http://www.newsday.com/news/printedition/longisland/ny-popost196040929feb19,0,7014832.story

Other papers calling new york post to task over racist cartoon.

/rant
In other news, Muslim pundits everywhere are shocked at the relatively muted outrage by the black community. "If they really cared, we'd see riots and burning buildings in Harlem" said an unidentified source. "You mean, you can react to political cartoon with outrage and NOT burn something? How quaint!"
/endrant

The explanation from the paper doesn't quite hold up - pretty stupid cartoon to run.

That's funny.

I thought it was obviously a play on monkeys with typewriters and the quality of the bill. I saw it the other day, and thought it was funny. Is that what the newspaper's "explanation" was?

Never crossed my mind to interpret it in a racist way. Seems like that says more about the reader than the cartoon, if the reader sees the racist angle first!

Also, Obama didn't write the bill. I'm pretty sure everyone knows that, right?

I thought it was obviously a play on monkeys with typewriters and the quality of the bill. I saw it the other day, and thought it was funny. Is that what the newspaper's "explanation" was?

Never crossed my mind to interpret it in a racist way. Seems like that says more about the reader than the cartoon, if the reader sees the racist angle first!

Also, Obama didn't write the bill. I'm pretty sure everyone knows that, right?

It should be expected that there are going to be numerous incidents like this over the next 4 (maybe 8) years, with the ultra-PC crowd led by folks like Chris Mathews all trying to stir up race-related controversy. Watching him last night interview a black Congressman about the cartoon, his questions were designed to elicit an "omg, they have offended us/me" response.

Even if the intent of the cartoonist was racist, it is the resulting media hoopla that creates the notoriety, rather than the cartoon. It is no more possible to interpret intent in a drawing than to know beyond doubt the emotion of the typist in these forum postings. It is all supposition, which is, as San points out, more based on the interpreter's own issues then what is being interpreted.

I'm with Byl on this one. We can expect to see more of this stuff in weeks and months to come. People who do things like this (much like people who flame bait in posts) are looking for... yearning for a reaction. They're getting it but they're also proving a point. How free is speech?

I see stuff like this and think wow someone is really ignorant. I don't know why but maybe b/c it's the last new story I heard about and was discussing today before seeing this post...but I first thought this had something to do with that chimp that went bananas recently. It wasn't until I read the rest of the post that I realized it was being taken as a racial slur. (I insta clicked link then read post after).

After reading the linked article, it makes more sense. Those are people who thrive on racism being alive and well. Of course they're going to stir up trouble. Shameful of them, for all of the reasons they cited themselves.

Is Jesse and Farrakhan jumping on the bandwagon? Shouldn't those 2 old horses be taken out and shot, as well?

I admit hearing about the chimp being shot, and saw the cartoon, but never woulda gotten the reference about the monkeys typing Shakespeare angle until San pointed it out.

Obama didn't write the bill?!!?? Oh, he must've been too busy single-handedly brokering Middle East peace, while challanging Osama Bin Laden to a Chicago-style knife fight, all while touring Canadia.....

I tend to agree. I seriously doubt the cartoon had any racial intent behind it at all. My impression was exactly what others had, that it was an oblique critique of the congress and its stimulus bill. Still, others make their living on seeing racism behind every corner and comment and *any* cartoon to do with apes or monkeys will be seized upon as a racist statement by those people.

Is Jesse and Farrakhan jumping on the bandwagon? Shouldn't those 2 old horses be taken out and shot, as well?

I admit hearing about the chimp being shot, and saw the cartoon, but never woulda gotten the reference about the monkeys typing Shakespeare angle until San pointed it out.

Obama didn't write the bill?!!?? Oh, he must've been too busy single-handedly brokering Middle East peace, while challanging Osama Bin Laden to a Chicago-style knife fight, all while touring Canadia.....


No he didn't write the bill, congress did, that's their job. Obama owns the bill though as he himself has stated and it is he who has been the face of the bill.

At first glance I took it as being a shot at congress being a bunch of monkees. This is a Rupert Murdoch publication as is Fox News and it is no secret that Murdoch has taken media bias to levels never before seen. The cartoon as I digested it further became blatantly obvious it was designed to be a racist shot at Obama.

As far as Sharpton goes he's not an angel as Jackson isn't either but who in politics is?

I tend to agree. I seriously doubt the cartoon had any racial intent behind it at all. My impression was exactly what others had, that it was an oblique critique of the congress and its stimulus bill. Still, others make their living on seeing racism behind every corner and comment and *any* cartoon to do with apes or monkeys will be seized upon as a racist statement by those people.


If it didn't have any racist intentions than why didn't the Post simply state that it wasn't intended as a racist statement and they are sorry that it was seen by people in that light and they meant no harm? Instead they attacked Sharpton and refused to apologize.

It was intended.

If it didn't have any racist intentions than why didn't the Post simply state that it wasn't intended as a racist statement and they are sorry that it was seen by people in that light and they meant no harm? Instead they attacked Sharpton and refused to apologize.

It was intended.

Doesn't that make circulation go up, then? Ratings > All.

If it didn't have any racist intentions than why didn't the Post simply state that it wasn't intended as a racist statement and they are sorry that it was seen by people in that light and they meant no harm? Instead they attacked Sharpton and refused to apologize.

It was intended.

Oh come on, that's silly.

If you were a high value target, someone like Sharpton could spend an hour here looking at your posts (or any of ours) and find dozens of things to take out of context as racist.

Should you have to apologize for every stupid thing he dredged up to stir up controversy?

What next? The Fairness Doctrine?

Clearly wasn't a racist shot...

Why didn't they explain how they meant it up front? What artist posts a caption below his work so he explains how it should make you feel? That's simply silly to think the artist should in this case.

The artist wants to evoke a reaction and by doing so reveal, to yourself, something previously unknown by yourself about yourself.

If you found this to be racist I suggest you take a long hard look at yourself and your false belief that you yourself are not racist.

San is right, there are far too many people who love to dwell in the racial divides instead of trying to crush those barriers folks like Sharpton/Jackson and such have to have to survive.

Clearly this was a reference to that old quote , and I paraphrase, "a million monkeys in a room with typewriters would lead to one banging out a work of shakespere"

ooo and the fairness doctrine? omg tell me who and when I should listen please...

There were plenty of people besides Sharpton who pointed out the racial overtones of the cartoon. I don't think Sharpton was the first to point it out either, they fired at Sharpton because of...as an example your post about him...if Sharpton complains it's clearly just to stir controversy...Colin Powell also called it offensive and called for the same things Sharpton did...why not target him?

At first glance I took it as being a shot at congress being a bunch of monkees.

Exactly. As did I. You came to the conclusion it was racist only after remembering it was a Rupert Murdoch owned publication....as if Rupert Murdoch reviews every cartoon himself before publication. You are projecting it as racist because of the people who own the newspaper, not based on the actual intent of the cartoonist.

In reference to Obama "owning" the bill, the cartoon clearly pokes at those "writing" the bill. Those are not the same.

Clearly wasn't a racist shot...

Why didn't they explain how they meant it up front?

If you found this to be racist I suggest you take a long hard look at yourself and your false belief that you yourself are not racist.

Clearly this was a reference to that old quote , and I paraphrase, "a million monkeys in a room with typewriters would lead to one banging out a work of shakespere"

ooo and the fairness doctrine? omg tell me who and when I should listen please...


I didn't say he needed to caption it, I said the paper could have stated it wasn't intended and they apologized if anyone was offended. It would have gone away and anyone pursuing it at that point would be wrong.

They chose not to. I do believe if you do some research this cartoonist has had other issues of racism.

As far as people being racist or not racist...everyone is no matter what your race...it is to what degree you are.

I didn't say he needed to caption it, I said the paper could have stated it wasn't intended and they apologized if anyone was offended. It would have gone away and anyone pursuing it at that point would be wrong.

They chose not to.

Post editor Col Allan issued a statement yesterday that said the cartoon was a reference to the 200-pound chimpanzee that mauled its owner's friend and was shot dead by Connecticut police on Monday.

"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," he said.

Still missing the big deal here.

Because people see monkeys, think about Obama and type "ZOMG tehy r teh racists!!!1!!1!"

i dint think anything racist when i saw it. I t looked to me like they were saying it looked like a monkey with a typewriter wrote the bill.

people need to unclench the colons a bit.

Doesn't look racist to me. Looks like he is saying congress has less brains than a monkey. Then again i'm the white devil.

On a side note. Sharpton is a bane to society. Probably one of the most racist people alive.

If you found this to be racist I suggest you take a long hard look at yourself and your false belief that you yourself are not racist.I wouldn't argue that it is racist, but it is foolish. It's easy enough for a group of (I'm assuming?) predominantly white individuals (Hi Chris Matthews) to claim it's offensive or non-offensive, based on opinions and what have you. The black community however, many of whom can trace family back to the slave days and civil rights movements, is understandably a bit more sensitive about the issue. Using a monkey in any comparison to the Obama administration is a stupid action, and demonstrates a clear lack of historical understanding on the part of the artist/editors..

The thing is, it's not even referring to the Obama administration. They didn't write that bill (lobbyists did, duh!), Congress did.

When do we stop with the hyper-paranoid-political-correctness? Should we burn all copies of Curious George, just in case someone might take offense?

I wouldn't argue that it is racist, but it is foolish. It's easy enough for a group of (I'm assuming?) predominantly white individuals (Hi Chris Matthews) to claim it's offensive or non-offensive, based on opinions and what have you. The black community however, many of whom can trace family back to the slave days and civil rights movements, is understandably a bit more sensitive about the issue. Using a monkey in any comparison to the Obama administration is a stupid action, and demonstrates a clear lack of historical understanding on the part of the artist/editors..

Congress is a separate branch of the government.

I agree with Sanchek!

They apologised..very sufficiently IMO

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/19/new-york-posts-cartoon-ap_n_168427.html

Not sure about you all. but anytime I see someone wearing a 2000$ suit and a 700$ silk tie* talk to me about how oppressed they are ima little suspect. hell we never even see the shoes! willing to bet they are not walking around in 30$ patent leather knock offs.


* i have no clue as to the actuall value of the clothing worn by brother Al and victim jesse, all I know is it's a hell of alot better than i can afford.

Pimpin aint easy! It takes a lot of money to dress like a race pimp should.

Of course there's always the argument that just because the chains are made of gold, doesn't mean they aren't still chains.

They apologised..very sufficiently IMO

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/19/new-york-posts-cartoon-ap_n_168427.html

"We're sorry, unless you've ever disagreed with us, cause you're just trying to make us look bad because you hate us. Oh and we're actually not sorry since we did nothing wrong, the bad people made it all up." :rolleyes:

Doesn't matter that Obama didn't write the bill, it's his. It's been referred to as his from the start and sure as hell will be down the line. No one's talking about "Pelosi's stimulus bill."

I hate how easily offended people get these days, I get to deal with MASSIVE overreaction from people who make Al Sharpton look thick skinned, like this guy (http://asiuhuru.org/statements/obama.shtml) and his Uhuru group pretty often down here. The talking heads on tv that ya'll hate so much are jack and shit compared to that guy. Listening to that group talk about race issues disgusts me. And even I laughed at how blatantly racist that cartoon is.


Forest for the trees.