On The Obama-Chimp Cartoon
We’re filing this under our “picture of the day†section only because we don’t have a category for intellectual dishonesty.
The national freak-out over this New York Post cartoon is now entering its second day.
Buzzkills that we are, we’re compelled to interrupt the mania with a measure of intellectual curiosity, the likes of which hasn’t been seen since the last time we insightfully cut into political cartoons and the racial hysterics they inspire.
Now listen, we absolutely refuse to involve ourselves in any “is-it-or-isn’t-it” musings, nor do we really care if the cartoon is or is not a racial dig at Barack Obama.
It’s not the first time that pictures of primates have been read as racism; and it won’t be the last.
It also won’t be the last time that the race-baiting triggers tone-deaf editorial statements like the following “defense†from Post editor-in-chief Col Allan:
“The cartoon is a clear parody of a current news event, to wit the shooting of a violent chimpanzee in Connecticut. It broadly mocks Washington’s efforts to revive the economy.â€
That explanation is nothing more than a plaintive self-indictment – an admission that the anger is justified, that the justified should be angry.
Not only does it do positively nothing to defuse the ire, it actually crystallizes the charges of racism.
Even though we don’t possess the gene required to feel offense, we can still see – intellectually if not emotionally – what all the fuss is about.
And what all the fuss is about is the failure of the cartoon to draw any peripheral connection between a dead ape and a dig at Obama.
Without the allusion to (and illusion of) any secondary point, the cartoon can only be construed as a reference to race.
It simply offers no alternative takeaway.
What you see it what you get, and what you see is a dead ape and a caption alluding to the President … what you get is the idea that the cartoon is racial as much as political, or, worse, that it’s political only insofar as it provides a context for the racism.
Which is to say nothing bad about the cartoon.
Here’s where the intellectual honesty comes in – ours – and also the intellectual dishonesty – the editor’s, and his ilk’s.
The cartoon is racist – that’s a plain fact to any halfway discerning person.
Can everyone – the cartoon’s supporters and detractors – just admit that?
To pretend that it doesn’t – as are most conservatives – is to reject the reality of what’s in front of you in black and white. (Ink and paper, people, ink and paper. Simmer down).
Editor Allan and everybody else can defend the cartoon – but they lose all intellectual credibility if they don’t also admit the racism therein.
Allan’s statement, frankly, is a perfect illustration of the flaunted anti-intellectualism political correctness has foisted on all of us.
Rather than defend the cartoon, or the cartoonist, or the newspaper, or his own editorial integrity, he obliquely submits.
His statement is just like the cartoon itself, two disjointed sentiments.
The whole thing is reminiscent of the abortion debate: Pro-choicers refuse to admit that it’s murder they support; pro-lifers refuse to admit that it’s liberalism they support. (Because legislation is liberalism, no matter what).
Whatever your offensive beliefs, believe ‘em.
Just recognize them for what they are. Own it, and be done with it. You might be offensive, racist, hateful, et cetera, but at least you’ll be intellectually honest.
And that still counts for something.
Cartoon: New York Post
Comments
By chimp cartoon defender on February 19th, 2009 at 2:12 am
only problem is, the President didn’t write the stimulus bill, Congressinoal lawyers did. So how does the chimp = Obama?
By Joe Rosen on February 19th, 2009 at 3:09 am
The biggest story in New York area is the chimp, and other big story is stimulas bill. Cartoonist combined them, and did great job. Congres and Senators, plus advisors put bill together, so to say chimp represesnt Obama is wrong. Great cartoon, ruined by hysterics.
By Cooter Brown on February 19th, 2009 at 8:15 am
You cant pleaze dese peoples no matta whatcha says.
Cryin’ “racism” is’a brick bat wit no meanin’. It lik sayin’ “Does you still beat yer wife?” (No offence, Mista Willie, that’s jest how da sayin’ goes…)
No matta whach say, youve condemned yo-self. “Im notta racist” is-a self incriminatin statement–
it’a trap an’ one dat we betta get usedto if’n we plan to oppose dis King ‘Bama feller & his peoples in Warshington.
By Tim on February 19th, 2009 at 8:54 am
It’s not often you can have commenters lining up to prove your point, apparently without their even realizing it. Well done, Man Willie.
By Aquinas on February 19th, 2009 at 9:04 am
“The whole thing is reminiscent of the abortion debate: Pro-choicers refuse to admit that it’s murder they support; pro-lifers refuse to admit that it’s liberalism they support. (Because legislation is liberalism, no matter what).” …Huh? Check your logic, FITS. If you follow that crazy train of thought, then ANY legislation – including those that are meant to protect society from oh, simple little things like theft, rape, assault, etc. – is considered liberalism. Wow. This is what you get when fundamentalists from any stripe try to define the world through such a narrow lens. Try removing the fiscal plank from your eye first, before you go after the liberal speck in your neighbor’s eye.
As a pro-lifer, I fail to see the connection with getting RID of a law that allows murder of another human being during the first 9 months of development, while upholding what the Declaration puts forth: that all are created equal and entitled to life, the very first right. Maybe you can elighten me, FITS.
By CL on February 19th, 2009 at 9:24 am
The cartoon is racist only to an ignorant person of limited intellect. As the 1st poster highlighted, Obama had nothing to do with writing the bill. That is part of the problem with the bill. I was somewhat optimistic when Obama claimed he was going to upgrade infrastructure, such as fiber optics. I believe this is a pressing need, and I was glad that if government spending was going to skyrocket, at least it would go to something useful. But instead, the President outsourced the drafting of the bill to Dumb (Reid) and Dumber (Pelosi). I think the cartoon is actually an insult to the chimp, since it compares him to the Dems in Congress.
Setting that factual problem aside, have you ever heard of the infinite monkey theorem? The meme of a writing (or typing) monkey (which play off of the theorem but fundamentally misinterpret it) is well established in popular culture. One of my favorites comes from the Simpsons, when the producer of Itchy & Scratchy said, “You call this writing?!? If I puked in a fountain pen & mailed it to the monkey house I’d get better scripts!”
By Patricia Jursik on February 19th, 2009 at 10:19 am
I’m not going to go ape over this anti-cop, gun totting pig story in wolf’s, er chimp’s, clothing. Everytime conservative’s want to justify cop brutality they do it by calling out the libs. Wait til the NRA weighs in.
By Pat Hendrix on February 19th, 2009 at 1:15 pm
Not racist, just dumb. As for “national outcry”? Ugh, where? I see a couple of the usual suspects pissing and moaning about another irrelevant issur is once again conflated into something it isn’t at fits.
If you guys could get through a day with resorting to strawmen arguments and fact-free right-wing talking points it would be a miracle.
By Mande Wilkes on February 19th, 2009 at 1:44 pm
Pat -
Right-wing talking points?? I specifically called out conservatives on this one.
Your drive-by partisan shot proves the article’s point . . . thank you!
-Mande
By Pat Hendrix on February 19th, 2009 at 4:47 pm
Mande,
You are so correct. I think. You’re writing is so incomprehensible that I often get confused. Perhaps I’ll spend more time deciphering your posts in the future if you promise to take a remedial writing class.
Lesson 1) Try writing a post without using an ellipses or exclamation points. Okay…Mande!!!!
By Pat Hendrix on February 19th, 2009 at 4:51 pm
As for “drive by partisan shots”, let me introduce you to the Olympic Gold Medalist:
Mande, meet fitsnews.
By Mike on February 19th, 2009 at 6:20 pm
Sorry, the cartoon is only as “racist” as are the views of the beholder. No obvious secondary reference to some “second point” exists because none is required; the cartoon is a simple reference to two points. The first (and most glaringly obvious) is the heavily cycled current news piece attendant to the tragic chimp attack, while the second (almost as obvious) inference would be that the now-dead chimp had written the flawed stimulus bill.
For humor to work, some teeny-tiny level of subtlety must exist. For example, many folks ruin the old W.C. Fields / Winston Churchill anecdote regarding an exchange between the protagonist and a woman of high society by killing the subtlety thus:
Lady: You, sir, are drunk!
W.C. / Winston: Aaaaah, but you, ma’am, are ugly, and in the morning I’ll be sober.
The “I can’t do subtlety” crowd routinely adds the unnecessary and nuance-killing “and you’ll still be ugly” to the concise, brilliant, and witty response. Only the brain-dead need the added diagram.
Likewise, and asterisked disclaimer across the bottom of the cartoon indicating that, as any “halfway discerning person” knows the Democratic Congressional Caucus wrote the stimulus bill, thus the comparison is between the recently euthanized chimp and that group of similar intellectual ability would most certainly drain the last drop of humor from what was an otherwise entertaining analogy.
So, you’re obviously not (by definition) refraining from the “is-it-or-isn’t it” musings, you’re just on the wrong side of the argument. Your logically fallacious abortion debate reference/analogy is nothing more than poisoning the well, as they say in freshman logic courses, so it can’t be debated.
Sorry to get so long-winded, but I obviously disagree with your premise wholeheartedly. A racial undertone may exist here, but it’s not in the cartoon. If we have to be THIS guarded for the next four years to avoid every crazy, tenuous interpretation in political speech, it’ll be along four years indeed.
By Mande Wilkes on February 19th, 2009 at 10:19 pm
Mike -
You know what? You’re right.
You and I are on the same page…you’re calling it nuance and I’m calling it intellectual honesty. The appreciation of either relies on the capacity for both.
With that in mind, it’s quite possible that I conceded the racial issue in order to further my larger point.
By Mike on February 19th, 2009 at 11:09 pm
If your larger point is the fact that intellectual honesty is becoming rare (or practically nonexistent) in modern American political debate, we are in total agreement. I would take it one step further and say that most of what passes for debate these days is either a talking head, emotionally-driven screaming match that make Maury Povich or Jerry Springer proud, or an organized exchange of intellectually dishonest (there you go) talking points. My only beef was your interpretation of the cartoonist’s intent. Your article made me read way more of the cartoon’s reaction pieces than I ever would have otherwise, and your intellectual honesty point is well-taken; much of the rabid, accusatory responses from civil rights leaders appears to me to be opportunistic grandstanding. They know better, or should.
By Scott on February 19th, 2009 at 11:12 pm
I’m with Mande on this! I think she has Mike by the balls!