Attention NAACP

[OCGuy]

Originally posted by: classy
He should be fired. The cartoon is racist and he depicts the killing of the president. I have some good arguments here against a lot of things percieved to be racist, but in this case it is a flat "bleeping" joke for anyone to defend and try to downplay the clear picture portrayed in that cartoon. The person who wrote should be canned and the editor who approved should get the boot as well. There is no place for bs like that in todays society. And if you don't like it here, buy a damn plane ticket and leave.

:roll:

 

[Generator]

Ever since I heard the NAACP call McNabb not black enough for not running the football more I started to wonder...

Are these people serious?

You know all good things should come to an end. The great battles that X, Luther, and NAACP have endured are greatness. But now what is there to fight but cowards taking shots through cartoons. But I guess if white people want the NAACP to go away, my advice would be stop antagonizing blacks. I know you think its hilarious to shoot blacks and yuck it up. But its not 1950s anymore.

 

[Schadenfroh]

Well said OP!

 

[Vic]

Who cares? The NY Post is a joke of a newspaper. Maybe if he was fired he could move up to a more prestigious paper, like the Weekly World News or something.

 

[compuwiz1]

The NAACP (National Asscociation for the Advancement of Colored People) needs to at least be renamed. We don't call them "colored people" anymore.

Doesn't that offend you, Classy? Yet, you can get so offended by a cartoon, but not the un-politically correct named organization that is calling for the firing?

Double standards FTL!

Worse things than that get spewed about the media and internet everyday. The offended parties need to get thicker skin. People don't need to live walking on eggshells around black people and I don't expect black people to live walking on eggshells around everyone else. We are all people - and people need to learn to take something in the context it is meant, like a joke.

 

[MovingTarget]

Yeah, people in our society do make a living off of race-baiting. The NAACP has done a lot for the "ACP", but for the most part, their time has passed as a new generation rises. Sure, racism exists, but it is no longer institutionalized or nearly as entrenched as it once was. They served a great and noble purpose, much like Affirmative Action laws once did, but there comes a point where their existance actually hampers the further development of a colorblind society. Many people in my generation looked at that cartoon and saw what the author was initially trying to portray, but did recognise that it was done so in bad taste in a way that might offend our parents' generations. We did not default to omgracisthaha! when we first saw what was going on, but were instead more able to analyze it with a clear eye. Many in our parents' generations are simply perpetuating the racial divisions that they had by continuing to play the race card. Let it die.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: classy
He should be fired. The cartoon is racist and he depicts the killing of the president. I have some good arguments here against a lot of things percieved to be racist, but in this case it is a flat "bleeping" joke for anyone to defend and try to downplay the clear picture portrayed in that cartoon. The person who wrote should be canned and the editor who approved should get the boot as well. There is no place for bs like that in todays society. And if you don't like it here, buy a damn plane ticket and leave.

I'm with you on everything but the firing. This is America and free speech, especially created to allow speech we may not like, should be protected - it's one of the last things that separates from the world if you don't like it buy a damn plane ticket and leave.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Wheezer
[So while there is a bi-racial person in the Oval Office we are not allowed to draw pictures of monkeys without a good explanation?

I think you are havng difficulty with reading comprehension.

Of course pictures of monkeys can be drawn without a good explanation, if there aren't other factors raising suspicion.

As I said, my initial reaction was to see this as innocent, as just picking a monkey to represent idiocy. Then, I explained why other things raised suspicions beyond that.

It's those extra things that are why I'm saying they should simply have to state the truth, if it is the truth, that the intent was not an insidious injection of a racial attack.

You did not acknowledge any of what I said about why there are suspicions, and mispresented my position as attacking 'every picture with a monkey'.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Drift3r
Where on the cartoon does it say Obama or give any reference to Obama? Other then attacking the writers of the stimulus package which Obama was not a part of at all I do not see anything that proves it was racist. This whole mess was jump started by Al Sharpton jumping on any and every show that would be desperate enough to accept him and his warped race baiting view on this cartoon.

'Implied racism' and other 'nudge nudge wink wink' references are 'deniable', if you are obstinately literal. That's the essence of thier being 'implied' and not 'explicit'.

But everytime a discussion about black issues gets a reference to eating watermelons to cackles, it's racist, however much the cacklers can say 'that's not racist, it's just eating'.

You make a weak argument to simply pretend there's no such thing as 'code words', as 'implied racism', and the fact that sometimes, the accusation is made unfairly doesn't prove that every time it's unfair. I disagree with the NAACP on some of the battles they pick; but to condemn the organization that fights so many good battles for some bad ones seems to me 'convenient' for those who are on the wrong side of the good ones, too, perhaps not explicitly, but by neglect, the sort who rationalize inequality as 'sad but ok'.

The unstated double standard is that any battles the NAACP gets wrong condemn the organization, while any wrong battles by groups you agree with are easy to ignore.

 

[Corn]

Originally posted by: Craig234
I haven't come to a conclusion whether the cartoon was merely trying to use the chimp to represent idiocy in policy, or whether it was a 'code message' of a racial slur.

I'd be inclined to assume the former, but it seems a very odd coincidence - I can't recall a monkey being used this way in many years for that point - and it's suspicious.

And what's with the police shooting the monkey - what do police shooting policy makers have to do with anything? Police shooting someone does have racial overtones.

The solution seems to me in the middle, not ignoring this or getting rid of the people - but rather demanding they expliitly explain the cartoon as not racial for the record.

Not in a nudge nudge wink wink way, but in a sincere, 'if you do it again and it is racist, you are going to be gone' way.

Evidently you don't follow current events much (outside of politics, that is). Here is the context regarding the cops shooting a monkey used in that cartoon: Text

This incident happened a day before the cartoon was authored.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Corn

Originally posted by: Craig234
I haven't come to a conclusion whether the cartoon was merely trying to use the chimp to represent idiocy in policy, or whether it was a 'code message' of a racial slur.

I'd be inclined to assume the former, but it seems a very odd coincidence - I can't recall a monkey being used this way in many years for that point - and it's suspicious.

And what's with the police shooting the monkey - what do police shooting policy makers have to do with anything? Police shooting someone does have racial overtones.

The solution seems to me in the middle, not ignoring this or getting rid of the people - but rather demanding they expliitly explain the cartoon as not racial for the record.

Not in a nudge nudge wink wink way, but in a sincere, 'if you do it again and it is racist, you are going to be gone' way.

Evidently you don't follow current events much (outside of politics, that is). Here is the context regarding the cops shooting a monkey used in that cartoon: Text

This incident happened a day before the cartoon was authored.

Yup, the perfect cover to get in a racial dig while pretending innocence. Nobody but nobody who has a job of editor of a newspaper and has as a part of his responsibility to edit to insure stupid associations aren't made could ever miss the ape Obama obvious connection. They wanted to express racial hate and there can be no doubt about it. If there is any doubt, however, the editor, at least, should be fired for incompetence.

 

[Hacp]

How many people got fired for calling Bush a monkey? Did the NAACP ever protest that?

 

[Corn]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Corn

Originally posted by: Craig234
I haven't come to a conclusion whether the cartoon was merely trying to use the chimp to represent idiocy in policy, or whether it was a 'code message' of a racial slur.

I'd be inclined to assume the former, but it seems a very odd coincidence - I can't recall a monkey being used this way in many years for that point - and it's suspicious.

And what's with the police shooting the monkey - what do police shooting policy makers have to do with anything? Police shooting someone does have racial overtones.

The solution seems to me in the middle, not ignoring this or getting rid of the people - but rather demanding they expliitly explain the cartoon as not racial for the record.

Not in a nudge nudge wink wink way, but in a sincere, 'if you do it again and it is racist, you are going to be gone' way.

Evidently you don't follow current events much (outside of politics, that is). Here is the context regarding the cops shooting a monkey used in that cartoon: Text

This incident happened a day before the cartoon was authored.

Yup, the perfect cover to get in a racial dig while pretending innocence. Nobody but nobody who has a job of editor of a newspaper and has as a part of his responsibility to edit to insure stupid associations aren't made could ever miss the ape Obama obvious connection. They wanted to express racial hate and there can be no doubt about it. If there is any doubt, however, the editor, at least, should be fired for incompetence.

Well, if you say so then it must be true. Obviously you know the character and true intentions of 2 people you've never met.

 

[Sacrilege]

Originally posted by: Hacp
How many people got fired for calling Bush a monkey? Did the NAACP ever protest that?

Yes, America has a long, sordid history of referring to white Texans (errr Connecticans), as monkeys or apes. Get a clue.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Corn

Evidently you don't follow current events much (outside of politics, that is). Here is the context regarding the cops shooting a monkey used in that cartoon: Text

This incident happened a day before the cartoon was authored.

It's the sort of story I'da rather not waste time on, and I appreciate your monitoring them for me to let me know if one becomes relevant as here.

I think that is somewhat of an explanation that the monkey was not simply a gratuitous choice - but it's still suspicious why to grab a monkey story, and tie it to the government.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Hacp
How many people got fired for calling Bush a monkey? Did the NAACP ever protest that?

I considered that, and it's a completely different situation. In the case of Bush, the message is overt at calling him an idiot; with a black president, there are race overtones.

I'm sorry it's inconvnient for you to have some differences for black people on these things, but the history is the history, and that's the way it is.

It's not as if there aren't plenty of ways for you to make the point about Obama without any race overtones.

 

[Corn]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Corn

Evidently you don't follow current events much (outside of politics, that is). Here is the context regarding the cops shooting a monkey used in that cartoon: Text

This incident happened a day before the cartoon was authored.

It's the sort of story I'da rather not waste time on, and I appreciate your monitoring them for me to let me know if one becomes relevant as here.

I think that is somewhat of an explanation that the monkey was not simply a gratuitous choice - but it's still suspicious why to grab a monkey story, and tie it to the government.

I'm one of those types who reads the local liberal rag from cover to cover. Silly me, I know.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Corn

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Corn

Evidently you don't follow current events much (outside of politics, that is). Here is the context regarding the cops shooting a monkey used in that cartoon: Text

This incident happened a day before the cartoon was authored.

It's the sort of story I'da rather not waste time on, and I appreciate your monitoring them for me to let me know if one becomes relevant as here.

I think that is somewhat of an explanation that the monkey was not simply a gratuitous choice - but it's still suspicious why to grab a monkey story, and tie it to the government.

I'm one of those types who reads the local liberal rag from cover to cover. Silly me, I know.

I find liberal publications tend not to cover that sort of nonsense nearly as much, so I assume you're using the Republican definition of liberal as "normal local paper".

I used to read the local paper(s) thoroughly too, and reached the conclusion that it's pretty pointless long ago.

Between the excellent books, documentaries, magazines and web sites, I can keep people well fed with information 12 hours a day easily, no time for the monkey news.

For just a start, I'd say make a habit to include salon.com, commondreams.org, Harper's, Bill Moyers, Frontline and a book by Thom Hartman, David Cay Johnston et al.

 

[Screech]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Corn

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Corn

Evidently you don't follow current events much (outside of politics, that is). Here is the context regarding the cops shooting a monkey used in that cartoon: Text

This incident happened a day before the cartoon was authored.

It's the sort of story I'da rather not waste time on, and I appreciate your monitoring them for me to let me know if one becomes relevant as here.

I think that is somewhat of an explanation that the monkey was not simply a gratuitous choice - but it's still suspicious why to grab a monkey story, and tie it to the government.

I'm one of those types who reads the local liberal rag from cover to cover. Silly me, I know.

I find liberal publications tend not to cover that sort of nonsense nearly as much, so I assume you're using the Republican definition of liberal as "normal local paper".

I used to read the local paper(s) thoroughly too, and reached the conclusion that it's pretty pointless long ago.

Between the excellent books, documentaries, magazines and web sites, I can keep people well fed with information 12 hours a day easily, no time for the monkey news.

OH MY GOD! How DARE you speak about our President with those terms! This is clearly a racist assault on the current President of the United States which deserves the application of the banstick IMMEDIATELY!!!!!1111oenloneone

(Note: Please have your sarcasm detector set to the "on" setting when reading this, as I actually AM trying to make a point here) --Screech

 

[Pliablemoose]

Sooo...

When I saw the cartoon, I thought of the infinite monkey joke, and the monkey that recently ate someone's face and was apparently screwing an old woman. I honestly didn't associate it with the president, blacks or shooting the president.

What concerns me about all the drama, is that any criticism of the current administration's policies that could however loosely be construed as racist will be.... That bugs the hell out of me.

And for the record, when I see a chimp, I see GWB, I likely will for a very long time, Pres. Obama doesn't even remotely resemble a chimp.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Corn

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Corn

Originally posted by: Craig234
I haven't come to a conclusion whether the cartoon was merely trying to use the chimp to represent idiocy in policy, or whether it was a 'code message' of a racial slur.

I'd be inclined to assume the former, but it seems a very odd coincidence - I can't recall a monkey being used this way in many years for that point - and it's suspicious.

And what's with the police shooting the monkey - what do police shooting policy makers have to do with anything? Police shooting someone does have racial overtones.

The solution seems to me in the middle, not ignoring this or getting rid of the people - but rather demanding they expliitly explain the cartoon as not racial for the record.

Not in a nudge nudge wink wink way, but in a sincere, 'if you do it again and it is racist, you are going to be gone' way.

Evidently you don't follow current events much (outside of politics, that is). Here is the context regarding the cops shooting a monkey used in that cartoon: Text

This incident happened a day before the cartoon was authored.

Yup, the perfect cover to get in a racial dig while pretending innocence. Nobody but nobody who has a job of editor of a newspaper and has as a part of his responsibility to edit to insure stupid associations aren't made could ever miss the ape Obama obvious connection. They wanted to express racial hate and there can be no doubt about it. If there is any doubt, however, the editor, at least, should be fired for incompetence.

Well, if you say so then it must be true. Obviously you know the character and true intentions of 2 people you've never met.

My emotional IQ is enormous. I'm never wrong about people. That's why I like you.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

IMO the cartoon was drawn and published with full knowledge that it would, at a minimum, be perceived as a racist snipe at the President of the United States (and with clear overtones of him being shot to death). The Post, like every other newspaper, is hurting, and from their perspective, any attention is good attention.

I don't think the cartoon or its publication is seriously defensible. It's not witty or thought-provoking. It's just a weak piece of race-baiting trash. Obviously the Post is not a paragon of serious journalism (this is the same paper who brought us the headline "Headless Body In Topless Bar," and, in the very same week the cartoon was published, "A-Hole" (in reference to Alex Rodriguez)), but this cartoon falls below the standard of what belongs in a major newspaper in the United States in the 21st century. I am of the opinion that it would be perfectly warranted and appropriate for the cartoonist and editor to be shitcanned.

 

[Drift3r]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Drift3r
Where on the cartoon does it say Obama or give any reference to Obama? Other then attacking the writers of the stimulus package which Obama was not a part of at all I do not see anything that proves it was racist. This whole mess was jump started by Al Sharpton jumping on any and every show that would be desperate enough to accept him and his warped race baiting view on this cartoon.

'Implied racism' and other 'nudge nudge wink wink' references are 'deniable', if you are obstinately literal. That's the essence of thier being 'implied' and not 'explicit'.

But everytime a discussion about black issues gets a reference to eating watermelons to cackles, it's racist, however much the cacklers can say 'that's not racist, it's just eating'.

You make a weak argument to simply pretend there's no such thing as 'code words', as 'implied racism', and the fact that sometimes, the accusation is made unfairly doesn't prove that every time it's unfair. I disagree with the NAACP on some of the battles they pick; but to condemn the organization that fights so many good battles for some bad ones seems to me 'convenient' for those who are on the wrong side of the good ones, too, perhaps not explicitly, but by neglect, the sort who rationalize inequality as 'sad but ok'.

The unstated double standard is that any battles the NAACP gets wrong condemn the organization, while any wrong battles by groups you agree with are easy to ignore.

Please show me how that cartoon was directly linked to Obama and not the individuals who authored and passed the stimulus package in the Senate and Congress? I am waiting because you really have not proved anything other then you know how to use PC based tangents and chastisements to try to ignore the points brought up by others in this thread with a different opinion on this cartoon. Oh and where the hell did I reference the NAACP unless you are talking about the renown race baiter known as Al Sharpton. It was Sharpton after all who made this an issue by getting on every news station and talk show that would hear him out.

 

[FuzzyBee]

The response to this cartoon is more indicative of the problem than the cartoon itself. Much more.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: FuzzyBee
The response to this cartoon is more indicative of the problem than the cartoon itself. Much more.

Bullshit. This is such a painfully predictable response - a little casual racism by white people is fine, but God forbid a person of color take offense.

I am far from being a humorless person or someone who's easily offended - I listen to the Stern show every day - but this cartoon is beyond the pale, and this is not an instance in which the NAACP or Sharpton are overreacting (and God knows there have been many such instances). The cartoon is not only racist but contemptuous of our country's highest office - If the Times had published the identical cartoon after Bush had proposed a stimulus package, the Hannitys of the world would have gone through the roof.