Cartoon in NY Post... Racist?

[Phi for All]

I'm not talking wrong or right, merely noting that it was common for the previous President to be lampooned in this way without major outcry.

It was common because pictures of Bush were placed next to pictures of monkeys wearing similar facial expressions. If Obama was similarly facially exuberant, this argument would be appropriate, but he's not (or not yet).

[DrDNA]

I case any of you are still not clear on the message.....

 

Although such grotesque characterizations of African Americans have largely disappeared from mainstream U.S. society, Eberhardt noted that science education could be partly responsible for reinforcing the view that blacks are less evolved than whites. An iconic 1970 illustration, "March of Progress," published in the Time-Life book Early Man, depicts evolution beginning with a chimpanzee and ending with a white man. "It's a legacy of our past that the endpoint of evolution is a white man," Eberhardt said. "I don't think it's intentional, but when people learn about human evolution, they walk away with a notion that people of African descent are closer to apes than people of European descent.

-->

Crude historical depictions of African Americans as ape-like may have disappeared from mainstream U.S. culture, but research presented in a new paper by psychologists at Stanford, Pennsylvania State University and the University of California-Berkeley reveals that many Americans subconsciously associate blacks with apes.

http://rncnyc2004.blogspot.com/2008/02/discrimination-against-blacks-linked-to.html

 

"Shut her up! Drag her out!" cried the white man, and the black hand fumbled across Scarlett's face to her mouth. She bit as savagely as she could and then screamed again, and through her screaming she heard the white man swear and realized that there was a third man in the dark road. The black hand dropped from her mouth and the negro leaped away as Big Sam charged at him.

 

"Run, Miss Scarlett!" yelled Sam, grappling with the negro; and Scarlett, shaking and screaming, clutched up the reins and whip and laid them both over the horse. It went off at a jump and she felt the wheels pass over something soft, something resistant. It was the white man who lay in the road where Sam had knocked him down.

 

Maddened by terror, she lashed the horse again and again and it struck a gait that made the buggy rock and sway. Through her terror she was conscious of the sound of feet running behind her and she screamed at the horse to go faster. If that black ape got her again, she would die before he even got his hands upon her.

'Gone with the Wind'

http://www.globusz.com/ebooks/GoneWithTheWind/00000054.htm

 

When a knock is heard at the door [a White woman] shudders with nameless horror. The black brute is lurking in the dark, a monstrous beast, crazed with lust. His ferocity is almost demoniacal. A mad bull or tiger could scarcely be more brutal. A whole community is frenzied with horror, with the blind and furious rage for vengeance.3

 

3 George T. Winston, "The Relations of the Whites to the Negroes," Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol. XVII, (July 1901), pp. 108-109.

Edited February 23, 2009 by DrDNA

[swansont]

"Some people have likened negros to apes" is not the same thing as "all references to apes are referring to race." That is how you(the editorial you) choose to interpret the image. There is nothing in the cartoon to indicate that it was the cartoonist's intent that it be interpreted that way. (Does anyone think that Obama actually wrote the stimulus package?)

 

"many Americans subconsciously associate blacks with apes" is all about the attitudes and biases of "many Americans"

[Mokele]

Intent is irrelevant. From one of my favorite blogs, a post on this at Shakesville:

 

Let me quickly stipulate and clarify that one can unintentionally express racism. That innocent intent' date=' or ignorance of the history of how people of color have been marginalized, does not, however, in any way change the quality of what was being expressed. Something can still be expressed racism even if the speaker's intent was not to oppress people of color. And particularly if it does fit neatly into a historical pattern, it necessarily conjures that pattern of racism, intentionally or not.

 

So: Toss out the idea that intent determines racism. And the idea that any of us, or any of the things we say or do, can exist in a void.

 

What we're then left with is the idea that if something fits into a historical pattern of racism, unavoidably invokes such a pattern, and/or can be overtly quantified as marginalizing people of color, it is an expression of racism.[/quote']

 

I'm reminded of the exchange in Clerks 2, in which Randall unwittingly uses an extremely offensive racial slur because he doesn't recognize it as racist. While it's obviously a fictional example, the point stands - just because someone doesn't realize that something is a racial slur, or can have that meaning, doesn't mean that offense is not justified.

[swansont]

Intent is irrelevant. From one of my favorite blogs, a post on this at Shakesville:

 

 

 

I'm reminded of the exchange in Clerks 2, in which Randall unwittingly uses an extremely offensive racial slur because he doesn't recognize it as racist. While it's obviously a fictional example, the point stands - just because someone doesn't realize that something is a racial slur, or can have that meaning, doesn't mean that offense is not justified.

 

I agree that caricature of a person of color as an ape is racist. But this is a non-sequitur. The cartoonist wasn't portraying a person of color as an ape. The ape is portraying … an ape. That's the whole point of the cartoon — that it was a chimp that really wrote the stimulus package.

 

If one is to take the Shakesville post at face value, then any use of simian imagery is racist. You'd better picket the Simpsons for the "stupid monkey/Blurst of times" bit. They used a monkey, therefore it's racist. "Planet of the Apes?" How did they avoid the firestorm? And they even did a remake!

 

This is somewhat reminiscent of people who got in trouble for using the word "niggardly" a few years back. The knee-jerk perception of racism when it wasn't really there.

[Mokele]

But this is a non-sequitur. The cartoonist wasn't portraying a person of color as an ape. The ape is portraying … an ape. That's the whole point of the cartoon — that it was a chimp that really wrote the stimulus package.

 

Therein lies the problem - because of Obama's involvement in the stimulus bill, the interpretation of the ape representing him is *far* from unusual. That's what I first thought of, and I was familiar with the rampaging chimp incident prior to viewing the cartoon.

 

The fact that this highly prevalent "black men = apes" concept did not occur to many readers is itself a manifestation of the inherent privilege that comes from being white and therefore either not being exposed at all to the concept or having the luxury of forgetting it or not paying attention.

 

If one is to take the Shakesville post at face value, then any use of simian imagery is racist. You'd better picket the Simpsons for the "stupid monkey/Blurst of times" bit. They used a monkey, therefore it's racist. "Planet of the Apes?" How did they avoid the firestorm? And they even did a remake!

 

Strawman. It's about the context. In order to invoke these negative associations, there has to actually *be* an association. For instance, if on a TV show, one character calls another "Big-nose", the insult takes on a totally different meaning if the insultee is known to be Jewish. Ditto for 'greasy' if the insultee is Italian, or a hundred other possibilities. It's not the word itself that' bad, it's when there's a clear connection to an existing discriminatory stereotype.

 

 

Remember, language is not mind-reading. We encode our thoughts into a clumsy and sometimes ambiguous communication system, and the receiver must *actively* decode what we say, based on their own knowledge and understanding. When the result of that decoding is a message that the minority listener is somehow inferior or unwelcome, the message has reinforced the discriminatory nature of society towards this individual and perpetuated it. Even if ambiguous, the statements need to be called out, because if they are not, that silence creates the impression that it's OK to make such statements even if you *do* mean them in a racist way.

 

Remember, it's not just African Americans who saw this cartoon as the cops shooting the President, and not all of the white people who saw it that way were outraged - some probably thought it was hilarious. It *must* be challenged, if only so that those idiots will keep quiet and know their views are not acceptable in civilized society.

[padren]

The real issue here is not racism at all, but something that has come up due to people being far enough removed from racism to be not so much "racially insensitive" but racismly insensitive.

 

This cartoon was written and approved for publication with everyone in the chain missing how it could be seen as racist because racism simply isn't part of those people's daily experiences.

 

I think it's an interesting phenomena: racial insensitivity arising due to such a complete lack of racism and understanding of where it still exists within our society.

 

We are at a point where we do have white people being taught by black teachers, working for black bosses, who simply do not have the historical experiences that tell them this is in any way new or different from how things were, or even notice race as a component whatsoever. Maybe they are isolated and not aware of what many black people still experience and can be faulted for "ignorance" towards these issues but that is a very different from being racist or being apathetic towards those facing racism.

 

All I really know about racism comes from statistics and the odd wingnut who goes off at a bar claiming "he's not racist because he doesn't blame black people for having inferior genes, he knows it's not their fault" or some BS like that - otherwise I have no first hand experience with people facing discrimination on race.

 

I've seen people be attacked for homosexuality (or the suggestion thereof for the purposes of starting a fight at a party, etc) but never race, so I am definitely one of those ignorant to the modern day to day impact of racism in our society.

 

But my point is this sort of obliviousness or blindspot to racism is not racism, and it's a disservice for those who have fought against racism to claim they are the same thing.

 

It is it's own phenomena that has only being able to emerge due to the progress we've made against racism and it may require some attention but it shouldn't be bunched in with racism itself.

[swansont]

Strawman. It's about the context. In order to invoke these negative associations, there has to actually *be* an association. For instance, if on a TV show, one character calls another "Big-nose", the insult takes on a totally different meaning if the insultee is known to be Jewish. Ditto for 'greasy' if the insultee is Italian, or a hundred other possibilities. It's not the word itself that' bad, it's when there's a clear connection to an existing discriminatory stereotype.

 

I agree that it's about context, which I why I don't think it's a strawman. "Big-nose" is an insult to someone who is Jewish. But what if the person is not Jewish? There's an ad for a cold remedy where a person with a cold is depicted as a huge nose. Is that an offensive ad? It's possible that someone could interpret it as an attack on Jews. Would you agree with them, or would you explain that the depiction is that of a person with a cold, and has a stuffed-up nose? i.e. that they have misinterpreted the depiction?

 

The whole point here is that the target of the caricature was not a person of color. If you think it is, you have misinterpreted the cartoon.

[Mokele]

Whether it's mis-interpreted or not is besides the point - it pulls on racist imagery and is readily and easily interpreted as racist. Right or wrong, that interpretation reinforces the existing inequalities and perpetuates stereotypes.

 

That the author was too ignorant to see the obvious double-meaning does not make the result any less offensive.

[john5746]

Whether it's mis-interpreted or not is besides the point - it pulls on racist imagery and is readily and easily interpreted as racist. Right or wrong, that interpretation reinforces the existing inequalities and perpetuates stereotypes.

 

OK, I think it has been established that this cartoon was easily interpreted at least two different ways that lead to two very divergent results. Other than an apology to those who were offended, what do you think the Post needs to do?

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

This might explain why some found it easy to interpret the cartoon as comparing Obama to a chimp.

 

Curious George

[swansont]

Whether it's mis-interpreted or not is besides the point

 

I guess that's where we disagree. I think that's the main point: is the viewer under any burden at all to make an effort to not misinterpret an expression. Because if you work at it, almost anything can be misinterpreted. Tom Lehrer once sang, "When correctly viewed, everything is lewd," and I think the sentiment was right, and not just about smut.

 

The problem with that is you start playing a game of "What you really meant was …" and distance yourself from any responsibility at all for your misinterpretation.

 

- it pulls on racist imagery and is readily and easily interpreted as racist. Right or wrong, that interpretation reinforces the existing inequalities and perpetuates stereotypes.

 

That the author was too ignorant to see the obvious double-meaning does not make the result any less offensive.

 

IMO "easily interpreted" is debatable. I think you have to add extra information to interpret the cartoon in a racist way, because you are required to deduce that the chimp represents something other than a chimp.

[Mokele]

Other than an apology to those who were offended, what do you think the Post needs to do?

 

Fire the cartoonist. Not just because of this, either. Part of the broader context of this is that this particular cartoonist has a *long* history of cartoons which overtly make fun of minorities of various sorts. This is actually better than his usual, simply because in the others, there's *no* ambiguity.

 

I think that's the main point: is the viewer under any burden at all to make an effort to not misinterpret an expression. Because if you work at it, almost anything can be misinterpreted. Tom Lehrer once sang, "When correctly viewed, everything is lewd," and I think the sentiment was right, and not just about smut. The problem with that is you start playing a game of "What you really meant was …" and distance yourself from any responsibility at all for your misinterpretation.

 

First, nobody is saying "what he really meant was", but merely that there is an obvious alternate interpretation that he should have been aware of, and that as a consequence, it reinforces existing inequalities.

 

See Clerks 2 for Randall's accidental racism - it doesn't have to be intentional or conscious to be offensive.

 

IMO "easily interpreted" is debatable. I think you have to add extra information to interpret the cartoon in a racist way, because you are required to deduce that the chimp represents something other than a chimp.

 

That 'extra information' is so prevalent that it should be astonishing more people *didn't* add it. Whether *you* found it 'easy' or not is irrelevant - empirically, a lot of people do, otherwise there wouldn't have been such an outcry.

 

Just because you can't see the racism/sexism/homophobia/whatever of something doesn't mean it's not there, and just because those who experience discrimination see what you don't doesn't mean they're being oversensitive or 'trying to see it'.

 

Mokele

[iNow]

Fire the cartoonist. Not just because of this, either. Part of the broader context of this is that this particular cartoonist has a *long* history of cartoons which overtly make fun of minorities of various sorts. This is actually better than his usual, simply because in the others, there's *no* ambiguity.

 

Like these?

 

 

 

 

 

[swansont]

You say "fire the cartoonist." Does that mean you should be fired if someone with an overactive imagination, unwilling to entertain alternate possibilities, can interpret something you say to be racist? Do you really want to lower the bar like that?

[Mokele]

Did you see the cartoons iNow posted?

 

This guy has made a 'career' out of disparaging minorities, and most of his cartoons are FAR less ambiguous than the one this thread is about. This latest one is merely a drop in the overflowing crap-bucket.

[Pangloss]

I have no problem with any of those cartoons from iNow's post. I see no sign of racial disparagement in any of them.

 

Do you?

[iNow]

I have no problem with any of those cartoons from iNow's post. I see no sign of racial disparagement in any of them.

 

Do you?

 

Your post assumes that my examples were exhaustive, and a complete and total representation of his work. They were not, so this argument you're trying to use is pretty much an epic fail.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited February 24, 2009 by iNow

[Mokele]

I have no problem with any of those cartoons from iNow's post. I see no sign of racial disparagement in any of them.

 

So disparaging people for their sexuality is OK, just not their race? Double-standard much?

 

Hatred is hatred, bigotry is bigotry, and this cartoonist is clearly bigoted against absolutely everyone who isn't a white, christian, straight, able-bodied male. Do we *really* want to voluntarily give him a platform from which to spew his vitriol?

 

Mokele

[bascule]

You say "fire the cartoonist." Does that mean you should be fired if someone with an overactive imagination, unwilling to entertain alternate possibilities, can interpret something you say to be racist? Do you really want to lower the bar like that?

 

I think the cartoonist should be fired because his comics aren't funny.

[Mokele]

That too - he's like the Garfield of political cartoons. Oh, look, he was mean to the dog and then slept! Hilarious!

[john5746]

I was going to post some examples that were much more overtly racist from the left regarding Condoleeza Rice, but let's just say there is plenty of stuff out there that didn't seem to generate this kind of response from the Sharpton crowd when it was against the Bushies. You might not like the cartoons or the opinions of them, but to fire the cartoonist would only be scapegoating, IMO. This isn't something he blurted out with no approval - more eyes saw it and decided to run it. So, you can boycott the paper if you want - that might lead to his unemployment.

 

While I understand that some saw the reference to Obama, I still do not think it is an objective truth that only secluded white people don't see a problem with the cartoon. The fact that you are trying to present more obvious examples of bigotry shows that this cartoon is not overtly racist. An obvious explanation has been provided and an apology from the paper AND the owner has been given.

 

It will be interesting going forward what will be considered racist regarding the Obama administration. The comic with Obama on Mt. Rushmore - what is wrong with that? Maybe we are a nation of cowards.

[Pangloss]

Your post assumes that my examples were exhaustive, and a complete and total representation of his work. They were not, so this argument you're trying to use is pretty much an epic fail.

 

I think you've misunderstood me. I responded to Mokele's direct statement that your earlier-posted cartoons were themselves a direct disparagement of minorities. I'm not making any assumptions here -- I'm the one asking the question, remember?

 

 

 

I see no ethnic stereotyping in the above. Perhaps you could point it out to me.

 

 

 

I don't understand this one (above), so I can't say whether it's racist or not. I'll give it some more thought.

 

I've linked your third and fourth ones below, but they're not showing up for me at the moment. Maybe they'll appear when I post this, and if so I'll take a look at them and add my reaction.

 

 

 

(Edit: They're still coming up blank, unfortunately. I'll check back later.)

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

So disparaging people for their sexuality is OK, just not their race? Double-standard much?

 

Hatred is hatred, bigotry is bigotry, and this cartoonist is clearly bigoted against absolutely everyone who isn't a white, christian, straight, able-bodied male. Do we *really* want to voluntarily give him a platform from which to spew his vitriol?

 

Mokele

 

Well you said "disparaging minorities", which sounds like an accusation of "racism" to me, but I guess if you want to focus on hatred and bigotry that's fine with me. I still don't see any evidence of what you're accusing him off. And my answer to your final question is a clear and unequivocal "yes". Why wouldn't I? Just because I don't like hearing it? I can summarize my feelings on that subject with a single image:

 

Edited February 24, 2009 by Pangloss
Consecutive posts merged.

[padren]

I think I have to agree with Pangloss on this.

 

Personally, the air of "unpopular speech intolerance" that existed immediately after the 9/11 attacks in the name of patriotism and solidarity left a really bad aftertaste, and even though I abhor racism and minority bashing it really seems to me that trading one morally righteous cause to silence unpopular opinions for another morally righteous cause doesn't cut it.

 

It's not enough to say I sympathize with those who feel attacked by these cartoons but not with those who are offended by criticizing The War On Terror - the experiences with being on the other side leave me feeling the whole angle is wrong. So really, is there a difference, or is the only difference that we know our convictions on morally are right, and that the neocons were wrong?

 

 

I think he's generally unfunny, but so is Mallard Fillmore, Rev Phelps and Anne Coulter, and I've been told the last two aren't even cartoons.

[iNow]

That's the funny thing about freedom of speech and freedom of press. They are free to say (or draw) anything they want, but we as the populace and readers are also free to openly express our digust, distaste, and general disapproval of what they've shared.

 

That's all that's happening here. I'm abundantly confident that not a single poster was arguing to take away their constitutionally protected rights to express themselves, just that they should face the sincerity and passion of the negative response they generated.

[padren]

That's the funny thing about freedom of speech and freedom of press. They are free to say (or draw) anything they want, but we as the populace and readers are also free to openly express our digust, distaste, and general disapproval of what they've shared.

 

That's all that's happening here. I'm abundantly confident that not a single poster was arguing to take away their constitutionally protected rights to express themselves, just that they should face the sincerity and passion of the negative response they generated.

 

Fair enough, what I was reacting to more I think was pulling his previous work to try and get a read on the speaker, rather than the speech. I could be a bit overboard, but it reminds me of when someone criticizes the War on Terror policies and gets rebuttals like "this is from a guy that voted against the first Iraq war when Kuwaiti babies were being dumped on the floor as Iraqi soldiers looted hospitals for incubators" - in other words, trying to get into the speaker's head and question their intentions and moral integrity, instead of focusing on the specific instance of speech that is cause for concern.