Discussions
What do you think about the New York Post "political satire" monkey comic?
Posted by stealth2000 • 2/18/09 • Subscribe to this Discussion [RSS] • Report This Topic
Topics: blatant hate., new your post, racism, treason
I chose not to put this in the political discussion, because it's a social discussion. The comic published in the New York Post which has a monkey (which represents President Obama) with two gun shots in the chest and two cops with smoking guns standing over top of him saying "They'll have to find someone else to write the next stimulus bill."
I think it's a barometer that accurately measured the atmosphere in America. What do you think?
If you haven't seen the comic, check out:
thinking.today.com
User Comments
-
"I think it's a barometer that accurately measured the atmosphere in America"
I can't make any sense out of this. A comic can't be a "barometer", for one thing. More importantly, given that Americans just overwhelmingly elected Obama, I can't see how you can think this might be even remotely representative of the "atmosphere" in America.-
Thanks for your comments Madame X. Great point.
President Obama was elected because there are lots of problems with this country. Simply, he was the best candidate for the job. Has nothing to do with racial harmony.
Let me say this, I have been blessed to have (for the most part) lived in a diverse environment. With that being said, I am not ignorant to the reality of it all.
I don't mean to anger people or to toot a horn at nonsense, but this simply isn't nonsense. Maybe saying it represented the climate of America was a bit much. It doesn't. -
Does the fact that there were "a lot of problems with this country" explain the fact that he swept the Democratic nomination? We're talking about a man who had a greater and more enthusiastic following than this country has seen in decades, not someone who was grudgingly elected because the Republicans mucked things up.
-
Yes it does explain it. I voted for President Obama, not because I am a black man, but because he was the right person for the job. He was the potential fixer, the hoped for hero that America needed at its midnight hour.
The American people voted for him, because we need him. The problems are real to some, maybe not you and he was the glimmer of light in the darkness that offered what every human being desires, hope. -
As did most of us, Stealth. Honestly, during the campaign I kept losing sight of the fact that race was supposed to be an issue. I'm not much of a television watcher, and every once in a while my mother would mention something that had been reported on that issue and I'd be taken by surprise all over again. I think race is much more relevant in the wake of the election than leading up to it--it's nice to have the whole "could a black man be President" thing off the table forever.
-
Madame,
By the way, blogs that appall me #2 was thought provoking. Hopefully I won't end up on your #3.
-
-
Well, I don't think it's a stretch to refer to the morons who wrote this bill as "monkeys", although I can understand how the cartoon could be interpreted as racist.
I don't think that was the cartoonist's intent. He took two events in the news and combined them to convey a message. Seems the cartoonist thinks that the leadership in Washington are a bunch of monkeys. Now if the whole rampaging monkey thing hadn't just happened, it'd be a little different.
I think people are a wee bit too sensitive.-
That's how I took it, as well.
Still, a bit harsh... -
Powerdraw, Thanks for your response. The cartoon has it's meaning, but their is an alternate meaning that could be perceived as being racially motivated. Since I wrote the post, I take it that I am sensitive, I'll tell you that I am not. Ask my wife.
But certain things just don't sit right, you know, and this was one of them. Now, if you read my blog, I didn't get angry and this really doesn't surprise me at all. It is what it is. But what happens when this article reaches the group of individuals to far to the left or right?
I believe it was in poor taste that the cartoon was published the way it was , because it could bring about a response that was not intended. -
I agree that it was in poor taste, and think that the cartoonist should have anticipated the obvious interpretation and avoided it. But that's something entirely different from suggesting that it's representative of the views of most Americans.
-
MadameX,
I agree, I already retracted that statement in another reply. "but the internet is forever", so there it is. lol -
That made me laugh out loud.
-
-
If the cartoonist didn't anticipate the cartoon would be interpreted as racist, he's led a pretty sheltered life. -
I think people should be more respectful. This is the US so this cartoon is allowed, but its really bad taste. I dont even understand why there had to be shooting involved, theres other ways to represent the stimulus situation. But, hey, what can you do, theres certain freedoms we have and this is one of them. But, I just expect subscription sales to go down...just sayin'
oh, and this is kind of racist. But we never know peoples real intentions unless they tell us.-
Freedom of speech and expression. I would never want to stifle that freedom, but come on. Sensico, I agree with you whole-heartedly.
You guys are great.
-
-
Better judgement should have been utilized before this cartoon went to print. The fact that there's a picture of President Obama signing the stimulus bill on the opposite page signals a more calculated intent, perhaps, on behalf of silent stakeholders. I wonder if this has anything to do with low newspaper sales? I don't care for it at all. -
I can't think of any modern day, mainstream opinion cartoon that depicted a fictional shooting, portrayed as an actual event in the cartoon.
Do you know what I mean? I've never seen a smoking gun pointed at a living thing with bullet holes in it as a cartoon statement in modern cartoonism. Eons ago, many political statements were made with cartoon effigies - but that was a long, long time ago. -
It's a an indication of the haters in frustration coming out of the woodwork, and not only that the violence of it is a pretty good indicator where that other almost fifty percent of the country - those who will claim this is ok - are at. It is the NYP though, so take it with a grain of sale considering all the retractions they had to post last year I wonder they are still called a news journal.
That the two shots in the chest don't seem to stun than many people is amazing me more than the racial implications which are pretty routine at this point.
I mean really though, with the print and online media losing money right and left this was a pretty good way to garner a little attention. -
I feel about this cartoon the way I feel about folks like Ann Coulter or Rush Limbaugh (and I am sure there are sinners on the left as well) who take positions as much for the notoriety they will generate as for anything else. It is hard to take such discourse seriously when there is such an obvious element of calculated titillation to it.
Whatever else is going on here, the NY Post was clearly being provocative for the sake of gaining attention. Business as usual except we live in unusual times. At some point the grownups have to say, dammit quit screwing around and let's get serious here.
Beyond that, the cartoon was unfunny, had a racist subtext, and insinuated violence in connection with political leaders. A trifecta of boorishness that exceeds even the NY Post's usual norms. -
What do I think of it? I think this comic was done in poor taste, whatever 'reason' the paper thought they had.
Do I think this reads as what Americans, as a whole, are thinking or feeling? No. It was obviously just a cheap thrill, which will surely backfire on their sales.
Add Your Comment
Login to leave a message.
