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:
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.
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...
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.
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.
Post a Comment