Tuesday, February 24, 2009

What an awful cartoon


The New York Post apologized for publishing the cartoon above. Many who found it offensive interpreted it as comparing Barack Obama to the violent chimpanzee who mauled a woman and was shot in Connecticut. They found it a racist depiction of Obama's African American heritage; the New York Post has responded by stating that the intent behind the cartoon was purely satirical. I don't know: it is an awful cartoon, but we are dealing with the New York Post, and I think it is safe to say that the newspaper often seeks controversy. I do not approve of the cartoon, however; I can only say that I pity the fool who dares to compare me to a monkey. Or a chimpanzee.
Interestingly enough, the New York Post actually endorsed Obama during the election; should the cartoon have been published for satirical purposes, I think that the New York Post did not step out of accordance with past history. Maybe I can't see clearly, but I am not finding much satire... I just think it is a stupid cartoon, I don't know how much thought went into creating it.
Furthermore, the New York Post was hesitant about adressing questions presented by the NAACP. Who knows how sincere this apology is?

4 comments:

Ben Geva said...

Well, I think people may be over reacting a little bit here. Given the national fame of the Times, and their endorsement of Obama, it's fairly absurd to think that they would intentionally post a cartoon that was not only anti-Obama, but also racist. While I can clearly see that the cartoon can be read as a anti-black statement, it makes much more sense to see that it is intended to say merely that monkeys wrote the stimulus. No racial undertones intended.

Even though this is a case that is easily misconstrued to be offensive, I say that there are tons of examples out there showing that everyone is a little bit too sensitive these days.

Jeff Yeh said...

I'd have to agree with Ben in that claiming the cartoon to be "a racist depiction of Obama's African American heritage" is a bit overboard. I mean, just think about how many times Bush was drawn as a monkey...and nobody called it racist then...

Nelia Barkhordar said...

I think that the original intent of the cartoon was to reflect the common opinion among conservatives that the spending bill was so stupid that a monkey could have written it, not depict Obama as a monkey. According to Editor in Chief Col Allan, the intent was to ridicule Washington's efforts to revive the economy.
Although I think that some people have overreacted, I can also understand where they are coming from because it is a touchy issue...As for the claim that Bush was drawn as a monkey and nobody got upset, I think that's a good point but the circumstances are very different...white Americans were not enslaved and weren't compared to monkeys on a daily basis.

JN said...

When I looked at the cartoon before reading the post, I didn't notice how the monkey could represent Obama. I don't think they intended for people to see a connection between Obama and the monkey. I agree that the point of the cartoon was to point out how the stimulus plan was written like a monkey could have done it.