Sometimes a political cartoon, or actually any sort of cartoon, can function as a type of Rorschach inkblot test. That is what we see in a cartoon may reflect our own internal thoughts more than they reflect either anything in the cartoon itself or anything that the author intended. But, sometimes there is actual agreement between various parties on the meaning of a cartoon. Such is the cartoon above, published today in the New York Post. It was based on an incident yesterday in which a chimpanzee went, ahem, bananas and had to be shot to death by policemen after critically injuring one person and trying to attack a policeman. However, that was transmuted into a political statement, and that is where the fun started.
So, what do you see in the cartoon above?
Well, obviously, the New York Post saw nothing distasteful in the cartoon, or, at least, I would hope not. However, major row has broken out over the cartoon itself, with people divided about whether this is a racist cartoon or not. Two issues have come to the fore in the discussion. One is that black people were gratuitously called monkeys during much of our history. Remember that the monkey is called the author of the bill. If that monkey represents President Obama, then a black person is being pictured as a monkey, yet again. The second problem that some saw, of course, is the link to violence. Again, if the author of the bill is the President, then this cartoon is altogether too close to picturing an assassination.
The counter-arguments are also obvious. The cartoon is simply picturing the bill itself as something that appears to have been put together more by a rabid monkey than by logically thinking Congressmen and the President working together. Neither the cartoonist nor the newspaper have any prior history of deliberately racist cartoons, nor would it be in their interest to deliberately publish a racist cartoon. After all, New York is a city with a large African-American population and you do not want to hurt your sales. The New York Post is saying that it was not meant in any racist way and that they stand by their publishing it.
So, what do you see in the cartoon above?
Now let me tell you what did surprise me. In interviewing both Republicans and Democrats, more than one national outlet found that on one issue both agreed. Both Republican and Democratic congressmen agreed that if the chimp was meant to represent President Obama, then it was indeed a horrid cartoon. However, if the chimp was not meant to represent the President but was simply making an editorial comment about the supposed incoherence of the bailout bills, then it was probably not a problem.
So, what did you see when you looked at the cartoon above?
I saw the latter. The former didn’t even cross my mind until you mentioned it.
We need to go with the Stimulus Bill with all the holes in it. Also they know this is only the first installment of Stimulus. I see it as we need ti do a much better job at defining specifically what is needed to change the economy. We are moving from a suburbs culture into a densely populated areas. So things need to change as they did after WWII when we went from industrial to suburbia.
I saw King Kong — a bloated, out-of-control government monster. No personification implied, and anyway it’s too big for a monkey. I get distressed when people can find insults ANYWHERE.
We do live in a culture of taking offense instantly. I, myself, did not see the insult at first. But, then, I have never been called a monkey as an insult. However, it struck me that how one interprets this cartoon depends on one’s background. That is why I put together this “ink blot” posting.
So often, when counseling couples in trouble, I am struck by how the couple being counseled persistently interprets motions or phrases in the worst possible manner. That is why “trust building measures” are so often a part of counseling a couple. You start with small things and work up until the couple is not pathologically misinterpreting each other.
I found myself wondering whether our country needs some “trust building measures.”
I thought it was in poor taste, and showed an incredible lack of sensitivity on the part of the Post. Yeah, we may know what it really means, but is it necessary to walk that close to the line? I have a hard time believing that it didn’t cross someone’s mind at the Post. If it didn’t, we need to get them some diversity training immediately.
I think they knew what the reaction would be, and just did it to sell newspapers. It would fit their MO.
I didn’t find the cartoon amusing at all. The metaphor doesn’t work on any level as far as I can see, and it’s a particularly graphically violent one at that. It says a lot about the cartoonist, none of it flattering.
Two thumbs down before we ever reach the issue of racism.