I don’t understand why this cartoon everyone’s getting worked up about is so offensive. The author is clearly making the point that the bill (and the scattershot stimulus plan in general) reads as if it’s been written by a monkey, not that Obama himself is a monkey worthy of killing. And Obama isn’t the author of the stimulus bill anyway: the House/Senate are the culprits. I might agree that the cartoon doesn’t make a ton of sense–it strikes me that the artist was trying to shoehorn a very popular/horrifying story into a context that doesn’t quite work–but to say it’s offensive? Um…no?
Which brings me to this post by Rod, focused on Eric Holder’s assertion that Americans are moral cowards when it comes to race. A taste:
Who in their right mind wants to have a frank talk about race with people of another racial background? The professional and personal risks are too great. If you say the wrong thing — and really, who can say where the land mines are buried? — you risk things blowing up in your face. Once upon a time, I was referred to a supervisor by a minority co-worker for referring to a particular group of Arab terrorists as “those savages,” thus creating a “hostile work environment.” That’s it. That was the substance of the complaint. We had to have a conference about it. And this Holder wants people — white, black, Hispanic, Asian, whatever — to take a chance of setting off a social bomb in their workplace, or in their personal lives, in their churches and neighborhoods? Please.
You should, as they say, read the whole thing.
Of course, the readers over at Feministing are good for a laugh on this. Or any other topic related to race, really. Check out the comments. The best?
My gut reaction is that this ought to warrant being questioned by the secret service to make sure the cartoonist isn’t actually threatening assassination here.
The post-racial America, ladies and gentlemen! Get it before it’s g…Oops, already gone. Should’ve seen that one coming.
Connect With Us Via RSS, Newsletter or Your Favorite Social Networking Site.
3 Comments - add your own
Daniel Kennelly — February 18, 2009 at 8:21 pm
Damn, you beat me to the punch, Sonny.
All in all, it was a bad idea for a cartoon, but wholly innocent of the crypto-racism charge.
An alternative explanation, however: maybe the cartoonist was just engaging in the president-as-simian school of political satire (http://www.bushorchimp.com/).
Sonny Bunch — February 19, 2009 at 12:43 am
I mean, the cartoon is kind of silly. But racist? That’s the worst thing you can say about someone, to call them a racist. This is not racist.
And, Daniel, silly boy, it’s fine to call W. Chimpy McBushitler. That’s totally reasonable. But pointing out that his successor has, um, kind of Will-Smith-esque ears? Totally unacceptable. Racist, in fact. Again: Welcome to the post-racial America.
guy 3 — February 19, 2009 at 12:56 am
Oh, that’s why it’s offensive. I thought because it made chimps sound even more thoughtless, impulsive, and dangerous than the one that ate that woman’s face.
I’m so glad Al Sharpton and others have reminded us of yet another ugly racist slur. Don’t want anyone to forget these.
Keep the flame alive, Reverend.
Although taking offense in this case only shows your own ignorance (of the bill’s author) and perhaps your own closet racism (as displayed by the commenter who presumed with her gut who the chimp is), I do suppose a list of possibly offensive metaphors would be a useful reference to those of us who have not been exposed to as much racism as others and are not so conscious of as many racist epithets, slanders, and connotations others might perceive in what we say or print. I hear Gran Torino is helpful in this regard.