I agree that the cartoon used old racial epithets about blacks and monkeys in an offensive and unfortunate way. I'm not convinced that the artist was intentionally racist--LOL!!!! That would be a career killer for sure! I agree with Renda, it does seem like they were trying to blend the chimp shooting with the stimulus bill, but I STILL don't get the joke. And I still also agree that it was in very poor taste at the very least.
Did the artist/newspaper issue a statement re the cartoon? Anyone have a link?
You would think that someone would have said, "That's funny, but you can't use that because blacks/monkeys is an old racial slur, and we don't want anyone getting the wrong idea. Go draw up a new cartoon. Call the chimp Anne Coulter instead."
Abigail,
Your first statements are contradictory. How can you agree it was racist and then say the artist's work was unintentional? I don't understand what you are saying.
Col Allan, editor-in-chief of the Post, defended the work.
"The cartoon is a clear parody of a current news event, to wit the shooting of a violent chimpanzee in Connecticut," Allan said in a statement. "It broadly mocks Washington's efforts to revive the economy. Again, Al Sharpton reveals himself as nothing more than a publicity opportunist."
Baron, if you would line up 10 people and ask them who the chimp is, I suspect most would say Obama. This has always been viewed as a plan pushed by Obama to the American people and to Congress...much like Bush's. Either way, see my above post about not spending too much more time on this as I suspect that that wa s the intention. This is a paper and illustrator with a clear track record for this sort of thing for this sort of reason.
Good to talk to you again though bro.
The real question to determine if it is racist is the intent of the author, not the subjective view of the readers.
__________________
"Beware lest you lose the substance by grasping at the shadow." ~Aesop
The real question to determine if it is racist is the intent of the author, not the subjective view of the readers.
The monkey thing has always been viewed in that light. Regardless of the current tragedy with "Travis", the artist, being an artist, should have known the implication behind it. It, IMO, had to have occurred to him how that would go over.
Abigail,
Your first statements are contradictory. How can you agree it was racist and then say the artist's work was unintentional? I don't understand what you are saying.
Because something can be perceived as racist, and blatantly so, even if the artist didn't do it intentionally. Because it is an old, common slur, the majority of readers are going to see it as a racist connection. The artist should have been smart enough to know that, and if he wasn't, an editor should have caught it.
But I can't imagine someone being stupid enough to be that blatantly racist on purpose.
The cartoon WAS racist in nature, but I'd be surprised to find the artist intended it that way, OR thought it out well at all. I think it was an unfortunate combination of the stimulus bill and the dead chimp in the news from the day before.
IF the artist was deliberate with the racism, he should be fired. If it wasn't deliberate, then the editors should be fired for stupidity.
__________________
"God, send me anywhere, only go with me. Lay any burden on me, only sustain me. And sever any tie in my heart except the tie that binds my heart to Yours."
--David Livingstone
"To see no being, not God’s or any, but you also go thither,
To see no possession but you may possess it—enjoying all without labor or purchase—
abstracting the feast, yet not abstracting one particle of it;…."
--Walt Whitman, Leaves of Grass, Song of the Open Road
Because something can be perceived as racist, and blatantly so, even if the artist didn't do it intentionally. Because it is an old, common slur, the majority of readers are going to see it as a racist connection. The artist should have been smart enough to know that, and if he wasn't, an editor should have caught it.
But I can't imagine someone being stupid enough to be that blatantly racist on purpose.
The cartoon WAS racist in nature, but I'd be surprised to find the artist intended it that way, OR thought it out well at all. I think it was an unfortunate combination of the stimulus bill and the dead chimp in the news from the day before.
IF the artist was deliberate with the racism, he should be fired. If it wasn't deliberate, then the editors should be fired for stupidity.
Linear Mode
