Cynical Nation

The cartoon in the New York Post was not just stupid. It was idiotic. It makes you wonder who reads that new paper. What kind of an I.Q. does it take to pay money to buy a paper like that.

I buy it for the socratic inquiries on page 12.

Personally I'm partial to the metaphysics on page 8.

Finally saw it online....NOTHING remotely "racist" about the cartoon.

The "bad taste" was over making light of the horrific injuries suffered by the woman whose face was ripped off.

The eat chimps in the Congo...maybe they're onto something.

"They eat chimps in the Congo...maybe they're onto something."

NOTHING remotely "racist" about the cartoon.

Huh? It may be idiotic and the intention of the designer might not have been racist. But the cartoon is both idiotic and racist.

"It may be idiotic and the intention of the designer might not have been racist. But the cartoon is both idiotic and racist." (BW)


Nooooo, not UNLESS every time YOU see monkeys depicted, YOU think of black people.

I like Frank J's title of his blog piece on this; "Crazed Black-Hating Liberals," while not true in ALL cases, it certainly is in a LOT!

Gosh, I sure hope some black-hating liberal doesn't come around and try and eat my face off!

Seriously, that would really suck.

OK, I looked at the cartoon. I saw dead chimp. I thought "Travis". Then I saw the speech balloon. I thought, "Travis didn't have anything to do with Obama's stimulus plan... Obama's stimulus plan, is he saying that Obama's a monkey? Jesus! Is he a racist bastard or so clueless that never popped into his head?"

Where are the editors who should have said, "Whoa, we see how people could really take this the wrong way, let's give it a pass and move on to the next one."?

Why, because my brain worked like that, am *I* that racist? And does it matter if I'm a racist in the argument that the cartoon should have been shelved?

>Where are the editors who should have said, "Whoa, we see how people could really take this the wrong way, let's give it a pass and move on to the next one."?

Here's what I think is being missed. I read the Post every morning, and when I saw that cartoon I thought it was unfunny, but it did not even *occur* to me that a normal person would construe it as racist.

I've been proven wrong, of course, because you, K, and others are perfectly normal people who found it offensive. We have a natural tendency to think that other people think the way we do, but often they don't.

Likewise, when you folks criticize the Post's editors, you're assuming they do/would/should think the way you do. But I can totally understand how the supposed "racist" angle could totally be unforeseen even by intelligent and thoughtful people.

Maybe *both* sides could benefit from trying to understand the other more?

"I read the Post every morning, and when I saw that cartoon I thought it was unfunny, but it did not even *occur* to me that a normal person would construe it as racist.

"I've been proven wrong, of course, because you, K, and others are perfectly normal people who found it offensive. We have a natural tendency to think that other people think the way we do, but often they don't.

"Likewise, when you folks criticize the Post's editors, you're assuming they do/would/should think the way you do. But I can totally understand how the supposed "racist" angle could totally be unforeseen even by intelligent and thoughtful people.

"Maybe *both* sides could benefit from trying to understand the other more? (BNJ)


A fair point, although those who think like you, the Post editors and myself tend to think the others are being "overly sensitive" and those folks will consider those who don't see this as racial in any way as "insensitive."

I saw it....I KNOW that Congress wrote the Stimulus Bill (not Obama)....and I assume most half-way intelligent people know that too.

The "joke" (such as it was) was "the stimulus bill was so poorly crafted that a monjkey could've written it...and that now (after the cops shot the pictured primate) find another option in writing the next Un-stimulating bill.

I'm trying to honestly understand where honest people could actually see a "racial angle" to this, but I still see that reaction as forced, or manufactured outrage.

I'm black and I saw no racist implications in the cartoon. I knew he was talking about the chimp incident. And I say this after being called the "n-word" a couple of times in my life.
Not to start a second civil war, but you have to be looking for racism (in this case), which minimalizes real racism, like the one postal clerk who found a hung black baby doll over his desk about 10 years ago or the burning crosses at homes of interracial couples.

Likewise, when you folks criticize the Post's editors, you're assuming they do/would/should think the way you do. But I can totally understand how the supposed "racist" angle could totally be unforeseen even by intelligent and thoughtful people.

Maybe *both* sides could benefit from trying to understand the other more?

That's almost always true, but I still hold the opinion that editors responsible for the publishing of political cartoons should be trying to think like as many types of people as possible. It's kind of their job.

You know, along with spelling.

>...I still hold the opinion that editors responsible for the publishing of political cartoons should be trying to think like as many types of people as possible.

Did you see Delonas's cartoon the day after the Oscars? It depicted God, Jesus, and Heath Ledger all watching TV on a couch, smoking cigarettes and swilling suds. Surely it's not hard to imagine some people finding that offensive. If we really go down that road, how long before editorial cartoonists are out of a job altogether?

This comic reminded me of this post.