« Alleged rendition/torture victim calls on Obama to investigate, prosecute if necessary | truthseeker77's Blog | Right-winger to Arianna: Lawyer up (for posting fake video accussing him of racism) »
Cartoonists see no racism in New York Post "chimp" piece
Several American cartoonists have weighed in on the controversial New York Post cartoon comparing whoever wrote the stimulus package to a monkey. Many found the cartoon tasteless, or cited the author's "bad judgment," but the notion that the piece was racist is shared by virtually none of these professionals.Here are their opinions:
Columbia Journalism Review asked the opinion of several "cartoonists and their editors," most of whom saw it as tasteless, yet not racist.
When interviewed by CNN.com, two-time winner of best editorial cartoonist award, Chip Bok "didn't find the Post cartoon racist, but he said it probably was in bad taste."
CNN also noted that Obama did not write the stimulus package, as some have suggested:
"Dozens of cartoonists weighed in on dailycartoonist.com. Some said it was a simpleton move to use the tired metaphor of a monkey to make fun of something -- no matter what it was. One poster wrote, "Wha...?" pointing out that Obama didn't write the stimulus package; lawmakers did."
Daryl Cagle, Political cartoonist/blogger for MSNBC and past president of te National Cartoonists Society, said:
"The media love arguments about race.
I was thinking of drawing a cartoon with the media frantically rushing to cover the "racist" Delonas cartoon, while Attorney General Eric Holder calmly stands in front of the melee telling Americans how they are "cowardly" in avoiding discussions about race. I expect we're in for a lot of this for the next four years."
Bob Mankoff, cartoon editor, The New Yorker:
My best guess, from being a cartoonist and knowing cartoonists, and knowing how they think and work, is that the intention of the cartoonist was not to play off of the invidious cartoon characterizations of African-Americans in the past, but to use the recent news event, in which a chimpanzee was shot, as a topical reference with which to criticize the stimulus bill."
Richard Burr, associate director, editorial page, Detroit News:
"This is so inside baseball that I didn't get it the minute I looked at it. It's a little bizarre. It's nice to give cartoonist editorial license, but I think this exceeds the taste boundary.
It's not obvious to me that it's racist.
Jonathan Todd, former freelance cartoonist, Shreveport Times:
I think it's saying, we don't like the stimulus bill; it's just like a monkey wrote it. I'm African-American, and I can totally see how people are going to take this the wrong way, but as a cartoonist, I think no racial intention was made.
You have to think about how people could misunderstand this, and I can see how people how can misconstrue it. Editorial cartoonists are against censorship of any kind; this one, I think, shows bad judgment.
Mike Luckovich, editorial cartoonist, Atlanta Journal-Constitution:
"I think he really screwed up, but not for a racist reason. It's in bad taste to take an ape that injured a woman."
Nick Anderson, editorial cartoonist, Houston Chronicle:
"It would help if everyone took a deep breath and tried to calm down. You can say it was insensitive or ignorant, but I think a lot of the outrage is manufactured."
Gary Varvel, editorial cartoonist, The Indianapolis Star:
"I knew what the guy was trying to say, and I don't remember thinking "racist" at all. He was taking a news event and tying the ludicrous stimulus bill to it, and he was making fun of Congress who drafted this bill."
Emily Flake, freelance cartoonist:
"The statement that the reference to the monkey was not supposed to be racist is really disingenuous."
Advertisement
It was simply a lousy cartoon which tried too hard, and failed, to fit in the chimp to politics. If Bush had been in office, it would have been a Bush reference (and even so a bit strange) esp. if the face had been done up. As it is, there is no "there" there, there is no clearcut referent... who is to be represented by the dead animal?
February 21, 2009 8:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, the reporting and editorials in the Post made clear that the bill was Obama's, and the page right before the cartoon prominently pictured Obama signing his bill. If you look at Mr. Delonas' previous cartoons, he clearly has no trouble with offensive imagery, especially homophobic ones, so I don't have any trouble believing that he would use racial imagery. If you look at how he draws Arabs, and you replace the turbans with yarmulkes, there would be pretty widespread agreement that it was anti-Semitic.
February 21, 2009 11:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
I recommend this blog and the discussion:
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/wattree/2009/02/the-assassination-cartoon.php
I can see the assassination angle more clearly than a racist angle.
February 22, 2009 3:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
If Bush was in the office The New York Post would not be openly criticizing the bill.
February 22, 2009 5:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
How many newspaper cartoonists are African-American? One could argue that the cartoonist's are in the same bubble as the New York Post editors.
February 21, 2009 11:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
If the chimpanzee had not been shot the day before what other way could this cartoonist have criticized the stimulus bill? Mr. Wattree, among others, thinks this was purely about assassinating the President. How else could that lame-ass cartoonist advocated killing the Obama without the luxury of a recently shot chimp? I mean, really, how fortuitous for the cartoonist! "Hey, I got me a dead chimp! That's all I've been waiting for! And so early in the Presidency!"
What will he do for an encore? There are a lot of people out there just waiting to be outraged!
February 22, 2009 10:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
In the cartoon, the text over the image says:
"They'll have to find someone else to write the next stimulus bill."
If you think of Obama as the author of the current stimulus bill, then the cartoon is racist and distasteful, because it suggests that Obama is a chimp (repeating the age-old racist equation of Africans with apes) and also shows the President being assassinated. Initially, I read the cartoon in this way and was horrified by it. However, I guess I can see a way to interpret the cartoon otherwise, since congress, not Obama, was the author of the bill and, I guess, one could believe the bill is so bad it could only have been written by a chimp. In this case, the authors of the bill (Congress) are being compared to the chimp and the point is that the bill is so bad only a chimp could write it. Maybe this was the cartoonist's intent, but, if so, he's remarkably clueless and needs some sensitivity training.
February 22, 2009 11:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Race is just one of the things wrong with this cartoon, and it might not be the worst of them. But the cartoon is tasteless in several levels.
It does amaze me however, that somehow these cartoonists have Vulcan mind-meld capabilities to know for sure what was in Delonas mind when he drew it, and based on what they saw in his mind were able to conclude that it couldn't possibly be race. I can't say for sure either what was in his mind, however given the centuries long association of African Americans with monkeys; the history of violence of white cops gunning down unarmed blacks and the juxtaposition of the cartoon with the story and picture of Obama signing the stimulus bill, its disengenuous to pretend the all of these associations were purely innocent and coincidental.
What about the victim of that monkey, clinging to life in hospital after the vicious attack? It seems cruel and insensitive to make light of it given her situation.
Also, regardless who the monkey supposedly represents -- Obama, Pelosi, Reid, etc. -- the cartoon seems to say that that lethal violence against those we disagree with is an acceptable response. Given all the heightened incidents of death threats against the President, the message the cartoon sends in that regard is irrepsonsible, at best.
None of this is a call for Delonas or the Post to be censured. They can write and draw what they want. but oftentimes we forget that freedom of speech is a two way street; if somehow its not appropriate to call out Delonas on his cartoon, then its also not fair to call out those demonstrating against it.
February 22, 2009 11:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
If it wasn't this cartoon it will be the next one, racist is quickly turning into a synonym for Republican.
I wonder how much of the NY Post paper sales would drop if every New Yorker who is offended by their racist cartoon would stop buying the paper? How many advertisers would they lose.
This needs to be nipped in the bud, and now!
In today's news:
NAACP Calls for Firing of NY Post Editor Over 'Chimp' Cartoon
I applaud this action and hope the pressure is kept up until the editor is fired and the Post prints a "real" apology.
February 22, 2009 1:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Racist is a synonym for Republican? I guess stereotyper is a synonym for a Democrat.
February 22, 2009 4:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, whodathunk black people would find an ugly cartoon image of cops shooting a mad ape and talking smack about Obama's signature bill of the moment offensive? How hypersensitive is that? I mean, damn, not every image of cops shooting an ape has to be a racial thing, does it? Why, it's offensive and wrong to think that white cartoonists should even have to stop and ask themselves whether blacks would find a cartoon that depicts cops shooting a mad ape might be perceived as racial-tinged. Everything's about race to them, idn't it?
February 22, 2009 3:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
OK, let's give the cartoonist the benefit of a doubt.
But every day, editorial cartoons get spiked over the possibility of misinterpretation. And rightly so.
Here's what Boston Globe cartoonist Dan Wasserman had to say (via Adam Reilly of the Boston Phoenix):
"The editor's got to save him. The editor's got to say, 'Whoa, what you're saying here is going to be widely misinterpreted. Despite your best intentions, you're calling the president an ape. That's like drawing drunken Irishmen or hook-nosed Jews.' ... [The image] has a history. You've got to know that. The cartoonist was ill served by his editor."
One hundred per cent right. The cartoonist can plead ignorance of how his work would be interpreted; the Post cannot.
Dereliction of its public duty.
February 22, 2009 4:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have a better cartoon for Daryl Cagle of MSNBC: Eric Holder saying we are a nation of cowards when it comes to race and then a scene where people are denying that this was a racist cartoon or dismissing those who were offended by this cartoon. I've heard some pretty stupid excuses like, Obama didn't write the bill: Obama owns this bill, he introduced it, he was its biggest supporter and any and all criticism of it was aimed at Obama. Another stupid excuse: it's a chimpazee not a monkey so the cartoonist was not referring to the racist belief that Blacks are like monkeys - WTF? The New York Post knew exactly how this could be interpreted. You seriously have to question a newspaper who makes a parody of an incident where a woman's face was practically ripped off. I have to doubt the word of a newspaper that chose to, on the anniversary of 9/11, to put on its front cover a giant pig with lipstick on in order to stir up noise about last year's "lipstick on a pig" comment by Obama. The NY Times, NY Daily News and other New York papers cleared their front cover for 9/11 - the Post thought it was more important to put BS on the cover.
February 22, 2009 5:44 PM | Reply | Permalink