Yes, that's true, and that's part of the reason why I posted this cartoon. From the context, there's nothing in there to link the president to the monkey, and that's the part I can't quite understand. As far as I'm aware, the president actually signed the bill into office, but did not write the bill. Thus, mocking the bill is indirectly mocking the president, but it's a stage removed - much in the same way that someone mocking a democrat could be seen to be mocking the president, perhaps?
Given that it's also referencing this story I don't think it's in particularly good taste even without the racial connotations, which, as Sus points out, are pretty deep.
Also, I've been told (although not verified) that the cartoonist has a history of this sort of stuff.
Also, I've been told (although not verified) that the cartoonist has a history of this sort of stuff.
To be exact: the BBC news article mentions a couple of controversial cartoons the man had drawn in the past, though not anything explicitly "look at them stupid nig-nogs". ("Muslims as terrorists" seems a vague charge to me, especially when drawing political cartoons in the US, but I suppose you could argue that's crossing the line into this.)
In any case, perhaps it's important to consider the history and ownership of the paper. Murdoch tabloid has controversial thing to say about non-conservative non-white? LE GASP!
Normally I'd agree with your sentiment Dave, but in this instance I think it's pretty clear that Bush is being compared to a monkey-as-idiot, while Obama is as monkey-as-dirty-blackman - he hasn't made a monkey that looks like Obama, he's just drawn a monkey. If it had been a morphing effect like the first image, then yeah, reverse racism.
That's a good point, actually: a Obama-a-like Monkey or one in a presidential outfit (perhaps even the tradition of having the words OBAMA or FEDERAL AID or whatever written on him) might change the context somewhat.
That's the key point. The monkey is only connected to the president in passing, does that make a difference to the outcome - does it go from active to passive (casual) racism?
Part of the problem, perhaps, is that political cartoons have a long history of demonizing and ridiculing the politicans of the day by drawing them in situations like this - switch to a white politican and, as you say, there'd be no problem. But especially this early in the term of America's first black president, people are understandably sensitive. (Consider the similarly loud reaction when the New Yorker did their terrorist fist bump cartoon, and that was in a very obviously lefty and pro-Obama publication. There's also a long tradition of mixing and matching two news stories in political cartoons to comedic effect: if the story previously had been an escaped bear getting shot, for example, we'd have most likely avoided this
( ... )
I think if that cartoon were drawn about a white president there'd be no problem mainly because it wouldn't work. So... the president is a monkey? What, he's cheeky? A trickster? To get to monkey = thicky you actually have to apply the knoledge that you know: it's a satirical cartoon, it's trying to make fun of the president, it must be saying something insulting about him, so therefor I guess monkey must equal idiot. If someone told me I was a monkey, being stupid would be the last connotation I'd draw from it. Clumsy maybe, but not stupid.
As I said in my comment to your post, there is a definite point to this and many satirical cartoons often have either explicitly morphed features or little outfits with people's names on it to make this clear. As written, the point (and thusly the comedy) is vague even with Obama.
I would have hoped that someone would have flagged up the poor taste. Apparently not. That's slightly more worrying - institutionalised lack of accountability - than one unfunny cartoon.
The very fact that this could have gone though lines of checks and balances and still be published is perhaps more telling than the fact someone could draw this. Let's be honest, we've all said things we've later regretted, but to foster an environment permissive of casual racism is a thousand times more harmful.
Comments 13
(The comment has been removed)
Reply
Reply
Also, I've been told (although not verified) that the cartoonist has a history of this sort of stuff.
Reply
To be exact: the BBC news article mentions a couple of controversial cartoons the man had drawn in the past, though not anything explicitly "look at them stupid nig-nogs". ("Muslims as terrorists" seems a vague charge to me, especially when drawing political cartoons in the US, but I suppose you could argue that's crossing the line into this.)
In any case, perhaps it's important to consider the history and ownership of the paper. Murdoch tabloid has controversial thing to say about non-conservative non-white? LE GASP!
George Q
Reply
Ah, yes, Murdoch owns it. I don't think I should be publishing exactly what my thoughts towards him are :D
Reply
Reply
Reply
George Q
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
George Q
Reply
The very fact that this could have gone though lines of checks and balances and still be published is perhaps more telling than the fact someone could draw this.
Let's be honest, we've all said things we've later regretted, but to foster an environment permissive of casual racism is a thousand times more harmful.
Reply
Leave a comment