So how about that New York Post chimpanzee cartoon? There’s plenty of insightful commentary lighting up the blogosphere on it today. But, in my usual self-serving manner, I’ll point you to the current post at UrbanFaith.com (with an assist from Sojo.net) for a nice overview/perspective piece on the controversy.
The debate over whether the cartoon was just boneheaded insensitivity or blatant racism is something that will continue as long as there’s such a thing as monocultural editorial teams (wasn’t there anyone in that NY Post newsroom to raise a caution flag?) and monophonic civil rights activitsts (Al Sharpton leads the charge again). But, as a journalist, one of the most interesting aspects of the controversy for me is the ethical questions it raises for the media and other communication leaders. For an exploration of that dimension, I think Steve Myers and Mallary Tenore’s report at Poynter Online is excellent. In it, Ted Rall, president of the Association of American Cartoonists, won’t label the chimp cartoon as racist, but he does call it a “misfire.” From the article:
The flap over this cartoon does illustrate the difficulty editorial cartoonists, who are generally white men in their 50s, have in dealing with race, Rall said. As for African-American cartoonists, “as far as I know, there’s only one or two working in the entire country.”
If you’re like me, you’re probably weary of this type of thing. It seems every couple months there’s a new brouhaha, whether it’s Obama Waffles or LeBron James on the cover of Vogue.
From my perspective, the question should be: Will we use these incidents to start constructive conversations about race, culture, and understanding (the kind I believe Attorney General Eric Holder was attempting to get at yesterday), or will we use them as justification for our hostility and as vehicles for our continued separation?
Reconciliation Blog 
I don’t think that a person has to be like you to be weary of these things. I think that – for quite disparate reasons – most sorts of people are tired of either this sort of thing or the controversy and behavior it ignites.
If only a distraught clown had gone berserk in Stamford, CT a few days ago, instead of the ape. Most people hate clowns, and there are no clown advocacy groups to my knowledge. . .
Were you aware that Ted Rall runs a blog called “The Smirking Chimp,” named for George W. Bush?
Sean Delonas is not the only one who misfires.
When I first saw this cartoon (before any mention of protest) I thought owch that is a tad harsh making fun of something that was so awful, the woman getting her face ripped up by the chimp.
(if anybody missed that do a search, very sad story).
The point of the cartoon is that the bill was a mess, like it was written by monkeys.
No way is it saying Obama is a monkey.
BTW I supported Obama and am NO fan of Murdoch, NY Post, Rush, Malkin, or any of those clowns.
Thanks for your comments. I usually try to stay out of the way here in the comments area, but can I chime in a bit?
Jonolan – My use of the phrase “If you’re like me” was not a reference to my race or cultural background, which you seem to be suggesting (correct me if I’m wrong), but simply an old way of saying, “If you’re ‘feeling’ like me.” Nothing more.
Wilsonrofishing – Yeah, clowns can be a little spooky. 🙂
Actually, I think your blog post and other comments here and around the blogosphere reveal how different people bring different perspectives to these things based on all sorts of things (cultural background, political leaning, whether as a kid they were traumatized by the clowns at the circus). When I initially saw that cartoon, my first thought upon reading the police officer’s words was, “Are they really calling Obama a monkey?!” It took me a couple more seconds to make the connection to the Connecticut chimp case. I’m sure some of you will want to judge me as being overly sensitive or “playing the race card,” but I assure you it wasn’t that. Based on my personal experiences and reference points, that’s simply where I began. I think the more important thing is for you to try to understand why I would begin with that perspective and for me to try to understand why you would see it from your perspective. If we could all approach it with that disposition, rather than one of scorn or dismissiveness, perhaps we could move beyond our tendency to get stuck on stuff like this.
Gina – No, I didn’t know anything about Ted Rall, except that he’s the president of that editorial cartoonist association who was quoted in the article. I’m not quite sure whether your intent is to point out the irony or to suggest that it’s okay for Sean Delonas to “misfire” (from the perspective of many) on Obama because Ted Rall has “misfired” on Bush. Let me know what you’re thinking.
Okay, I’ve probably said too much. I’ll shut up now.
Thanks for reading the Poynter piece, Edward. I’m glad you found it interesting/helpful in your thinking about the issue.
~Mallary
Edward,
My apologies for the confusion. When I said. “I don’t think that a person has to be like you to be weary of these things” I was referring to your opinion on the matter and your level of exposure to this and similar matters far more than “race or cultural background.”
Ed,
I think you bring up an important point, the first impression of something like this.
When I saw this cartoon, I did not think of race or Barack Obama. I thought of that crazy chimp that got shot and thought that the point was to say how crazy the stimulus bill was, probably because I agree with that sentiment.
I think part of the problem we have with trusting people who come from different perspectives is that sometimes those perspectives are so different that we assume that someone else is lying on some level to say they hold their particular opinion.
Ed, thanks for your input. What I was thinking was this: We’ve been through eight years of people constantly calling President Bush a chimp. Chimp this, chimp that, here a chimp, there a chimp, everywhere a chimp. (Google “Bush chimp” and you’ll see what I mean.) When and where the meme started, I don’t know, but once it did start, it exploded.
And then someone draws a cartoon picturing the stimulus bill as something thrown together by a chimp — reflecting many people’s opinion of the bill itself, and without any clear reference to President Obama at all — and Ted Rall & co. go “OMG EVIL EVIL EVIL HOW DARE YOU!!!!!!!”
Is it any wonder the old Hypocrisy Detector goes off in many of our minds?
It’s not as if Ted Rall has been a paragon of sensitivity, either; see the 2004 Rall cartoon in which Condoleeza Rice was depicted using a racial epithet — yes, THAT racial epithet — to describe herself. Which makes it rather ironic to see Mr. Rall assuming the moral high ground now.
As for clowns, I never understood the “spooky” thing at all. I like clowns. Maybe it’s because I never saw that Stephen King movie. 🙂
Wow, I just looked at some of Ted Rall’s stuff, and he has NO credibility on this issue.
It does raise the oh so fun question though: Why does a cartoon that doesn’t even directly portray a black liberal politician raise such a fuss, while someone blatantly portraying a black conservative in a racist manner gets no attention at all?
Gina,
while I do not think the cartoon portrayed Obama, saying because George W. Bush was portrayed as a chimp those angry at this cartoon are hypocrites is not taking history in account.
Bush portrayed as a chimp was meant to show he was dumb, not that white people are dumb, animales, etc.
White people have not compared to chimps/monkeys for years and years, Black people have so saying Obama is a chimp would be more offensive because you are saying he and all blacks are sub human.
Again I don’t think that this cartoon was portraying Obama as a chimp and I think the protesters are mistaken, but not hypocrites.
Hate to belabor this discussion if it’s winding down, but a friend pointed out to me an element of the cartoon that I hadn’t noticed before. On the pole in the drawing is a “Beware of Dog” sign. Since the setting for the cartoon seems to be a city street, that sign seems a bit out of place. Or does this refer to an aspect of the Connecticut story that I missed?
I have no clue, Edward. I noticed the sign when I first saw the cartoon and could find no meaning it in reference to Obama, Congress, the Stimulus or the chimp attack.
I’ve had some exhausting discussions on this cartoon already. I think how we can dialog about it is most important. It’s tragic that people don’t see how it can be conveyed as racist, and at the same time, it’s an opportunity to at least expose others to the knowledge that someone might be offended by it.
I’m largely bothered, but the opportunity to make baby steps with others has helped temper my attitude.
Ariah Fine,
“It’s tragic that people don’t see how it can be conveyed as racist, and at the same time, it’s an opportunity to at least expose others to the knowledge that someone might be offended by it.”
It’s to my mind at least equally tragic that so many people – without direct reference to any Black and with other interpretations and context available to them – chose to see it as racist, at the same time it’s an opportunity to at least expose others to the knowledge that someone might not particularly care about their sensitivities since they don;t share them and the world – while still far from perfect – has moved on.
Jonolan,
can you explain what you mean by “without direct reference to any Black and with other interpretations…”? Guess I didn’t quite understand that.
If I hear you correctly your saying that you find it tragic that people actually see the cartoon as racist?
And you see it as an opportunity to inform people to the fact that others simply don’t care whether one thinks it’s racist or not?
Not sure who your specifically referring to when you say “the world” but your saying they have moved on, and thus so should we?
Am I hearing you right?
ariah,
On “without direct reference to any Black”:
Was Obama mentioned in the cartoon? Did Obama write the Stimulus abomination? Did the ongoing complaints about the details of the legislation ever mention anyone other than Pelosi & Reid (both White by the way)?
On with other interpretations:
Has America not repeatedly called Congress “a bunch of baboons?” Is it not a trope in common parlance that “a trained chimp could have done that better?” Further afield and slightly more erudite versions involving monkeys, typewriters, time and random chance also exist.
You heard me close enough to correctly not to make a difference; I find it tragic that people see the cartoon as racist. When presented with imagery that included elements (White police officers & a chimp) that have the potential to have a racial tone, they chose to realize that potential and discount any other possible interpretation.
All that shows is the tragic truth that bitterness, hate, and insecurity are alive and well in some quarters of the Black community. Their ancestral wounds have never healed, possibly because they and others keep “picking at them.”
When multiple interpretations of something like a cartoon exist, why should people who find no overt offense particularly care if other people do so? That’s not in way to say that it’s wrong to be offended; it’s just wrong – in the sense of being mistaken – to expect others to be as well.
wow jonolan, I was tracking with you there for a bit but not at the end.
I think that you are missing 3 points about perspective. One: we all see the world through the perspective of our experience. If one grows up in a black family or in close associate to black friends, one cannot miss the potential racial stereotypes of things like this. Further, black folks often find such racial blindness on the part of whites to be evidence of racism.
I was at a black wedding once where a white visitor said AFFECTIONATELY of the brides party that they looked like gorillas. . . I knew her well enough that this was inexcusable ignorance rather than intentional racism. . . but the black female friend of mine that she said it to “wasn’t hearin’ it!!!”
I find it hard to believe that virtually any black person in america seeing this cartoon would find no correlation between the chimp, Pres Obama, and racism. As Ed said, where was the black person in the editing room to point this out??
Two: the context in the NY post itself was a big part of what caused the association between the chimp and Obama. It was on the page immediately following an article about Obama and the stimulus. So even if you could miss the association looking solely at the cartoon, its context in the paper created and/or reinforced the association.
Three: Your outsider perspective of the black community (referred to as “them”) puts you outside of a context to say with persuasive effect that “bitterness, hate and insecurity are alive and well in some parts of the black community”. It just sounds judgmental and angry.
We differ on our conclusion: I find it quite understandable that many people view it as racist. And that, as Michael Emerson would say, is a reflection of our racialized existences.
I’ll just say,” Amen,” Joel. You can take it from here, your far more eloquent then my attempts were.
I have mixed feelings about this whole thing. I can see why some people would interpret this cartoon as being racist. But at the same time time I disagree with that conclusion, and I believe the cartoonist and/or paper explained what the cartoon meant and that the chimp was not a reference to Obama.
So, I’m frustrated with people who are saying, “How can you possibly see this as racist?” while also being frustrated with people who refuse to see it any other way, even after the artist explained where he was coming from and refuted the claim. But then again I think they were kinda jerky about it in the beginning…
I hope we can all offer grace, no matter where we fall on this issue and others like it. I don’t know how this personal experience relates, but I posted a note on my Facebook page just a couple of days ago that offended some of my friends. Long story short, many people interpreted something I wrote in a very different way than I intended or could predict. Thankfully, my friends believed me when I explained what I really meant by what I wrote, and I deleted the note so I wouldn’t make anyone else upset unnecessarily.
I lost my point. I need sleep.
This is a little off-topic, but I think it’s probably the best place to put it: I was wondering if anyone had any thoughts on Chris Matthews’s comment that the GOP “outsourced” last night’s speech to Indian-American Gov. Bobby Jindal.
Hey there, Gina.
I hadn’t heard about that. That’s really quite shocking and sad that Matthews would say something like that. Has he apologized? I certainly hope he does.
I try to avoid cable news channels (with the exception of CNN on special news nights) and TV and radio shows like Matthews, O’Reily, Limbaugh, etc. (If something newsworthy happens there, I’ll read about it later.) In my experience, most of the time nothing constructive comes from those type of media. Since I have a long commute to and from work, I get most of my broadcast news from NPR, which doesn’t typically stray into shouting matches or racial insults.
Anyway, do you think there’s a double standard in the way the media covers offensive remarks aimed at GOP leaders like Jindal versus how they react when similar remarks are made about Democratic or liberal leaders? Or, is the point that conservative leaders aren’t as hypersensitive about those things as liberal leaders are so they shouldn’t be either?
Why choose? The media is grossly biased in its coverage of such thing and conservative leaders are less sensitive to such insults as Matthews spewed.
And let’s not get into what is seemingly considered – judging from the media’s near silence on such things – acceptable treatment of Black Republicans…
I do think there’s a double standard, Ed. I’m not saying that racial slurs don’t come from both sides. They do. And they’re just as insensitive no matter where they come from. But in general, when they come from conservatives, there’s a media swarm, and when they come from liberals, you hear crickets. I think the controversy over the NYP’s chimp cartoon, coupled with the relative lack of controversy over Ted Rall’s “Condi Rice as house n___” cartoon, shows that.
One reason I’ve brought this up more than once is that it creates a lot of bitterness and resentment that does nothing but harm to the cause of racial reconciliation, and that’s why we need to keep pointing it out and holding both sides to the same standard. Many conservatives feel, “We can’t open our mouths without the media jumping down our throats, but liberals can say anything they want.” And that leads to another reason I’ve brought this up: to help hold both sides accountable. (Remember, I also spoke out against the “Obama Waffles” fiasco.) If both sides aren’t treated equally in this — if they aren’t both expected to show courtesy and understanding — I don’t think we’re ever going to get anywhere.
And no, Matthews hasn’t apologized — for that, or for muttering audibly, “Oh, God,” when Jindal appeared on camera. The first faux pas may have been unintentional — it’s hard to argue that the second one was.
Gina,
Excellent words. Thanks for keeping it before us.
Honestly, one of the things that troubles me is that the culture seems to want to force you into a box as either a “conservative” or a “liberal” based on which issues you support or protest. Many of us have a diversity of views and beliefs that make us a wrong fit for either of those two labels.
On my more cynical days, like today perhaps, I don’t think true reconciliation is possible if we’re going to insist on labeling each other and self-identifyng ourselves in these political terms, because “smart” politics often requires a stoking of differences and divisions in order to score points for your side.
But, thankfully, I’m not cynical all the time. 🙂 I realize that this is the world we live in. The challenge for me is how to resist conforming to its mindset and live within it redemptively.
“Honestly, one of the things that troubles me is that the culture seems to want to force you into a box as either a ‘conservative’ or a ‘liberal’ based on which issues you support or protest. Many of us have a diversity of views and beliefs that make us a wrong fit for either of those two labels.”
Good point.