Oh dear

[year_x]

Seems any ability for irony or proportion Americans may have had before has now gone out of the window.

It was badly judged, but obviously unintentional. Can everyone please stop being so jumpy?!

*le sigh*

Guess our bretheren from across the pond just ain't too bright. At least it's all good fodder for Family Guy/South Park/Simpsons.

Comments

[gethrees]

Maybe I've got the wrong end of the stick here but that picture really does appear quite awful - it is the equivalent of throwing a banana skin at John Barnes. While one could argue that Obama did not himself construct the bailout package and so Pelosi et al. could be the ones labelled as monkeys, it is generally cited as Obama's bill and therefore the reference to the bill's authors is obviously a racist attack on Obama. Sorry for being so assertive about this, as you well know I love a sick joke, but there's no need for explicit racism.

Yours
Buzz Killington

[year_x]

But they were using the monkey story to refer to all politicians. They just got it wrong. They were just saying "now we've killed a dumb animal, who else can write the rubbish legislation". so saying "the government is worse than a dead monkey"

Maybe I've got it wrong, but it does seem fairly knee-jerk to me. If the animal had been a rampaging dog which was shot, and they used that, it wouldn't have been racist, right? But a monkey, with the historical links and all that, makes it racist.

I just don't think it was their intention. I agree with how it's been seen.

[year_x]

If you said the government was worse than a dead dog, that would be funny. Which I think was their intention.

Maybe I should pick a more humorous animal to defend my point. A giraffe?

I'm not arguing that it could be seen as racist. But my problem is that people are mixing the two views of it on purpose to make a point which isn't there

"To compare the nation's first African-American commander-in-chief to a dead chimpanzee is nothing short of racist drivel."

They're not doing that! they're comparing the administration to a dead monkey!

[guyinahat]

It's a tough one this. On a simplistic level, it can be pointed out that Bush was forever being parodied as a monkey because of his looks and stupidity, and therefore it's an established association. But on the other hand, there is a very well known and long standing racist association with monkeys.

Was the cartoonist completely oblivious to the monkey/racist association? It does stretch credulity to think both the cartoonist of a major newspaper and the entire editorial team would fail to pick up on this. At best, it was an honest but incredibly stupid mistake.

[year_x]

Bit of interesting debate and editorial piece here

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/michaeltomasky/2009/feb/19/barackobama-new-york-post-cartoon

[guyinahat]

A good debate. In the end, I think the whole thing is just too ambiguous to call either way. He could be that naïve, but as a political satirist by trade, it does make you wonder.

[year_x]

Maybe just trying to bait the knee-jerkers then? In that case it's an editorial failure, as I'm not sure this will be good for the Post's circulation...

[llamarines]

I immediately and instinctively thought it was due to the incident with the chimpanzee. I immediately and instinctively thought it was due to the fact that people regularly refer to all politicians as monkeys. I didn't even once think that it was referring to Obama as a monkey, and anyone who says that that was because I'm not subtle enough to read the hidden meanings is a muppet. Sometimes there are no hidden meanings

[year_x]

Interesting. I disagree about Phelps. I think to be part of society means using your freedom of speech sensibly. And if you can't do that, then there should be checks and systems to stop you expressing yourself. I know it means drawing lines in gray areas where opinion shifts with fashion. A difficult one to argue, but I don't think freedom of speech can be universal unless you have a very liberal well educated population. Which we don't.

Also, I don't see why we should let a "hate-tourist" come here just to stir up trouble. Fair enough some home-grown homophobes: don't we have enough bigots here to picket that play? Shame on our bigots for being so lazy! I feel almost embarrassed.

I suppose what Phelps planned to do is just not British. Our bigots would surely have just sat at home and grumbled into their bovril.

[cr4k]

If you find an image which doesn't portray any kind of evidence of racial theory racist that means that you think about race far too much. It contains what YOU bring to it. If you are going to judge its meaning objectively you have to look at many other examples from the satirist and newspaper in question before you criticise it. Does this paper generally support racial theories and stereotypes?

On another note they *are* a bunch of fucking monkeys the lot of them and we shouldn't be afraid to say it just because they are being led by someone whose dad was a native of the african continent.