When the New York Post published a political cartoon of a chimpanzee, a subject of some discussion in the New York area for somewhat obvious reasons, the good Reverend Al went nuts. It didn’t help that it was the Post, knee-jerk reactionary tabloid that it is. But it shows two things.
First, that the Rev. Al has too little to occupy himself now that the White House is occupied by a black president. Second, that Rev. Al has yet to come to grips with equality. The funniest part of Al Sharpton’s outrage is his call for a boycott of the Post, as if he’s every paid for a copy.
New York Governor David Paterson tried to take a more even-handed approach, according to Newsday :
“It might be a time to open up a dialogue on just where that line is, where good clean fun and degradation are,” Paterson told reporters.
But even this misses the mark. The cartoon may well have incorporated ago-old racist overtones, using the monkey epithet to tar a black president. But editorial cartoons are supposed to be gross exaggerations and have been since their inception. Once the discussion turns to what is “acceptable” in political satire, it will no longer be satire.
Political cartoons has always used physical features to both portray and offend the powerful. They made fun of people. They abused people. They made their point through visual exaggeration. What does it say that, for the first time in American history, there is an outcry that we need rules? Since when does satire need to be fair? What use is satire that’s inoffensive?
This debate isn’t about cartoonists attacking the downtrodden, the powerless, the abused in our society. It’s about attacking the President of the United States. You remember him, the most powerful man on earth? When it comes to satirizing the president, there can be no limits or rules of safe conduct. Everything must be fair game.
The mechanics of political cartooning don’t mesh well with the fear that cartoonists are standing on the new boundary of propriety. From Breitbart.com :
Scott States, editorial cartoonist for The Birmingham (Ala.) News, said he received several complaints this week that his Obama drawings look “simian.” As a conservative in a city that’s 77 percent black, States has learned to consider the feelings of his audience.“Being the typical American editorial cartoonist—doughy, white, middle-aged—I’m more than willing to accept that I don’t know what may or may not be offensive,” he said. “But editorial cartoons are supposed to be offensive, and provocative. We’re entering new waters here. What can you use or not use?”
“All my characters look simian,” he said. “I don’t make Obama look nearly as simian as our former governor Mike James, who I DID draw as a monkey, on more than one occasion. And he’s a white guy … I’m sorry, but when it comes to African-Americans, you just don’t draw monkeys.”
Ted Rall, president of the American Association of Editorial Cartoonists, said that Obama’s race has affected how his colleagues do their jobs: “Without a doubt, people are stepping more gingerly. People are tiptoeing their way through this.”
Rall, who is liberal, said it’s harder to take shots at Obama because he’s smart, charming and handsome, “so when you attack the personality, people suspect there’s only one reason: It’s gotta be his race. My conservative cartoonist friends find it very frustrating.”
Never before in the history of the United States has there been such a constraint on political speech. Political cartoons have long been an exceptionally effective means of communicating a political message, and the freedom of cartoonists to make their point has been critical to our ability to challenge, and laugh at, political orthodoxy. Until now.
Barack Obama earned the Presidency. He won it, fair and square. There is no reason for any group to question the legitimacy of his holding the highest political office in America. Is this not enough? Is Obama’s authority so fragile that he needs the likes of Al Sharpton to scream racism when Obama’s subjected to the same scrutiny as every president before him?
Attorney General Eric Holder said we’re a nation of cowards when it comes to discussing race. He’s right. if we’re ever going to get past race, as many hope can happen now that America has shown that it will elect a black man to the office of President, then we need to get past the fear that chains us to the past.
Sean Delonas’ cartoon was, in my humble opinion, neither particularly funny nor effective. He’s done some great ones, but this wasn’t. So slam him all you want for producing a crappy cartoon. But Barack Obama is the President of the United States, and the chilling effect of the cries of racism may do more harm to both racial equality and political discussion than any lousy political cartoon the Post could publish.
Obama is fair game. Obama cannot be untouchable. No President can be untouchable. No political commentary should be subject to rules. And who cares what Rev. Al has to say anyway.
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Tawana Brawley
Some people just don’t get it.
You had to go there, didn’t you? You just had to.
A “typical American editorial cartoonist—doughy, white, middle-aged” may look simian himself.
Some days I cannot help myself.
Am I the only one who thought of the Infinite Monkey Theorem when seeing that cartoon?
It seemed to me the joke was that the stimulus package was written randomly, and plays off the tragic chimp story in the news.
“Never before in the history of the United States has there been such constraint on political speech.”
Please enlighten me what constraints are you referring to; certainly no rules other than taste would have prevented this cartoon from being published! Also I am not aware of any constraints on the internet.
Freedom of speech and Freedom of the Press are not being attacked but are being exercised by both the Post and the Protesters. That the Post could be so out of touch, about how much and how many people would find this cartoon offensive, shows their narrow world view.
“This debate isn’t about cartoonists attacking the downtrodden, the powerless, the abused in our society it’s about attacking the President of the United States……When it comes to satirizing the President there can be no limits or rules of safe conduct. Everything may be fair game.”
I disagree with you strongly; this cartoon sickens and saddens me; I’m frightened by the analogy that the appropriate use of force in killing an attacking chimp could be seen by some (albeit of very unsound mind)to legitimize an assassination! While any rational person would not dispute that President Obama was fairly elected; many in the right wing and not only fringe characters have said things that are very inflammatory. Rush Limbaugh has said “He is Hoping Obama Fails(he has ~20 million listeners!) Even this past weekend Republican Senator Shelby called into question once again Obama’s birth certificate (funny how they never minded McCain’s Panama birth) stating he has not met the Constitutional criteria to be President; this dubious objection was put to rest by SCOTUS.
That Bush was compared to a chimp had more to do in my mind to his own anti-intellectualism; the moniker just fit: Incurious George!
Given our nation’s painful history of Slavery, Segregation Disenfranchisement Lynching, persistent Racism etc. I think any publication with taste, would refrain from depicting any African American as a chimp. Also given our nation’s history of Presidential Assassination I would hope that any publication of taste would not consider killing the President to be fair game!
All fine arguments. The same used to shut down the opponents of every president and every other politician. Don’t call the Post hypocritical when you are every bit as hypocritical by arguing that they aren’t entitled to it. Free speech isn’t dictated by whatever you think is “good taste.” It isn’t dictated by what “saddens” you or “frightens” you. Everything isn’t about you.
Either we have it or we don’t. Either the Post gets it, despite their hypocrisy, or no one. You are simply the opposite of the Post, but every bit as much of a hypocrite if you would deny free speech to those you disagree with. You can like or dislike anything you want, but your preferences don’t, and shouldn’t, dictate anyone else’s speech. The attempt to chill criticism, even bad criticism, of a president is far more dangerous than any of your complaints. I don’t care for the cartoon any more than you, but I care that this is an effort to chill political cartoonists from challenging a president. Even an idiot like Rush Limbaugh should be able to spout any stupidity he wants, and we are free to laugh at his idiocy. That’s how free speech works.
I am certain that the cartoonist didn’t *mean* to draw a racist cartoon. I had the same reaction as hansberrym, above.
However, the editors at the Post had to have known better.
The First Amendment absolutely protects the Post and gives it the unfettered right to publish this cartoon — at least for now.
On the other hand, that same First Amendment gives Al Sharpton (and me) the right to ask the Post, “just how goddamned stupid can you be?” If nobody at the Post sat down in a meeting and considered the racist implications of the cartoon, then shame on them for being too stupid to run a hot dog cart, let alone a newspaper. If they considered it and then moved forward anyhow, then at least they moved forward with eyes wide open.
I hate to say it, but when it comes to racism, there are different rules. Not different rules of law, and I would fight against such rules (and I put my money where my mouth is on that). But, the fact is that you can call me a monkey and it means one thing. You call a black guy a monkey, and it means a very different thing.
I’m not saying that the Post and David Duke shouldn’t both have the right to call every black person a monkey — whether that person is the president or a pimp. However, neither should be taken aback when they are equated for doing so.
Yes it does. And we’re never going to get beyond that as long as we keep resurrecting taboos, both in the discussion and in the fact. But that’s not what Sharpton was screaming about. He wanted an insitutional response to shut down “racist” characterizations of Obama, and the reaction of well-intended but constitutionally misguided voices has made all political cartoonists fear that no matter what they draw, it will offend someone and draw cries of racism.
Mind you, we’re not talking David Duke attacking blacks in general, but the ramifications across the political spectrum for fear of touching some racial taboo when characterizing the President of the United States. Should political cartoonists shudder in fear of institutional politically correct castigation? Who decides what’s fair game when maligning a president if the “rules are different?”
This could either be the best opportunity we’ve ever had to break down racial barriers or perpetuate them. Which would you prefer?
I get where you are coming from. But, this is the marketplace of ideas at work. Lets get at these germs one by one. Al Sharpton is a buffoon, an idiot, and a caricature who did more to hurt the cause of us breaking down racial barriers than he did to cure them.
But, everyone else who criticized the cartoon (I did) was expressing their opinion on whether it was right. The target of your attack should be considered when you launch the attack. You attack different people in different ways. The rules aren’t that tough to follow:
1) You don’t make rape cracks about women.
2) You don’t make holocaust cracks about jews.
3) You don’t make monkey cracks about blacks.
4) You don’t make hiroshima cracks about japanese.
Lets apply the rules:
“Someone should send Al Sharpton to a camp, where he can be raped by a bear, and then drop an atom bomb on his head.” That is ok. But you can’t say that about Joe Lieberman, Catherine MacKinnon, or Alberto Fujimori — although I freakin hate all three of them. You’ve just got to be more creative than that.
Why? Not because you shouldn’t be allowed to … you should. But if you do, you shouldn’t take offense when someone protests your place.
Who decides what is fair game? The marketplace of ideas does. Remember this? Not cool.
I guess the easy answer is to attack the person, not their background.
Ultimately, I wish that we *were* beyond this. I’m firmly in Lenny Bruce’s camp. For those who don’t know, Bruce’s philosophy was that you should say “Nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger…till nigger didn’t mean anything anymore.“
But, we’re not there yet.
And when we get there, I hope that we are led by someone like Lenny Bruce… not by some dipshit who draws stupid cartoons for the New York Post.
But don’t the rules change when the person you’re attacking is the most powerful person on earth? And secondarily, my guess is that there will be many, many more rules than merely number 3 when it comes to Obama, if we are to start applying the rules that we otherwise apply to regular folks. Indeed, this is the fear that has chilled the political cartoonists, that once the rules begin, they have no clue where they end.
It could be a very dangerous political minefield if we start applying these rules to the presidency.
I don’t know where to start; (I obviously struck a nerve, so sorry it was unintentional.) Maybe I could start by asking you to please re-read my comments. I did not think anyone reading my remarks could think that I was suggesting that Free Speech is about whatever I think is in “good taste.” I know how Free Speech works; and the KKK could march down Pennsylvania Avenue for all I care and “we are all free to laugh at their idiocy.” I would not deny Free Speech to anyone and I don’t think I implied that I would. That is not what my comment was about and I really do not think ad hominem attacks were warranted; but of course it is your blog,site and right to write what you wish; and Scott, I Thank-you for publishing my retort.
My reply to your blog was about your statements which you have not yet addressed. SHG: “Never before in the history of the United States has there been such constraints on Political Speech.” Again I don’t know what constraints you are referring to?
My comment “certainly no rules other than taste would have prevented this cartoon from being published” implied that there are no constraints; not that there should be. Therefore the Post exercised choice in publishing this cartoon. That people (myself included) were offended and choose to protest and boycott the Post is also without constraints.
As to my personal reaction , that I shared not because I think it is “all about me” (I didn’t really think you would be interested) it was to demonstrate where I was coming from, that unlike you I did have a visceral reaction to that cartoon; specifically to the violence dramatized (and by the use of Police Officers implicitly sanctioned!) It may only be my opinion but your comment “everything is fair game” in attacking the President seems to support the depiction of an assassination! I don’t think an assassination is the way to show criticism of something you disagree with; I think that depiction was “Chilling!”
Again Scott thank-you for allowing me to comment.
I agree with your comments; may I suggest Rule #5: you don’t make assassination cracks about the President who ever he/she might be!
Perhaps I misunderstood your point, and apologize if so. It has nothing to do with striking a nerve, but the number of comments received here from people who want to interpret and reinterpret rights in light of their personal preferences or the flavor of the moment. I have indeed grown tired of hearing what Sue from Wichita thinks the Constitution ought to say.
As for the constraint, one of the most potent sources of political commentary throughout the history of this country has been political cartoons. If you read the articles linked in my post, you would find that the ramifications of the criticism of this cartoon has shaken and chilled political cartoonists across the nation. They don’t know how far to go, where to go, where to stop or even how to start, to lampoon Obama. You saw assassination. I didn’t see it at all, and it never even dawned on me since I was very aware of the chimpanzee issue that was big news in NYC. So even if we didn’t have the black/monkey issue, you would have been offended about something that would never have occurred to me.
Even now, I really think your assassination concern simply isn’t there, but a manifestation of your personal sensibility. So do we go around the country, ask each person what they think of a cartoon to make sure someone doesn’t see some veiled assassination and be unintentionally offended? Sounds kinda ridiculous, doesn’t it? But the assassination is very real to you, even though I don’t buy it at all.
The loss of political cartoonists’ ability to characterize and criticize the President would be a horrific loss, and it’s happening as a result of this incident. This is the constraint I’m talking about.
And there you have it. Let’s have every person in America add whatever rule touches them, and then political critics can do anything they want, provided they don’t violate the 300 million or so rules. Nothing to it.
You see, Connie, if you get to add the rule that you like, doesn’t everybody else get to add the rule that suits their preference?
And Marc, I guess the basic rules are neither so basic nor so universally accepted. Anybody else have some rules they want to add?
Oops! I actually agreed with Marc.
RE: “But Barack Obama is the President of the United States, and the chilling effect of the cries of racism may do more harm to both racial equality and political discussion than any lousy political cartoon the Post could publish.”
The greatest harm, it seems, arises from those who continue to fail to see racism right where it is, and who complain about so much moaning over some “phantom” offense.
“Get over it, already, you bunch of wimps.”
Aren’t those the people who are most active in stopping progress (and thwarting discussion)?
I suspect that Randazza, one of the most prominent reformed free speech libertarians I’ve ever known, will immediately recognize that Connie has proven the fallacy of his approach. Lenny Bruce would have agreed with you and me. He had little tolerance for wimps, crybabies and hand-wringers, and would have rubbed their noses in it.
SHG: “Even now , I really think your assassination concern simply isn’t there but a manifestation of your personal sensibility.”…”So even if we did not have the black/monkey issue, you would have been offended about something that never would have occurred to me.”
Scott are we in agreement that the chimp was a characterization of Obama?
If so then who is it that the Police Officers are killing?
I live in Connecticut so I too was “very aware of the chimpanzee issue”
It was a horrific event that happened on February 17, the chimp was killed appropriately by the police after mauling a woman. She remains in critical condition after having her face and hands disfigured permanently!
This cartoon ran in the Post Feb 18, so because of timing alone the gruesome exploitation of that event was deliberate. Maybe too soon for any attempt at black humor(no pun intended, no really!)
SHG: “The loss of political cartoonists’ ability to characterize and criticize the President would be a horrific loss, and its happening as a result of this incident.”
I do not think we are talking about criticism (and yes if we lost that freedom it would be a horrific loss) but about losing certain depictions/characterizations that to me would not be such a great loss. I am not a great student of historical cartoons/satire but I do know people’s tastes have changed greatly over time and some of what use to be common and acceptable in previous generations is no longer. It was not then nor is it now illegal, just offensive to most, I don’t find it a great loss that the main stream media no longer routinely makes fun of a person’s gender, race, sexual orientation, or religion etc. I call it progress!
I just really think this cartoon crossed some- yes, invisible line (which in any society is always moving) and yes for a while it will make some people’s jobs harder as they try to find that line. But I am not suggesting any line/rules be made into law! If this cartoon were in some other publication and given less of platform
I doubt so many people including myself would have been offended; we all know crazy stuff is out there everywhere; and you know, out of sight, out of mind; but like it or not The New York Post is part of the mainstream media, and News Corp and Rupert Murdoch hold a very large Microphone! I would have respected them more (okay, not likely) had they stuck to their usual MO of stony silence; instead of their non-apology apology brought about by the many protesters and not just Al(even a broken clock is right twice a day)Sharpton.
At this point I would really like to hear from the author and editor directly, maybe soon hopefully.
Scott, I do sincerely thank-you for this opportunity to dialog.
Scott, I realize you will probably delete this , but I truly thought you were more of gentleman than to stoop to ad hominem attacks.
I don’t think either Marc or I (I know I was merely joking) were suggesting that any formal rules/laws should be put into place. It may be tricky for cartoonists to find their way to new creative ways to criticize/characterize Obama but I think they will be able to rise to the occasion.
The Post can print whatever they like; but I can tell anyone who will listen why I am not buying it! Thank-you, again.
Connie, you’ve indulged yourself in numerous assumptions, which weren’t really worth the effort to dispel. But since you’ve continued to nudge me, I will do so this once. First, there were no ad hominem attacks. The commentary was not about you, and your assumption to the contrary is purely egocentric. I don’t say this to hurt your feelings, but you really aren’t at the center of this issue, and frankly don’t present a persuasive argument.
Your point is entirely centered on your personal view of right and wrong, and that’s fine. But since no one has made you the arbiter, it’s irrelevant to the rest of us. Obviously, you weren’t suggesting formal rules. We’re not all idiots to your genius. But you failed to grasp the point that you’ve added a “rule” because of your personal sensibility. To you, it is very real and very worthwhile. You don’t seem to understand that this is your peculiarity. Randazza didn’t share it, and wasn’t seeking your approval or consensus. But your addition unintentionally disproved Randazza argument that there are a set of minimum rules that everyone could agree on, because you immediately disagreed and felt compelled to overlay you personal issues on top of the rules. That’s the point, there is no agreement on the bottom line.
The point of my post wasn’t that you don’t have the right to tell anyone who will listen why you won’t buy the New York Post. You absolutely do. But you, unfortunately, aren’t the issue or the problem. No one asked, “but what does Connie think.” It was about Sharpton’s efforts to use his pulpit to turn this into a racial vendetta for the purpose of chilling critical speech against a President of the United States. Sharpton, not you, can have a dangerous impact on political criticism You are free to say whatever you please, and I sincerely doubt that it will have any impact on political cartoonists.
Sorry to have come down so hard, but that’s what happens when you keep nudging. No one here needs a school marm, and certainly no one appointed you to tell me whether I’m behaving according to your standards. And to close the loop, there is no right to free speech here, and you’ve pushed to the point of annoyance.
I guess my “rules” are the rules you obey if you want to be cool. My rules should not be interpreted as proposed laws. In fact, I strongly disagree with Connie — we ought to be able to joke about shooting anyone we want.
And also to clarify, I don’t think ANY special rules should apply to Obama. I wouldn’t call a homeless black guy with a shopping cart full of cans a “monkey” either.
The penalty for breaking my four “rules” shouldn’t be government action. I guess I kinda screwed up by calling them rules.
Lets re name them the anti-fuckwad maxims. If you break any of those four maxims, thou art a fuckwad — at least for that discussion.
Now, should people also “get over it.” Yeah, they should. The whole “victim studies” thing is enough to make me want to not give a shit about racism or sexism… but they haven’t jaded me 100% yet. I want to be an anti-fuckwad, at least on racial and gender issues, so those are my four maxims.
Now there’s the satyricon Randazza I respect and admire.
Certainly, the MSM had lots of laughs at Ws expense over the past 8 years. But I don’t recall any instance of the MSM using W to ridicule millions of others.
Scott I do thank-you, you have shown patience and my goal is not to annoy you!
I Love your blog and have been reading it for years. I have commented only twice before with agreement on missing Norm Pattis (who fortunately is back) and on the outrageous act of the cops who tasered a man on a ledge who then died from the fall; I love your passion!
So with great chutzpah, not wanting to try your patience further, I will attempt to reply again, so here goes.
SHG: “It was about Sharpton’s efforts to use his pulpit to turn this into a racial vendetta for the purpose of chilling critical speech against a President of the United States. Sharpton, not you, can have a dangerous impact on political criticism. You are free to say whatever you please, and I sincerely doubt it will have any impact on political cartoonists.”
That is actually the point and probably the reason I chose to comment on your blog right after reading your article.
You are a very intelligent and reasonable man, and you don’t like with good reason Al (even a broken clock is right twice a day) Sharpton; I also hate how he is used and uses the Media as the default spokesman on all things racial. After the Twanay Brawley fraud
he should never have been placed in front of a microphone again; but the media liked him because he was “colorful” and he was more than willing.
Why indict Sharpton but not the Post, News Corp, and Rupert Murdoch who have a much bigger pulpit?
Marc R. wrote “I am certain that the cartoonist didn’t *mean* to draw a racist cartoon.”
How does he know this; it was the Post after all. Isn’t possible the Post intended to send a racial insult. Who knows why, some people are more comfortable with stereotypes.
Your blog today on the “Blue Line” shows
another example of how the police hold inordinate power and their crimes against those less powerful are legion. This cartoon to many reinforced that fear.
And as much as I hate to say it, I wish some one else led the march, but Al Sharpton gave voice to my speech which was maybe the only way the Post could hear it!
Scott thank-you again, I wish you only the best!
And other than that; Mrs. Kennedy how did you like Dallas?