Shame on the New York Post for their racist cartoon.

I don't think the Post was targeting Obama. He did not write the bill himself. Other people wrote it and they are a bunch of monkeys for coming up a bill that'll ruin our economy. It was not a personal and racist attack on Obama.

What's this? American liberal racists? Shameful!

Hate that rag! How can anyone say liberals? See above note.

Sounds tasteless.

The Post like Rev Al will do or say anything to get a Headline. that it is a trash paper is no argument. But po;ital correctness and pseudo sensitivity to everything that may be racial crushes the free flow of ideas.

Stephanie, Our economy IS ruined and by the people that preached an unregulated market place

I am not sure if it was racially motivated, I think comparing someone to a chimp is an insult to their inteligence. It was wrong though however it was meant.

Most likely it is racist and the editor is probably neocon scum, but to my liberal friends: CHILL!!!! There are other things much more important like building an outhouse for Bush's legacy.

Because of the public's inexhaustable appitite for "crap" the New York post will thrive and Rev. Al will live forever

I saw it on the news the other night. It was in very poor taste - George we may heard about before the rest of the country because the chimp incident was in CT. Not only completely racist but degerogatory in regards to the president and what about the poor family that was attacked the chimp... somethings are just better left alone.

BTW - Steph I think it was a personal attack against Obama because of the forgotten crap that went on with him looking like Curious George.

Good grief!

I remember the series with George Bush looking like curious George, but the resemblance was so startling, it was almost cute...

It is something that anyone may think that the electing of President Obama would change the overview of the United States. There are still people who believe in a lost confederate flag. Racism is a mental deficiency and will never go away. There will always be people who still carry with them the traits of the past. To say that this is not a reflection of racism, well some can say whatever they might think our thoughts will always show where our minds were brought up.

Remember that we are now rising on a new slogan "CHANGE". It will be very hard to change the minds of those who believe that they are the best just because they possess a certain skin color. When we begin to teach our children that skin color don't matter (we can see this happening now) this is when change is going to come. Old minds are difficult to find Wisdom and Knowledge and this is because we get a certain age and we know everything. We must be thankful that most of these characters are melting with the coming of global warming and the rest of them will settle their differences with a GOD that they don't believe in.

AN OUTRAGE! AN INSULT TO CHIMPS! It ought to have been a less intelligent creature... like the dodo.

I would say fire the cartoonist and find someone with more class!

All I can say is that this cartoon (if interpreted in the worst way) is nothing compared to what the press and their cartoons did with Lincoln.

I still think that the cartoonist was referring to the idea that if you get enough monkeys typing they will generate something coherent from time to time, given a long enough time, real long. I think that he was comparing the Congressional bill writers (whoever they are) to monkeys.

Question; how many Presidents have been portrayed as monkeys in the past, and how many of those Presidents were Black?

Shame on Eric Holder.

I would say fire the cartoonist and find someone with more class!
Vincent di Fondi , Feb 20, 2009, 8:56am EST

Vincent, it's the New York Post, for gosh sakes!

I don't think the cartoonist was talking about Obama in the first place, but rather congress who really wrote the bill. I feel the cartoonist should have put more thought into this cartoon and forethought as to how it was going to be reacted to. I mean, does this guy live in a bubble or something? I get what he meant, but a lot of other people have a knee-jerk reaction to such things.

It didn't have a thing to do with President Obama. People are over-reacting I think, looking for racism in everything because the President happens to be black this time.
It was all to do with the police having to kill that movie chimp that put a woman in the hospital, and Congress being out of control on spending etc., satirically saying Congress was no smarter than the chimp that was shot... just how I took it when I first saw it.
CNN has a story today, as well as a statement from the Post on it.

This is only the first attempt of many to silence the media against the constitutional guarentee of free speech. The ironies here are legion. It is clear that President Obama (who didn't "write" the bill) isn't being implied. While the ape has been used as a symbol of African Americans, both George W. Bush and (believe it or not) Abraham Lincoln have also been lampooned in political cartoons as an ape and neither are (as far as I know) of African descent. People are grasping at straws; it's not like the New Yorker cartoon we saw last year that had Mr and Mrs Obama clearly in the drawing.

Maybe the Cartoonist meant Pelosi, if I remember right, didn't she have most of the control over it?

People need to lighten up and find the laughter within life.

I don't think it was a shot at Obama, but yeah they should have thought more about how people would interpret it. Although controversy sells, so they may have done it on purpose to get people talking.

thank you for sharing this

The cartoon was a shot at Obama, come on where smart enough to know that!

If the "President who broke the World" was still in office and had to get a similar bill passed you can bet that cartoon would have never been drawn!

As with most papers or media outlets this was all about getting a reaction. This is just another sign of the times and we should keep moving on. All Presidents of the US are and will always be the #1 target for a parody to these so called papers so it is important that we see it for what it is and don't overreact to it. I don't think we can get worked up about every tasteless joke, comic strip drawing etc. when there are so many larger issues for us as individuals, parents, families and writers need to devote our attention to.

This is an absurd overreaction--if people allow themselves to be "enraged" or "disturbed" by a symbol, then they are unwittingly giving the symbol more power.

Too many people are overly sensitive I think on this. That comic is only aimed at Obama if you want to think so, Obama didn't even write it to begin with. IT WAS written by a band of morons however and in America today, insulting animals is more forgiveable than insulting any sub group of humanity.

What? People don't have enough to protest about now? They have to choose this? Why is it alright to portray a white president as a monkey and not Obama? We're not suppose to judge people by the color of their skin but by the content of their character, right? So why do we make such a big deal out of this? We were all once primates, were we not?

I agree with those who did not automatically associate the "monkey" with a race but rather a level of intelligence.
I call my youngest son "monkey" all the time because he is very active, athletic and is quite the climber and occasionally acts a bit silly. :)

I think, even though it would seem the paper was referring to Obama--things such as his having standout ears are being lampooned by many--it is a little much.
I don't mean to excuse the behavior but people do have differing ideas regarding what is funny. Some parodies are even cruel and still funny to many.
People everywhere have a history of making derogatory comments, cartoons and such about celebrities. But--like beauty--most of these things are how the beholder chooses to see them [My earlier comment].

After reading this article:

http://us.mg203.mail.yahoo.com/dc/launch?.partner=sbc&.rand=8b4ect1j78uhr

I have to agree that the cartoon is racist and alludes to the possibility of Obama being assassinated.

If they were referring to a number of people (a group who wrote the stimulus bill) why portray only one chimpanzee?

And doesn't the editor of the paper have the final say on what goes to press?

Sheesh!

This was satire and it was not targetting President Obama directly or even slightly comparing him to a monkey. Those who are trying to make the argument that it was are just blowing this out of porportion and using it to their own advantage.

When I looked at the cartoon I thouhgt of the recent chimp act on a woman who was not doing anything to the chip mauled her. I thouhgt it was a good representaiotn of the vast majority of people working, paying for their homes and other debts being mauled by the politicians in DC and suggests we should get ready for another maulling becuase there will soon be another stimulus package.

It wasn;t until Sharpton got on to MSNBC, CNN, etc. that I even thouhgt of race. NOw I hear that a Congressman is calling all the Govenors who are questioning whether to take the stimulus money racists.

I thouhgt the new Attorney General was off based by calling this a country of cowards. Maybe he meant the ones who don't see race in everything on the news as the cowards.

1. It is racist.
2. It is aimed directly at Obama.
3. It was calculated to titillate the racist, right-wing readers of the Post.
4. It was done by an author that was fully aware of the implications of what he was doing, including the probability of a fusillade of pathetic and disingenuous whines from people like Christopher B., who said:

This is only the first attempt of many to silence the media against the constitutional guarentee of free speech. The ironies here are legion. It is clear that President Obama (who didn't "write" the bill) isn't being implied. While the ape has been used as a symbol of African Americans, both George W. Bush and (believe it or not) Abraham Lincoln have also been lampooned in political cartoons as an ape and neither are (as far as I know) of African descent. People are grasping at straws; it's not like the New Yorker cartoon we saw last year that had Mr and Mrs Obama clearly in the drawing.
Christopher B.

5. There is no chilling of free speech or implication of legal consequences for this. The right to be sleazy and racist in print regarding public officials is constitutionally protected. If the New York Post loses a few readers, I don't think Rupert Murdoch will give a chimp's ass.

6. That said, how great would it be if the Secret Service showed up and asked the cartoonist for his notes. You know, just to cover the case that the cartoonist was serious about campaigning for the assassination of a sitting president.

NOT VERY NICE BUT I GUESS THAT IS FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND EXPRESSION

Obama didn't write the bill. Nancy Pelosi did. Now if the cartoon had said "sign" the bill then it would've been against Obama.

I feel sorry for the (weird--in my opinion) owner of the chimp. She will probably see it as an attack against herself and Travis(?) and nothing more. Just considering her feelings shows the cartoon is in poor taste.

I didn't find it racest.

After reading this I checked out what the NY Post had to say. They explained the cartoon, and what it was meant to depict. As well as sent out an apology. . . .to some. I’m shocked that in this day they thought that the cartoon would be taken as what it was meant to mean, but I guess they did try to right the situation. You can check out what they had to say here: http://www.nypost.com/seven/02202009/postopinion/editorials/that_cartoon_156032.htm

Amanda J.,
"I’m shocked that in this day they thought that the cartoon would be taken as what it was meant to mean..." should cartoonist never to write/draw anything that may offend anyone or is simply certain groups and all others can be offended or is only certain people they shouldn’t risk offending? Should the Post and the Cartoonist have Al Sharpton review and approve all work they do?

Al Sharpton's claim of "racism" diminishes the impact of that that word should have. When I think of racism it conjures a planned effort at slavery, genocide, and other atrocities against mankind.

This cartoon seems to have been created to offend the authors of the "stimulus" package. If you feel no one should be offend then you should similarly chastise those that call us " a nations of cowards" ( the new AG Holder) and Al Sharpton calling this cartoon racism. I am offended by both remarks.

AG Holder obviously doesn’t believe that there have been many thousands of people who have sacrificed their all to remove racism from our country, and they weren’t all of the races being oppressed. He offends all of those who have made those sacrifices.

You should go back over the cartoons that were draw specifically about President Bush or other Presidents over our history to just now become upset with this simple drawing that frames two recent events in a humorous way.

To me Patrick Oliphant and his ilk are the real disappointments; they have been silent on this whole issue. It is apparent; if a cartoonist doesn’t have their political preference then they should be attack, publicly ridiculed, and muzzled.

When a chimp or monkey is portrayed in a comical fashion - I take it to mean that the illustrator is calling his subject a bufoon or an out of control person who is acting on instinct rather than intelligence. This does seem to be a rather accurate portrayal of the way this country and it's leaders are chasing their tails around trying to come up with a solution to our financial ails. I would never equate any portrayal of a primate to an African American, which is unconscionably racist. Having said that - given the history of atrocities upon and inaccurate portrayals of African Americans in this country -the author should have forseen the type of reaction this cartoon could invoke. Furthermore I think that the implication that the frustrated general public should step up and put an end to our out of control leaders with a bullet was possibly more egregious.

I honestly don't think it was racist, since everyone knows that Momma Pelosi wrote that spending bill. However, the libs will always spin a racist web into every single thing they can.

shameful piece of cartoon. you are right they made a grave mistake.

Mich, I totally agree with your comment here:

"When a chimp or monkey is portrayed in a comical fashion - I take it to mean that the illustrator is calling his subject a bufoon or an out of control person who is acting on instinct rather than intelligence. "
Mich C., Feb 22, 2009, 1:02pm EST

Duane, you said, "This cartoon seems to have been created to offend the authors of the "stimulus" package." I agree absolutely. And IF Obama is at all referenced within that category, he is only referenced as one among many who are behaving as if they are working their way out of a maze in order to get to the bunch of bananas they have for so long been denied. Monkeys, one and all, working on instinct with barely a conscious thought among em.

I don't normally put it in those kinds of terms but the ridiculous drama surrounding this supposed "racist" cartoon (and the terribly sad end of that poor chimp) kept my attention on it for far longer than it deserved and gave me time to realize that it had to have been monkeys who wrote that stimulus bill. The illustration only brought out the hidden truth of it for all to see.


This cartoon seems to have been created to offend the authors of the "stimulus" package. If you feel no one should be offend then you should similarly chastise those that call us " a nations of cowards" ( the new AG Holder) and Al Sharpton calling this cartoon racism. I am offended by both remarks.
Duane B., Feb 21, 2009, 2:46pm EST

Agreed. I only wish this administration would be at least as insulting and condescending to the enemies of this country as it has so far been to the American people and the U.S. herself as a Sovereign entity. :(


Shame on Eric Holder.
Felix R., Feb 20, 2009, 9:17am EST

Dusty,
Lol. :) I'm with you on that one.

The real story of the chimp is so sad that it is hard to laugh at the "cartoon" that resulted. It would also be sad if it was a dodo, but as you say it certainly might be more descriptive of who the cartoon was targeting (should Obama be standing in the bullseye or near that target, well, he has only himself to blame). But ... no dodo was (dare I say) 'available' since the situation itself was so sad?

Well ... it's the only word that describes it. The Chimp was, sadly, in the right place at the right time to be used (terribly but aptly) in this cartoon; and a dodo was not.



AN OUTRAGE! AN INSULT TO CHIMPS! It ought to have been a less intelligent creature... like the dodo.
Dusty W., Feb 20, 2009, 8:50am EST

Dwayne (Dwayne C., Feb 20, 2009, 8:46am EST ) said: "It is something that anyone may think that the electing of President Obama would change the overview of the United States."


I get the point he is trying to make.

But watching this particular drama unfold over the months since Obama became 'Candidate Obama' has, for me, been like watching someone who has committed adultery go through a meltdown.

The adulterer begins to "recognize" the signs that allll of his friends are also doing the same thing he is doing. He can now also recognize those same "signs" in people he has never even met; he had no idea so many other people were cheating on their spouses. The truth is, some of those people might be adulterers, but most are not. It's just that because he is involved in adultery, it's his focus these days.

He also begins to see expressions on his wife's face that he interprets as "knowing" or "secretive", and starts acting like her every sentence and question is designed to "trick him up"; when in reality she knows nothing and is unaware of even his growing discomfiture. She is innocent. +shrug+ After a while he convinces himself that she must be ignoring his doings because ---- because she must be doing it too! She really is not ... it's just his guilty conscience making him see in others what he himself is so familiar with and guilty of. +shrug+

Those who saw racism in this cartoon are the ones who won't let go of racism. If they really were the progressive ones, the enlightened ones who have moved past racism they would have seen a cartoon like any other cartoon. Instead, as usual since Obama came on the public scene and then with more venom when he was Candidate Obama, every flick of a finger, movement of an eye, or turn of phrase has become "racist" even when there was/is no basis for that assumption in reality.

Sometimes there is a reason to look askance or with suspicion on some things. It's not like racism is completely gone ... I'm not stupid and not that naive. But seeing racism in anything a conservative says or does or thinks; or seeing any thing that remotely resembles a disagreement, disapproval, or dislike of Obama as racism is more like obsessively crying wolf than it is like anything resembling reality.

Racism is still around and we should continue to be vigilant. But it has gone far beyond vigilance almost into hysteria. Racism seems now to be concentrated more and more not in reality but within the hearts of those who perceive it everywhere, within everything, everyone, every comment, every look, and every breath, 24/7; because it's *their* reality. But like the 'reality' of the adulterer, not everyone and every situation "recognized" as racist is actually based in racism. It's just some people's inability or lack of desire (for what ever reason) to shift their focus into the reality that sometimes a joke IS just a joke, sometimes black is just another color, and sometimes a chimp is just a chimp (or a symbol of a lack of propriety and forethought as well as silliness).

I agree with all of the comments listed below.



Obama didn't even write it to begin with. IT WAS written by a band of morons however ...
Charles Temm JR , Feb 20, 2009, 1:22pm EST


I don't think the cartoonist was talking about Obama in the first place, but rather congress who really wrote the bill.
DesertDarlene L., Feb 20, 2009, 9:38am EST



It didn't have a thing to do with President Obama. People are over-reacting I think, looking for racism in everything because the President happens to be black this time.
John S. (arizona), Feb 20, 2009, 9:50am EST


I honestly don't think it was racist, since everyone knows that Momma Pelosi wrote that spending bill. However, the libs will always spin a racist web into every single thing they can.
Joy McCormick, Feb 23, 2009, 9:09am EST



I don't think the Post was targeting Obama. He did not write the bill himself.
stephanie witusky

I didn't find it racest.
Janet "Jax" B., Feb 21, 2009, 12:47am EST

Melanie,
Yeah, it was a dig at Obama ... in a roundabout way since he seems to wholeheartedly approve of what Pelosi et al sent to his desk to sign. But only in that round about way. +shrug+ Obama is the "they", not the chimp.

In regard to something like this never being drawn irt Bush, if you haven't already, take a look here:
http://blackmystory.files.wordpress.com/2008/05/curious-george.jpg
http://www.bushorchimp.com/


You might never see it since I'm so late to the conversation ... but it's here just in case you do happen to cruise back by.




The cartoon was a shot at Obama, come on where smart enough to know that!

If the "President who broke the World" was still in office and had to get a similar bill passed you can bet that cartoon would have never been drawn!
Melanie C., Feb 20, 2009, 12:10pm EST

Liz,
I looked it up ...

http://blackmystory.files.wordpress.com/2008/05/curious-george.jpg
http://www.bushorchimp.com/

Looks to me like Bush took more of a beating irt this particular little cartoon and irt other siminan representations than Obama did or ever will. Still, Curious George is cute no matter who he supposedly represents.





Good grief!

I remember the series with George Bush looking like curious George, but the resemblance was so startling, it was almost cute...
Liz H., Feb 20, 2009, 8:44am EST
Lee Y., Mar 9,

Was the Borders' Book incident a coincident?