be offensive..

to that 'significant portion' of racists that you know.

[Lasher]

82. And should these racists be challenged for feeling that way?

Or should their position be beyond reproach because they have declared themselves 'offended'?

[stillcool]

148. If a newspaper depicts them...

as a bunch of pasty faced, drunk, cranked-up inbreeds, crammed into a trailer, being attacked by a SWAT team..then yeah...they should be 'beyond reproach' because they 'declared themselves offended'.

[akbacchus_BC]

91. Sorry, what do you mean? This is beyond absurd! We date whom

we choose to, there is no cap on who dates who!

[Lasher]

103. That is correct.

Feeling offended is a personal reaction that might be logical and it might not be. If you feel offended I might want you to explain why and I might not agree that your feeling is rational. But what I don't agree with is when someone says they are offended just because they say they are, and accuse others of moral failing if they dare suggest the feeling might not be justified.

[akbacchus_BC]

105. Welcome to DU, but am not clear as to what you mean! Like I said

earlier, we date whom we like, regardless of skin colour! Cut all of us open, our blood is the same, red!

[Lasher]

113. Well as I said I was trying to make a point but it really wasn't specifically about race.

But by now I guess I wish I hadn't brought it up. FWIW, I think the cartoon in question was objectionable but probably not by intention on the part of the artist.

Peace and love, Sister. It's still a good idea.

:hippie:

[boobooday]

13. The cartoon is offensive in so many ways

1. It is blatantly racist
2. It is appallingly violent
3. It mocks a tragic event and the people involved
4. None of this even makes the pretense of serving a larger point

You are right. It is indefensible. I think these things are evidence of the death throes of a culture that never had to consider anyone's humanity outside of their own limited definitions. Flailing, grasping at straws, finally they are forced to drop the facade and face the fact that they have lost their way ideologically, politically, and have been playing the game of divide and conquer so long they don't know anything else.

In a democracy, it is supposed to be ideas that compete, and they have been playing tactics. They are sinking, and there doesn't seem to be a flotation device in sight.

[Captain Hilts]

20. AND it doesn't understand the legislative process. nt

[akbacchus_BC]

92. The cartoon is not only offensive, it is despicable on so many levels.

Never thought I would see that drivel in the 21st century but they had to get their stink out and then offer an half-hearted apology! It really sucks.

[Rashel]

15. It was IMMEDIATE disgust for me.

Didn't have to think, didn't have to see it longer than one or two seconds. It's right there.

And again, why did the cartoonist write "we'll have to find someone else to WRITE the stimulus bill" when it's already been written.

To me that indicates "we'll make sure another one isn't written".

Sick.

[SunsetDreams]

16. I find it HIGHLY offensive and I am white! K&R

Thank you Effie, very well said.

I can't believe some of the posts I saw yesterday, and some today lecturing me or anyone else as "whiners" etc.

[Captain Hilts]

18. Agree. Well said. Same goes for women and the term 'bitch', etc.

I'm sick of male posters telling me when it is appropriate for me to be offended by sexist language.

[crikkett]

43. Using 'female' in place of 'woman' or 'girl' is sexist too.

[Captain Hilts]

53. You and I are the ONLY ones that mention the misuse of 'female'.

It's good to have company, after all this time.

[crikkett]

58. Nice to meet you!

:hi:

[Lyric]

89. I don't think that's necessarily true. It depends entirely upon the intent

of the person saying "female."

For example, my friend Ricky is a vegan who believes that animals and humans are deserving of equal rights. He believes that saying "man" and "woman" is humanocentric, and that "male" and "female" are fairer terms for ALL living things, because they don't create special categories for HUMAN males and females. While I don't share Ricky's worldview, I do respect his position. Considering his reasons, it would be unfair to label his usage of male and female as sexist.

[Spazito]

23. Well said! n/t

[MellowDem]

25. From what I've seen...

a significant portion of black people are offended by gay marriage, or interracial dating, etc. etc. I'm not. Those things are not offensive. I will not follow some silly rule that says as long as some people are offended, especially of a certain race, I should take it as offensive or not disagree.

[SunsetDreams]

26. Correct me if I am wrong....

The OVERALL point of the OP, is to point out that finding something offensive is an individual reponse REGARDLESS of Race, in this instance.

[EffieBlack]

28. If you don't understand the difference between gay marriage/interracial dating and this cartoon

well . . .

[MellowDem]

34. I find it offensive...

but I don't need some made up rule where I look to others to find out what's offensive and what's not.

[unblock]

29. if the chimp wasn't meant to be obama, who WAS it meant to represent

and why a chimp? shrub is the only political character in recent memory likened to a chimp and he had nothing to do with the stimulus.

[dbmk]

32. The "why a chimp" is easy

They "artist" has, it seems, a penchant for taking the daily news and twisting a "funny" out of that.

So picking the chimp story is probably not so surprising or sinister. Its how he got from that to Obama, that irks me.

[unblock]

41. right, the chimp is clearly meant to symbolize SOMEONE.

and who else could it possible be?

[Rashel]

44. And let's narrow that down further.

Since everyone agrees that the chimp CLEARLY is meant to portray someone in our political system (the cartoonist shows his intent in the text) then the tee-hee part of the cartoon is that the chimp is SHOT DEAD, ie, the person/people who not WILL write the bill, but who have already WRITTEN the bill.

How this can remain unaddressed by our FBI is beyond me.

[janet118]

47. Imagine if the chimp were Bush . . .

Even putting the blatant racism aside.

Imagine the same cartoon was published in 2004 (assuming the incident with the chimp had taken place back then) and the cop said, "He tried to rob Social Security." The paper could say the image wasn't supposed to be Bush - although he was often depicted as a chimp. They could claim it was connecting two news stories - although the connection is strained.

The cartoon would still be subject to misinterpretation and not funny. The images are too violent and mean-spirited to be humorous in any context and the cartoonist tries too hard to connect two very unrelated things.

The editor should be pilloried for letting this be published. He is totally out of touch and lacks a normal sense of humor.

[Karenina]

56. Such a cartoon would NEVER HAVE BEEN PUBLISHED in the NYP AND

its creator would STILL be sequestered somewhere... :rofl::rofl::rofl: Short attention spans, I guess.

[Karenina]

57. People were dragged away for T-shirts!!!

Uttering the words "burning bush" could land you a court date.

(Anyone got an easily accessible cite on THAT one? It was some years ago in the Pacific Northwest IIRC.)

[dbmk]

30. White and I find it offensive - but..

..that being said, it also has to be considered if it is unduly offensive.

Just ask the gay community. What they percieve, and rightly so, to be a civil right - is offensive to a large portion of people. Even if they were a clear majority, it would still not be wrong to offend them.

In this case its just the racist, conscious or not, work of an idiot. Not acceptable.

[VPStoltz]

31. It should say WHEN a significant number of Black people...

I know there is no intention of deceit on your part, but don't you get more than a little annoyed when someone says, "IF it offended anyone... blah, blah, blah...I'm sorry?"
IF I offended anyone?
That says the person still doesn't believe they are offensive implying IF you are offended you shouldn't be but IF you are, here's a scrap of contrition.

[crispini]

35. K&R

[Evergreen Emerald]

37. How do you define racist? I think you have hit on the issue

People are attempting to determine whether or not the cartoon is racist by the intent of the author. I don't know if that is the correct way to determine racism. Perhaps it is only a piece of it.

Effie says that if people think it is racist, it is. Reaction to the cartoon filtered through history, culture, experience comprise our reactions.

What is pornography? The famous answer is, "you know it when you see it." One person's art is another person's porn. There is some that can clearly be defined, and some that are shades of gray.

Do we determine what is pornography by the intent of the photographer? Or do we determine what is pornography by our view of it (taking into account history/culture)--no matter what the intent of the photographer?

What is sexism/racism? Is the definition only in the eye of the beholder or is there a cultural definition?

My view is this: the cartoon is racist. The intent of the author to me does not matter much. Did he unintentionally create a racist cartoon? Perhaps (unlikely in my opinion). But, giving him the benefit of the doubt: if he unintentionally created a racist cartoon, he needs to know it. We need to have a discussion and teach the idiot (giving him the benefit of the doubt) why it is racist.

Racism is culturally defined. We know it when we see it.

The intention of the author is a different question.

[Empowerer]

49. I don't think the author's intent is the critical factor here

One can mean absolutely no harm at all and still say something offensive.


I'll give you an example. One day while I was teaching a law seminar, I mentioned in passing that someone had gotten "gypped" in a transaction. After class, one of my students approached me and asked me if I knew that "gyp" is a racist term - it referred to gypsies - and told me that, although she was not a gypsy, she was deeply offended by my use of it. I had absolutely no idea that this term referred to gypsies or that it was considered a vicious slur and was mortified that I had been using it so casually for so long. I apologized to her and thanked her for letting me know this. I truly appreciated her telling me this - she not only educated me, she did me a real favor. And I know it took courage for a student to challenge her professor in this way.

I think one of the problems with these discussions is that they usually immediately diverted by shifting the focus away from the problem with the expression to an accusation that those who are offended by that expression are ipso facto attacking the originator. Nothing shuts down a discussion prompted by, "That comment/cartoon, etc. was offensive" faster than the old standby "how DARE you call me/him/her a racist!" followed by a dissertation of all of the nice, non-racist things the person has done or said in their lives, as if that completely eliminates the offensiveness of their expression.

I couldn't care less whether this cartoonist is a racist or not. But he depicted something that is deeply offensive to many people. THAT's what matters. The fact that the NY Post, rather than recognizing and ackowledging this instead viciously attacked Rev. Sharpton and, by extension, anyone who agreed with him, is the real problem.

[Evergreen Emerald]

112. Reasonable person standard

I agree that his intention does not matter. But, there has to be some objective standard. Perhaps a subjective reasonable person standard in defining racist.

I recall during the primaries many complaints about sexism fell on unsympathetic ears. Suggestions that women were too sensitive, etc (we see many of the same responses in this instance).

Reasonable persons would find this cartoon open to racist interpretation.

I was unaware of the origin of "gyped!" My ancestors come from Bohemia (gypsies). I had a friend who constantly called people "bohonks." I finally suggested that the term may be offensive to us bohemians.

[Uncle Joe]

38. I found it offensive on two levels.

1. The racial inference, just based on my understanding of history.

2. The depiction of a violent act against the *President of the United States. If someone outright threatened violence against the President, the Secret Service would be all over them, but if you plant a subliminal seed in a cartoon, that's supposed to be ok!?

* Make no mistake about it, this cartoon from a right wing, conservative newspaper wasn't aimed at the plurality of the Congress, and no single individual is more responsible for championing this stimulus bill than the President.

[AspenRose]

46. Aw, Effie. Don't you know only white people get to determine what's offensive to blacks?

:sarcasm:

[Number23]

62. Not only that, but because black people all think with the same brain

the fact that large numbers of blacks would consider something racist is just par for the course. A typical day...

[akbacchus_BC]

94. Yeah, we are easy to be stereotyped. Please don't drive whilst

black in an expensive car in a white neighborhood, LOL. No blacks are ever successful, they need to be shot down! Sarcasm.

This is so fucking sick on so many levels. The beat goes on!

[Triana]

51. Thank you Effie - I thought about this yesterday and was thinking the same thing...

...I'm white and whether or not I'm offended is irrelevant. I am offended AT LEAST by the violence depicted in the cartoon and I think the cartoonist is an idiot, having seen his other work posted here.

Regardless of white ol me - if black people are offended - then it's offensive! I've never been black. I have no idea what that's like. I can't judge for them what's offensive or not because I've never been in their situation. But it does seem that a LOT of people black and white and all other kinds, were offended by the cartoon and that's enough to call it 'offensive'.

[Flying Dream Blues]

54. Some folks are missing the point. It's not that anything a significant

number of people believe is offensive IS offensive...it's that the people who are being depicted or described get to decide whether that depiction or description is offensive.

I'm posting here not to specifically reply to you, but because there are several posts veering sadly off the point, which I thought you made very well.
:hi:

And for the record, the cartoon WAS extremely offensive to this so-called "white person."

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

55. I disagree.

In the 60s, a significant portion of white people found black people offensive.

That does not mean black people were offensive.

The cartoon is racist. It doesn't matter if all black people agree, or no black people agree. It simply is.

[MzShellG]

60. I saw it as a dog whistle strategy...

No matter how the so-called artist defends and deny it's coded message. It is what it is.

[JayMusgrove]

61. Agree simple as the title!! n/t

[damonm]

64. This raises a question...

back in 1999, a white staffer for DC Mayor Williams used the word "niggardly" in describing how he would have to administer the tight budget of a city program.
The resulting furor forced the aide to resign.
Many were offended by the use of this word - which has NOTHING do to with race.
Definition here: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/niggardly
Based on the premise of the OP, this word is therefore offensive because many are ignorant of the word's true meaning.
That doesn't seem right to me...

[bluedawg12]

67. No it doesn't.

The definition of a word is definitive.

The intent of a cartoon is evocative. That cartoon evoked anger in me I saw it as racist and I am not diluting the meaning of that ugly thing or my gut response with a semi-erudite attempt at parsing.

[damonm]

72. OK, was wondering.

There was SUCH a furor over that, and for someone to be out of a job because of the ignorance of others was galling.

In terms of the cartoon, I agree. It WAS offensive. It may or may not have had racism aforethought (Hanlon's Razor - "never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity"), but it certainly evoked those reactions.

[bluedawg12]

81. Editor Col Allan said to be rw and displeased with Rupert's pro Pres. Obama

stance lately, and on the verge of retiring anyway. This was his farewell FU.

The guy looks like a ringer for Boss Hogg. :eyes:

[bluedawg12]

66. That so-called cartoon is offensive and ulgy and racist and white people agree.

There's nothing to even parse or defend in that piece of crap cartoon and the violent setting is abhorent.

[Top Cat]

68. Thanks EffieBlack for your post

[Michelin]

70. What percentage of black people felt offended?

I wish they came up with a poll. I'm not black but I think it was offensive.

[Occam Bandage]

71. I do not doubt it was offensive, nor that it was racially insensitive.

I do doubt that any racial statement was intended, since I doubt that the chimp is intended to represent Obama.

[BuyingThyme]

73. There's nothing wrong with being offensive.

The question is in regards to racism.

Totally different discussion.

[redstate_democrat]

74. You hit the nail on the head. n/t

[RepublicanElephant]

75. thank you!

tired of non-black people telling black people whether or not we should be offended.
:banghead:

[Phx_Dem]

78. And when a significant portion of white people find it offensive, it's REALLY offensive!

You don't have to be a rocket scientist to know racism when it's staring you in the face.

[Cha]

79. Anyone would have to be

braindead not to see the heinous, racist violence in that political strip by sean delonas in the NY post.

[Raineyb]

83. And yet we have people on this board arguing that the cartoon was not racist.

:shrug:

Regards

[Cha]

85. And, we have anonymous people

on this Democratic Board dumping on Obama any chance they get.

Such is what we have to put up with and then bury it.

[akbacchus_BC]

93. I am really glad you see it that way, it was racist and totally offensive.

According to KO, the cartoonist is an Aussie who going back home, I was on here reading and listening to KO. For someone to print such a despicable cartoon is beyond me. Guess President Obama should stop trying to reach across the aisle. There is no reaching these people, they will assume he is weak and take advantage with their racist articles.

I know the President is intelligent and knows what he is doing but he has to wisen up that these MFs will not be on his side. They will undermine him all the time.

[fortyfeetunder]

80. Thanks Effie, it speaks volumes to the culturally clueless.

some of those culturally clueless types were probably not offended by the cartoon.

[treestar]

84. IMO most white people know it is offensive

Even the freepers and racists know it is. They just deny it. On some level, they know their racism is wrong. If they didn't, they'd just be up front about it. So they resort to whining about political correctness or coming up with their usual twisted rationalizations.

[bluedawg12]

90. I really, really hated the inappropriate violent imagery.

Just what this nation does not need to have stirred up, as if there weren't enough crazy violent rw lunatics out there.

As if there were no history of political violence in this nation?

Col Allan needs to take his fat assed rwing self back to Oz and retire with this shameful capper to a worthless career as a hack editor at a toilet rag.

[akbacchus_BC]

96. Well, according to KO, he will take his racist ass back to Australia

and become oblivious. I cannot image that scumbag making that cartoon. The rethugs love to incite violence! That cartoon was so shameful on so many levels. I am livid!

[bluedawg12]

107. I saw it last night on Tweety and it was an instant impression of racism.

Then, tweety had some repug who floated the notion, "Maybe it was Congress. Yeah. The ape represented Congress." :eyes: Tweety wasn't buying it. Nor was the other guest, nor anyone with eyeballs.

Two things jumped out from that hateful trash instantly: racism and the f*cking gun in the cartoon cop's hand.

It seemed like inciting violence in the most unimaginable way. That ain't remotely funny. :grr:

Then, I thought of Amadu Dialo.

So now tonight, KO mentioned Col Allan and his little crusade against the President. Really? Coincidence?

Innocent cartoon? I think not.

This is the kind of sh*t the extreme rw eats up. I still cannot believe it was published. What a trash rag.

[Jennicut]

87. As a white woman living in suburban CT, its racist to me.

Just like the rest of that idiot's cartoons were offensive. Against women, gays, etc. What gets me the most is the level of violence advocated towards our "black" president. Shootings + President Obama + the fact that he is a "chimp" = inciting violence towards the President by riling up white racists. Not good.

[akbacchus_BC]

95. Jenni, only someone with blinkers on would not take that cartoon

as racist. It was beyond racism, it was inciting violence. Please God, keep President Obama safe.

And H2O man has a great article on the subject and Frenchie quoted an article re JFK and his assassination. I have to admit I had no idea about the JFK article and H2O Man's article went right over my head but I knew he was using satire.

[Jennicut]

97. It makes my stomach turn. We have had enough assassinations in this country

The only attempt I ever saw was one on Reagan when I was a kid and even if I immensely disliked him I still dislike the idea of using violence against any President even more. I worry about Obama for obvious reasons.

[akbacchus_BC]

100. Me too, it takes a lot of planning to kill a person in high office and

I did not like that about Reagan, guess the fundies thought he was a Democrat. The History of the US to assassinate prominent leaders is beyond my mentality. It happens all over the world, however, you all have the best President since Bill Clinton and Carter and I hope he is kept safe. The SS seems on the ball and President Obama looks invincible. The world is counting on him to at least make peace with the Middle East.

I am a proud Canadian who loves you President and I also loved Bill Clinton!

[EFerrari]

98. . . .

[BlooInBloo]

99. Pfft. Everybody knows that black folks are in no way to be trusted to say what's racist...

That hallowed and sober duty is something only white folks can possibly be trusted with.

[akbacchus_BC]

101. Bloo, Whites voted for President Obama, if they did not, he would

not be President. Please don't generalize. Blacks are only 13% of the population. Look at the Primaries and you will see all the white faces who believed in him.

Please my friend, Whites love Obama. Look at Pat Buchanan, he hates Obama! He is a fucking racist.

[BlooInBloo]

102. Concern noted, but would be better applied elsewhere.

[akbacchus_BC]

104. Did I say I was concerned?

[akbacchus_BC]

106. I think you misread my comments! So sorry

[namahage]

108. A bunch of white people voted for Michael Steele, too.

Without the white GOP vote, he wouldn't have been the head of the RNC.

What does the fact that there are more whites than blacks in the population have to do with Bloo's point--that blacks are essentially being told by some (presumably) white people that their concerns about racism are invalid, and that they know better regarding what they should be offended at?

[akbacchus_BC]

109. And what is your point?

[akbacchus_BC]

110. Michael Steele is a clown, he is now resorting to hip hop, Now what

is your point?

[EffieBlack]

111. What's really amusing to me . . .

Is the hypocrisy of people like Pat Buchanan and his ilk, who will snidely dismiss any suggestion that a black person is offended by something like the NY Post article - insisting that we are overreacting, looking for problems where there are none, playing the victim, etc. - and then will have a complete and total hissy fit meltdown because the Attorney General said that America is cowardly when it comes to discussions of race. He screams, he rants, he yells, he cries about how the AG has insulted him, etc.

Apparently, for people like Buchanan, it's NOT ok for black people to be offended by anything, but it's perfectly ok for HIM and other white folks to be HORRIBLY OFFENDED by the fact that black people are offended.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

115. The cartoon (like most political cartoons) was clearly offensive, but that doesn't make it racist.

Most political cartoons cause offence to some people - that's their objective.

This cartoon clearly was offensive, inasmuch as it caused offence, but it equally clearly was not racist in intent.

One could make a case that it was "accidentally racist", but not, I think, a meaningful one - the cartoon was clearly nothing to do with race, it was simply using an image that it is possible to deliberately misinterpret, and maybe-just-about-possible-to-accidentally-misinterpret, as being to do with race.

[EffieBlack]

120. How did you determine that it "clearly was not racist in intent?"

Do you know what the artist intended?

Do you know for certain that the artist had absolutely no idea of the long and not-so-long-ago history in our culture of blacks - especially black men - being described as and depicted as apes, monkeys, chimps, etc?

And even if neither he nor any of the editors of the NY Post had any cultural or historical awareness at all, you don't find it strange that, once it was brought to their attention, they didn't bother to apologize or even say they had made a mistake, but instead lashed out viciously at Al Sharpton - a convenient foil for racists - even though Sharpton was but one of thousands and thousands, white and black, who complained about the cartoon?

You may not think the artist's "intent" was racist. But I really couldn't care less what's in his heart. He and the NY Post published an image that was extremely hurtful and damaging and when called on it, behaved the way any out-and-out bigot would have behaved in the same situation.

I'm fascinated how so many people around here are so willing to tie themselves into knots and then jump through hoops to try to find some way to interpret this cartoon as something different than what it clearly was and then turn around and accuse those of us who saw it exactly for what it was,of "deliberately misinterpreting" it.

Perhaps it is YOU who is engaging in deliberate misinterpretation . . .

[Donald Ian Rankin]

125. I think criticising Sharpton is an excellent response to this storm in a teacup.

By crying wolf about this, he will make it a lot harder to raise concerns about genuine racism.

[Raineyb]

129. How woud you know when "genuine" racism turns up

if you dismiss the claims every time its made.

Like Effieblack I don't give a damn about what was in the head or heart of the jackass who drew this cartoon. The imagery speaks for itself and I'm tired of people making excuses for racist imagery. You are not allowed to use monkeys as stand-ins for black people. The history of such racist depictions is far too strong to give anyone the benefit of the doubt in such a situation. It doesn't wash and there's no bloody excuse for it.

Your statement that Sharpton is "crying wolf" implies that there's nothing racist in this cartoon (why because you say so? Do you think you know better than black people in this country what is or is not racist imagery? And have you any clue how insulting such an implication is?) and that's simply not the case.

Regards

[EffieBlack]

135. Yes, but EVERYTIME Rev. Sharpton points out the existence of racism, he's accused of crying wolf

and then he and the rest of us who have the nerve to talk about it are lectured about how hard we're making it for nice white people to respond properly when racism finally DOES rear its ugly head.

Funny thing, though. The people doing the lecturing have NEVER acknowledged that something is racist. They ALWAYS deny it. They ALWAYS attack those of us who do point it out. And they ALWAYS warn us that we are just making it harder on ourselves because we are making it less likely that they will listen to us when something REALLY happens.

I'm sure that Rev. Sharpton would appreciate your warning that he should bide his time and keep his mouth shut so that you will REALLY and TRULY believe him when he "raises concerns about genuine racism." But I think he's doing just fine without your advice.

[LynnTheDem]

116. It was blindingly shocking & offensive to me...and I'm not black.

If one is at all familiar with that "cartoonist"s work, one knows exactly what that "cartoon" is saying.

And it ain't just racism.

[Freddie Stubbs]

119. Does the same apply to Christians?

:shrug:

[olkaz]

121. I guess so.

This bizarre logic leads us nowhere.

If a "significant" (and what is the OP's definition of significant?) portion of people are offended by the stimulus plan, the stimulus plan is offensive. What?

/sigh

The weekend cannot come fast enough. What a stupid week.

[QC]

123. A substantial portion of the American people finds my very existence offensive.

I guess I am offensive, then.

[Occam Bandage]

134. Pfft. Like gay people can be trusted to say what's really offensive to conservative Christians.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=8209836&mesg_id=8210010
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=8209836&mesg_id=8212580

[slackmaster]

126. I appreciate this thread, it's taught me something, but I have to say I still don't see it

To me the cartoon says "The stimulus bill is so wacky that it could have been written by a crazed chimpanzee."

It doesn't look TO ME like a reference to President Obama, who did not write the bill.

Sorry, I had to get that off my chest.

The cartoon may be in poor taste and inappropriate. What's really unfortunate is the history of racism that has understandably left people sensitive to certain images.

[LynneSin]

128. You still just don't get it

Kinda like how some of us kept saying about Rick Warren "Oh but it's just a prayer". I think at first I said that myself but then it dawned on me. The concept that this man doing a prayer upsets so many people that perhaps I need to rethink about the entire concept.

Perhaps you're too young and never saw/heard or learned about how African-Americans were attacked as being nothing more than monkeys. I grew up in very white america and trust me, I heard all the derogatory terms, some of them using the word 'monkey' or 'ape' in them (Watch Clerk II - they use one of those words in the movie). You can probably google it and find a history of cartoons using this depiction African-Americans to look like Apes.

But for many of us, regardless of skin color, we know this all to well. Perhaps instead of saying "oh I don't see it" learn from us

[slackmaster]

137. I admitted up front that I don't get it

Kinda like how some of us kept saying about Rick Warren "Oh but it's just a prayer".

I don't believe I ever said that.

Perhaps you're too young and never saw/heard or learned about how African-Americans were attacked as being nothing more than monkeys.

I'm 51 and I remember it well.

...I heard all the derogatory terms, some of them using the word 'monkey' or 'ape' in them...

I have a German surname. I was in elementary school soon enough after the end of World War II (and growing up in a military town) that being of German heritage made me a target for being called "Kraut" and even "Nazi" because of it. It got so bad at one point when I was in the 4th grade that the school Principal came to my class to discuss the issue with the students.

...But for many of us, regardless of skin color, we know this all to well. Perhaps instead of saying "oh I don't see it" learn from us....

I'm trying. Please be patient with me. I tend to see things through a hyper-rational lens. I don't and probably can't at this point see the cartoon as a reference to the President; I see it as critical of the stimulus and of Congress.

I obviously don't feel the same way about it as you and many others do. The fact that the cartoon exploits an unfortunate news event is enough reason for me to see it as tasteless and not funny.

[LynneSin]

139. Well I give you credit - you're trying

And it took me awhile to get it about Rick Warren too. But I just have zero tolerance for racism. If you don't get it, it's better to ask than to assume that it's no big deal. I think too many of us saw the racism pop right out of the page. It's kinda like those "Magic Eye" paintings. Everyone I know would be able to see the image pop right out but for the life of me and no matter how hard I tried I couldn't see squat. After awhile I just agreed simply because it was easier than spending 20 minutes having some person try to force me to see it and point out what I was missing. However unlike the Magic Eye paintings, this isn't trivial stuff.

[LynneSin]

127. Oh but that's just how you look at it someone else might see something different.....

:grr:

The only thing I can relate this to is when people said "Oh Rick Warren is just doing a prayer" (and unfortunately I think even I said it but perhaps now I'm getting it too)

[Occam Bandage]

130. If a significant number of women say something is sexist, it's sexist.

Therefore, Obama's lipstick-on-a-pig comment was sexist, despite not being directed at Sarah Palin.

[Occam Bandage]

131. If a significant portion of Christians say something is discriminatory towards Christians, it is.

Therefore, not placing statues of the Ten Commandments in every courthouse in America is discriminatory towards Christians.

[Occam Bandage]

132. If a significant portion of conservatives say something is biased against them, it's biased.

Therefore, the news media is biased against conservatives.

[Name removed]

133. Deleted message

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

[slackmaster]

138. That would be a blessing

For everyone to STFU for a week.

[bridgit]

140. Sadly, and if anyone watched Buchanan yesterday on Hardball answering Prof. Dyson...

it is clear: AA's aren't the only ones able to register continued offense, not in a world where gays aren't the only ones able to register continued offense, nor are people feeling contrary to Nadya Suleman's life decisions including her father the only ones able to register continued offense, etc, etc, etc; people able to register continued offense are many and varied. And as the veneer of America and what is civil here is stripped away, groups trending toward single issues will be vying for position and status within ever-expanding definitions of what is offense. And some will be losing ground as did the little boy who cried wolf, still...

There is not one person here that does not know how strange Pat Buchanan is and while he was unable to get the exponential, lopsided numbers in as regards HIV/AIDS in the AA community he remains a barometer http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036697 and Dyson sounds too much like jive in a world where "The word improve begins with 'i'", but the word improved does not begin with 'us', while the largest room *in this world* is room for improvement

A vast part of the left if not all of it has been calling w. < chimp and representing him as such for years now, it is for me a small wonder nothing ever really gets resolved

[Numba6]

144. & racism cannot be defined by those who exercise it -- my racist relatives still use the "N" word &

argue until they (& I) are blue in the face that they aren't racism.

Just like the so-called "progressives" justifying the ape/chimp/monkey racism that's been part of America for 300 years.

Like, racist "progressives" will really recognize reality:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=8213555&mesg_id=8214125

[vaberella]

146. I agree with you. When Miley Cyrus did that thing with her face it felt like she put on shoe polish

and went around with "Black" face as though that was funny. For the Asian community that is horrible and I'm not from that community but it was just as offensive to me as to them. The monkey was blatantly offensive and Pat Buchanan has a human being is offensive.

[rd_kent]

149. So by that rationale, if it had been a different animal that went crazy

and killed someone, and the artist had used that animal in the cartoon, this would be a non-issue?

[Ilsa]

151. Why can't those assholes at NYPost see this as clearly as you, EB?

Great post, by the way. And the cartoon embarrassed me that white people in this day and age can be so bigoted and hateful and ignorant. Yes, it was offensive to me on many levels.

[Raine]

152. I agree nt