… about the New York Post “chimp” cartoon. While he and I wouldn’t see eye to eye on many things (though his Greek Grammar beyond the Basics is brilliant!) I particularly appreciate this coming from him.
I don’t regard printing this cartoon as responsible, but I want to make sure to note that I think newspapers have the right to be irresponsible, just as the rest of us have the right (and one might say duty) to call them on it.
. . . and well they should. MSNBC has the story. One interesting paragraph was this one: Legal experts say the case shows the United States has violated a 1998 law that specifically prohibits the government from turning a suspect over to a foreign country where the suspect might be tortured. U.S. authorities say they…
There! That should be provocative enough as a title. Actually this post will be more of a gathering of election thoughts at this point in the campaign. But first, to honor the title, I think that there are very few people in this country who can honestly claim that race has no influence on their…
… but not its own. Be sure to follow the links.
Troy Britain has it absolutely right on freedom of speech, with the added bonus that I get to agree with Christopher Hitchens at the same time, which doesn’t happen nearly as often.
I voted yesterday in the Florida primary. Despite being registered as independent (I oppose recognition of specific political parties by the government) I had one local election in which I was eligible to vote. So I did. I always do. I also like to actually go to a polling place on election day in order…
I could have sworn I was a left-leaning libertarian, and certainly more moderate than this one makes me: My Political ViewsI am a right social libertarianRight: 3.77, Libertarian: 5.64Political Spectrum Quiz Though this part doesn’t surprise me a bit: My Foreign Policy ViewsScore: -7.02Political Spectrum Quiz And this was a bit further left than I’d…
What do you find objectionable about the cartoon? Some think this has some connection to racism and Mr Obama. I think that’s a stretch. For:
* a pet chimp was shot recently (in New York I think)
* Mr Obama is not the author of the bill.
* The chimp looks nothing like him.
* Mr Bush was frequently portrayed as chimplike, so clearly portraying the President qua POTUS is not out of bounds.
* If you object to the stimulus … you might want to portray is it being a very stupidly written bill.
So … why is this “irresponsible?
Mark – I disagree with you often, but based both on this comment and on your trackbacks, I have rarely disagreed with you as much as this.
First, I do think the racist background of the imagery is clear and obvious, and I have a hard time believing that most people don’t recognize that element. Nonetheless that is not, for me, the major issue.
Second, while presidents have been represented in many insulting ways, I have never done so, even when I disagree. I will get quite vehement in describing policies, actions, and even the whole record. I have been hearing the complaints from the right about how the left has treated Bush for 8 years. I’m now on notice, obviously that the many on the right have a bit of a blind spot on their own actions.
But finally, here’s the real thing. It’s having the cops shoting the chimp. I don’t think the imagery is a good idea. I would not purchase a paper that regularly published such material.
Why did I particularly respond to this one? Because a conservative writer responded in what I thought was a responsible and thoughtful manner to an attack on a liberal president. I’ve always respected Dan Wallace. Now I respect him more.
Henry,
What in the image causes you to connect the image with Obama? I didn’t make that connection, and it wouldn’t have occurred to me absent the discussions.
Nazi propaganda represented Jews as rats or dogs. Should we (or German papers) never ever show a rat or a dog in a cartoon because at one time that had a particular meaning? Given the recent event (in Connecticut not New York, but close by in space and time nevertheless) the use of a chimp image seems to me not racial.
The Post did apologize to those who might have taken offense by the way.
But, it seems to me that political cartoons as a genre would offend your sensibilities in this regard on a regular basis from either the left, the right, or from (even worse) papers from past centuries.
Well, we’ll simply have to disagree on that. As I’ve said, I think the connection is obvious. I think your illustration serves more to support my point than yours.
And a very poor apology it was.
In fact, there are quite a number of political cartoons that I do not like, though only a small percentage that would cross the line where I would decide not to buy the paper that printed them. Normally I just don’t bother to look.
In this case, I find the combination of violence and a racially suggestive image goes over the line for me.
Note that I remain an extreme advocate of free speech, including for cartoons such as this. Personal approval is another matter.