Chimpanzees

[canadageorges]

When the former president was called a chimp, it was an attack on his intelligence and big ears.
When the current president is called a chimp, it is an attack on his race.
Discuss.

Edited To Add Link : http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7898845.stm

Comments

[gryphonwing]

*chuckle*

Reality: historically, black people in America were often compared to monkeys and apes as a means of dehumanizing them and making it less egregious to treat them badly. Even if that's not your *intent* when you compare a person to a chimp, if the person is black, history informs what other people will see. The imagery was used to justify rape, murder, slavery, and torture; if the black man was really an animal, anything was justified. This isn't a small thing, or anyone just being overly sensitive: the use of the image in our history is factual, and pretty horrific.

We don't get to walk away from our history, even the bad parts.

I'd suggest that people who want to insult the current president find a way to do so that's less racially charged. Surely they're clever and creative enough to pull it off. :)

[canadageorges]

Yeah, both men have HUGE ears, but wtf was that cartoonist thinking?

I haven't seen any of the cartoonist's other work, so I have no reason to think he's clever or creative or funny enough to pull off a funny cartoon... but I bet he could manage one that doesn't try to use such an ugly part of history so lightly.

[coyo_kokopelli]

Since I think you're referring to the NY Post cartoon. I think one of the DJs on the Q summed it up best. The cartoon wasn't funny on any level. It was racist, it wasn't correct (the President didn't write the stimulus bill), and it was anti-chimpazee, referring to the poor critter shot by police in Connecticut.

[canadageorges]

Funny + Mean = still Funny
Funny + Racist = not so much, in my opinion
Racist + Not Funny = that cartoon

[drjamez]

I agree that it was in poor taste, and I also agree that we cannot ignore the past - while Bush was compared to a monkey, that does not excuse the current racist symbolism. We as a society haven't evolved past racism to the point when any President-With-Big-Ears can be equated to a monkey without considering the color of that President's skin

[canadageorges]

You know, whenever I hear the word nappy describing hair (as opposed to fabric) all I can think of is that book that schools or someone wanted to ban because it was about a kid with nappy hair... despite the fact that the author was black and the book was 'pro-nappy hair.'

Yeah, knee-jerk reactions... rarely the best choice.

I suspect that the newspaper has some policy written down about what it will or will not publish with regard to racist content, I believe many do. I guess I have trouble believing that an editor okayed that cartoon because... well, frankly, I don't think it says anything. Aren't political cartoons supposed to have a point, punchline, message, etc.? Is there really one here, that I am just not getting?

you're missing the point

[gaiusc]

Sorry for this but I seem to need my soap box time. Here is what i got from the cartoon in question

Re: you're missing the point

[canadageorges]

I was hoping I was missing the point, so I went and looked at it again. I just don't see it as commentary on news coverage. The Post's apology implies that it is commentary on the stimulus package, meant to say that it was written poorly. I suppose that if the author meant to imply that the writing of the bill had been outsourced to a chimp, then perhaps no racism was intended.
If the author really did mean that the stimulus package should have garnered more attention than police putting down a dangerous animal, then I am sad that he didn't do a better job, and happy that I get my news from a source that covered the stimulus package instead of the chimp. BBC ftw!