New York Post Chimpanzee Cartoon: Benign or Racist?

[Baraka_Guru]

New York Post Chimp Cartoon Compares Stimulus Author To Dead Primate
Sam Stein
Huffington Post

A cartoon likening the author of the stimulus bill, perhaps President Barack Obama, with a rabid chimpanzee graced the pages of the New York Post on Wednesday.

The drawing, from famed cartoonist Sean Delonas, is rife with violent imagery and racial undertones. In it, two befuddled-looking police officers holding guns look over the dead and bleeding chimpanzee that attacked a woman in Stamford, Connecticut.

"They'll have to find someone else to write the next stimulus bill," reads the caption.

An email to Delonas and a call to the New York Post went unreturned. The cartoon appears both on the New York Post website and page 12 of the Wednesday paper.

At its most benign, the cartoon suggests that the stimulus bill was so bad, monkeys may as well have written it. Others believe it compares the president to a rabid chimp. Either way, the incorporation of violence and (on a darker level) race into politics is bound to be controversial. Perhaps that's what Delonas wanted.

UPDATE: Rev. Al Sharpton has weighed in on the cartoon in a statement:

"The cartoon in today's New York Post is troubling at best given the historic racist attacks of African-Americans as being synonymous with monkeys. One has to question whether the cartoonist is making a less than casual reference to this when in the cartoon they have police saying after shooting a chimpanzee that "Now they will have to find someone else to write the stimulus bill."

"Being that the stimulus bill has been the first legislative victory of President Barack Obama (the first African American president) and has become synonymous with him it is not a reach to wonder are they inferring that a monkey wrote the last bill?"

New York Post Chimp Cartoon Compares Stimulus Author To Dead Primate



On the surface, it might look like a harmless cartoon, suggesting the stimulus bill is as though it were written by a primate (i.e. a chimp, a baboon, etc.), but deep down, is this racist?

Someone along the line--the cartoonist/editor/publisher, etc.--must have thought of the potentially racist undertones of this. I'm not quite familiar or can relate to the issue of race as it is in America, but here in Toronto, it is an issue, to say the least.

I don't think a cartoon referring to a black man as a primate would go over very well here either.

I don't like it, and I don't care if the direct imagery refers to another story. It's what's implied that counts.

What do you think?

[djtestudo]

It's just as offensive as those cartoons that made President Bush look like a monkey.

[Plan9]

I don't think it's focused at the individual, but the mood of those who are pushing the bill through. Republican angst? Dunno.

It would be easy to pull the race card, but I think the cartoon speaks to the bigger picture... one that is defined by a new group, not a new individual.

[Derwood]

isn't it based on the chimp they had to gun down in connecticut?

[djtestudo]

Originally Posted by Derwood

isn't it based on the chimp they had to gun down in connecticut?

Yep.

Problem is, Obama didn't write the damn thing, so anyone complaining has to make a false assumption in order to see racism.

Not that accuracy has ever stopped Al and Jesse.

[Xazy]

Personally I feel Sharpton is an egomaniac and a racist. I did not even take it like that or see it until I heard Sharpton was complaining, that man is a shark anything remotely racial in nature he takes for himself.

[MSD]

Originally Posted by djtestudo

It's just as offensive as those cartoons that made President Bush look like a monkey.

I disagree. I think the Bush ones were mean-spirited while this is more referring to the (practically nonexistent) wisdom of the stimulus bill. The fact that the president is a black guy just means that the possible racist overtones will make more people see it.

Originally Posted by Derwood

isn't it based on the chimp they had to gun down in connecticut?

Right across town from work. At least someone has the sense to pursue negligence charges against the owner according to this morning's news.

[Plan9]

Animal rights and they're-almost-human aside...

How awesome would it be to gun down a chimp?

"Take that, you damn dirty ape!"

...

Oh, I'm so going to hell for that.

[Cynthetiq]

you'll see it they way you want to see it. Bush was monkey'd all tht time, nothing racist about it there.

I can see the potential, but again, it's not my lens that I see the potential, it's someone else's.

[Plan9]

You can't discriminate against crackers. It's impossible.

[guyy]

First off, the cartoon is stupid and inaccurate. The bill was the work of the legislature and the executive, and of many, not one. It's associated with Obama, though, so to me the cartoon does have overtones of race and assassination. It draws from white petit-bourgeois resentment and complacency. To put it another way, it's as stupid as you would expect a Post cartoon to be.

Yes, Bush was portrayed as a monkey, but he's white, so it's not the same. Bush's portrayal was an extreme form of caricature, which riffed off Bush's physical features. This cartoon makes the link to Obama, but does it surreptiously and with plausible deniability, which makes it cowardly on top of everything else.

I wouldn't be surprised if the editor considered the racist angle and thought "free publiciity!"

[blktour]

When you are an artist, you have to understand that MANY will take things out of context.

I don't know who in their right mind would think this has to do with Obama.

In my eyes, it had to do with that 70 yr old lady incident, and that the stimulus bill was written by people who have the minds of monkeys.

To think it has to do with obama is just speculation, because there is not a connection there, and only the people who have racism in their head already will connect something to nothing.

Like Al Sharpton.

[Plan9]

Yeah, civil saviors like our good buddy Sharpton eat a big bowl of Racist-Os every morning.

Nothing like perpetuating something horrible to keep yourself in the spotlight.

[djtestudo]

Originally Posted by guyy

First off, the cartoon is stupid and inaccurate. The bill was the work of the legislature and the executive, and of many, not one. It's associated with Obama, though, so to me the cartoon does have overtones of race and assassination. It draws from white petit-bourgeois resentment and complacency. To put it another way, it's as stupid as you would expect a Post cartoon to be.

Yes, Bush was portrayed as a monkey, but he's white, so it's not the same. Bush's portrayal was an extreme form of caricature, which riffed off Bush's physical features. This cartoon makes the link to Obama, but does it surreptiously and with plausible deniability, which makes it cowardly on top of everything else.

I wouldn't be surprised if the editor considered the racist angle and thought "free publiciity!"

Where did they make a connection to Obama?

They were making a joke about how the stimulus bill seemed to them as written by a monkey. They made no reference to any individual.

This is the kind of thing I was talking about.

[silent_jay]

Originally Posted by djtestudo

They were making a joke about how the stimulus bill seemed to them as written by a monkey. They made no reference to any individual.

This is what I thought as well when I first saw the cartoon. They made no mention of any person, they made no reference to Obama as a 'porch monkey', they just said they're going to need someone to write another another stimulus bill, and of course because there's a dead monkey on the ground, it must be referring to Obama as a monkey, it can't mean that the bill was written by a monkey. I love how these things always get blown out of proportion by people like Sharpton.

It funny all these apparent 'smart' media people can be so off and read so much into a cartoon, that it comes back as racist.

[JumpinJesus]

racist.

[boink]

racist.

[Plan9]

Shut up, crackers. You wouldn't know racist if you beat it with a billy club for trying to vote.

[Marvelous Marv]

Originally Posted by boink

racist.

Originally Posted by JumpinJesus

racist.

Originally Posted by guyy

First off, the cartoon is stupid and inaccurate. The bill was the work of the legislature and the executive, and of many, not one. It's associated with Obama, though, so to me the cartoon does have overtones of race and assassination. It draws from white petit-bourgeois resentment and complacency. To put it another way, it's as stupid as you would expect a Post cartoon to be.

Yes, Bush was portrayed as a monkey, but he's white, so it's not the same. Bush's portrayal was an extreme form of caricature, which riffed off Bush's physical features. This cartoon makes the link to Obama, but does it surreptiously and with plausible deniability, which makes it cowardly on top of everything else.

I wouldn't be surprised if the editor considered the racist angle and thought "free publiciity!"

Ahh, I get it. Even though there is no reference to Obama, it's racist anyway.
And since it's acceptable to "riff off ... physical features," eight years of this kind of shit is perfectly fine:



Like that? Then you should enjoy this humorous "riff" as well:

[boink]

eight years of this kind of shit is perfectly fine

yes it is...well it's pritty insulting to the chimps.


these people (cartoonist and editor) are media professionals, they know very well the obvious implications, of course Obama himself didn't write the bill, but he's putting his name to it and it's his baby. I'd be very surprised if he didn't own own up to that so he's obviously the implied subject. weather they cop to it or not.

[mixedmedia]

1. I think JJ was making a joke aimed at the previous post.

2. There is a historical precedent in this country (that older black people such as Al Sharpton will remember) of portraying black people in cartoons and other imagery as primates.

3. I do not think the cartoon was meant to be racist. I think it was meant to be notorious. This artist and the Post knew exactly what they were doing.

4. I don't know how much attention this has been getting, but I hope it is disappointingly minimal 'cause the cartoon isn't even funny.

[Randerolf]

This cartoon is like putting lipstick on a pig; I'd love to extrapolate, but this solitary sentence says so much so deliciously.

[JumpinJesus]

Originally Posted by Marvelous Marv

Ahh, I get it. Even though there is no reference to Obama, it's racist anyway.
And since it's acceptable to "riff off ... physical features," eight years of this kind of shit is perfectly fine:

Yeah, pretty much.

The big difference is that the poster of comparing Bush and chimpanzees is funny as hell while the political cartoon is just kinda dumb. Everything is excusable as long as it's funny.

It's still racist.

[Psycho Dad]

Political cartoonists have a history of using caricature that predates not only racism in this country, but this country itself. And they are generally quite good at it. Were that dead ape supposed to depict Obama, Sharpton wouldn't have had to point it out to us.

[Redlemon]

The Post responds:

Originally Posted by New York Post apologizes for, yet still defends, chimp cartoon - CNN.com

NEW YORK (CNN) -- A day after publishing a cartoon that drew fire from critics who said it evoked historically racist images, the New York Post apologized in a statement on its Web site -- even as it defended its action and blasted some detractors.

Many of those critical of the cartoon said it appeared to compare President Obama to a chimpanzee in a commentary on his recently approved economic stimulus package.

"Wednesday's Page Six cartoon -- caricaturing Monday's police shooting of a chimpanzee in Connecticut -- has created considerable controversy," the paper said about the drawing, which shows two police officers standing over the body of a chimpanzee they just shot.

The drawing is a reference to the mauling of a woman by a pet chimpanzee, which was then killed by police. In the cartoon, one of the officers tells the other, "They'll have to find someone else to write the next stimulus bill."

The Post said the cartoon was meant to mock what it called an "ineptly written" stimulus bill.

"But it has been taken as something else -- as a depiction of President Obama, as a thinly veiled expression of racism," reads the statement. "This most certainly was not its intent; to those who were offended by the image, we apologize."

But the statement immediately swerves to fire back at some of the image's critics.

"However, there are some in the media and in public life who have had differences with The Post in the past -- and they see the incident as an opportunity for payback," the statement says. "To them, no apology is due. Sometimes a cartoon is just a cartoon -- even as the opportunists seek to make it something else."

Several African-American leaders, including the Rev. Al Sharpton, attacked the image, which was drawn by artist Sean Delonas.

Sharpton said Thursday he and the leaders of "various groups" would respond at 5 p.m. Friday outside The Post's offices in midtown Manhattan.

"Though we think it is the right thing for them to apologize to those they offended," the statement appeared to blame those who raised the issue "rather than take responsibility for what they did," Sharpton said.

He accused the newspaper of having "belatedly come with a conditional statement after people began mobilizing and preparing to challenge the waiver of News Corp in the city where they own several television stations and newspapers."

Delonas has made Sharpton the butt of previous cartoons in The Post.

In a brief phone interview with CNN, Delonas called the controversy "absolutely friggin' ridiculous."

"Do you really think I'm saying Obama should be shot? I didn't see that in the cartoon," Delonas told CNN.

"It's about the economic stimulus bill," he added.

Col Allan, the Post's editor-in-chief, said Wednesday that the cartoon "is a clear parody of a current news event."

"It broadly mocks Washington's efforts to revive the economy. Again, Al Sharpton reveals himself as nothing more than a publicity opportunist," Allan said in a written statement.

But Sharpton was not alone in his criticism. Barbara Ciara, president of the National Association of Black Journalists, said The Post showed a "serious lapse in judgment" by running the cartoon.

"To think that the cartoonist and the responsible editors at the paper did not see the racist overtones of the finished product should insult their intelligence," Ciara said in a written statement. "Instead, they celebrate their own lack of perspective and criticize those who call it what it is: tone deaf at best, overtly racist at worst."

"Comparing President Obama and his effort to revive the economy in a manner that depicts violence and racist inferences is unacceptable," said National Urban League President Marc Morial in a statement issued Wednesday.

The nearly $800 billion stimulus package was the top priority for Obama, the first black U.S. president, who signed it Tuesday.

In an open letter to The Post, musician John Legend criticized the newspaper and called on New Yorkers not to buy it, or talk to its reporters or buy its advertising space.

Addressing the newspaper's editors, Legend wrote, "Did it occur to you that our president has been receiving death threats since early in his candidacy? Did it occur to you that blacks have historically been compared to various apes as a way of racist insult and mockery? Did you intend to invoke these painful themes when you printed the cartoon?

"If that's not what you intended, then it was stupid and willfully ignorant of you not to connect these easily connectable dots. If it is what you intended, then you obviously wanted to be grossly provocative, racist and offensive."

Either way, Legend said, the fact that the cartoon was printed "is truly reprehensible."

[ratbastid]

Honestly? I didn't get any racial implication to it until all the noise started. Didn't cross my mind that the dead chimp in the cartoon might be implied to be Obama. I assumed the cartoon was saying "That stimulus bill, man, it's like it was written by a monkey." So, I didn't think it was funny, but I didn't think it was racist. That said, offense is in the eyes of the offended. "I didn't mean it to be..." is a pretty lame response to someone who is genuinely offended by something that was even accidentally implied.

I agree about the general assessment of Al Sharpton found in this thread, though. He's not helping really much of anything. I strongly suspect that "genuinely offended" isn't something he can be said to be, most of the time.

Is it racist to say "Obama is a monkey" and not racist (or at least not equally offensive) to say "Bush is a monkey"? Absolutely goddamn right it is. Anyone who would say otherwise is as insane as Sharpton, just the other direction.

[mixedmedia]

oh, well then I retract statement no. 1 and stand by all the others.

and the New York Post is a piece of shit rag. the only problem I have with people getting upset about this is that it brings more attention to that stupid paper.

[roachboy]

this is an interesting tempest in a teapot don't you think?
i wonder why it's happening (and this is said as a straightforward question and not in that annoying tone of "i've got a secret..") because it seems indirectly motivated--by which i mean that the cartoon is problematic for reasons beyond it's yawn-inducing stupidity from a Highly Motivated Angle. at the same time, it seems that there's an absurdity to this that makes me wonder if this whole controversy started out as a prank of some kind.

it's strange how on the net micro-scandals are like rumors in that they arrive without seeming to come from anywhere, like the busy busy machinery itself generates them.
this one i'd be curious to know the origin of.

[MSD]

News flash: the New York Post is the epitome of "no such thing as bad publicity." If they thought they could sell papers by clubbing baby seals in Times Square, they would.

[Seaver]

News flash: the New York Post is the epitome of "no such thing as bad publicity." If they thought they could sell papers by clubbing baby seals in Times Square, they would.

Huh... if NY Times did something like this their stock might be worth more than their Sunday Paper.

[CharlieW]

I can't believe they intended the cartoon to be racist, but give the eye of the beholder, I see the problem. Most humor has a root of bias if you look for it.

[djtestudo]

Originally Posted by CharlieW

I can't believe they intended the cartoon to be racist, but give the eye of the beholder, I see the problem. Most humor has a root of bias if you look for it.

You mean like, something that comes from the government is going to look like a monkey wrote it?

[ring]

I believe the historical precedent that Mix listed as number 2,
explains some peoples reactions.
My mother's jaw literally dropped when she saw this image,
and she does not typically over-react towards even the most
shocking of political cartoons.

Originally Posted by mixedmedia

1. I think JJ was making a joke aimed at the previous post.

2. There is a historical precedent in this country (that older black people such as Al Sharpton will remember) of portraying black people in cartoons and other imagery as primates.

3. I do not think the cartoon was meant to be racist. I think it was meant to be notorious. This artist and the Post knew exactly what they were doing.

4. I don't know how much attention this has been getting, but I hope it is disappointingly minimal 'cause the cartoon isn't even funny.

[ASU2003]

Talk:Rules of the Internet - Encyclopedia Dramatica

16. Nothing is sacred.

20. Nothing is to be taken seriously.

The violence of white cops against the chimp doesn't really do anything for me, but it is still a free country, and we are still protected under the 1st amendment. The only downside is that they need to make it funnier.

[Jimellow]

I thought the many comparisons made between George Bush and chimpanzees were amusing, and they were far more specific in isolating a specific person than this comic, which I also find amusing.

[pan6467]

Criticizing Bush, making fun of Bush = Funny, patriotic and great wit

Criticizing Obama, making fun of Obama = Racist, insensitive and wrong

But on the other hand those adjectives and descriptions can be reversed depending in which side you are on.

Ultimately, we have freedom of the press and the right to criticize our government anyway we want, doesn't have to be tasteful or approved by anyone. If the politician cannot take the heat, they shouldn't be in office because they will always be criticized and made fun of by someone.

These cartoons are meant to sell papers and get across a point of view or make one known.... this did that and with the ensuing press and attention, it made that cartoon that much more attention getting.

[Sun Tzu]

Originally Posted by Marvelous Marv

Ahh, I get it. Even though there is no reference to Obama, it's racist anyway.
And since it's acceptable to "riff off ... physical features," eight years of this kind of shit is perfectly fine:

[Tully Mars]

Was it racist? I don't know, there's a long history in the US of people referring to black people as monkeys. I read about it before seeing the actual cartoon. I was expecting the chimp to have Obama's face or something. After seeing it I really didn't see it as racist, just retarded. I certainly didn't think it was funny. Little offensive? Maybe, maybe probably- but isn't that what the Post does? Next thing you know people are going to be shocked that Larry Flint publishes smut.

[Derwood]

As far as I've heard, Obama and the White House had nothing to say about it. It's Al "I speak for all blacks" Sharpton who had his panties in a bunch

[powerclown]

I would say if the cartoon chimp had been characterized as an albino genotype having pink eyes and white fur, then yes most definitely racism.