click here to tweet this post
click here to share with your friends
subscribe to this feed
New York Post’s Racist(?) Cartoon
by Dan WallaceFebruary 21st, 2009
54 Comments
Editor’s note: Dan originally posted this essay on Feb 19, but had second thoughts on how he had worded some things.
In the Feb 18 issue of the New York Post, there is a cartoon depicting two policemen standing over a rabid chimp that one of them had just riddled with bullets. As it lay dying in its own pool of blood, the other officer quipped, “They’ll have to find someone else to write the next stimulus bill.”
The cartoon plays off of the shooting of a chimpanzee in Stamford, Connecticut on Monday, after it had mauled a woman and nearly ripped her face off.
Of course, political cartoons always imbibe in satire and they often use current events as a metaphor to make their point. This one seemed to be no exception.
The first thing I thought of when I saw the cartoon was that this was intended to be a racial slur against the president. Even worse, the fact that the chimp had been killed seemed to suggest assassination. And frankly, I was sickened and horrified at the possibility that these were intended implications. As I read some of the early reactions to the cartoon, I noticed that some saw the same thing I saw while others did not. Some said that the monkey was just a monkey and that there was no symbolism intended, and certainly not a visual slander on the president. But as the news circulated, it seemed that people began to take up polar positions: either the cartoon was intentionally racist and mean-spirited (to say the least) or that “a monkey is just a monkey” and no symbolism should be read into the cartoon. The editor at the NY Post said that the dead ape did not represent the president but simply represented the stimulus package and its defenders in general.
Now, let’s assume that there was no malice intended by the cartoonist or by the editors, that the cartoon’s only point was that the stimulus package was such a poorly thought-out idea that even a monkey could have written it. The question I have is, If that’s true, didn’t the cartoonist or editors realize that a lot of people would read this cartoon differently? That a lot of people would see it as a racial slur?
The natural interpretation of the cartoon seems to be to see the primate as representing President Obama—in light of the long history of such malicious symbolism in American history. My question is, If that’s not what the Post meant, did they equally have no idea that others would read it that way? Frankly, that stretches credulity to the breaking point. The NY Post has the sixth largest circulation of any newspaper in the country. Its readers are not naïve backwater hicks who have no sense of what’s going on in the culture. And the editors have won oodles of awards—awards that aren’t given to pundits with a fourth grade education. It seems that the choices are that the cartoon was racist, the editors were completely out of touch with the racial sensitivities of our society, or that the editors were incompetent. When the Post tells us that no intention to call the president a monkey was intended, we are left with the choice that the editors are out of touch or incompetent.
I may not care for Obama’s stimulus plan, but this doesn’t mean that any newspaper—especially one as prominent as the NY Post—has the right to go retro on us back to the Jim Crow days. Whether intended or not, that is precisely the effect that many say the cartoon produced. I am grieved over anything that even remotely hints of racism, to say nothing of the innuendo about violence enacted on a dumb beast.
And I am outraged at this kind of response by the NY Post because I fear that it may breed a lot of latent prejudice, racism, even hate crimes. If this is the level of discourse we can expect from conservatives over the next four years, then we’ll be doomed to a one-party system by 2013. Whether that one party would be Republican or Democrat, it really does away with the checks and balances that were built into the American system of government.
My views have changed in the last week. I was at first worried about the direction that this country was going with President Obama’s swiftly-enacted, uni-partisan policies. I was worried that the Democrats would steamroll over all that has made America great in an effort to move us significantly closer to socialism. With the new stimulus package, some have suggested that we’re only a hair’s breadth away from being the United States of France. And when the government runs businesses, there is no such thing as free market competition; it’s a monopoly, pure and simple, which historically has been shown to be good for the monopolistic business—and no one else. Only this time that business is the government. The great thing about a free market society—with sufficient government regulations to keep abuses at a minimum—is that it offers the necessary checks and balances that improve quality, production, and cost simultaneously. And checks and balances are an undergirding principle of the Christian faith: if we’re all depraved, we need to keep each other’s dark side suppressed. The involvement of the government is needed when the checks and balances are out of whack. When the government takes over businesses, where are the checks and balances? It’s an interesting phenomenon that those countries that have historically followed free market economics are generally more prosperous than those that haven’t—and they also tend to be more Christian. Nevertheless, my reading of what the stimulus package may mean could well be wrong.
But now, I’m worried that the reaction to Obama policies is only going to divide the nation more and send us back to the dark days before 1964. As an evangelical Christian with conservative political leanings, I see an evil that is far worse than where the stimulus package might be heading. It is what this cartoon represents, even if not intended by the cartoonist: a half-baked parody that was filtered by the kind of irresponsible journalistic sloppiness that couldn’t pass muster in a school paper of any university in the country. The Ku Klux Klan must be downright giddy right now.
Similar Posts:
- A Review of the New International Version 2011: Part 4 of 4
- When is Civil Disobedience the Right Thing to Do?
- God's View of President Barack Obama – Part 2
- Is Chuck Colson Really Making a “Call to Arms” in America?
- A Theology of Fear and Government Mistrust
Loading ...
54 Comments
Like or Dislike:
0
The natural interpretation of the cartoon seems to be to see the primate as representing President Obama—in light of the long history of such malicious symbolism in American history.
Natural interpretation? How about an artificial, guilt-induced interpretation? May I humbly suggest that, over the last 40 years, we’ve become too sensitive to racial issues to the extent that we see instances of racism where there really is none?
I am politically conservative and hate racism as much as anybody. When people are careless with their words, or a racist joke is told, I cringe, shake my head, and counsel the offending individual. And when I heard about this cartoon, I fully expected to see the President’s face on the body of the dead monkey. When I actually saw the cartoon (even though I was fully prepared to be offended), and saw that the monkey was just a monkey, I asked myself, “Where’s the offense in this? Where’s the racism?” (I must clarify my statement with this: I was offended by the cartoon, but only because it was insensitive to the poor woman who was attacked, brutally disfigured, and will forever carry the emotional and physical scars of the event.)
So, why isn’t it racist? Firstly, President Obama didn’t write the bill. Congress did. Secondly, the idea that a monkey wrote the bill immediately brought to mind those Geico commercials that getting good insurance is so easy that a caveman could do it. Aside from the offense previously mentioned, it was a clever cartoon.
Again, if you believe the cartoon to be racist, you may have become too sensitive to the issue of race. It’s like seeing a literal demon behind every vice, disease, and sinful thought. (Thanks, Frank Peretti.) On the issue of race, we really need to “come down to earth.”
On a related (albeit slightly off-topic) note, why is it that on the road to a color-blind society, racial differences between us have become more pronounced? It’s a sad state of affairs. It is understandable to celebrate the election of the first black president, but there is, nevertheless, something inside me that cringes. I would hope that, if we ever elect another black president, that there would never be a mention of him being the “second black president elected.” Once the achievement has been recognized, why should there be any additional focus?
Like or Dislike:
0
The chimp in the cartoon is suggested to be the one who wrote the stimulus package.
Barack Obama DID NOT WRITE the stimulus package. If anyone, the chimp represents Nancy Pelosi, or at least the House Democrats. It does NOT represent Barack Obama.
And I agree with the cartoonist – the stimulus package looks and reads like it was written by a bunch of monkeys pounding away at a typewriter, or by a crazed and berserk chimpanzee.
Read what the cartoon caption says. It shows two police officers standing over the chimp’s body, with one officer saying: “They’ll have to find someone else to write the next stimulus bill.”
Don’t give Al Sharpton ammunition by siding with the NY Post’s critics. After all, where was Sharpton when numerous cartoons and cartoonists portrayed President Bush as a monkey during the last 8 years?
Like or Dislike:
0
The cartoon could be seen as racist, and at the very least it’s in bad taste, but then that’s cartoons in general.
The stimulus package won’t do anything because it’s encouraging precisely the same activities that got everyone in the crap to start with.
The basic problem is that people don’t have enough money to buy everything that companies produce. In a free market the companies would scale down their production and focus on things that people need. That is what China is doing.
People in America have been living beyond their means, supporting that extra production by going into debt. Rather than follow the Chinese example, letting excess production tail off and then focus on the “need” market rather than the “want” market, Obama and Co. are trying to support that excess production with (surprise, surprise) more debt.
Vox Day has a blog post about Ron Paul’s comments on this topic here. His summary is The 1921 depression ended in a year. The 1929 depression didn’t because the government and monetary authorities chose to intervene. The present depression will last 15 years and the Federal Reserve is responsible for it. End the Empire. Bring the troops home. End the Drug War. Don’t listen to Keynesian economists; they are wrong. Republicans have no credibility because they didn’t practice what they preached. Democrats have made a bad beginning and they will lose their credibility too.
Like or Dislike:
0
I guess I didn’t think of Obama because I didn’t think he wrote the plan–that’s in the hands of the whole legislative body or some representative group of the whole (I think. Maybe I missed something about politics too). When the monkey thing came up, I thought, why wouldn’t we think it was aimed at Jews. Lots of other monkey images have been, and there are some liberal Jewish politicians in Washington too.
Color me out of touch or maybe incompetent, I guess. In any case, I certainly hope that we won’t return to the attitudes before the civil rights movement.
You know there was a big hubbub in Israel last week because of a youtube spoof showing Hitler in a tirade about the lack of parking in Tel Aviv (posted for Jews by Jews). Representatives of holocaust survivors said they were offended. Many descendants of holocaust survivors were, however, amused.
So, with hitler and with race crimes in America, at what point are people free to actually not be race conscious? And if we are to really be race conscious in this way, then I have to teach my children a whole lot of things I don’t even know so they won’t offend others. Hmm. When my kid and I read a zoo book and we see monkeys and I call him a monkey and we play together. Do I as a white parent have to warn him to never say that or play that way around a black child? Or do I need to wait and hope that some day I’ll catch him saying something inappropriate (though he won’t know it is) and then I’ll be able to tell him a little background and why that is impolite in certain situations? (Which is great, because as soon as kids recognize those words that draw extra attention they’re quick to stay away from them.) Or should I hope for a future where my kid calls his 4 year old black friend a monkey and his friend calls him one and me and his parents look at each other and look at them and accept that a monkey might just be a monkey? But our kids will be so out of touch—out of touch with the racist imagery of 1964 that is. And maybe they’ll still get by in 2010.
By the way, I didn’t notice, but when the old reverend spoke at Obama’s inaguration, he had some lines about “the white man can embrace what’s right, man. And the red man can get ahead man.” (paraphrase). Was anyone offended by his color labels? I had heard it was bad to call people red. We had to alter the words to “Jesus loves the little children” because of this.
Like or Dislike:
0
Please forgive me if I seem like I am being rude. However, the issue at hand was whether the cartoon was offensive to minorities. Historically, blacks have been harshly referred as monkeys by whites since the 1800s. Obama pushed for the stimulus package. And, you have a depiction of two white male police officers shooting a monkey: both of these news worthy events are completely unrelated items. It was done in poor taste and shows, once again, that News Corp is committed to racism and bigotry.
And, that is precisely why most Black evangelicals don’t see eye to eye with white evangelicals. White evangelicals stand so firm in their commitment to a conservative agenda; however, wane on civil rights or racism. You stated that you didn’t want America to go back in time, but, by not making a strong statement, one against racism, we aren’t progressing. When black families read news articles or cartoons like this one we are reminded of a harsh past filled with hatred. It’s not satire when it’s racism, nor do people find the humor.
I agree with you with regards to the conservative agenda and that we shouldn’t spend money we don’t have. But, whether only a view saw the cartoon as offensive makes no difference because so many found it offensive.
Thanks for positing, but the cartoon was offensive and their apology wasn’t really an apology. Sean Delonas is a bigot and this isn’t the first time his smut has been displayed in a PUBLIC newspaper.
Like or Dislike:
0
By the way, I didn’t notice, but when the old reverend spoke at Obama’s inaguration, he had some lines about “the white man can embrace what’s right, man. And the red man can get ahead man.” (paraphrase). Was anyone offended by his color labels? I had heard it was bad to call people red. We had to alter the words to “Jesus loves the little children” because of this.
The old preacher’s remarks at Obama’s inauguration were indeed insulting, racist and uncalled-for. As he said:
His “prayer” implies – no, it states – that whitey has never been righty. It says that Asians need to “get mellow.” What does that mean? Is he saying that Asians are nothing but warmongers?
If he had stopped at black, brown and red, he’d have had and made a point. But by disparaging Caucasians and Asians, he turned a so-called “joke” into hate speech, IMO.
Like or Dislike:
0
Michael, did you intend to attach your name to this post?
Dan, I like this toned down version, in that it allows for the possibility that the cartoonist was not racially motivated. As Christians we sometimes need to remind ourselves that we need to give people the ‘benefit of the doubt’, as we would wish that others would do the same for us (… the golden rule). I will say though, that as I read this again, I was particularly struck by the wording of the caption:
“They’ll have to find SOMEONE ELSE to write the next stimulus bill.”
Even if you can allow for the possibility that the cartoonist had no racial intent, it’s hard not to see this as directed toward the WRITER of the bill…. yes, OBAMA. And certainly then, it looks like an assassination. That alone is incredibly irresponsible…… and sinister.
For the editor of the Post to then say that ‘the dead ape did not represent the president, but simply represented the stimulus package and it’s defenders in general’…….well, that strikes me as a lie!… editor ‘smooth-talk’.
If that is what was intended, the the caption should have read:
“Good riddance to that stimulus bill!”
It would indeed be a great evil if disgruntled conservatives began to insinuate that Obama’s ‘color’ is the reason for his ‘bad policies’. That is a much more dangerous attitude than the typical inflammations of partisan politics.
Like or Dislike:
0
[...] fail to take a stand against Racism. Published February 21, 2009 Uncategorized I love this blog. It’s a great blog. But, you can’t defend conservatism when racism is blatantly [...]
Like or Dislike:
0
opps
Like or Dislike:
0
Susan wrote:
Susan: Obama DID NOT WRITE the bill. So why do you insist that Obama wrote the bill? That’s the reason some of us object to this cartoon being knee-jerkedly assumed to equate the chimpanzee with Obama – i.e., because people unthinkingly and mantra-like say and assume and sometimes even state that Obama wrote the bill and hence the chimpanzee MUST be Obama and so this cartoon MUST be a racist cartoon of the President.
Why else was Pelosi so furious with the way the Senate wanted to change “her” bill by taking out things she and the House Democrats wanted in it?
Like or Dislike:
0
I thought my comment might post as #1, but I see that others beat me to it with comments that the bill wasn’t written by Obama. To that I will say: Does the president really write much of ANYTHING that bears his name? Does he write his speeches?….. his bills, proposals, declarations??
No, but nevertheless, once they receive his stamp of approval they are considered to be HIS. Most people would read the caption to that cartoon, and think it was referring to Obama.
Like or Dislike:
0
I was more offended by the comments of the so-called Rev. Joseph Lowery than I was by the comic strip. I found them to be racist and arrogant. Utter stupidity. Whites and other races helped President Obama get elected. So those were stupid comments coming from that man’s mouth.
Yes, people are overly sensitive. When I saw that comic I saw a dead monkey in the comic strip. Just good old fashion common sense that it might be offensive to a group of people.
No President Obama didn’t write the stimulus bill. But a monkey singular could be interpreted by many that have been called “monkey” in the past as racial slurs, could be interpreted as racist. So, the NY Post was no doubt like every paper in the nation that’s struggling because of the rise of the internet used a marketing niche to get their name and audience out there.
Now, I don’t know that for sure, it’s just my speculation as much as it’s their’s (NY Post’s) specualtion that they meant something other than Mr. Obama. Maybe they did. But whatever the motive it has the nation talking.
President Obama isn’t above criticism, like all other presidents before him, people will joke about his intelligence and his looks. And be prepared to be called racist or prejudiced by some that “feel” rather than think.
A help way to criticize Mr. Obama, might be to qualify the statements by addressing his policies, theology, and character issues.
Al Sharpton may speak for some of the non-thinking black folk in American, but there are pockets of conservative christians and political conservatives that reject the Sharpton exploitation.
I thought you might want to hear from an African American that grew up in the “hood” that’s well over 40 and a christian, that knows discrimination by definition and experience.
Like or Dislike:
0
It’s interesting that you didn’t post the drawing. If you want, you can find racism anywhere you want. But, I’m surprised that you agree that the only bigotry is acceptable while racism is not. I suppose culture dictates here.
Maybe I’ve lost you. Let me explain.
Racism is viewing one’s own race or culture as superior.
Bigotry is an intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself.
You’re allowed to be a racist on 2 conditions.
1) You show the group to be bigoted.
2) You’re 99% sure no one will disagree with you.
Allow me to take a fine toothed racist comb to your post.
“The NY Post has the sixth largest circulation of any newspaper in the country. Its readers are not naïve backwater hicks who have no sense of what’s going on in the culture.”
I live in the Appellation Mountains. My ancestry is what you would call hillbilly, hick, whitetrash, yokel, and some others that would be a bit too vulgar to post. I was caught reading the New York Post this week. I have bad teeth.
I know that you didn’t mean any offense by using the language that you did. Maybe I should get offended and ask you for a public apology. But, I won’t because I’m not hyper-sensitive and do my best to understand the authorial intent.
I would say that you have shown a niggardly understanding of being prejudice. But, because it sounds too closely to a racial epithet, you would probably take offense to it also.
As for the artist who drew the picture. His past work speaks for itself. If you look into his past work you’ll see that this picture was more than likely done in malice. It was a way to make fun of blacks and hide behind a facade of pseudo-intellectualism.
Like or Dislike:
0
Someone else to write the stimulus bill
I just noted from the internet (so its definitely subject to fact checking), that for Republicans on the hill “the bill personifies Representative David R. Obey, the prickly Wisconsin Democrat who is chairman of the Appropriations Committee and has spent 40 years in Congress as a champion of federal spending”
I do not know the race of David R. Obey.
Like or Dislike:
0
that is precisely why most Black evangelicals don’t see eye to eye with white evangelicals. White evangelicals stand so firm in their commitment to a conservative agenda; however, wane on civil rights or racism.
It is perhaps more worthwhile to talk about the church and its issues than simply this cartoon. (As Donald H points out above, the paper no doubt was considering publicity, and probably did count on some controversy arising.) So not just as a national social topic, but in the interest of understanding each other and being united as believers, it seems good to talk.
In particular, I wonder how the above quote from Cornelius is fleshed out. Cornelius, or others, how do you see white evangelicals waning on civil rights or racism? Is it on support of certain bills or candidates? Or are there non-political demonstrations of support that are lacking?
Also, I am a little unclear on what the “that” referred to in your post (Cornelius) in the phrase “that is precisely why.” What exactly do you see as the precise cause for the failure of black and white evangelicals to see eye to eye with one another?
It seems that even when individual whites and blacks form friendships, issues like these still exist at organizational levels. Why? I’m not sure but discussing it could help us move forward together.
Like or Dislike:
0
Folks, thanks for the interesting exchange. It’s interesting to see some of you seeing the same thing I did, some of you taking offense at my comments about African Americans being offended by this cartoon, and some of you addressing the stimulus package as though that were the main post of this post.
One of you responded to my comment about the natural interpretation of this cartoon by saying, “How about an artificial, guilt-induced interpretation?” And others pointed out the president didn’t write the bill, so no one should have assumed that the monkey represented him. But at least one person thought that the president had written the bill–or, at least, that his fingerprints were all over it. And I suspect that if you polled many Americans, they would think that he had a great deal to do with the wording of this bill. In that respect, I do think that the natural interpretation of this cartoon is that it refers to President Obama. Perhaps a better word than ‘natural,’ however, would be ‘a common interpretation.’ And it certainly seems like that is exactly the case, judging by the furor over the cartoon.
Some suggested that I was too sensitive to racism. That may be so. But in the past few years, as coaches, teachers, other leaders in society have made comments that could be interpreted as mildly racist, and then have lost their jobs because of it, I rarely saw the racism. I thought that a reprimand of the person for his or her insensitivity to issues of race would have been the most that was needed. But to fire someone for not thinking through what he was saying–not crossing his t’s and dotting his i’s–at a news conference? That was way over the top.
Contrast that with the cartoon. Here’s a thought-out statement, with the cartoonist’s work to add the picture and symbolism, and editors to look it over before it goes to press. There is nothing spontaneous about that! Further, it’s not mild. Bullet holes in a chimp is anything but mild.
One other thing I’d like to ask. For those of you who are white, how many of you simply wrote your comments before talking to some African Americans? You may have represented your own interpretation well, but I don’t think that’s the issue. Christians are called to hurt with other Christians because our allegiance to Jesus Christ must be stronger than any other allegiance–whether it be a political party, any ideology, etc. I checked with a few of my black friends, and each one was offended. I checked with a few of my white friends, and most of them were offended. The really troubling thing is, Are there any white racist groups who would feel that this cartoon justified their opinions, perhaps even emboldening them to act on those opinions? If so, then we should not be silent on this cartoon or other public statements or symbols like it.
Like or Dislike:
0
Dr. Wallace,
It was nice meeting you the other day on campus. I appreciate your thoughts here regarding the insinuations of this post. I don’t know what the author of this cartoon intended with this portrayal. Perhaps he did have completely pure motives demonstrating how ill-conceived the bill was and potentially ineffective at solving the current economic problem. But his intention does not matter because the portrayal is nonetheless a reality that has existed for African-americans for centuries. So at a minimum, the posting of this cartoon was highly irresponsible.
No doubt, some will not get why there is sensitivity where it appears sensitivity should not exist. As an african-american, I will agree that reactions do occur to statements or incidents propagated by non-blacks that in reality should not warrant such reactions. However, the reality is that sensitivity occurs because of a collective experience of misperceptions, disparate treatment and denial of equal access to resources. Whether experienced personally or not, the heritage of the African-american experience that will trigger a response to call foul, whenever there is remotely even the hint of something unfair. I think racism does still exist but I think the greater charge is ignorance. Non-blacks simply cannot identify with the personal triggers because it has not been part of their psyche, culture, history or experience. Therefore, remarks and associations may be made by non-blacks in innocence that the african-american will charge with guilt. I think both sides need dialogue to overcome these misperceptions.
As an evangelical, my hope is that the heritage acquired with the new birth through Jesus Christ will trump cultural, racial or historic biases. One in Christ means we recognize the realities and legacy of racial disparities but we submit that to the greater good of the cross that unites us who claim Christ for the cause of the gospel. Something that absolutely will not happen as long as we continue to lay down the dividing line of race and perpetuate an inward focused desire for collective and individual retribution. After all, sin is at the heart of racism and does not discriminate when it comes to affecting persons for its cause of rebellion and hate. And that works both ways.
Like or Dislike:
0
Let me start by stating that I’m an AA Male. Age not so important
I didn’t vote for Obama but I’m praying for him and our country as well as the state of the church. Nor do I agree with the stimulus package. All I see is socialism comming about like a stealth bomber.
When I heard about the picture as told to me by a co-worker my heart was torn. I hadn’t seen it yet so I couldnt tell you much about it, but when I saw it all I could see was as Dan put it “an artificial, guilt-induced interpretation”
I know Obama didnt write the bill but he “Strongly” endorsed it! And for many thats all that matters. Racism hurts and it has torn this country apart far to long.
Like or Dislike:
0
Djohn
I’m praying for him too! I agree with the socialism coming. I found out about the picture the same way. Racism does hurt, and many are not blind to who there are or how there are. A nation divided against itself will not stand.
Age might not be so important, but when you have friends and relatives dying off your age and under you celebrate that. I wasn’t using it as “snob appeal”, merely as an identifier not a qualifier, I felt I should say that. But believe I’m in agreement.
Some whites I know that discussed it say it as racism, some didn’t. Most blacks did, a very small number didn’t.
David R. Obey is white. Maybe we can say that was the intent. But it was received as a racist cartoon, blacks were referred to on various occasions as monkeys that might not have been too much of a knee jerk reaction.
At was something that gave the appearance of being left open to interpretation.
Again, the people at the NY Post were well aware of what would happen if they published it. People would talk about their paper some would purchase it, and that African Americans would see it as racist against them, and they would respond in innocence, and ignorance.
Yeah it does hurt. And by stating I was more offended by the so-called Reverend Lowery, doesn’t mean I was offended by the comic strip.
But I do try to interact with my brothers in Christ in a gracious way.
Like or Dislike:
0
Dan, once again I appreciate the wisdom of your observations, and concluding thoughts. This discussion really does illustrate a great diversity of perspectives within the body of Christ. It’s a good reminder that we would all do well to exercise humility toward one another….. not assuming that we have all of the pieces of the puzzle, but being willing to acknowledge that others may see things very differently, but not be without valid perspective that we can learn from if we are willing to listen.
And, thanks to you Lisa, for a gracious contribution to this understanding… which us white-folk don’t always get, because we haven’t ‘lived in your skin’.
You both bring to this discussion a perspective which promotes unity and love in the body of Christ.
Like or Dislike:
0
I get the historic reference that might make a picture of a dead monkey a racial slur. However I did not have that reaction when I saw the cartoon. I too expected to at least see the president’s face on the monkey given the outrage surrounding the cartoon. Congress wrote the stimulus package and congress is responsible for how poor a bill it is! I am saddened that Obama has shown us so soon that his retoric about bipartisanship was just talk. But, perhaps that is not his fault either. The Dems in congress have been waiting a long time to get a little of their own back. I guess they don’t care who they hurt in the process. I wish the American people could get it in their heads to not reelect a single one of them.
Like or Dislike:
0
‘But as the news circulated, it seemed that people began to take up polar positions.’
Isn’t that what Americans are good at in most situations?
‘It’s an interesting phenomenon that those countries that have historically followed free market economics are generally more prosperous than those that haven’t—and they also tend to be more Christian.’
Dan, thanks for the article.
I am not saying capitalism is inherently evil, but I would say that equating countries that have embraced capitalism/free market economics as having a greater tendency towards being ‘Christian’ is not a helpful or even good comparison. And, as I’m sure you know, such statements don’t back up capitalism. Yes, we might be able to make an historical connection between capitalism and an institutionalized version of Christianity within specific nations, but to make that distinct connection is somewhat faulty. Is any nation Christian today? Maybe some would say America, but it’s still much less than 50%, as we know, and it’s more a name label than authentic, as we also know. God seems to be getting on quite well, if not better, in socialist/communist China. I live in socialist Belgium, and God seems to be working fine. No revivals here, as in China, but socialism has not been a blockage to the kingdom. I am not saying socialism is necessarily the best economic plan either. I just point out that to make a connection between capitalism and Christianity seems a very narrow view, one that some others might shake there head at people like us and say, ‘Only can we find such statements on the lips of upper-middle class white Americans.’ It’s like saying that if America were more Republican it would be more Christian. As we know, the kingdom is not founded on Republicanism, nor capitalism either.
I say none of these things spitefully or arrogantly, but just as a challenge to the specific connection you made.
Like or Dislike:
0
Don’t know why all the italics in that last paragraph of my comment before this one.
Like or Dislike:
0
The really troubling thing is, Are there any white racist groups who would feel that this cartoon justified their opinions, perhaps even emboldening them to act on those opinions? If so, then we should not be silent on this cartoon or other public statements or symbols like it.
Historically in America, this would seem to include the Bible.
Like or Dislike:
0
[...] Parchment and Pen » New York Post’s Racist(?) Cartoon reclaimingthemind.org Dan Wallace [...]
Like or Dislike:
0
Sigh, are we coming down to a culture where any simile or metaphor is forbidden lest it offend someone/somewhere/somehow? When describing a brute force password attack as “a million monkeys on a keyboard”, is that “racist”? If I describe running an enterprise network without a good firewall solution as “putting your head in a noose”, is that a racial slur? If I refer to the mythical developers of perfect software as “mutant coding ninja monkeys”, is that a racist putdown? If the list of “words-you-can’t-say-in-public” keeps getting longer, we’ll be left with no words at all (which given most of the drivel that’s spoken and written these days might not be such a bad thing).
Sorry folks, when I saw the cartoon I thought it was a funny comment on the hodge-podge nature of the “stimulus bill” and didn’t look for a hidden/double/etc meaning that was a jab at the President.
Like or Dislike:
0
I did a an internet search to see the illustration before commenting. I think it was in poor taste and offensive. I took a look at some of Sean Delonas’ other cartoons and though I can see he is very talented at caricature, I am glad I am not a famous person that he could lampoon! Although SOME of his stuff is funny and shows his thought process well, much of it seems hateful.
I then went and looked at Mike Luckovich’s cartoons because I saw one on the Jesus Creed website that inpressed me and I do like his stuff:
http://projects.ajc.com/gallery/view/opinion/luckovichobamaelex/
The one on the Jesus Creed website was the one about Hank Aaron and you can see it at:
http://projects.ajc.com/gallery/view/opinion/luckovichbaseball/ Of course any political cartoonist is going to offend some people sometimes, because each will have his or her own political bent and obviously we are not all of the same political bent.
Like or Dislike:
0
[...] can find his further thoughts again at Reclaiming the Mind. If you read the first one, you should read this one as [...]
Like or Dislike:
0
May I suggest that anyone who does not see the use of a chimp as being an attack on the blackness of Obama is likely:
1. White, and
2. Has little to no understanding of the historical context of racism in this country.
In a country where it is still common for a black man to be pulled over for DWB, and the evangelical church is still typically the most segregated place in America, and what passes for history that is taught is mostly jingoistic pap, it still amazes me what people are blind to – and seemingly willfully blind
what this cartoon represents, even if not intended by the cartoonist: a half-baked parody that was filtered by the kind of irresponsible journalistic sloppiness that couldn’t pass muster in a school paper of any university in the country. The Ku Klux Klan must be downright giddy right now is exactly my opinion.
Like or Dislike:
0
Thanks Susan. And might I add that I can’t help but see this cartoon has taken a bite out of all the progress that has been made towards racial equality in the last half century. It is sad that just when you think things are improving, especially considering the fact that we now have a first ever AA president, that something like this comes along that really dampers that reality. Again, I don’t expect white folks to really get it. Like djohn said, it just hurts.
A good friend of mine is a truck driver and his route is through middle America. He is african-american also but can attest to the fact that not all are ready for an african-american president. He has heard some pretty ugly stuff in reference to the president. Like dac said, the cartoon can only be fodder for such folks.
Like or Dislike:
0
Well, thank goodness the cartoonist didn’t draw a picture of the policemen shooting a pig to death. We sure wouldn’t tolerate anyone ever so remotely or by some 10th-degree of separation making it possible for someone to even so much as hint that by drawing a cartoon of a dead pig or by using the word pig in a conversation or a political speech or a news story that the reference might be to a Presidential or Vice-Presidential candidate. We just do not in this country ever, ever, ever let anyone get away with doing that, and if they so much as breathe the syllables, we – blacks, whites, Republicans and Democrats all together – immediately call for their ouster from whatever job or political race they’re in. And we certainly never, ever, ever would tolerate such a thing being done to a woman, because there is a history of oafish louts and miscreants and chauvinists making fun of and putting down women and treating them as second-class citizens and ridiculing their looks and calling them “pigs” if they don’t look like a super-model or an Amazon.
No, siree!
Like or Dislike:
0
Dac (#26),
May I humbly suggest that your herrings are red? I didn’t view the cartoon a bit racist. I may be white, but please don’t suggest that I don’t know anything about racism, having grown up attending an inner city jr. high and high school where whites were in the vast minority (can you say “reverse racism”?)—and black history was front-and-center—as well as attending a public university where I was literally kicked out of a dormitory lounge for being white (it was the “African-American Lounge” at the University of Michigan). And please don’t say my experiences colored (no pun intended) my viewpoint because one of my best friends in high school was black (and gay!).
My best guess as to how people read this cartoon lies within a portion of dialogue from Star Wars: The Empire Strikes Back. On Dagobah, when Luke asks Yoda what’s in the cave, Yoda responds, “Only what you take with you.”
Heck, as an evolutionist, when I saw the cartoon, I didn’t read the text at first and immediately thought that it was a slam on Charles Darwin, with February being the 200th anniversary of Chuck’s birth, and that the cops represented proponents of Intelligent Design and Young-Earth Creationism. Not really, but I think you get my point. Everyone reads into it what she or he wants to, but there are some of us that can overcome such silly notions, however fleeting, and take the cartoon for what it really is: an indictment on the idiocy of the stimulus bill. Then again, as an evolutionist, I think a group of monkeys could eventually type out Shakespeare’s Hamlet given enough time, so it’s clear to me that we didn’t spend enough time working on the stimulus package.
By the way … maybe we should rid our country’s zoos of primate houses. We wouldn’t want to offend anybody by even remotely suggesting that we, in the core of our innermost being, desire to hold blacks in bondage. Certainly, there’s an unfortunate historical link between monkeys and caricatures of blacks, but it’s time to GET OVER IT! If nobody had said a thing about this cartoon and hyped it up, it would have been used to paper my parakeet’s cage with no second thoughts. Now the cartoon’s “insidious message” is plastered all over our country’s media outlets and fueling racial division. Nice.
Like or Dislike:
0
Mike
In what whay are any of my points “deliberate attempts to change a subject or divert an argument?”
Like or Dislike:
0
I think this post reveals two cultures or subcultures within the church and within America. Lisa R, above gives some intelligent posts, and I can understand many of her sentiments. But I do have a little different perspective, and I am still trying to figure out how we can make this constructive. Some points from her comments: just when you think things are improving, especially considering the fact that we now have a first ever AA president, that something like this comes along that really dampers that reality.
From the emotional standpoint, I kind of understand, but on the other hand, I tend to view this as a sign of progress. Why? Because if people are continually reliving the past, they will never move forward. It means that some of the hate speech of the last generation is not recognized by this generation. (That doesn’t absolve NYpost, who should have known better, and it may not absolve the cartoonist depending on his motives, but for many who read the cartoon and then were surprised by the controversy, this imagery wasn’t an active part of their vocabulary.)
Again, I don’t expect white folks to really get it.
This is on, because a lot of us don’t. And this is where I see two cultures (and really its at least four, since within black and white communities there are two opposite poles) instilling two different narratives in their children in this country as regards race. As a result, some people have a lot more passed on to them about slavery in america than others–and this would be true even if they went to the same school, because you skim the textbook once, but your grandma tells you the same story every time you visit.
Like djohn said, it just hurts.
This point is very important, and is really I think what Dan W was trying to get at when he asked who talked to black friends before posting. As believers, we have something more important than our individual opinions. Its our communal commitment to love one another. I am sorry this cartoon was printed and is hurting so many people. And my opinion, no matter how well reasoned, doesn’t take away anyone’s pain.
Altogether this leaves me asking how we as a church can practically deal with this (posted above but not responded to). And it leaves me asking:
what to we do about this two culture effect and the gap it leaves in our mutual understanding? What is the difference between remembering so as to prevent a recurrence, and reliving so as to take offense unnecessarily?
Many suburban whites want to just move on. Their parents simply tell them slavery was a sinful horrible thing and all people of all races are equal–don’t forget it. Go out and deal with people fairly.
Many blacks I hear from (but I don’t know enough to say most) say its too soon to move on–equality hasn’t been accomplished. And then things get sensitive because its hard to agree on what equality is and how it should be gotten. Case in point: calling someone a monkey–regardless of intent, this has a different meaning when heard by a white person, a black american, a black african, and so on. And sometimes people read different meanings in based on who says it.
How do we stay honest about prejudice without being hypersensitive? How do we stay vigilant against discrimination without demonizing the innocent — or at least the naive?
In the church, what is the best way to overcome this gap in understanding? Can the church ever come to agreement? Here we are–if its mano y mano, I can apologize, I can learn about my friend’s sensitivities, and he can learn to trust me. Trust me–another human (yikes!). But with a whole culture. . . how do you trust? How do you learn sensitivities? The internet is nice, but maybe its not so useful here. Maybe the best churches can do is get along in their areas. I wouldn’t be surprised to find racial attitudes a little different from Dallas to Atlanta, to SoCal and Chicago with its suburbs. Maybe each of those places has to figure out a right path forward on its own?
Probably one thing to start with is open dialogue. Real trust. Real revelation of our own naivete, prejudice, hurts, etc. This is a hard sell, though.
But, others, what do you think? What ideas do you have?
Like or Dislike:
0
Dac,
You divert the argument by placing the discussion’s focus on what you believe to be the source(s) of my (or others’) non-racist interpretation (i.e., being white and not having a clue about our nation’s racist past), one of which, in my case, is a fact and one of which is patently false, of which both have absolutely no bearing on my interpretation. Granted, your “diversion” may not be deliberate, which is essential in declaring a herring to be red. So your herring might not be red after all. But I think it is, because you really should know better than to stereotype based on one’s interpretation.
Secondly, you digress by not actually dealing with what the cartoon actually said and/or means. Rather, you allow an individual interpretation’s to trump authorial intent. Would you let people read the Bible the same way?
Like or Dislike:
0
Mike
Comments are an interesting thing. You can respond to the source (cartoon), the poster (Dan Wallace) or other commentors (you, myself, etc). I don’t think there is any formal comment requirement, nor informal comment etiquite that a commentor stay/respond to only the first of the three
I would say my post was an observation of other commentors. It can be wrong or right, in all or in part. But that does not make it a red herring – it simply makes it a comment, an observation. It is part of the conversation.
Next, we will simply have to disagree – I believe that ones experiences of course impact the way one views other things. You indeed are an amazing person if your past life doesnot influence your interpreation of events today.
And then my post was speaking in general, not to specifics – while you may be that white person unencumbered, I put forth most, including myself, are not.
And finally, art is in the eye of the beholder – once an artist creates and releases it, each person does interpret that art on thier own – at least that is what all my wife’s art friends say. Your comparing interpretation of art to the interpretation of the bible is a non sequitur.
Like or Dislike:
0
Obama didn’t write the stimulus bill; obviously, the NY Post was actually trying to slur black congressmen. Right?
Dang it, this is infuriating.
Mike, you spoke for me with both of your comments, all the way down the line. The day I look forward to is the one in which race means about as much as “boxers or briefs”, but that’s not going to happen as long as the racial divide is accentuated by the political divide that has (primarily) whites on one side, with the other side populated by blacks and whites who perpetuate the victim mentality.
Do you really want to live in a world in which people can’t even use a monkey (a monkey, for Pete’s sake!) for a political cartoon?
Like or Dislike:
0
I believe the offending NYP journalist is Australian. Since I’m Australian, my comment is we don’t know anything about this link between monkeys and race. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, as they say.
Like or Dislike:
0
http://www.seandelonas.com/paintings.htm
Wow, the Post cartoonist, Sean Delonas, certainly PAINTS in a totally different style and theme!
Like or Dislike:
0
“…naïve backwater hicks who have no sense of what’s going on in the culture.”
I won’t address this because of two reasons.
1. Samson did an amazing job.
2. Being that I am of the same ancestry, I too am not hyper-sensitive and have gotten somewhat use to the notion that anytime someone attempts to verbally convey stupidity, they use a southern accent. However, I just wanted to further drive it home and let authors/readers know that we did in fact “learn our letters” contrary to popular belief.
Like or Dislike:
0
If you showed this cartoon to 100 people who hadn’t seen it, or heard of it, and asked them: “Who, or what do you think the ape represents?”
I’m quite sure that at least 90% would say “Obama”. The issue at hand then, really isn’t whether Obama actually penned the bill or not. Before the cartoon came out, I’d heard the bill referred to as “Obama’s stimulus package” many times. Because he wrote it? No! Because he signed it.
The more significant issue here is: Is the cartoon offensive? Do some feel hurt by it? Hopefully most here would acknowledge those questions with a ‘yes’, even if they didn’t feel any pain over it personally. I didn’t personally feel pained by it.
Lisa used a good word: “trigger”. Triggers are involuntary, instantaneous responses. For many African Americans a black man being represented by a monkey is an instantaneous, involuntary trigger, because the derogatory association was established long ago. I was trying to think of triggers that I have, so I could understand this better. I did think of a couple of things. There are things which if someone alludes to them in a conversation with me, I instantly feel a twinge of pain. I can’t control that. It happens without warning, and can change my mood instantly….. immediately make me feel ‘small’, of self-conscious. If people were to read my thought, they might think “That’s ridiculous! Why would that hurt her? She needs to get over that!”. I believe that everyone has such triggers. For some they may feel instant pain when certain comments about their appearance are heard, for others it might be something about their circumstances, dwelling place, marital status, job title, habits…..etc.. I’m sure I’ve ‘hurt’ people with my words many times without ever knowing it… simply because I tripped a trigger I wasn’t aware of.
It seems that some who have entered this conversation are completely dismissive of this trigger for African Americans, simply because they don’t feel it, can’t relate….. therefore it seems ridiculous. “Get over it!” Dan’s point is valid. As Christians we should seek to enter into the suffering of our brother’s and sisters in Christ….. to be understanding, even when we can’t really experience what they are experiencing (like grief).
The editors of the NY Times–who approved the cartoon, and the artist, are undoubtedly not black. They were careless. It’s not a trigger which causes them pain personally…. so, it was excusable. There are certain things which are inexcusable. I have a disabled child. I might be hurt to see a callous depiction of a disabled person. Others would feel no pain. It’s good (and Christlike), to care about the pain of others.
Like or Dislike:
0
If you showed this cartoon to 100 people who hadn’t seen it, or heard of it, and asked them: “Who, or what do you think the ape represents?”
I’m quite sure that at least 90% would say “Obama”.
Susan, until you actually perform a well formed survey, you should really hesitate to say this. I think it would be fine to just call it your opinion. (Actually by the time you find 100 people who haven’t seen the cartoon, you’ll might be somewhere where either they don’t know what a chimpanzee is, or they recognize it as representing food.)
On the topic of opinions, generalizations, perspectives, etc., here are some of mine.
About progress, maybe another way to raise the question I’ve repeatedly tried to raise here, but that no one wants to talk about is to think about triggers:
Susan excuses excuses those who unknowingly trip others’ “triggers”, but Al Sharpton does not. But Susan’s analogy is to personal experience, and Al Sharpton (and other more temperate personalities) point to institutional issues, institutional racism or ignorance or disparity or whatever term. A newspaper is bigger than one person, its public, the readership is public. So do they have more responsibility? Or a different responsibility? How can they carry out that responsibility?
But another issue is here, too: Should we continue building these “triggers” into our children? If yes, then we have to educate all white kids about these triggers so they naturally avoid them. If no, then we have to be patient and willing to let our black and white children grow up without them, while we adults
With an incident like this comic strip are we talking about then or now? Are we talking about us or our kids? When someone trips a “trigger” of Susan’s or anyone else’s, how do we respond? (1) Respond emphatically and demand that our child respond as we do because they are our child and are the same as us? In other words to continue being part of our family, part of our culture, our child must internalize this reaction (2) Tell our child it’s part of our personal history and probably something they won’t have to deal with, but that they will unfortunately probably develop triggers of their own? (3) Cringe a little and wait till the kid’s older before ever showing a sign that a ‘trigger’ was tripped? (4) Never ever mention it at all. (5) ?? your thoughts on other responses ??
#4 is unhealthy in my opinion, and #1 is where the tension is at. When Tiger woods failed to do this after the “lynching” comment some time ago, I read numerous posts from self-described black and white users either calling him white (clearly as a cultural label) or saying that he was a failure as a black man (again, evaluating Tiger’s response in terms of black cultural values). All of this assumed that since Tiger’s skin is black he should think and feel like the majority black American culture. (Perhaps it is for this reason that Obama has not yet responded to the cartoon. Or perhaps he also didn’t think the cartoon was referring to him.)
In the social evolution of America, will or has a time come when we can stop making the preservation of these ‘triggers’ a cultural norm? In my view, Al Sharpton and others use the public forum to pass them on, and that’s a shame and prevents progress for our children. I think its different from the time of Martin Luther King Jr and others who used the public forum boldly and righteously to call attention to injustice. Al Sharpton may say “injustice,” but it very rarely seems to ring true anymore. Highlighting and decrying a cartoon like this does absolutely nothing to address the injustices that remain in America; as far as I can see it only serves to convince the black community that the whites are out to get them or hold them back and so on and therefore can’t be trusted. The result is not a community united in pursuing truth and justice, but one united in suspicion of “the other.” But the black community has many more and better reasons for unity than this, and it also has more freedom and more reason to disagree within itself than it did in the 60s, as evidenced even in posts above.
So where are we at in your opinions? Is this a national issue or should it be more private? Is this a church issue? How can we take our eyes off the cartoon and think about something more constructive?
Like or Dislike:
0
Jason, thanks for your response. I think that you have some valid thoughts here. I agree that a lot of the hurts of the AA community are passed on from one generation to the next in unfortunate ways. We can’t control that much in society at large, but when a cartoon like this posts, and kids see the outrage and hurt of their parents, it does tend to keep the impressions vivid generationally. Personally, I think that it was not wise for the Post to let this one pass edit, but it did, so it becomes part of the generational baton-pass. You are right in saying that there are better and worse ways for AA parents to respond to these things before their children. There are responses which perpetuate hurt, and others which might help children to process things more positively. The gospel certainly can bring a greatly needed healing to these issues within the Christian community. The gospel is a message of forgiveness–recognizing God’s grace toward us, and in turn forgiving and letting go of past offenses of others. Reconciliation is at the heart of the gospel, not the perpetuation of hate and unforgiveness. Those who are not in Christ however, often lack this perspective. Most non-Christians don’t have this model of healing and grace that a Christian has. We can’t expect them to. It’s unfortunate that there are those in the AA community who bear the title ‘Reverend’, who do not promote the concept of grace and forgiveness, but do more to fan the flames than anything else. Perhaps it is because they have never truly experienced God’s grace themselves. After all, bearing the title ‘Reverend’ does not mean that a person is a true convert of the Lord Jesus Christ’s. Does this cause confusion within the AA community? Definitely.
Before this article posted, I asked an AA friend what her reaction to the cartoon was. I asked her because I know that she is measured, moderate and spiritually wise when it comes to racial issues. She took a look at the cartoon and then wrote back:
” But I’ll give you my initial thoughts. As an african-american, I think often we can get up in arms citing offenses where, in my opinion, there aren’t any. However, this was not the case. I was SHOCKED when I saw this. Only the densest or most naive person would not get the connection of blacks with apes. I really stretched and try to think “objectively” of a rational justification, and found none.”
Because of her reaction I, as a sister in Christ, need to try to put myself in her place, as much as possible. She is a person I admire and respect. She isn’t an irresponsible hot-head, as you can see from her response to me. I don’t doubt that she has some problems with the sort of responses given by the oft quoted AA reverends who are always sought-out by the media at times like this. I’m sure that she would prefer that other AA pastors would be called to the press conferences instead. Pastors who would bring the gospel to bear. Pastors who could confront a wrong in an appropriate way, but also encourage forgiveness and reconciliation.
I think that Dan is trying to help us to see things from the perspective of a Christian who can acknowledge that there are hurts which people of a different race will feel, that we don’t feel personally, which we should not be so quick to dismiss with a sneer.
I don’t know if you have any AA friends, but if you do, it might be worth asking what their feelings are in this matter. When it comes from a respected friend it, does make you think twice.
And lastly, you objected to my ‘survey methods’
well gosh,…… why?
I’m tempted to take you up on the challenge and ask around. I live in California, and I realize that people watch the news, but I could probably find a fair number of people who aren’t aware of the controversy. Tempting.
Like or Dislike:
0
Susan:
Does your AA friend know that Obama did NOT write the stimulus bill? Or did she think he did, and therefore think that the dead chimp was referring to Obama? Since you apparently thought Obama wrote the bill (your response 7), I suspect you didn’t correct her initial reaction/impression with that fact.
Like or Dislike:
0
Mr. “E”, I don’t know if my friend thought that the ape represented Obama or not. As I stated before, I believe that most people would think that the ape DID represent Obama, because the stimulus bill was called “Obama’s Stimulus Bill” from day-one (by the media). I cannot bring myself to believe that either the artist of the cartoon, or the editors of the Post, had “no clue” that most people would assume that the ape represented Obama. I’m sure that very few people know that the bill was penned by Representative David Obey.
I liked reading George Bush’s Thanksgiving Declaration (which was posted on the White House website) on Thanksgiving day. I thought: “Wow, that’s awesome! What a strong Christian statement which gives thanks to God…” Later, I was talking with a friend who knows the woman who actually wrote that declaration. Call me stupid, but I had initially thought Bush was involved in the writing process, as I thought Obama was involved in the writing process of the stimulus bill.
Needless to say, in both cases the presidents would read and sign such items.
Like or Dislike:
0
Susan:
The bill originated in the House. It doesn’t matter whether a Mr. Obey (or a Mr. Obi-Wan Kenobi!) wrote it. The perception/reaction that the chimp referred to Obama was a wrong perception/reaction because the Executive Branch did not write the bill. I personally did not think it represented Obama when I first saw it for two reasons: 1. No widely-known editorial cartoonist for a widely-read conservative publication would be so stupid as to portray a Black man as an ape, and 2. I instantly associated the chimp with Congress, because I knew the bill came from the House, and I thought of the saying, “A camel is a horse designed by a committee.”
Like or Dislike:
0
That’s good ‘E’. I asked my mother a couple of days ago what she thought of the cartoon. She is a sharp-thinking, wise and intelligent woman in her 70′s (who’s white, and conservative). She said that she definitely thought that the cartoon was offensive. I didn’t ask her if she thought the ape represented Obama.
It seems odd to me to disassociate Obama from the bill. It would make him a fool of a president if he wasn’t well aware of, and approving of the bill. As Dan put it: “His (Obama’s) fingerprints are all over it”.
Like or Dislike:
0
Friends, it seems that one issue that is being discussed here is of a hermeneutical nature: those who were not offended at the cartoon were not offended because they realize that the president did not author the bill, while those who were offended recognize that many people will read the text as heavily involving President Obama from day one.
On one level, how we interpret something should involve authorial intent. That’s how we are to approach the Bible, as well as any other document. What did the author mean by this statement? On another level, an author is responsible to share his communication with a community; he is responsible to understand, as much as he can, how a community would understand what he wrote. We see this in Paul’s letters. At times, he was not understood, so he made a correction by explaining in a later letter what he meant (e.g., 1 Cor 5.9-10). But the question is, Would Paul write in such a way that he knew would be offensive to some when the way in which he worded his argument could have been done differently? Or to put this more broadly, Is it good communication style to write in such a way that one knows would be offensive to a good portion of the readers when such an offense was not intended?
We struggled with a similar issue in translating the NET Bible. Because of connotations in English today, especially of a sexual nature, we had to be very careful about several passages. For example, in Ps 50.9 we could not translate the Hebrew as the RSV had done it: “I will accept no bull from your house”! Or, in Matt 8.20, we went with “foxes have dens.” Now, we could argue that, in context, both passages clearly referred to actual animals, and thus no slang/sexual connotations should be inferred. True enough, but we still knew that some people would interpret the words in the wrong way. In the least, there would be fodder for junior high students if we weren’t sensitive to these issues.
How much more is the NYP cartoon liable to misinterpretation? And did the editors really think that no one would be offended? In other words, whether the cartoon meant to speak of the president is not the issue so much as whether the editors knew that many people would assume that it did so. Whether Susan’s guess of a 90% offense rate is accurate is not the issue; the fact that a large portion of the American public was deeply offended by the cartoon is the issue. And several of you were not offended, but it seems that one thing you’re not recognizing is that many were offended and that, as Christians, we are called to hurt with those who hurt.
Like or Dislike:
0
I’m thinkin’ the “I will accept no bull from your house.” version might work pretty well here!
(P.S. Thanks for saving me from that survey)
Like or Dislike:
0
This cartoon is in no way racist. Let’s all learn to be a little more niggardly with that word, eh?
More Comments:
1 2 Next »