or Connect
TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › Breaking Mews › outrageous political cartoon
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

outrageous political cartoon - Page 2

post #31 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by KTLynn View Post
It was racist and demeaning. Plenty of people on the right were angered. But folks on the left didn't have much to say about it. Apparently it's acceptable to publish a racially insulting cartoon about an African-American, as long as they're Republican.
Oh for the love of God! What kind of statement is that??? What makes you think that only Republican's were angered by that? Backed up by what...your own opinion? Once again we have the poor picked on Republicans. It's a wonder you all persevere, what with all the persecution an all.
post #32 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by ut0pia View Post
I have to agree whoever hasn't heard of that slur is definitely sheltered. I had heard of it when I lived in Bulgaria where blacks are less than half of a percent of the population...I totally don't understand how people look at it and see past the racist comment. I stopped interpreting it past the image in my head comaparing obama to that shot chimp-Yuck!! Definitely messed up ...
I think the point people are trying to convey is that President Obama didn't write the bill, so the monkey in the cartoon isn't meant to portray him. Just because we all don't see it the way you do doesn't make us less aware of racism, it only means that some of us have a different opinion about a political cartoon.
post #33 of 66
Whether or not it's racist, it's extremely tasteless.
post #34 of 66
The cartoonist, Sean Delanos, apparently has a history of tastelessness, including gay bashing and negative depictions of Arabs and Muslims, and this isn't the first time he's been criticized for a cartoon many found racist. Here's a sampling of his work: Ten Cartoons from Sean Delanos
post #35 of 66
The NY Post, has been, for years, and continues to be a tasteless rag. They're a "newspaper" that manages to be as vulgar and stupid as a daily can possibly get. And people buy it.

I stopped giving the NY Post my money in December of 1980 when they put a picture of John Lennon's body on the front page.

They'll never get one red cent from me, ever.
post #36 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cinder View Post
There is actually one store in the town where I live and the kids all hang around out front. We call them them the porch monkeys, but none of them are black. So, when you call a black kid a porch monkey it's racist, but when you call any other kid that, it's....what?

And when you call George Bush a chimp, because you think he's a dumb it's your right as an American to freedom of speach. But if you call BO a chimp, because you think he's a dumb it's racist?

As far as being sheltered, well duh, I have heard of black people referred to as monkeys. I refer to my own DH as a baboon on occasion. But when I hear someone say...look at that little monkey go...I don't expect to see a black person running past. And when I say, come here you little monkey... I'm not expecting an African American to come sit on my lap either.
Well said!
post #37 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by clixpix View Post
I think the point people are trying to convey is that President Obama didn't write the bill, so the monkey in the cartoon isn't meant to portray him. Just because we all don't see it the way you do doesn't make us less aware of racism, it only means that some of us have a different opinion about a political cartoon.
IMO, you are absolutely right!
post #38 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by Going Nova View Post
Whether or not it's racist, it's extremely tasteless.
I completely agree with that statement.
post #39 of 66
Racism is alive and well. Very poor taste but then consider where it came from and take it for what it's worth - nothing!

My own half-brother who lives in the US says blacks look like apes and chipanzees. I just put it down to him being ignorant and bigoted. As you can imagine, we don't spend much time together.
post #40 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by KTLynn View Post
I agree with all of the above.

During her tenure as Secretary of State, Condoleeza Rice was the subject of a political cartoon in which her features were greatly exaggerated and dressed to resemble Aunt Jemima. It was racist and demeaning. Plenty of people on the right were angered. But folks on the left didn't have much to say about it. Apparently it's acceptable to publish a racially insulting cartoon about an African-American, as long as they're Republican.
Quote:
Originally Posted by clixpix View Post
Oh for the love of God! What kind of statement is that??? What makes you think that only Republican's were angered by that? Backed up by what...your own opinion? Once again we have the poor picked on Republicans. It's a wonder you all persevere, what with all the persecution an all.
KTLynn didn't say there wasn't any anger from the left, just that they didn't have much to say about it. I don't remember Big Al Sharpton being outraged over it. Not that Condi needs some dingy like him defending her, but there was no outrage.
post #41 of 66
I didn't read other's responses, but looking at the cartoon..... I took it as they were poking fun at the stimulus bill.

I don't see any racial implications in it at all.

I think people get offended way too easy these days. Someone's either being racially attacked, sexually attacked, religiously attached, etc.

Anyone who says anything, can be taken in many different ways...it all is open to interpretation, will is usually based on your personal background as to how you will take something.

Why should people have to resort to not saying anything about anything to make sure they don't offend anyone? Heck, you could even put a spin on the greeting "Hi, how are you?" by responding "are you implying there's something wrong with me?"

People need to lighten up IMHO.
post #42 of 66
Honestly, when I first opened the link and saw the cartoon, I thought the major hoopla was about making fun of the chimp that was in the news. Then, I read the caption and realized they were making fun of Congress and the bill passed. It wasn't until I read through the story that I realized people thought this was supposed to be about Obama???? (*note...I DID grow up in a small town with parents and grandparents that did refer to African-American's as monkeys...it was just the way they grew up, but they weren't really prejudice).

To me, the caption "someone else to WRITE the bill" lets me know they weren't talking about the President, but congress or the government in general.

Personally, I find the cartoon distasteful simply because I don't want to see a monkey on the ground with bullet holes in it.

My question is, if people are getting all upset about a cartoon which (IMO) was NOT attacking Obama, how are they going to act when the press actually does start attacking him? And, they will...they attack or make fun of every president...it's a US tradition.

As a funny aside, I had a cat about 7 years ago....she was a silly cat even as a kitten, so I named her Monkey. She was black and white. Does that make me racists?
post #43 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by calico2222 View Post
(*note...I DID grow up in a small town with parents and grandparents that did refer to African-American's as monkeys...it was just the way they grew up, but they weren't really prejudice).
So, as long as you claim that you are not prejudice it's OK to refer to African-Americans as monkeys? I'm sorry, but I strongly disagree. Even if it were not a case of prejudice, which I have a problem accepting, it is extremely insulting and shows a complete lack of respect.

Is that cartoon aimed specifically at Obama? I can't answer that since I didn't draw the cartoon. Is it in very poor taste? Extremely.

I also think that us white folks have no idea of what it is like to be black and have to live with all the hate and bigotry that goes on around us. We may well think differently if we were in those other shoes.
post #44 of 66
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by clixpix View Post
I think the point people are trying to convey is that President Obama didn't write the bill, so the monkey in the cartoon isn't meant to portray him. Just because we all don't see it the way you do doesn't make us less aware of racism, it only means that some of us have a different opinion about a political cartoon.
Yea, I see that point, but the way the bill is portrayed in the media, is as though it's mostly pres. Obama's bill. That's how they refer to it most of the time...so who actually writes the bill is just semantics really. I got the impression the cartoon was referring to Obama, mostly because of the way this bill is seen, and even if they refer not only to Obama, they are referring to a group of people who are his associates, appointees, followers etc and in that case the cartoon stereotypes them as followers of a monkey president ...Still bad taste. I just don't see how the monkey could possibly not be a reference to race apparently, because if it wasn't the aim for it to refer to race, then the cartoon would not have been in the paper because there is no way no one in there caught it..
post #45 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by ut0pia View Post
I honestly didn't even read the entire story, and I have no idea what Sharpton is saying nor do I care. I just saw the cartoon and without reading any of the comentary it was screaming at me that it's racially aimed..I don't know how many people don't see it, maybe because most of you are living in the north..
Yeah, you know us Yanks, we are just a bunch of bumbling, racist rednecks.

If you are looking for racism, you will find it, if you are up on your current events and know about the chimp that was shot and killed you might get a different perspective. If you know that Congress wrote the bill you might realize the the chimp was the author of the spending bill not Obama.

And if people really know what they are speaking of they will realize that Obama is half white, half black, not that it matters at all.

And, are the same people screaming racism and being all offended, were they offended when President Bush was caricatured as a monkey?

I thought not. Can't have it both ways.

Thought for the Day: Life is offensive, in your life there will be many times you are offended.

P.S. I wasn't offended by President Bush being portrayed as a monkey and I am certainly not offended by Obama being portrayed as a monkey, even though it wasn't even Obama, it was Congress.
post #46 of 66
I never did catch on to the Bush/Monkey collation anyway. No resemblance, no juxtaposition. Maybe I just ain't receptive to such things
post #47 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rockcat View Post
I love this thread because I agree with so many of you that I don't usually agree with (and a few I usually agree with).
I don't think there was any racial intent.
Me too Rockcat, hugs to you.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cinder View Post
I've always watched football and I remember this big flap years ago about Howard Cosell on a Monday night game. During a run on the field he said something like, "Look at that little monkey go!" Maybe it's because I'm from the north or west, but it went right over my head. I call cats, kids, etc, little monkeys and have never realized I was insulting anyone or anything. I think Howard said the same thing in his defense. Of course it was a black player he was referring to.

Like when someone says, "I haven't seen you in a coon's age". Now truly, I always figured that referred to the animal, but, I could be just showing my northern ignorance. If I said that to Al Sharpton would I wind up on the national news?? (Not that I've ever seen him, or want to)

So, is it that people in the north aren't prejudice, or are they just ignorant of what's a slur?
I loved Howard Cosell and I know he was no racist. He was the only sports broadcaster that stood by Muhammad Ali when he refused to be inducted into the military during the Viet Nam War.

The "haven't seen you in a coon's age" is midwestern saying I thought, we used to say it. I never looked on it as racist.
post #48 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by clixpix View Post
Oh for the love of God! What kind of statement is that??? What makes you think that only Republican's were angered by that? Backed up by what...your own opinion? Once again we have the poor picked on Republicans. It's a wonder you all persevere, what with all the persecution an all.

The simple fact is we never whined about it when it happened. We can handle being picked on.

Kind of a tit for tat situation (I hope there is no one anywhere that construes tit for tat as racist.) Some people are just more thick skinnned than others, not problemo.
post #49 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckblv View Post
Yeah, you know us Yanks, we are just a bunch of bumbling, racist rednecks.
To be fair, that's not what she was saying. She was saying that racism in the south is much more open, and so those of us in the north don't experience it in the same way.
post #50 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skippymjp View Post
I never did catch on to the Bush/Monkey collation anyway. No resemblance, no juxtaposition. Maybe I just ain't receptive to such things
I don't know either Skippy, but I think they are both pretty cute. Maybe that is it.
post #51 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by clixpix View Post
To be fair, that's not what she was saying. She was saying that racism in the south is much more open, and so those of us in the north don't experience it in the same way.
Oh, okay then, perhaps I misread or misinterpreted.
post #52 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckblv View Post
Me too Rockcat, hugs to you.


And back at ya, Cindy!
post #53 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckblv View Post
Me too Rockcat, hugs to you.



I loved Howard Cosell and I know he was no racist. He was the only sports broadcaster that stood by Muhammad Ali when he refused to be inducted into the military during the Viet Nam War.

The "haven't seen you in a coon's age" is midwestern saying I thought, we used to say it. I never looked on it as racist.
And really.... just what is a 'coon's age'? Do they live long or something? One of those weird sayings. And I've heard people say it, lots. Just never thought about it until now.
post #54 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yosemite View Post
So, as long as you claim that you are not prejudice it's OK to refer to African-Americans as monkeys? I'm sorry, but I strongly disagree. Even if it were not a case of prejudice, which I have a problem accepting, it is extremely insulting and shows a complete lack of respect.
NO, no no...that's not what I meant, and I didn't mean it to come across that way at all. I never said it wasn't insulting and I wouldn't call someone that in a racist way. But have you ever tried to make a stubborn 70 year old man be "politically correct"? It ain't easy.

Some people said they had never heard that expression...I was just trying to say (and not successfully) that I have and I still didn't make a connection between the cartoon and Obama until I read the article.

Sorry for the misunderstanding.
post #55 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by calico2222 View Post
NO, no no...that's not what I meant, and I didn't mean it to come across that way at all. I never said it wasn't insulting and I wouldn't call someone that in a racist way. But have you ever tried to make a stubborn 70 year old man be "politically correct"? It ain't easy.

Some people said they had never heard that expression...I was just trying to say (and not successfully) that I have and I still didn't make a connection between the cartoon and Obama until I read the article.

Sorry for the misunderstanding.

My apologies. You are right - I doubt you could change a 70 yr. old's mind. In fact, I doubt I could ever change my half-brother's bigoted, prejudiced mind about black people so I understand.
post #56 of 66
People will pull and twist and what ever meaning they can out of something if it fits their agenda. I just looked at the political cartoon in question and I can see how it can be taken both ways 1) as a shot at Congress (a box of rocks would be an improvement over this Congress); and 2) how someone could see it as a racist issue if that is what they are looking for. I agree that it was probably in poor taste.
post #57 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skippymjp View Post
Methinks our planet takes cartoons far too seriously.
That's about the only conclusion I can come to as well.
post #58 of 66
More than you ever needed to know about a coon's age.

Quote:
A coon's age does indeed mean "a long time". Some etymologists claim that people mistakenly thought that raccoons lived for a very long time, and that is how the phrase arose.
Quote:
The phrase first turns up in the written record in 1843. The term coon as an aphetic form of raccoon dates from 1741. By 1832 it was being used as a term for a "frontier rustic person", by 1839 it was used to refer to members of the Whig party (the raccoon was their symbol), and by 1862 we find it used to refer to African Americans. In that sense it is now always considered offensive. However, if you are inclined not to use a coon's age because you think it refers to African Americans and not raccoons, look at the dates and think again.
http://www.takeourword.com/TOW193/page2.html
post #59 of 66
You know, the worst thing about that cartoon, as far as a political cartoon is concerned, is that it isn't clear. I had at least 3 different takes on it, and I'm not sure I get it still.

For the most esoteric-- You've heard, probably, the theory that if you put 100 chimps in a room with typewriters, given enough time, they would eventually reproduce all the literature ever written. I think that theory is too intellectual and abstruse to be the subject of the cartoon.

Then, it occurred to me that they might be insinuating that Bush had written the bill. Again, while the "smirking chimp" sites have been extremely popular with the left over the last 7 years, I don't think that's what the cartoon was getting at.

Third, I assumed the insinuation was that the bill was so ridiculous, a mad chimp might have written it. I THINK this is the actual gist of it.

At no time did I get the impression the chimp was representative of Obama. In fact, I think that idea would be so odious to most people that the fact some nut job might come up with that connection never occurred to the newspaper's review board.
post #60 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by valanhb View Post
You bring up a good point, Karen. I don't necessarily think it was meant to be a racial joke at all. They took the headline of the chimp that attacked had to be killed, and rolled it into the political idea that they're monkeying around in DC.
Exactly. The monkey is depicting the government as a whole - as in "trained moneys could do that", and the monkey being shot was in relation to what was in the news.

I don't believe it was Obama as a person that was being depicted, and I don't believe it had anything to do with advocating him being assassinated like some media outlets are trying to say.

It's political satire, and people take things way too seriously.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Breaking Mews
TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › Breaking Mews › outrageous political cartoon