Controversial "political" cartoon...
Just saw this on MSN...wow. At first glance before you read the article...what does this look like to you? I can't for one..believe they allowed this to be printed !
I find that offensive, as well, Caver.
Original Post by bagga:
Additional revenue? I think most of us read this mess for free.
do they not sell ads?
i didn't realize it was an ad-free paper/site
Original Post by caverlady:
There was another one that I remember discussing but this is all I can find about it. This was in the New York Times. I sincerely doubt that the cartoonist will get fired. The Post might say something about it being in poor taste, but I think that will be it because all the while they're gleefully rubbing their hands together thinking about all the extra paper sales it generated.
EDITED TO ADD:
I think that I would see it more as a slap to Obama if they had given the monkey extra large ears or something else that would be related to him. I have seen pictures of him with Dumbo ears, but I don't think that's considered a racial thing.
my workplace filter prevents me from seeing that link
sorry :( can't comment on it
Original Post by kathygator:
I find that offensive, as well, Caver.
As well you should, Kathy, because I've always found you to be a fair-minded person. But you see that was a blatant racist cartoon and it didn't cause the outcry that this one has. That's my problem with it. It just seems to me that it's disingenuous because there's a double standard here between Dems and Repubs, conservatives and liberals. The election's over. Why can't we all just be Americans?
Yellagirl, if you are going to take every attack against Obama and his government as an attack of his race or of you personally it is going to be a very, very long eight years.
Original Post by caverlady:
Original Post by kathygator:
I find that offensive, as well, Caver.
But you see that was a blatant racist cartoon and it didn't cause the outcry that this one has.
Well I, for one, had no idea such a cartoon existed. Perhaps that's your point?
Original Post by kathygator:
Original Post by caverlady:
Original Post by kathygator:
I find that offensive, as well, Caver.
But you see that was a blatant racist cartoon and it didn't cause the outcry that this one has.
Well I, for one, had no idea such a cartoon existed. Perhaps that's your point?
Yes, that was my point. I agree with Tom that if something that mild is going to cause Obama fans this much stress, they are in for a long 8 years.
Original Post by nomoreexcuses:
Original Post by caverlady:
There was another one that I remember discussing but this is all I can find about it. This was in the New York Times. I sincerely doubt that the cartoonist will get fired. The Post might say something about it being in poor taste, but I think that will be it because all the while they're gleefully rubbing their hands together thinking about all the extra paper sales it generated.
EDITED TO ADD:
I think that I would see it more as a slap to Obama if they had given the monkey extra large ears or something else that would be related to him. I have seen pictures of him with Dumbo ears, but I don't think that's considered a racial thing.
my workplace filter prevents me from seeing that link
sorry :( can't comment on it
You know that scene in "Gone With the Wind" where the maid admits she knows "nothin 'bout birthin' no babies?" It was a take-off on that.
I see how it could be viewed as a racially insensitive cartoon, and I see how it wouldn't be. Either way, I agree with Nomo - when an explanation needs to be offered to clarify the meaning, it did not serve the intended purpose as a political cartoon, controversial or not. The Post should be embarrassed by that cartoon not because of any connotations or uproar, but because they published one that wouldn't have passed the editorial standards of Weekly World News.
Original Post by rachd:
Original Post by yellagirljay:
but it no more mentions congress than it does Obama... and if it were referring to Congress, then wouldnt it make more sense for a "bunch" of monkeys being shot down....
I think it's because Congress wrote the bill, not Obama.
that may be so, but this same bill is often referred to as "Obama's stimulus bill.... Obama's stimulus package...." so it just as well could be in reference to Obama as Congress.... my point stands....
perhaps trhawley... perhaps i am in for a long eight years.... but no matter how you mask it.... cover it or attempt to placate it.... it was an attack on Obama and his government we all agree right.... an attack on the president who happens to be black.... an attack on a black man being depicted as a gun downed monkey..... OH GOD....
Original Post by yellagirljay:
Original Post by rachd:
Original Post by yellagirljay:
but it no more mentions congress than it does Obama... and if it were referring to Congress, then wouldnt it make more sense for a "bunch" of monkeys being shot down....
I think it's because Congress wrote the bill, not Obama.
that may be so, but this same bill is often referred to as "Obama's stimulus bill.... Obama's stimulus package...." so it just as well could be in reference to Obama as Congress.... my point stands....
perhaps trhawley... perhaps i am in for a long eight years.... but no matter how you mask it.... cover it or attempt to placate it.... it was an attack on Obama and his government we all agree right.... an attack on the president who happens to be black.... an attack on a black man being depicted as a gun downed monkey..... OH GOD....
You know what bothers me the most? What bothers me is that people like you, who have nothing to do with the government, who are just living their lives, pay their bills, etc., are hurt by this. That is what honestly bothers me. I couldn't care less about these politicians. I don't think any of them Democrat or Republicans are on my side. I just hate to see people hurt by it, so I'm sending hugs your way.
#70 is precisely why it's better to err on the side of oversensivity. It hurts a lot of people to see a cartoon like that. Ideology, philosophical debate - go right out the window in the face of that kind of pain.
Who are we, who have never known what it is to experience racism, to deem that kind of pain acceptable?
..or what Caver said.
Original Post by caverlady:
I think that I would see it more as a slap to Obama if they had given the monkey extra large ears or something else that would be related to him. I have seen pictures of him with Dumbo ears, but I don't think that's considered a racial thing.
If I remember correctly, it was a caricature drawing that accentuated a certain physical quality of Obama's. One of them being his ears. The picture that I think you were referring to was not depicting him as a monkey, it simply took some of his facial qualities and made them out of proportion. My question is why nobody got mad when they blew up W's ears in the same manner. Should they only allowed to blow up white people's ears?
I wouldn't think anyone would be offended by a characture of President Obama. This cartoon is not that.
given that the portrayal of slaves in Gone with the Wind was extremely racist and by today's standards, i'm sorry, but it doesn't get a pass - it's offensive... i can imagine that a cartoon based on that movie's portrayal of blacks would also be offensive (if it weren't lambasting the movie, and i assume it wasn't)
thank you Carver... and Kathy too.... i know i get really worked up over racism.... it just so boggles!!!!
Original Post by nomoreexcuses:
given that the portrayal of slaves in Gone with the Wind was extremely racist and by today's standards, i'm sorry, but it doesn't get a pass - it's offensive... i can imagine that a cartoon based on that movie's portrayal of blacks would also be offensive (if it weren't lambasting the movie, and i assume it wasn't)
another thankyou!!!! it does not get a pass.... because the cartoonist didnt "mean it that way...."
Original Post by kathygator:
I wouldn't think anyone would be offended by a characture of President Obama. This cartoon is not that.
Ok, fair enough. I must have misunderstood when you told caver that you found it offensive as well. Thinking back, I guess you could have been talking about the first part of her statement as opposed to the last part in #60.
I was offended by the cartoon depicting Condoleeza Rice as the character played by Butterfly McQueen in 'Gone with the Wind'. Forget the character's name. The ditzy maid.
Why can athletes eat so much?
Athletes need adequate calories to offset those they burn in training and competition. They eat to either maintain their body mass or gain muscle... Read more
