I’m no New York Post or Rupert Murdoch fan (though I am awfully glad Family Guy is back on Fox), but I do think that sometimes, a political cartoon is just a political cartoon and not some underhanded attempt to revive popular racism or invite someone to shoot the president. Both a chimpanzee and a president make easy targets in this country that values free speech.
This brings up the infinite question: can a man be compared to a chimpanzee if he isn’t black? Let’s look at this prime example. In case you don’t want to follow the link, I’ll describe it. I’m sure you’ve seen various versions, but the website shows a series of photos comparing President Bush to a chimpanzee. Side-by-side, face-to-face, mono-e-ape. Gaping mouths, vacant expressions, sharp teeth. The usual. So, based on the logic of protests occurring currently, can I state that these cartoons are comparing Bush to a black man, and therefore it’s saying that all black men are as incompetent as Bush? Can I say that?
Can a chimp ever just be a chimp and a president ever just a president?
6 comments:
Though I laughed at the Bush/chimpanzee comparison even when it was first published, the historical context of the ape/Black man comparison leaves this new cartoon with a very different and obvious racist intent. I could possibly leave it as a simple political cartoon if this hadn't been from a publication and cartoonist whose racist's views weren't known.
But if we started a precedent of comparing presidents to chimpanzees with Bush, who was incalculably white, should we stop it for Obama because he's black? Isn't taking exception to a black man because of his skin color a kind of racism, as well? Should we be treating Obama differently because he's black? Should cartoonists be curbed of their free speech and criticisms because now the president is black and everything they do can be (and is) misconstrued as racist? Should we be tip-toeing around the black race issue (because notice nobody gets up in arms about Arab/Latino/Native American/Asian cartoons, no matter how insulting) to avoid insult the same way the United States tip-toes around the Jewish and Holocaust issues that has allowed Israel to get away with so many atrocities (to pull in a more international context)? Should we really get to the point where nobody is willing to make fun of or criticize Obama because he’s black, and everything we say can be considered racially motivated? With this kind of feeling, will Obama ever be able to just be The President, instead of The Black President?
Also, I'm not sure I would consider the New York Post to be a "racist" publication. Conservative and elitist (and ignorant), sure, but racist? It reminds me of when Katrina happened, and everybody decided that Bush hated black people because of his crappy response. Well, no, Bush absolutely does NOT hate black people. It was even put forward by many of the most respectable political thinkers that the first black president was going to be a conservative republican and a Bushie. What Bush DOES hate is poor people. The New York Post hates poor people and democrats because they love poor people (or pretend to).
I do think that the cartoonist is an ignorant pig who pretty much hates everybody and makes a living pissing people off, and I do see how the cartoon can be seen as racist (and I’m not surprised that Al Sharpton jumped on it), but if we’re going to talk about discrimination, where were the huge outcries over all of his cartoons insulting women, gay people, Latinos, Muslims... He can do that all he wants, but as soon as his cartoon targets a black man, we're all up in arms? The US has a racist history concerning blacks, yes, but we are also notoriously sexist, we killed off millions of American Indians and now pretend like they don't exist, and we hate ALL minorities, ethnic, religious, and those who aren’t rich and famous. And it's been OK to make fun of all of them except black people. You can call Indians stupid and worthless and Casino hogs all you want, and you can outright declare that all Muslims are terrorists who should be killed off, but god forbid you make fun of a black person, who happens to be the president of the United States, a position that brings with it TONS of criticism and offensive cartoons.
Check out this article: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iwPPwEH6PTc6bUt8N6hPHGujObfQD96FMLO00.
It has a good little discussion about how hard it has been for conservatives to write political cartoons about Obama because every time they do, Democrats throw down the race card (not Obama himself, who I think is above it) rant about how they are all racist. It's the liberals who are pulling in the race card, not the conservatives. Cartoons are SUPPOSED to piss people off, they always have. But now every time someone writes a cartoon making fun of Obama, someone screams "racism!" Every time someone writes a cartoon criticizing Israel or its president, they throw down the Holocaust/anti-semitism card… is either situation really fair? Does either situation help bring about racial/ethnic equality? When it will become NOT OK to use ethnic identity to get people to shut up and let you do what you want?
Stop already! I'm not the one to be preached to. I'm okay with making fun of the president no matter what color he/she is. (I know that Letterman is struggling to find things about Obama to make fun of.) I also know that demonstrations against other hateful cartoons don't prompt much publicity and are just as racist/sexist/hateful, etc. as this one and deserve the wrath of all of us.
But, hey, don't scream at me. And don't take so much so alarmingly seriously. Perhaps refine your blogs on issues important to you and send them to Letters to the Editor of your newspaper or an online paper. You have great arguments.
Wow mom I wasn't screaming at you at all. Funny how you read that into my responses. I feel strongly about this, but "screaming" was definitely not in there.
I was simply stating as much info as I could so you could perhaps see why I think there is a great deal of overreaction to the cartoon and how really I don't think that it is meant to be racist; offensive, yes, but racist? Perhaps it is the American public who shouldn't be taking things so "alarmingly seriously."
Dad heard Whoopi Goldberg and Laurence Fishburne discuss this cartoon and the reaction from various groups (like Al Sharpton) and found their response simple and straight forward. They said, yeah, it's racist. That's the state of our society. So? Nothing more. Just let it be.
For me, political/racist/sexist/ethnic jokes and cartoons have always just been ugly. I'm not much for comedy even when I can well understand the humor in those things. In our newspaper I see the hate for Obama and other "liberal" ideas stated so up front that it's hard to put aside that vision when confronted with a merely satirical piece.
Whoopi Goldberg also said that Michael Vick shouldn't be punished for brutally torturing and killing dogs because it was a "cultural" thing that white people just wouldn't understand.
Post a Comment