In a time when every day seems to bring new news of another political cartoonist being laid off, asked to accept a buy out or simply being dropped from newspapers, I suppose it’s somewhat heartening to see people getting worked up over the occasional political cartoon, whether it’s a cartoonist comparing Obama to Jim Jones or a mugger/murderer, or simply someone drawing a tasteless picture of a dead chimpanzee.
These cartoons aren’t all well drawn, and I don’t think any of them are funny or, you know, good, but still—they provoked a reaction, and that in and of itself is something, isn’t it? At least they demonstrate that political cartoons are not just part of the white noise of newspapers that everyone ignores, you know?
Of the three, the Sean Delonas dead chimpanzee picture is the one that received the most attention, perhaps in large part because of who was expressing outrage over it, and the fact that he was presuming to be expressing outrage on the behalf of the president of the United States.
As is often the case, Tom “Comicsreporter.com” Spurgeon has a very thorough round-up of various pieces on the story, but to recap: Delonas drew a cartoon depicting two police officers standing over a dead chimpanzee they had apparently just shot and killed, a reference to the story of a pet chimpanzee in Connecticut mauling a woman and attacking police officers before being shot to death. One of them says to the other, “They’ll have to find someone else to write the next stimulus bill.”
In Delonas’ defense (now there’s a phrase I never thought I’d type), it seems pretty clear that this unfunny political cartoon was using a recent news story (the chimpanzee attack) to make a point about another (stimulus bill). The latter, the logic goes, was such a bad piece of legislation that it was apparently written by an insane chimpanzee. (Ha…?)
To take umbrage at the interpretation of it as a racist gag aimed at President Barack Obama at all, as some have, seems a little racist in itself to me.
I mean, can’t a crappy political cartoonist say a piece of legislation seems like it was written by an insane chimpanzee in one of his crappy political cartoons without people wondering if he’s talking about the new president, who is black, and, since racists have compared black folks to apes for centuries in this country, then obviously this particular cartoonist must be saying the same thing…? (Personally, I thought making a joke about a dead animal was pretty tasteless, and making a joke about a police shooting of any kind in New York a rather dicey proposition—you better have a damn funny punchline if you’re going out on that limb).
Certainly everyone is free to get as offended as they want about whatever they want, but I don’t think it’s too much to ask that readers not blame the cartoonist for their own readings of his or her work. We’re still only in the first few weeks of Obama’s presidency; we’ve got another four to eight years to get through, so perhaps we should save some of the outrage for condemning things that are truly outrageous.
Of course, Delonas has a reputation for making “jokes” that are basically just slurs against large segments of society, so perhaps many people feel less generous about giving him the benefit of the doubt here than they might have given a different political cartoonist. Gawker, for example, has compiled some of his more loathsome cartoons here.
Given how up front he is about making fun of gay folks or overweight people in those, I think it’s safe to assume that if he really had any desire to call black people apes, he would have been more direct about it.
The Post ran an apology today, targeted specifically at “those who were offended by the image,” but drawing a line at apologizing to those “in the media and in public life who have had differences with The Post in the past” who “see the incident as an opportunity for payback.”
That is, hopefully, the end of this particular cartoontroversy. Any takers on how long until the next one? Three days? Six? A whole fortnight?
February 20th, 2009 at 11:51 am
No matter how many editorial cartoonists get the boot, we will always have controversial and offensive cartoons. They won’t die out completely, I see a lot of editorial guys taking cues from the webcomics community, getting second jobs etc… Not to mention the viral nature of the web will do for their cartoons the same thing that wide newspaper circulation used to do. They can still make all the offensive cartoons they want, and they’ll still receive all the hate mail and headlines, they’ll just get paid less for it.
February 20th, 2009 at 11:54 am
Usually whenever Sharpton criticizes something, it usually means you want to be on the opposite side of what he’s protesting.
The NY Post also ran stuff about how his fraud of an organization was being investigated by the IRS for tax evasion, so this is simply getting back at his enemies at the Post.
The cartoon wasn’t funny (political cartoons by and large aren’t anymore), but it had the point that we have crazy people deciding the legislation here. And it also shows how stupid some people are, as it was Pelosi who drafted the legislation.
If this is the first salvo in what will be the defense of the Obama administration, ie you criticize him you are a racist, it’s going to really get old fast and diminish what is real racism in the country.
February 20th, 2009 at 11:56 am
>>Any takers on how long until the next one? Three days? Six? A whole fortnight?<<
Why so long? I think you should have an option for hours…the 24/7 news cycle must be fed, after all.
February 20th, 2009 at 12:00 pm
>>If this is the first salvo in what will be the defense of the Obama administration, ie you criticize him you are a racist,<<
not saying that view isn’t out there, but still, implying him, or portraying an African American as a crazy, homicidal chimp kinda has some pretty obvious racist overtones, which, I guess we shouldn’t assume Delonas meant…or didn’t know about…or had ever seen…or something.
February 20th, 2009 at 12:05 pm
What mbrady said.
Yes, the chimp story was a recent news item. However, the history of portraying African-Americans as monkeys, apes, etc. is pretty old and pretty hard to ignore when one is a political cartoonist, especially when this summer saw Obama monkey dolls passed around.
At the very least it was a stupid move made worse by a disingenuous apology. At worst it was deliberately racist.
February 20th, 2009 at 12:34 pm
(edited and expanded from my comments in talk@)
OK, I get it – the bill reads like it was written by an infinite number of monkeys. The cartoon made no connection to Obama at all, and refers to the writers of the bill as monkeys, in the sense that it reads like it was typed by some.
But this is just another one of those jokes that is just too damn easy to be “read wrong”. And it’s just not a good enough joke to be worth the amount of defending it’s needed. It’s the very reason I didn’t use a monkey doll as the model for my Build-a-Hero Blue “Hope” lantern. Just too damn easy to misconstrue.
If a joke is clear there’s less of a need to explain and defend it. But it’s not as if the mad chimp had anything to DO with the Stimulus Bill. Thought tends to follow the path of least resistance: monkey = black = Obama. I grasp immediately that there was no direct or implied race connotation here. I also get that there are LOTS of people who won’t, or choose not to grasp that.
There are NO jokes that “shouldn’t be said”. There are lots of jokes that “shouldn’t be said” around certain people because they won’t find it funny or are sensitive enough about the issue that they’ll get offended, and it’s just not worth the tsuris to have to smooth it over afterwards. And there’s jokes that are poorly enough crafted that they will likely be misunderstood by more people than will understand it, and should be worked on until they’re more funnier. This is an example of number three.
A large number of people worked on the bill. Congress voted on the bill and further amended it. But to most people, this is not “The stimulus bill written by a number of people and voted on by Congress with further amending and finally signed by the President” but “Obama’s Stimulus bill”
Irinocally, where is the defense of the cartoon coming from? Rightpundits.com
“As a person of color I say get over the stereotype. Come to think of it that may also be Sean Delonas point in the New York Post cartoon. When a black man can finally be elected president of the United States, anything goes now. The race-baiting of Al Sharpton becomes irrelevant while the rest of us move on.We have entered the era of post-racial politics thanks to Obama’s election. If the last president can be a chimp, so can Obama. And that is wonderful progress for our country. Ook ook.”
February 20th, 2009 at 12:47 pm
But Obama didn’t write the stimulus bill. This is what isn’t clicking for me. Anyone who follows the politics in this country knew Obama just gave Pelosi free reign to get something on his desk for him to sign.
Political cartoonists constantly drew Bush as a monkey, and made it the norm, no criticism there. This cartoon clearly shows a chimpanzee, not an exaggerated Obama made to look like a chimpanzee. There IS a difference. It also played on a recent event of one crazy monkey in Connecticut. People who can’t put it together are purposely blinding themselves due to their political affiliation.
Alos, fix this f***ing blog so people can post without having to refresh/hold on to a light switch while turning the faucet tap to make it post.
February 20th, 2009 at 12:52 pm
>>Political cartoonists constantly drew Bush as a monkey, and made it the norm, no criticism there. This cartoon clearly shows a chimpanzee, not an exaggerated Obama made to look like a chimpanzee. There IS a difference.< <
You're sure right there is - there's no centuries-long precedent of white, ultra rich oilmen from Texas being portrayed as monkeys or otherwise subhuman, whereas there is for Africans and those of African descent. That's the difference you're talking about, and why this wasn't exactly groovy, right?
Thing is, if the cartoonist had ever shown much depth to the metaphors he used, I'd be willing to cut him some slack. The fact that he seems to be dipping into a woefully shallow pool of bigoted stereotypes to make his point seems to suggest that he's just staying close to home with this one.
>>Alos, fix this f***ing blog so people can post without having to refresh/hold on to a light switch while turning the faucet tap to make it post.<<
You’re not saying anything I haven’t said.
February 20th, 2009 at 1:05 pm
Also – I have trouble with *this* cartoon being used as a touchpoint for the whole, “Toldja! If you say anything against Obama, you’re going to be called a racist!” I find the outrage kinda…disingenuous.
I doubt that there would be any mention of this if a chimp wasn’t used and the metaphor that the bill was written by some “crazy people” was more subtle, but as I said, Delonas doesn’t impress as one who has that much to pull from.
February 20th, 2009 at 1:12 pm
1) Are political cartoons supposed to be funny? Have they ever been? This is a serious question.
2) When was the last time anybody made a connection between simians and anyone of African descent? The last time (and the only time, as far as I can recollect) was Eddie Murphy on SNL Weekend Update, when he pulled a cameraman onto the set and told him to take him off his shirt and show off his hairy chest, saying that this white guy looked more like an ape than Murphy did. That had to be 25 years ago. I’ve seen blacks frequently portrayed as uncivilized, tribal savages, but never as chimps or apes. Not saying it’s NEVER happened, just that I don’t think I’ve ever seen it.
February 20th, 2009 at 1:13 pm
“You’re sure right there is – there’s no centuries-long precedent of white, ultra rich oilmen from Texas being portrayed as monkeys or otherwise subhuman, whereas there is for Africans and those of African descent. That’s the difference you’re talking about, and why this wasn’t exactly groovy, right? ”
You may have misunderstood what I wrote, or maybe I wrote it wrong.
Bush was exaggerated to look like a monkey. The monkey in the cartoon was just a monkey. A monkey that was shot because it went apeshit *rimshot*. He looks nothing like Obama, just a generic monkey. I’ve noticed many cartoonists are scared to death to exaggerate Obama, if anything they just make him tall and gaunty. Precisely because they know it will probably be misconstrued another way.
So that’s why, when this cartoon clearly makes it out to be just a monkey playing off a recent event, and nothing else, I think people are getting upset over something they need not be.
February 20th, 2009 at 1:18 pm
“Also – I have trouble with *this* cartoon being used as a touchpoint for the whole, “Toldja! If you say anything against Obama, you’re going to be called a racist!” I find the outrage kinda…disingenuous. ”
It has all the classical elements to make it so:
1) cartoon meaning one thing turned into another by purely political reasons
2) Al Sharpton race-baiting to draw attention away from how his thug like organization operates
3) Mohamed being drawn in some Danish cartoons
….maybe #3 doesn’t count here.
February 20th, 2009 at 1:19 pm
>>When was the last time anybody made a connection between simians and anyone of African descent? < <
Besides the monkey doll with the Obama sticker that that grandpa at a Palin/McCain rally was proudly carrying around and showing to cameras this summer?
Well, there's:
http://card.wordpress.com/2007/02/26/racist-rabbi-compares-blacks-to-monkeys/
which pops right up with Google, and there’s more…it’s more historical than anything else at this point, but it’s there.
February 20th, 2009 at 1:26 pm
>>You may have misunderstood what I wrote, or maybe I wrote it wrong.< <
Nope - I took it and twisted it for my own, nefarious means. I don't see the Bush comparison particularly apt in this instance, as, like I said, no one has portrayed or compared privileged, white Texas oilmen as being of a subhuman species. It's been done to Africans and African Americans for centuries - not monkeys that look human, but monkeys. "Porch monkey" - it's a very derogatory term that has nothing to do with making the monkey appear or seem human, it is just calling an African American person a monkey. Saying that just because the monkey didn't look like it was an Obama caricature really doesn't mean that much when racists have called African Americans "monkeys" as a way to make them less than human.
>>I think people are getting upset over something they need not be.<<
Nah – I think, at worst, this was blatant racism, and at best, it was something done to get people to buy the paper and talk about it. In fact, I’d bet all my money on the latter.
February 20th, 2009 at 1:29 pm
>>cartoon meaning one thing turned into another by purely political reasons< <
Whoa there - since when does art mean one and only one thing?
>>Al Sharpton race-baiting to draw attention away from how his thug like organization operates< <
Until you pointed it out, I had no idea Sharpton was even involved.
>>Mohamed being drawn in some Danish cartoons<<
As you pointed out by example with Bush, there’s no prohibition against portraying the President in art, or even in an unflattering light, so I’m not sure where you’re going there.
February 20th, 2009 at 1:37 pm
“Saying that just because the monkey didn’t look like it was an Obama caricature really doesn’t mean that much when racists have called African Americans “monkeys” as a way to make them less than human.”
But when you have a completely different event that had an honest-to-God monkey in it, and they want to use that to establish a point about the stimulus bill, you have to be able to separate one from another.
“Whoa there – since when does art mean one and only one thing?”
The cartoon was meant to showcase congress being crazy. That’s all I saw it as.
“Until you pointed it out, I had no idea Sharpton was even involved.”
It’s been in every article I’ve read about it, even creeping into the TV set.
“As you pointed out by example with Bush, there’s no prohibition against portraying the President in art, or even in an unflattering light, so I’m not sure where you’re going there.”
A little levity, Matt. You seem angry today. Unclench a bit. Go read a Tomasi comic and it will make you feel better.
February 20th, 2009 at 1:44 pm
As a black comics fan upon seeing the cartoon I thought to myself: ok I can see why he did it similar to an Imus or a Rush Limbaugh to evoke emotion and a reaction. Did it get me angry? Sure! But I am willing to let it pass because honestly this is America and I still believe in Freedom of Speech. And however misguided it is he is entitled to his opinion.
However that also doesn’t mean I’d want to be in the same room with this bozo anytime soon. Especially hearing about his history of these cartoons.
Yep I am an idealist….unfortunately
February 20th, 2009 at 2:21 pm
I suppose there was an equal amount of outrage on the left when “cartoonist” Ted Rall referred to Condoleeza Rice as a “house n—-r” back in 2004 … what, there wasn’t? You mean the left gets a pass from the media for blatant racism, while the right is attacked for perceived racism? Why, I’m shocked!
http://picayune.uclick.com/comics/trall/2004/trall040705.gif
February 20th, 2009 at 2:21 pm
MBrady (the Hammer, I’m guessing:
“Whoa there – since when does art mean one and only one thing?”
It doesn’t. Anyone experiencing art is free to infer any meaning from art that they see fit. But is the artist responsible for all possible meanings that someone may infer from his/her art?
Ken B:
“I’ve noticed many cartoonists are scared to death to exaggerate Obama, if anything they just make him tall and gaunty.”
Brings up an interesting point — is there any unflattering way to portray Obama that won’t seem racist to somebody?
February 20th, 2009 at 3:01 pm
“is there any unflattering way to portray Obama that won’t seem racist to somebody?”
Simply put, no. There will always and forever be people unwilling or incapable to accept the concept that anyone could disagree with Obama for any rational reason like disagreeing with his policies. To them, it will always be “because he’s black”. And there will ever be people ready to use the fear of being accused of racism to shout down any and all dissension. Being accused of racism is the new version of being accused of communism. It places one immediately on the defensive, and all the accuser has to say is “See how he denies it?” You can’t send a discussion off track faster if you set off firecrackers.
There are lots of ways you can mock Obama (SNL is running Fred Armisen ragged), but there are some ways that have been perfectly acceptable before that many will (I’ll even say “should”) shy away from, including references and comparisons to our simian bretheren. No matter how funny it may be, no matter how true you may consider it (and let’s be honest…there’s a case to be made, just as much as there was for Bush), it’s too “baggagey” a joke to use and expect to get away with scot free.
Having said that, I don’t think we’ll ever hear Obama himself make such “why did he say that” comments. Unless someone is irrational enough to actually use an unarguable racial epithet to his face, he’ll likely wave off any such implications, preferring to let his work and his character speak for him.
And if we’re very, very lucky, others will follow that model.
February 20th, 2009 at 3:22 pm
“Having said that, I don’t think we’ll ever hear Obama himself make such “why did he say that” comments. Unless someone is irrational enough to actually use an unarguable racial epithet to his face, he’ll likely wave off any such implications, preferring to let his work and his character speak for him.”
Back in the primaries, Maureen Dowd made fun of his ears. After a debate, he asked her to no do so. She was trying to toughen him up for the coming campaign, but he buckled at something so meaningless early on.
February 20th, 2009 at 4:02 pm
re: ears
I don’t see that as the same thing. If indeed he was serious when he chided her on that (lots of people say he too was kidding), that’s a direct statement on his person, as opposed to an imagined (or at the best unintentional) assault on race.
As I say, if someone were to make a direct comment to him, he’d be within his rights to take umbrage. But he seems to have quite the sense of humor.
FDR once had a classic speech where whimsically took the press to task, not for attacking him, but for starting to speak negatively about his dog, Fala. “She hasn’t been the same since”, he said.
Personally, I look forward to the day when we can make jokes about, and even with our representatives and not have everything treated as if it was step one of a massive campaign to undermine the authority of the office. A reporter once asked Jack Kennedy at a press conference if he “was a turtle” ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Order_of_Turtles ). Today that reporter would be pilloried for making a mockery of the press conference, trying to make a name for himself, and a thousand other crimes; JFK simply smirked and said “I’ll buy you your drink later”.