February 24, 2009, Rupert Murdoch, chairman of the New York Post, personally apologized for a recent cartoon by Sean Delonas, nicknamed by some “the Picasso of prejudice”. The cartoon, which depicted a chimpanzee being shot by the police after mauling a woman, captioned “They'll have to find someone else to write the next stimulus bill”.
Mr. Murdoch commented: "Today, I want to personally apologize to any reader who felt offended, and even insulted," Murdoch said in a statement. “…I can assure you, without a doubt, that the only intent of that cartoon was to mock a badly written piece of legislation. It was not meant to be racist, but unfortunately, it was interpreted by many as such. We all hold the readers of the New York Post in high regard, and I promise you that we will seek to be more attuned to the sensitivities of our community."
“It was not meant to be racist, but unfortunately, it was interpreted…as such.” Is it possible for a news media to be any more irresponsible and callous? Some may argue that African Americans are inflating the seriousness of this situation, but clearly, that chimpanzee cartoon is offensive to the black community and the office of the President of the United States. Given the social history of America and the typical negative connotations regarding African Americans, greatly-experienced, mainstream media giants such as the New York Post possess the consciousness to realize such connotations, predict their effects, and avoid publishing any satire that could be perceived as offensive—unless that is the message they actually meant to convey. As well, in lieu of the fact that an African American now chairs the high office—which may not be too thrilling to some members of other races, the need for “racial correctness” is at an all-time high, and, frankly, those African Americans who feel that this situation is an attack on their race are not wrong for believing such.
One can only wonder that if the oval office was not occupied by a black man, would that cartoon have ever been conceived and published and taken in a negative manner. The answer to the combination of these factors: maybe, but quite possibly not. Since the oval office is chaired by an African American, the cartoon does carry significant call for concern. This is the logic that should have guided the cartoon editor’s and publisher’s thoughts when considering this piece for publication. And again, because of their experience in the publishing industry, one cannot digest the notion that the news giant was unable to foresee the possibility of the infuriating effects the cartoon would have on African Americans. It is difficult to believe that the New York Post or any other news media would publish a cartoon satire involving any oven jokes, regardless of the non-racial intent, without first considering the consequences of angering the Jewish community.
Respect is to consider someone's feelings, needs, thoughts, ideas, wishes and preferences. When there is a feeling of respect or the lack thereof, the behavior will naturally follow. Needless to say, the NY Post did not think of respect for the black community when publishing the piece. They said what they intended and conveyed their ideals to the public. All of the apologies in the world cannot burrow up the seeds of blatant disrespect that have been sewn by the NY Post’s incomprehensible and utterly, unforgivably insensitive decision to publish.
Regardless to the manner in which African Americans conduct themselves, the New York Post’s actions are not in the least bit acceptable or justifiable. However, if their true intention was disrespect, which it unequivocally seems to be, one must beg the question of why they feel so confident in publicly expressing their insolence for African Americans. Could it be that they feel African Americans show no respect for self, so why respect people who fail to respect themselves?
Respect from others is gained by first respecting self at all times. If one shows no respect for self, how can one rationally demand respect from others? The most disrespectful word in the English language is the n-word and yet African Americans refer to one another as such; when one considers the idiom’s sinister history, and still continues to refer to self and others as such, the ability to demand respect from others becomes a near-impossible feat.
Obviously, there is absolutely nothing respectable about the n-word, but yet Black youths, comedians, rappers, ministers, community leaders, politicians all publicly use the n-word and think nothing of it. We can deceive ourselves all we want, but the rest of the world recognizes that word for its true meaning and take African Americans at their declaration that this is how they want to be looked upon. No one is going to think any more of an individual than that person thinks of him/herself. Only individual self respect compels respect from others.
Some may argue that African Americans are inflating the seriousness of this situation, but clearly, that chimpanzee cartoon is offensive to the black community and the office of the President of the United States.
In the American system of government, laws are written by Congress (The House and the Senate). The Constitution specifically requires that spending bills originate in the House of Representatives. The Stimulus Bill was in fact a spending bill and did in fact originate in the House of Representatives. President Obama in fact received quite a lot of criticism for allowing Nancy Pelosi to draft the bill. The fact that she wrote the bill received extensive news coverage.
I can understand how African Americans were offended by the cartoon but I stand with those who believe that the situation was inflated far out of proportion. It seems pretty clear to me that the cartoon was mocking the part or our government which wrote the bill and that would be Congress. Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats in Congress did indeed write an insane bill that was worthy of a Xanex addled chimp.
Either you are a better writer then the cartoonist was a drawer or I have heard the post make that statement. When I read what you wrote I thought The Post was mocking the bill writers not Obama. I will be glad to assume that you are a better writer.
I wish that the n- word was no longer used. I feel that it is such a neg word no matter what anyone says about it or how you spell it. It is still a bad word.
"Something given has no value"~Robert Heinlein
"Having been poor is no shame, but being ashamed of it, is." Benjamin Franklin, Poor Richards Almanack, 1749
"...avoid publishing any satire that could be perceived as offensive."
That phrase seems like the core of what is wrong with your argument. There has never been a political cartoon that did not insult someone. If there was one it wasn't funny. Which is also the case with this pathetic cartoon.
It may be that neither you nor I likes what is being said, but I will defend the right to say it. That defense includes your right to object vocally, and with your dollars.
"Believe those who are seeking the truth; doubt those who find it."
--Andre Gide
I have yet to see a cartoon satire about The Jewish Holocaust. No one would dare!
International Holocaust Cartoon Competition
From the Wikipedia article it appears that there was participation in this contest from across the world and that the cartoons were published, in a limited way, internationally. Even some Israeli's got in on the act and ran a parallel contest open to Jews only.
As far as I know the only sacred cow in the cartoon satire world was anything casting Mohamed and/or Islam in a questionable light.
The following is a direct quote from your reference article. So my comment still stands as it pertains to the Western world.
Revisionist history has been around for quite some time, even before the Iranian competition. I don't have dates for these cartoons, but this is the very first link that popped up in a goodsearch search.
http://www.historiography-project.com/satire/cartoons.html
~C
Check out the latest entry in the Between The Lines column!
Want the highest rated list to change? RATE those blogs, then!
I did not see the cartoon in question, so I can't really comment on that. I doubt I would associate a chimp with African Americans in general, though. Then again, political cartoons aren't really my thing.
I do, though, want to comment on one thing:
I would really argue that. Yes, the 'n-word' is a disrespectful word, but I hardly think it's more disrespectful than faggot, dike, asshole, dago (in non-American countries), honky, hick, etc. There are dozens of derogatory words in the English language, each meant for a specific group of people. Just because black Americans have a long history of being discriminated against doesn't mean that the 'n-word' is the most derogatory word in the language. Frankly, if the 'n-word' is all we had to worry about, I'd say we're doing pretty good...
~C
Check out the latest entry in the Between The Lines column!
Want the highest rated list to change? RATE those blogs, then!
The words you make reference to, faggots, dike, assholes, dago, honkey, hick, etc. are just that disrespectful and yes in today's terms the n-word has also been reduced to nothing more than a racial slur. However, the history behind this word is unsurpassed. During the days of slavery and years thereafter, to be categorized as the n-word was synonymous with being dehumanized, butchered, slaughtered, raped, sodomized with hot pokers, boiled and burned alive, the history behind this word served as a license to terrorize, to torture and kill. This history is etched permanently in the archives of history.
There is no other word in the English language with such a dastardly and evil history.
The fact that you do not associate chimps with African Americans suggests that you are not a racist. I gather also that you may be relatively young, but up to as recently as the 60s, racist would refer to African Americans as monkies, and the police had a reputation of shooting first and asking questions afterwards when it came to African Americans. And trust me the institutionalized American system is well aware of this history, it's not like they suddenly developed amnesia.
Comments were a duplication and therefore deleted.
Why would you put "asshole" in the category with all the other words? "Asshole" is non specific, it does not describe any group of people, only actions. All the other words you listed were and are basically used to demean people just for being born. You can't act like a nigger or faggot or bitch, etc., people assign those titles based on your demography.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Good post. Anyone who can't see how that cartoon could be offensive is young, stupid, naive or from Mars. And I'm guessing the assholes at the New York Post are none of these.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++