roseembolism (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
roseembolism) wrote2009-02-20 12:52 pm
roseembolism) wrote2009-02-20 12:52 pm
Entry tags:
Hmm...bad cartoons, racial slurs...
...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.
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.
no subject
What a frickin' rag.