When I read the cartoon my first thought was what were they thinking? It looked entirely racist to me. I’ve heard the explanations of what the cartoon was suppose to mean, I’ve read the “apology”, at the very least it was bad judgment but at it’s worst it is blatant racism. I still think it was the latter:
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2009/02/nypost-obama-ca.html
I think this is one of those occasions where the results reflect an automatic response the artist didn’t even realize he had. The connection between the monkey and bill is a strange one and definately implies a racist stereotype. It might not have been intentional likely wasn’t, but it is an interesting reflex to make that connection. At the least it is really bad taste.
I’ve been accused of crying “racist!” on this forum more than anyone and, frankly, I did not take this to be racist at all.
My first reaction was, “Okay, they are saying that the chimp who was just shot was the one who was writing the stimulus bill.” Kind of like, congress was getting their direction from this chimp. I never once thought that it was stating that Obama is a chimp or that he should be shot.
Now, I can understand why people would react that way, but that simply wasn’t the impression I got…and I HATE the NY Post.
It was big news that the police had to be called in to kill a crazed chimpanzee who was dismembering a woman. Comparing Obama or Congress to this crazed chimpanzee is understandable and not necessarily racist. Reference the all too common chimp/W comparisons. Derogatory and demeaning of course but not necessarily racist. In fact, if you mock up Obama’s ears and mouth, you get a much better likeness of a chmpanzee than you do by mocking up Bush’s ears and mouth. What I found disturbing was not the chimpanzee reference but the fact that it was killed. That aspect disturbing to me, i.e., that you could joke about Obama or Congress being killed by the police.
That’s very strange. I can’t see any connection, not even a humorous one, between the two news stories. (And yes, I do have an appreciation for humor, even off-color humor.) Normally, cartoonists will play off of some kind of a connection. Is there some kind of parallelism in the chimp story that I didn’t hear about?
In any case, let’s hope we don’t see a wave of embassy bombings and flag burnings to protest the cartoon. (Hey, there’s some off-color humor right there!)
that you could joke about Obama or Congress being killed by the police.
Very good point.
I always struggle with whether I don’t see racist images because I’m white or whether I see things that aren’t there because I try to put myself in the place of whomever is being targeted/not targeted. Am I oversensitive or undersensitive?
This guy is also known for his anti-gay sentiments in his cartoons. Certainly was “meant” to be racist.
“If you mock up Obama’s ears and mouth, you get a much better likeness of a chmpanzee than you do by mocking up Bush’s ears and mouth.”
I hope you didn’t intend that as a contribution to the “national conversation” on race that Eric Holder’s been calling for. 
I think you are probably right down the middle. I think it is fair to say that you understand that comparing a black person to a primate has racist overtones if there is no other reason to do so than the fact that they are black. But I think it is unfair to contend that it is always a racist comparison. For example, 5 year old boys are prone to act like monkeys no matter what the color of their skin. Saying so does not make one a racist.
I’m with BarryP. It didn’t occur to me to correlate a chimp with President Obama. I took it as a dig on Congress and not racial. Kind of along the same lines as the old saying that if you give 1 million chimps 1 million typewriters they will eventually churn out War and Peace.
This is one of those (many) instances where the offended party is not the party that might have any reason to actually be offended.
Some call it “white man’s burden” - a chronic fear of offense and propensity to overreact on another party’s behalf caused by the guilt of centuries spent raping and pillaging other countries and nations.
This also is what led to the creation of political correctness.
go team
I can’t see any connection, not even a humorous one, between the two news stories
Well let me explain it for you. There’s an old saying that if you take 50,000 monkeys typing on a keyboard for 50,000 years eventually one of them will write the great american novel. Since the “stimulus package” was not the great american bill, and we just killed a monkey, “I guess we can’t count on him to write the next stimulus package”.
Thats a very nuanced interpretation, probably much too nuanced for the average reader of the New York Post.
Take the cartoon at face value, its basest interpretation, don’t over analyze or read too much into it, because we are talking Post readers here…and what do you get?
I heard it was 1 million. 
(see post #10)
I’m familiar with the saying, but would never have thought of that connection. Perhaps that was indeed what the cartoonist had in mind. I’ll have to say, though, that it would take a lot more than 25 x 10**8 monkey-years to come up with THAT bill.
I had the same thought when I read that. Racism is such an emotional subject, and pc to the point of being almost tyrannical, that it’s risky to think out loud publicly anymore, however innocent the intention.
I agree with Barry here. I don’t see the monkey being Obama, but him being congress.
Wouldn’t Obama have to actually write a piece of legislation to be compared to this fictional monkey writing a bill?
It gets worse. Did you see the story today about the Fox news guy who called Holder a monkey with a bright blue scrotum? Just wow.
It was interesting that the cartoon comes concurrently with Eric Holder’s comments about race. WSJ: “Consider the paradox: Racial “sensitivity” requires not eradicating racial stereotypes but keeping them alive–and not only keeping them alive but remaining acutely conscious of them at all times. Delonas and his editors are under attack for seeing “chimp” and failing to think “black guy.” Perhaps this is an editorial failing, but it is certainly not a moral one.”
WSJ today: http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB123514880910734301.html
That was a hoax. Amazing what people will believe.