- #106
Moridin
- 692
- 3
There is no line. However if you consistently make political cartoons with no relevant point, you will just get laughed at and ignored.
russ_watters said:He didn't have a legitimate beef so there was no chance of that.
LowlyPion said:Of course he had a legitimate beef. The cartoon is prima facie insensitive to the feelings of black people. Just look at the reaction throughout the black community if you're thinking otherwise. It wasn't just Sharpton.
And if you think people don't understand the Post's cartoons, I think that the outrage has more to do with the fact that people do understand the cartoon. That they do understand the history of such depictions and the mean-spiritedness with which such rhetoric has been used in the past.
Of course he had a legitimate beef. The cartoon is prima facie insensitive to the feelings of black people. Just look at the reaction throughout the black community if you're thinking otherwise. It wasn't just Sharpton.
Moridin said:If anything, your notion that all black people share the same reaction or sentiment or that there is such a thing as "the black community" should be much more racially offensive than a satirical cartoon.
WhoWee said:I'd still like to know why this doesn't offend anyone
http://politicalhumor.about.com/od/politicalcartoons/ig/Political-Cartoons/Senator-Burris.htm
or this
http://politicalhumor.about.com/od/barackobama/ig/Barack-Obama-Cartoons/Reaching-Out.-ng_.htm
I find this a LOT more offensive
LowlyPion said:The first is from Lieberman's home state, the Hartford Courant. Sorry I don't see anything particularly racial about that. Given Lieberman's prominent role in McCain's candidacy and the fact that they allowed him to retain his Chairmanship, I see no real problem with that.
As to the second, what's the beef? That Obama is inviting too many of these whining Republicans to come over for Super Bowl parties and dinner with the Obamas? That's more an "enough is enough" kind of thing, not a racial thing isn't it?
WhoWee said:The second is deplorable...forget about race...they're inferring Obama would "pimp" his wife to get a vote...that is MUCH worse than the chimp cartoon. Personal attacks on his family should be off limits...PERIOD!
LowlyPion said:By all means contact the Atlanta Constitution and express your displeasure with the inference that you drew from Mike Lukovich's cartoon.
Maybe you can find others to join in your outrage and your Crusade.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29290857/MSNBC said:Many aren't satisified with the partial apology. Director Spike Lee, Judge Greg Mathis and others will join the Rev. Al Sharpton in front of the New York Post tonight to address it. The rally begins at 5 p.m. on Sixth Avenue.
Like him or his tactics or not, I think the man continues to have a point."Though we think it is the right thing for them to apologize to those they offended, they seem to want to blame the offense on those (who) raised the issue, rather than take responsibility for what they did," Sharpton said in a statement.
LowlyPion said:By all means contact the Atlanta Constitution and express your displeasure with the inference that you drew from Mike Lukovich's cartoon.
Maybe you can find others to join in your outrage and your Crusade.
WhoWee said:Take another look at the first one.
The second is deplorable...forget about race...they're inferring Obama would "pimp" his wife to get a vote...that is MUCH worse than the chimp cartoon. Personal attacks on his family should be off limits...PERIOD!
BobG said:Wow! The second one takes a lot bigger leap to see than the chimp cartoon. They're all sleeping on Barak's side of the bed.
I'm not sure what you're getting at with the first one, either. Is it the insinuation that Jews are allowed in the Senate and blacks aren't? (Burris is the only black currently in the Senate). There will be 13 Jews in the Senate regardless of who eventually wins the Minnesota race, so the cartoon misses by using Lieberman. The cartoonist could have done as well by using a woman Senator's name (17 in the Senate). Better would have been Menendez or Martinez (only 2 Hispanics in the Senate after Salazar joined Obama's cabinet).
WhoWee said:LowlyPion
Look at this crap...
http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&VideoID=48094845
I'm not an Obama supporter...mostly because I don't think he can control Pelosi and Reid (and company)...but this kind of stuff goes too far.
Attack the politics...not the person or their families.
LowlyPion said:Was that sent out by the Democratic Party, you know like that Barack the Magic Negro dvd that was sent out by the buffoon running to head the RNC?
Since it has no affiliation except with an apparently vulgar individual ... I mean really just consider the source. What kind of accountability do you expect if some whack job gins up some vulgar homage that if you hadn't linked it would have suited me fine to never see.
This of course is dissimilar to a syndicated cartoon that expresses mean-spirited sentiment under the thin pretense of political comment. Since the paper chose to print it, then that expression reflects directly on them. And hence the outrage they have attracted.
Evo said:Well Moonbear, probably the fact that these aren't political cartoons published in a major paper, eh? Someone digging up photos on the internet associated with Bush is really lame and quite frankly has nothing to do with the cartoon that was published.
Are you serious? Please explain what part of the cartoon would suggest that.My initial impression of the cartoon was actually that it was celebrating that Bush was out of office and no longer had anything to do with the stimulus package
Do you really want people to know what you did?Moonbear said:I'm not surprised you'd be jumping on the bandwagon though and calling those with differing opinions "lame." I see things haven't changed so much around here as I was told they had.
Because the "black person = monkey" reference is a well known racist slur. I'm aware of no such slur having been used against white folk.Moonbear said:Why wasn't it racist when everyone compared Bush to a chimpanzee?
Moonbear said:There were TONS of depictions of Bush as a chimpanzee during his term, and they did appear in mainstream media. You may think its lame if you share the same biases as Al Sharpton, but it seems to me that it's more racist to suddenly jump to the conclusion that it was Obama they were depicting at all. The cartoon did not name anyone. This is typical Sharpton propaganda, trying to conjure up racism where it does not exist. I'm not surprised you'd be jumping on the bandwagon though and calling those with differing opinions "lame." I see things haven't changed so much around here as I was told they had.
That would also probably have the Secret Service knocking on your door that afternoon.lisab said:I would still feel it was over the line, because it depicts a president being shot. That's over the line, no matter who the president is.
Moonbear said:There were TONS of depictions of Bush as a chimpanzee during his term, and they did appear in mainstream media.
LowlyPion said:You're right. Perhaps PETA should have complained. It's not racist really so much as setting one Hominidae family against another. And I do agree it certainly portrayed chimps in a rather poor light. Chimps have feelings too, and those attempts at humor should of course be seen for what they are. Legitimate spot on political assessments of Bush's abilities in the world of Sapiens but a really fundamental insult not only to chimps, gorillas, bonobos, baboons and really maybe the entire family back to oh maybe say spider monkeys?
lisab said:Add the racial element, and it's way, way over the line, IMHO.
That does, of course, require the interpretation that the cartoon was intended to be about Bush. What if it was intended to be about Congress, who wrote the bill in question? Is it still over the line because it might be misinterpreted as being about shooting the president? I am not one who favors being so PC that you have to think about all possible misinterpretations of your speech before you say something.lisab said:Try this - imagine the same cartoon was run several years ago, when Bush was president. This averts the racial issue. Imagine the caption said something like, "They'll have to find someone else to give tax cuts to rich people."
I would still feel it was over the line, because it depicts a president being shot. That's over the line, no matter who the president is.
It's not a huge stretch, Russ. Two white cops shooting a monkey meant to personify someone ... someone essentially involved in writing the stimulus bill. It's one thing to say this cartoon crossed a line, and another thing altogether to claim that it takes contortions to see the possibility of an Obama-monkey interpretation.russ_watters said:Is it still over the line because it might be misinterpreted as being about shooting the president? I am not one who favors being so PC that you have to think about all possible misinterpretations of your speech before you say something.
Gokul43201 said:Because the "black person = monkey" reference is a well known racist slur. I'm aware of no such slur having been used against white folk.
I can't tell if this is meant to be tongue-in-cheek (or rhetorical), so I'll wait for confirmation.WhoWee said:Doesn't evolution apply to everyone?
On the other hand this exact phrasing gets somewhat less:Google said:Results 1 - 10 of about 1,440,000 for "Obama Stimulus Bill"
Google said:Results 1 - 10 of about 16,300 for "Congressional Stimulus Bill"
Bystander said:"1 - 10 of 5,730,000 for "economic stimulus"+"pelosi" (About) - 0.19 s
... 127 million for just "economic stimulus."