Is this Racism or PC gone mad?

[Karl Pilkington]

So why is Bush allowed to be drawn as a monkey, but Obama isn't?

Because Bush is white and monkey was never used as a racial insult towards white people. It has no racially motivated malice involved when used on Bush, it does (or at least can be interpreted as such) when used against a black person.

btw the cartoon obviously was taling about politicians in general, not Obama.

Obviously?

 

[acker]

Because it would have nothing to do with his race.

Urgh. More racism.

I suppose they would not have many objections to this cartoon

But they would scream blue murder and racism about this one if we painted Obama's face on it.

 

[Karl Pilkington]

I suppose they would not have many objections to this cartoon

But they would scream blue murder and racism about this one if we painted Obama's face on it.

I think they're both disgusting and racist. I remember massive outcries at the first one as well, similar to what we're seeing with this chimp cartoon.

Racism applies for whites too acker, I can see the point you're trying to make (that reverse racism occurs) but it is irrelevant to this particular thread. Nobody was racist towards Goerge Bush when they labeled him a monkey, and perhaps they don't mean to be racist towards Obama with the chimp reference - but its massively insensitive and shows huge ignorance to use the term moneky when referring to a black man.

I do somehwat doubt you sincerity though - using the term 'coloured' is particularly worrying.

 

[KissStephanie]

Anybody who immediately screams 'racist' is, at best, a fool.

I can definitely see how many people could take it as a racist cartoon, and that doesn't make them fools. It was definitely poor taste because the cartoon is suggesting that the police have just shot dead the president.

The cartoon is a reference to an event well-publicised in the area, relating to a monkey who escaped from a zoo (or something).

No, a pet chimp ripped the face off the owner's friend in Connecticut last weekend, and the police shot the chimp dead. The victim needs a total face transplant.

Clearly this cartoon is trying to suggest that those who wrote the stimulus bill are monkeys. As in 'Pay peanuts, get monkeys'.

It's absolutely not clear at all. It comes down to personal interpretation because Sean Delonas does not explain what he meant in his cartoon and it could clearly be taken in a number of different ways.

 

[Col Davies]

:d

Well if you don't like the answer, don't ask the question

 

[Col Davies]

So implying Obama is a chimp, and everyone seeing the correlation between the two, then crying foul. Kinda like saying, "I know he looks like a chimp, but let's not point it out!". Food for thought.

I don't see the correlation.

Why not explain it to me?

 

[acker]

I think they're both disgusting and racist. I remember massive outcries at the first one as well, similar to what we're seeing with this chimp cartoon.

Racism applies for whites too acker, I can see the point you're trying to make (that reverse racism occurs) but it is irrelevant to this particular thread. Nobody was racist towards Goerge Bush when they labeled him a monkey, and perhaps they don't mean to be racist towards Obama with the chimp reference - but its massively insensitive and shows huge ignorance to use the term moneky when referring to a black man.

I do somehwat doubt you sincerity though - using the term 'coloured' is particularly worrying.

I didn't like the way you used the term "whites" Karl.

It seems insensitivity to caucasian pollies George W Bush, John Howard, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Kevin Rudd, etc is OK

But with Obama hypersensitivity takes over

And yes Karl, Obama is Coloured, Negro, African American or Black

How come these terms are now becoming contemptuous ?

Does every cartoonist drawing a charictiture of Obama have to walk on eggshells incase it upsets one of the millions itching to play the race card on them ?

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

Did someone say Bush is a chimp?

 

[Karl Pilkington]

I didn't like the way you used the term "whites" Karl.

It seems insensitivity to caucasian pollies George W Bush, John Howard, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Kevin Rudd, etc is OK

Whites doesn't have a racist history attached to it, 'coloured' does. I have no problem with the use of the term black though.

How come these terms are now becoming contemptuous ?

Does every cartoonist drawing a charictiture of Obama have to walk on eggshells incase it upsets one of the millions itching to play the race card on them ?

If you think avoiding racist overtones is walking on eggshells, you need to reevaluate your perception of racism.

 

[camsmith]

Big fuss over nothing. Does anyone really think in this day and age a MSM paper would run a cartoon calling an African American a monkey (or chimp) in a racist way? These people are still so caught up in praising their messiah that its messing with their heads. That South Park episode on Obama comes to mind.

Clearly the cartoon is about the politicians in general who passed the bill and the recent news event of a crazy chimp attacking someone and being shot dead.

Some people see racism in everything, others make a living off it.

 

[Hass]

This is a case of people jumping to conclusions without really thinking things through.

Barack Obama did not write the stimulus bill. Hell, he didn't even read it (it's 1073 pages long) - he just signed it. He used his influence to get some things in the bill, but plenty of other things found their way into it that he didn't particularly want in there.

In the United States Congress writes the laws. Nancy Pelosi is the main author of the stimulus bill. If the monkey represents any single politician it has to be Pelosi not Obama. It's more likely to represent Congress as a whole. Notice that the monkey's arms even mimic the look of the "Barrel of Monkeys" game - something Congress has been frequently compared to in the past.

All the cartoon is saying is that the final stimulus package (with all the earmarks and pork inside) is so bad that it could have been written by an out of control chimp. It would keep that meaning no matter who's in the White House because it's not a direct reference to the president.

But many people have assumed otherwise. And you know what happens when you assume things - it makes an ASS out of U and ME.

 

[Monkster]

Whites doesn't have a racist history attached to it, 'coloured' does. I have no problem with the use of the term black though.

Which is funny because it excludes anyone who isn't of 100% African heritage.

 

[Clown]

This is a case of people jumping to conclusions without really thinking things through.

Barack Obama did not write the stimulus bill. Hell, he didn't even read it (it's 1073 pages long) - he just signed it. He used his influence to get some things in the bill, but plenty of other things found their way into it that he didn't particularly want in there.

In the United States Congress writes the laws. Nancy Pelosi is the main author of the stimulus bill. If the monkey represents any single politician it has to be Pelosi not Obama. It's more likely to represent Congress as a whole. Notice that the monkey's arms even mimic the look of the "Barrel of Monkeys" game - something Congress has been frequently compared to in the past.

All the cartoon is saying is that the final stimulus package (with all the earmarks and pork inside) is so bad that it could have been written by an out of control chimp. It would keep that meaning no matter who's in the White House because it's not a direct reference to the president.

But many people have assumed otherwise. And you know what happens when you assume things - it makes an ASS out of U and ME.

Yeah yeah, good points and all.

But you are forgetting the most important thing:

'Overtones'. Won't somebody PLEASE think of the overtones!?

 

[Clown]

So there should be strictly no cartoons depicting the prophet Muhammad, as this will inevitably lead to offense from the Islamic community?

Look, I'm pretty liberal but I've come to learn that sometimes it just isn't worth it.

Look at what happened to that Dutch film maker when he rightfully pointed out that Islam encourages domestic violence and a subservient relationship between wife and husband.

In other words: 'No, we must not offend the Muslims for fear of violent retribution'.

Incredibly piss-weak attitude IMHO.

In America, racial issues are still a sore point for a lot of people, and really, it isn't like the New York Post had a real reason to print that cartoon - it isnt' funny, artistic or poignant. It's a shit, unfunny, unwitty cartoon, and its fairly insensitive. Probably an honest mistake though.

Firstly, these are all simply your own subjective, personal opinions. Secondly, I imagine you'd have had a different take on the 'funniness' of the cartoon had McCain won.

 

[acker]

Whites doesn't have a racist history attached to it, 'coloured' does. I have no problem with the use of the term black though.

If you think avoiding racist overtones is walking on eggshells, you need to reevaluate your perception of racism.

Why

Others in this great nation of ours are comfortable in their own skin, and discussing these issues rather than stifling the debate because they are uncomfortable with the words.

COMPERE: Well, as a term of racial abuse, "******" is probably one of the worst. But is it acceptable when it's also a hero athlete's name, or at least part of his nick-name? That's the argument that's taking place in Queensland over the name of a grandstand at Toowoomba Athletic Oval. It's called the E.S. ******-Brown Stand. This has drawn outrage from many and a complaint to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission.

However, in what many people think would be a surprising move, the Toowoomba Aboriginal Community has voted that the name should stay.

John Taylor.

JOHN TAYLOR: His real name was Edward Stanley Brown, and in Toowoomba he was admired for playing in the 1921 Kangaroos rugby league side. He was better known by his nick-name, "******", which apparently he got as a child because he had fair skin and blonde hair. And in the late 1960s, a grandstand at Toowoomba's Athletic Oval was named in his honour, the E.S. ******-Brown Stand.

Last month a local Aboriginal activist, Steve Haigan, demanded it be changed, but the Toowoomba Sports Ground Trust said no way. But the issue hasn't died, especially since it's now been referred to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission. But yesterday the debate took a new twist, with a meeting of local Toowoomba Aboriginal people voting the tag "******" should stay.

Wally McCarthy from the Aboriginal Services Centre says more than 120 local Aborigines have spoken.

WALLY McCARTHY: I hope it's the end of it and I hope the name's still there. We've done a resolution which will be under the Commission, and also other petitions, and I hope they take it into consideration at the ... of the members of the Aboriginal community and the support that we've given to Mr Brown......more on the link below

http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/stories/s40345.htm

 

[Col Davies]

Big fuss over nothing. Does anyone really think in this day and age a MSM paper would run a cartoon calling an African American a monkey (or chimp) in a racist way? These people are still so caught up in praising their messiah that its messing with their heads. That South Park episode on Obama comes to mind.

Clearly the cartoon is about the politicians in general who passed the bill and the recent news event of a crazy chimp attacking someone and being shot dead.

Some people see racism in everything, others make a living off it.

While others, by their ignorance, give racism tacit approval

 

[KissStephanie]

Big fuss over nothing. Does anyone really think in this day and age a MSM paper would run a cartoon calling an African American a monkey (or chimp) in a racist way?

It depends on the publication of course, and in this instance, it's The New York Post which definitely could. Since Rupert Murdoch's ownership, the paper has been criticised for its fabrication, melodramatic headlines, flagrant advocacy and conservative bias. In 1980, The Columbia Journalism Review stated "the New York Post is no longer merely a journalistic problem. It is a social problem - a force for evil."

These people are still so caught up in praising their messiah that its messing with their heads. That South Park episode on Obama comes to mind.

Who are these people? NYP Holdings Inc? Come on now. Obama isn't the messiah of The New York Post!

New York Post Endorses John McCain

September 8, 2008

THE New York Post today enthusiastically urges the election of Sen. John S. McCain as the 44th president of the United States.

McCain's lifelong record of service to America, his battle-tested courage, unshakeable devotion to principle and clear grasp of the dangers and opportunities now facing the nation stand in dramatic contrast to the tissue-paper-thin resume of his Democratic opponent, freshman Sen. Barrack Obama. Cont...

Clearly the cartoon is about the politicians in general who passed the bill and the recent news event of a crazy chimp attacking someone and being shot dead.

The cartoonist was probably trying to tie two news stories together, and to criticise the stimulus bill would suit the agenda of the New York Post. However, the only thing obvious about the cartoon is that it was irresponsible journalism.

Some people see racism in everything, others make a living off it.

For centuries, African-Americans have been racially portrayed as monkeys, and it's very narrow-minded of people not to understand that.

 

[camsmith]

While others, by their ignorance, give racism tacit approval

To me ignorance is seeing racism in everything.

Tell me, did Obama write the stimulus bill?

It depends on the publication of course, and in this instance, it's The New York Post which definitely could. Since Rupert Murdoch's ownership, the paper has been criticised for its fabrication, melodramatic headlines, flagrant advocacy and conservative bias. In 1980, The Columbia Journalism Review stated "the New York Post is no longer merely a journalistic problem. It is a social problem - a force for evil."

Also the paper that endorsed Obama over Clinton

Still haven't forgiven them? You sure the CJR didn't get their "posts" and "times" mixed up?

Who are these people? NYP Holdings Inc? Come on now. Obama isn't the messiah of The New York Post!

"these people" was referring to the people who see this as racist and are protesting in the streets. I should have written it better, perhaps.

The cartoonist was probably trying to tie two news stories together, and to criticise the stimulus bill would suit the agenda of the New York Post. However, the only thing obvious about the cartoon is that it was irresponsible journalism.

Yes and that was all it was...

For centuries, African-Americans have been racially portrayed as monkeys, and it's very narrow-minded of people not to understand that.

This was a chimp, not a monkey.

And for years Bush has been called everything under the sun, including a monkey. There's even a website dedicated to it: http://www.bushorchimp.com/

 

[Cousin Jed]

In 1980, The Columbia Journalism Review stated "the New York Post is no longer merely a journalistic problem. It is a social problem - a force for evil."

http://www.nypost.com/seven/09082008/postopinion/editorials/post_endorses_john_mccain_128044.htm

1980?? Richmond must still be a good team too....

Definitely PC gone mad. People go looking for reasons to complain about anything and everything these days.

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

Hey, how come my post was removed? Others had referred to the Bush/chimp photos and I simply put them up for others to have a gander at. Look at the thread since. Chimps, humans and even the Simpsons!

Bad form, Chief!

 

[KissStephanie]

This is a case of people jumping to conclusions without really thinking things through.

I think it's more of a case that The New York Post followed their usual conservative agenda without thinking things through. It was irresponsible, and it's not the first controversial cartoon by Sean Delonas.

Barack Obama did not write the stimulus bill. Hell, he didn't even read it (it's 1073 pages long) - he just signed it. He used his influence to get some things in the bill, but plenty of other things found their way into it that he didn't particularly want in there.

He also wanted more in the bill than there is but regardless of that, I'm sure that Delonas felt that Obama had written it though.

In the United States Congress writes the laws. Nancy Pelosi is the main author of the stimulus bill. If the monkey represents any single politician it has to be Pelosi not Obama.

I disagree. I feel that if there was any single politician in mind, then it was Obama. He and his advisers had compiled an economic recovery blueprint before Christmas first. From there the Democrats in Congress drafted legislation.

It's more likely to represent Congress as a whole. Notice that the monkey's arms even mimic the look of the "Barrel of Monkeys" game - something Congress has been frequently compared to in the past.

I think you're reading too much into it. Firstly, I don't think that Sean Delonas thinks that deeply or cryptically to suggest that the chimp is representative of all of Congress, and if he has done it this time, then it would be a first that I have seen. Secondly, the position of the chimp is not like the 'Barrel of Monkeys' game. The arms are not in the correct position, and neither are the legs.

All the cartoon is saying is that the final stimulus package (with all the earmarks and pork inside) is so bad that it could have been written by an out of control chimp. It would keep that meaning no matter who's in the White House because it's not a direct reference to the president.

The problem with the stimulus plan is that it isn't enough by about US$200 billion, but after eight years of the Bush administration's dismal economic failures, the Republicans in Congress have been acting like it hasn't occurred. Therefore, if the cartoonist had anybody in mind, then it should be the Republicans in Congress, but this particularly cartoonist usually targets liberals.

But many people have assumed otherwise. And you know what happens when you assume things - it makes an ASS out of U and ME.

Many people remember how African-Americans have been portrayed as monkeys, regardless of the species, for a very long time, and isn't this post of yours simply assumption?

 

[acker]

Hey, how come my post was removed? Others had referred to the Bush/chimp photos and I simply put them up for others to have a gander at. Look at the thread since. Chimps, humans and even the Simpsons!

Bad form, Chief!

Honkey

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=honkey

 

[Karl Pilkington]

Firstly, these are all simply your own subjective, personal opinions.

So what you're saying is, the opinions I've posted on thsi discussion board, are actually my opinions?

Wow, thanks Clown. You're a genius.

Secondly, I imagine you'd have had a different take on the 'funniness' of the cartoon had McCain won.

Not at all. I don't even like Obama and would have preferred Ron Paul.

How is the cartoon funny, in your opinion?

 

[Karl Pilkington]

Why

Others in this great nation of ours are comfortable in their own skin, and discussing these issues rather than stifling the debate because they are uncomfortable with the words.

http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/stories/s40345.htm

Firstly, this nation of ours is hardly great.

Secondly, how calling a white guy 'ni**er' and being ok with it proves racism is fine is beyond me - please try and stay relevant to the thread - even if you are going to be incredibly racist and ignorant.

 

[apollo_creed]

Isn't it funny how a thread like this never fails to bring out 2 or 3 racists?

As for the cartoon - it's intention wasn't to be racist - you wouldn't think.

However, the stupidity and ignorance of it can't be denied.
Obama passed the bill and they depict the government (of which he heads) as a monkey/ape/chimpanzee/whatever the **** it was.
One of the most common derogatory stereotypes for African Americans.

Really, really dumb. Whichever way you look at it.