Hmm...bad cartoons, racial slurs...

[roseembolism]

...must be the New York Post.

A short while ago a pet chimpanzee was shot and killed by police.  This last Wednesday, the New York Post's pet cartoonist published an editorial cartoon that used the chimp's death in a way that suspiciously looks like its comparing the president with the dead chimp.  Which is, as people SHOULD know, a long-time racial slur for black people.  This caused quite a media stir- a worldwide one in fact.

On metafilter, the poster happyroach (who wishes to remain anonymous) posted a summary of the cartoon and the reactions, along with the question: if the cartoonist is comparing the president to the chimp, is he saying Obama needs to be assassinated?

What interests me is not so much the cartoon, but the two vastly different perspectives on it.  There's quite a crowd who seem to be willing to give the cartoonist the benefit of the doubt; and I have to wonder if it's not so much a matter of being generous of spirit as not wanting to acknowledge any cases of racial baiting- especially one where even a minor level of plausible deniability is maintained.  Also, the parallels between the levels of "I don't see the problem" blinkerdom in this controversy and in the recently ended LJ fracas involving Elizabeth Bear are interesting.

Comments

[mithriltabby]

I just saw it as an ineffective cartoon because the author of the stimulus bill (Congress) had not been metaphorically shot, so the attempt to match up two situations had failed. If Obama had written the stimulus bill and handed it to Congress, then I might have immediately thought racism and incitement to assassination.

[roseembolism.livejournal.com]

The thing is though, the stimulus plan isn't known as the 'Congressional Stimulus Plan: it's commonly referred to as "Obama's Stimulus Plan". OBama is intimately associated with the plan, far more than the actual writers, and so if the cartoon is going to be referring to anyone,the obvious target is Obama.

But this is also a large part of the different perceptions I was talking about. If one isn't sensitized, if one isn't used to the historical usage of monkeys as a racial slur for African Americans, then the cartoon may simly look odd.

I'd say that without the racial context the cartoon looks weird; with it, it looks menacing. And a large part of that difference is going to be which context you've been exposed to.

[ronebofh.livejournal.com]

I suspect that the cartoonist was counting on the controversy and could then hide behind the "Obama didn't write it" line. Nonetheless, it's a mess of a cartoon; leave aside all the unpleasant connotations and it still doesn't make a lick of sense. It was a cheap way to try to link two current stories and make fun of the involved parties, and it was an abject failure.

[roseembolism.livejournal.com]

Well, if you look at the man's previous cartoons, he generally doesn't make a hell of a lot of sense in his cartoons; what he tends to go more for is shocking imagery that would appeal to a specific type of reactionary.

But I do agree it was cheap.

[ghilledhu.livejournal.com]

Ugh, the Post. That's just typical - and you know they knew full well how that cartoon would be taken, and ran it just for the controversy.

What a frickin' rag.