Our conversation in class into the realm of social exclusion and race has exploded in the American political scene. A cartoon published by the New York post (the image above) has caused anger with readers and many criticisms. You can read the article published by the Huffington Post online with updates to the story as it evolves at the bottom of the article. I would like to hear your comments and reactions.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/18/new-york-post-chimp-carto_n_167841.html
9 comments:
The cartoon published in the New York Post sadly shows where the United States of America stands on issues involving discrimination and change; which I find extremely disconcerting. I believe this cartoon implies numerous ideas. For instance: the cartoon depicts the author of the stimulus as the one who is assassinated; thus, making the connection of the author (President Barack Obama) to a monkey. This connection could entail many things… he is uncivilized, making a racial comment, etc. Even more daunting, the cartoon shows that the crazed chimp (once again, President Barack Obama) needs to be shot, maybe implying assassination?
In my opinion, I think Americans are still uncomfortable with the fact that we have a black president. As much as we would all like to believe that Barack Obama will do great things for our country; I believe that because of his differences, President Obama will have to work that much harder to prove himself successful in the public eye.
It's a little ambiguous as to what that cartoonist is trying to say (though there's hardly any room for it to be interpreted as shedding Obama in a magnanimous light of martyrdom); but, either way, its a bad joke (for its dangerously loose construction) that should never have made it to the papers.
The old frame of black man as monkey dates back to the imperialism of Africa and is as embedded in the tales of Curious George. This cartoonist's idea of a joke is inseparable to our history's dark ways of dealing with difference. Anyone (and it seems these days that just about anything) can be read as racist, sexist, anti-religious, or anti-moralistic, but I blame the NY Post for supporting such a possible interpretation not only for publishing it, going on to defend it in such a way as without slamming Rev. Al Sharpton for his valid interpretation. Isn't that the point of presenting news and opinions - to be interpreted by the public?
This was taken from Yahoo!News:
{The editorial said that "most certainly was not its intent," adding that some media and public figures who have long-standing differences with the paper saw the cartoon "as an opportunity for payback." Calling them "opportunists," the editorial said: "To them, no apology is due."}
As a paper, read by the masses, the Post should have some direction of moral integrity. No, actually, let the papers express different views openly, uncensored! But the Post should expect to be associated with the racism it may produce.
This is my fourth time trying to post a comment, partly due to my relationship problems with the internet, but mainly because of the task of trying to justify with words a simple gut feeling. I believe in the freedom of speech, but at the same time my gut feeling says there shouldn’t be any tolerance for a racist media. A perfect contradiction.
This is honestly one of the most shocking images I've seen in the U.S media in the recent past. It is beyond distasteful. Though it was obviously a bad judgment call on the behalf of the New York Post I do not think that "this shows where the United States of America stands on issues involving discrimination and change." I'm not blind to the fact that racism is real and prevalent in the United States. There are undoubtedly people who are unhappy that we have a black president but at the same time I think a majority of people who saw this cartoon were offended.
Initially, one thinks that the dead monkey is attempt to insinuate Obama to a monkey. Throughout America's history African Americans have been likened to monkeys because of the inferiority to whites. Additionally,blacks have often been referred to as "animals."
The Chairman of the New York Post published a statement saying, "we personally apologize to any reader who felt offended, and even insulted." According the the paper the monkey was suppose to depict a bullet-riddled chimp killed in Connecticut last week after attacking a woman and two police officers. I find it hard to believe and even if it were true they should have realized how people would view the cartoon.
This was a poor judgment call and I support any effort to protest the action.
It took me about 15 tries to get into this website, and I just made another account. Anywho...
Its certainly not tasteful, but a newspaper has a write to publish what they wish. We dont have to read it, or encourage it.
I think the most interesting things about this cartoon is how unrelated the image is to the article's supposed target (the economic stimulus package) and yet how intertwined it is with the issue of race for the american public. The cartoon is made with the premise that it is addressing some issue of the economic bill and yet makes no real comment on the bill. The point that is made however is a completely unsubtle reinforcing of a stereotype/ racist image, equating African-Americans with monkeys that goes back to the Civil War and Reconstruction. What concerns me most about this cartoon, beyond it just simply being offensive and racist, is its implications for how the American public, or even just the media, is going to be viewing Obama's presidency. I feel like the unspoken scrutiny will not be simply be 'this is what Obama is doing as President' but instead, 'this is what Obama (p.s. he's black) is doing as President.' Maybe it won't be as flippant as I've made it sound, but honestly, the fact that such a historically racist comparison would be drawn so soon after his election makes it seem as if race is going to remain a major issue throughout his term.
When I read saw this cartoon, I was shocked that it actually made it to the the New York Post. I read some of the comments to the article on the website, and noticed that some people tried to justify that this cartoon was not racist because it is not the president who wrote the bill and that by saying it was a racist attack it was an emotional reaction and not a logical reaction. Although this may be true, I think it is the author of the cartoon definitely intended for it to be racist and maybe he is just not educated enough to understand, or was just trying to make the cartoon more subtly racist, and to use this as means to defend that he was, in fact, not being racist. I understand and accept that there are still people in America (and probably always will be) that are racist, but to allow this to reach the press is pretty shocking. I agree with Norah's post because although completely believe in freedom of speech, I do not think that media should allow racism and discrimination.
The strange thing was that because I had heard about the monkey attack in Connecticut from my family who lives there recently, it was exactly the first thing I thought of when I saw it. The conversation about the absurb chimp freak out in my home state was so fresh in my mind that it was automatically the first reference I made with the cartoon. However, had I not known about the chimp attack, I would have immediately made the connection between monkeys referring to african americans aka our new president, Barack Obama. I think that although the cartoonist must have obviously thought it was a clever way to reference the attack in CT, he must have known, as did I after gazing at the picture after a minute or so, what that cartoon would look like and be interpretated as if taken out of context by people who didn't know about the chimp in CT. Most people outside the Tristate area (and really, most people in that area don't pay attention to CT news) wouldn't know about the chimp, so obviously race and connections to our current president were drawn. It isn't so hard to believe, and I would have thought they would have apologized immediately for the miscommunication. I find it strange that if the cartoon was shown to someone else at the Post without an explanation they didn't think to say that the cartoon had racial undertones and prevented it from being published since it would draw such bad publicity. But sometime shocking things, even racist things, draw buyers. I bet the Post saw a huge spike in their sales.
Post a Comment