Comments on: Killing That Little Monkey

By: J Bellavita

J Bellavita — Wed, 25 Feb 2009 18:06:01 +0000

Out of line. To say that a political cartoon can “obviously” be one thing or another negates the idea that I am capable and experienced enough to interpret humor and cultural references on my own. You’re the one seeing a racist image, and so I suggest the problem is yours.
Not to say there’s no racism in comedy, but with an actual monkey being shot to death that week, maybe you could lighten up a little. No reason to find symbols where there aren’t any.
Thanks again.

By: Dorothy, everything's up-to-date in gitmo's kitty, Uthink?

Dorothy, everything's up-to-date in gitmo's kitty, Uthink? — Tue, 24 Feb 2009 12:58:49 +0000

hmm…a chimp is still a chimp…a rose by any other color would smell as sheep…

By: Michael Shaw (The BAG)

Michael Shaw (The BAG) — Mon, 23 Feb 2009 04:30:12 +0000

bent

By: yg

yg — Sun, 22 Feb 2009 22:38:45 +0000

I thought the cops shot the runaway chimp because it used tooth, claw, and superior strength to attack and injure a human being. Hard to see it as a victim
oy. the cartoon is a m e t a p h o r. it isn’t meant to be read literally.
i wasn’t calling the chimp (or it’s symbolic representative) a victim. i was pointing out how the cops were being framed as sympathetic and distraught even though they were the killers. don’t tell me you don’t know who the cops are supposed to represent.

By: cenoxo

cenoxo — Sun, 22 Feb 2009 06:04:50 +0000

President Obama is a whole different situation, and I encourage us all to really take that fact in. (because it's so new.) He's not an intelligent black man trying to get his foot in the door, fight of the nibbling rats of racism. He's one of the single most powerful men in the world. He can have the staff of the New York Post rendited to the Balkans for "questioning." (though, as a man of character, he would not.) He's not in a position where a racist caricature can function in the same way. Quite frankly, he doesn't need our outrage. I looked at this, and I didn't see a powerful president laid low by a stupid cartoon. I saw a old, out of touch angry white guy who does not understand that the rules of the game have changed. To this pathetic cartoonist I have four words: enjoy your IRS audit. Well, d, I'm glad Eric Holder beat you out as President Obama's choice for Attorney General. How Constitutionally comforting it is to know that a new, progressive, freely-elected Democratic President can use his power to threaten, arrest, punish, and secretly dispose of real (and imagined) domestic enemies if need be, just like the old Regime. Apparently the neocons taught their successors well, and the same extra-legal rules of the game really do remain on the table. Americans were hoping that an intelligent President would rise above such extra-legal tactics, but you make Obama sound even more like Bush (or Lincoln). Nothing new here — thanks for the heads-up.

By: SqueakyRat

SqueakyRat — Sun, 22 Feb 2009 02:38:40 +0000

Do you really imagine people are outraged because they think Obama’s feelings might be hurt? Think some more.

By: cenoxo

cenoxo — Sun, 22 Feb 2009 02:13:25 +0000

I thought the cops shot the runaway chimp because it used tooth, claw, and superior strength to attack and injure a human being. Hard to see it as a victim, unless you're referring to the idea that it shouldn't have been kept as a pet in the first place (no argument there). Were its owners Republicans? You may already know about the circumstances surrounding Eddie Adams' famous photo that avowed Conservative Ramirez based his cartoon on. The shooting 'victim' was a Communist Viet Cong guerrilla captured on the streets of Saigon during the 1968 Tet Offensive, and shot by a South Vietnamese general. Ramirez used this sudden death meme to try and build political sympathy for Bush in 2003, but it backfired:

When he was working for the L.A. Times in 2003, he drew President Bush with his hands tied behind his back being shot in the head by a figure labeled "politics" - a parody of a famous Vietnam War photo. Bush fans were outraged, missing the point that Ramirez thought the president's reputation was being assassinated. "We were flooded with phone calls," says Ramirez. "This guy called and said, 'Are you Mike Ramirez? I'd like to see you.' And I said, 'You'll have to stand in line.' He said, 'Well, I'm with the Secret Service.' And I said, 'How do I know that?' And he said, 'Because I've got a black suit, black sunglasses and a black tie.' " Ramirez didn't meet with the deadpan agent - L.A. Times lawyers wouldn't allow it - and the Times later cut him loose in a round of layoffs.

Is the unwitting enemy of your enemy your friend? I don't think the Right or the Left has any successful monopoly on visual tactics.

By: Kevin K.

Kevin K. — Sat, 21 Feb 2009 20:26:44 +0000

“I despise any and all political lying, no matter who the victim is.”
That’s really cheeky coming from a guy who, along with Lambert Strether 2.0, continued to push the bullshit smear at correntewire that Obama gave Hillary the finger after presented with irrefutable video and photographic evidence that he did no such thing.

By: cenoxo

cenoxo — Sat, 21 Feb 2009 17:21:18 +0000

Apologies for that “Shot at 2009-02-21″ text immediately below the cartoon. That’s a leftover bit of ImageShack’s HTML tag for image of the revised cartoon.
BagMan, is there any way to increase the width of the comments Preview window? It’s so small that it’s hard to catch everything?

By: cenoxo

cenoxo — Sat, 21 Feb 2009 17:07:24 +0000

It's a poor cartoon, and a worse editorial decision to run it. Were no NYP editors on duty that day? A fiendishly clever cartoonist backed by a vast conservative conspiracy, perhaps? Controversy does sell more newspapers and gather more media eyeballs — look at how many comments are in this thread — but don't ascribe to bigotry or racism what can be explained by neglect or stupidity. Viewed by itself, the cartoon is not implying that President Obama is the chimp, nor is it a crude racist joke that calls for his assassination. It's the perception of the viewers (influenced by their personal beliefs about Obama) that create those associations. For example, let's change two words in the cartoon's text balloon so it mentions equally controversial legislation passed by the previous Administration. Since President Bush has been widely and openly portrayed as a chimpanzee, is there any misunderestimation as to who the chimp represents?
Shot at 2009-02-21 Conservatives would be equally as offended about such a portrayal of their Man, but their emotional reaction still wouldn't prove any evil intent by the cartoonist or editors. I wonder, though, how many progressive thinkers would find the Patriot Act version more acceptable? Is a slur against another human being a slur no matter who it comes from?