New Yorker Obama Cartoon Monkey Business
20 Feb, 2009 | Written by Snippish | under WASHINGTON WATCH
Powered by Max Banner Ads
Many people disagree with the stimulus bill and if someone described the process of creating and passing the bill as “the same old monkey business in Washington,” most people would know what that meant. To me, the dead monkey in the cartoon (which also made light of the real life chimp that was recently shot) was used to represent those in Washington who are conducting the monkey business.
Related information:
thinker900 | February 20th, 2009 at 5:49 pm #
Wow, that took a lot of guts, but you dead wrong. Everyone can be reasoned with. Even AA’s…I know it’s a surprise right??? IT’S CALLED UNDERSTANDING MORON! If you and others spend half as much time critiquing AA as you do to try and understand them ,then you might not be speaking this way. But no, Leave it to a moron to exaggerate and stereotype others to satisfy his/her own opinion.
ezekielthemack | February 20th, 2009 at 5:49 pm #
You’re brain must be stuck up your ass! Stop trying to justify this vile piece of imagery. This is a RACIST cartoon, there is no other way that it can be interpreted and the more discernible among us, can see it for what it is - racism. Who else could they be referring as the embodiment of the ape? Barbara Streisand. On your next shopping trip I suggest you buy yourself a brain - you need one.
sidney4jah | February 20th, 2009 at 5:49 pm #
time to fight blacks.arab asia,lets vipe this whites now.we need nuclea dude.fuckkkk whites man
josh6132003 | February 20th, 2009 at 5:49 pm #
The cartoon clearly said ” It looks like we will have to find someone else to write the next stimulus bill. Nanci Polosi wrote the bill. Obama had nothing to do with it. The artist who wrote it clearly knew what he was comparing the monkey too. Nanci Polosi, Susuan collins, and olimpia snow who wrote that piece of garbage. Obama just signed it. He didnt write it.
ezekielthemack | February 20th, 2009 at 5:49 pm #
You, like many people have been taken in by the fact that people are using Nancy Pelosi as the decoy in this situation. Nancy Pelosi is female, white (italian extraction?) and NOT black. Obama ratified the bill by signing it, so the buck stops with him. Given the historic racial connotations of black people and monkeys, the chimp has no correlation to Pelosi at all, but it does have a correlation to Obama. I rest my case.
LazloDoe | February 20th, 2009 at 5:49 pm #
That’s what I think. Thanks for the comment.
LazloDoe | February 20th, 2009 at 5:49 pm #
It’s a joke man. Watch Sunday morning cartoons meant for kids, there’s violence. I didn’t really think the cartoon was funny either, but I don’t take it so literally that I would say it’s showing violence is ok.
LazloDoe | February 20th, 2009 at 5:49 pm #
There was only one monkey because there was only one monkey that was shot in the real life story.
Do you ever look at political cartoons? If the monkey was supposed to represent Obama, the monkey would have had features that made it resemble Obama.
LazloDoe | February 20th, 2009 at 5:49 pm #
I know the history of comparing black people with monkeys. I also know the common act of using monkeys in all kinds of satire…ESPECIALLY in political cartoons. Ready my interpretation of the cartoon in the description.
My interpretation makes a lot more use of what is ACTUALLY in the cartoon. People calling it racist are simply making all kinds of assumptions and manipulating what the officer is saying, which is the most important thing that indicates who the monkey is.
josh6132003 | February 20th, 2009 at 5:49 pm #
You clearly dont remember history either. You obviously are beholden to the Democrat party and are a party line person not a free thinker. You must not have been alive during the civil rights movement because you dont remember who it was who fought against you getting your rights. It was the republicans who fought for your rights and your precious democrat party was the one persecuting you. They are also the ones who gave you welfare and tried to break up your families and legalized abortion
LazloDoe | February 20th, 2009 at 5:49 pm #
No, it doesn’t take intellect, it takes a wild imagination. Monkeys have been used in political cartoons for many many years to depict many different things. So often in fact, that I doubt you can go a few days without seeing a monkey in a cartoon.
But just because we now have a black president, are we to jump to the conclusion that every monkey is meant to be Obama?
josh6132003 | February 20th, 2009 at 5:49 pm #
They also believed in Eugenics and Margerette Sanger who helped found planned parenthood believed that by doing this to your race they would get your all to have many abortions and eventually your race would be completely wiped out. There plan was also to enslave you with welfare and government housing so you would not go out and be successful on your own. This way they keep you in poverty and hope you will eventually die out. Obama clearly does not know this because he supports the sameprograms
josh6132003 | February 20th, 2009 at 5:49 pm #
And i didnt just listen to the the polosi thing. I had no idea it was contriversial because when i first saw the cartoon i Immediately thought of Palosi because i am informed and dont just listen to what other people say about a peticular issue. I think for myself. If it was racist i would have spotted it.
LazloDoe | February 20th, 2009 at 5:49 pm #
It’s LACK of understanding that makes people refuse that any other legitimate interpretation exists for this cartoon OTHER than the racist one.
If people opened there eyes and used their brains instead of trying to instigate conflict where there isn’t any, then we’d all be a lot better off.
LazloDoe | February 20th, 2009 at 5:49 pm #
You’re right. If there was any doubt at all, the officer’s words in the cartoon definitely should have made it clear that the monkey isn’t Obama.
This cartoon was clearly meant to refer to the “monkey business” going on in congress.
LazloDoe | February 20th, 2009 at 5:49 pm #
You just don’t get it do you. What on Earth would I have to gain by JUSTIFYING a racist cartoon?
I’m not justifying a cartoon that is racist, I’m justifying a cartoon that isn’t.
If I was trying to justify this as a racist cartoon, I would agree that the monkey is Obama and would claim there is nothing wrong with the monkey representing Obama. But I’m not doing that. I’m saying the monkey isn’t Obama.
If you want to know what the monkey is, check my description for this video.
ezekielthemack | February 20th, 2009 at 5:49 pm #
Your semantics are all over place to the point where they are incohsesive and lack foundation. Come back to me with a LEGITIMATE argument as to why this is NOT a racist cartoon and don’t give me the waffle that you’ve just given me. You cannot outsmart me with waffle my friend, I’m too smart for that. Justify your argument properly and when you can tell me why MY initial argument lacks foundation then I’ll entertain you.
paindeer | February 20th, 2009 at 5:49 pm #
GFYSAH
USAisAntiWhite | February 20th, 2009 at 5:49 pm #
Black people are always blowing things out of proportion and always crying “poor me”. Aren’t they tired of being the weak pawn? They are unaware of who they are, ie. negro,colored, black, african-american and need Sharpton to tell them what to think, act and say. It is a sad race.
thinker900 | February 20th, 2009 at 5:49 pm #
But don’t you think the time the cartoon given to the public seems a bit suspicous. I mean if it were given before the passing of the bill then most people would have thought that New York Times were simply talking about the writers of the stimulus bill. Why didn’t they do it then? Or better yet why didn’t he/she draw a typewriter or Labtop with the word stim…. You get what I’m saying. That would have sent a clear message that it wasn’t Obama they were targeting.
LazloDoe | February 20th, 2009 at 5:49 pm #
Read my description. My interpretation of the cartoon exists because of what is ACTUALLY IN THE CARTOON. Your interpretation involves drawing all kinds of indirect connections. And then after that, you need to twist around the meaning of the words in the cartoon in order to prevent them from contradicting your BS ideas.
If it makes you feel better to go out and cry “racism” even in instances where there isn’t any, then you’re NOT part of the solution, you’re part of the problem.
LazloDoe | February 20th, 2009 at 5:49 pm #
Good questions thinker900. Thanks for the comment.
Here’s a couple points. The text in the cartoon asks who will write the “NEXT” stimulus bill. Also this cartoon simply couldn’t have existed prior to the passing of the bill because the real monkey story hadn’t happened yet.
But I agree with you that the cartoonist could have done more to make it clear that the monkey was Washington/US Congress politics. I simply don’t think he foresaw that people would interpret it the way they have.
thinker900 | February 20th, 2009 at 5:49 pm #
I don’t thin so either..well at least when I took a second look. But the things is that people don’t read ..they skim. So, more than likely they took only one look and made a knee jerk reaction to it. All I’m saying is that the cartoonist needs to pay more attention to what he draws and the potential affect of that cartoon.
ezekielthemack | February 20th, 2009 at 5:49 pm #
Young man, when you come onto youtube making bold statements, I expect you to qualify them. You have NOT done this. Stupid fool.
LazloDoe | February 20th, 2009 at 5:49 pm #
ezekiel, if you’d wake up you’d realize YOU’RE the one making a bold statement, not me. YOU are attacking a cartoonist and calling his work racist. In most cultures, a person is innocent until proven otherwise. If anybody needs to do a better job qualifying their statements, it’s people like you who are making all the accusations.
What exactly do I need to do in order to “qualify” my statements to you anyway? Would you be able satisify your own standards in regards to your statements?