NY Post cartoon

I heard the New York Post apologizing for that cartoon, which to me was more out-of-bounds and classless more than anything, but I can see why some people felt the way they did, with the protest yesterday. And Al Sharpton getting involved, yes, he is a bit of a prima donna and showboater, but he does fight for equality and even with his character, is a good role model whether some people want to admit or not. I would rather see him protest outside of the News Corp. building (where the New York Post is based), than see the likes of Nas and Jay-Z protesting.

 

Britty, it seems to me that it is difficult for you to truly feel this particular kind of insult as deeply as those of us who have not only had to endure it, but have fought against such portrayals all of our lives. Not to mention our forefathers who were literally CHATTEL in this country, legally classified as less than human, beasts of the field. That is a very real part of the history of the U.S. So try to understand, it is not as simple as yelling "racism" everytime a picture of a monkey ect. is in the news, that is completely missing the point. This is one of the reasons why racisim is so insidious, even when no mal intent is present (or at least claimed) such satire can be unintentional but still very racist. Coupling the two news stories, the stimulus package and the chimpanzee shooting, was incredibly reckless and flat out stupid, and something an African American cartoonist would never do because he/she would be well aware of how the cartoon could be "percieved" because they have lived with such racism.

Like Jelly and others have said, if you have never been called, jungle bunny, ape, porch monkey, ect. as I am willing to bet many here have, it is difficult for you to truly understand, just as it would be difficult for me to "truly" understand the hatred in N. Ireland between the Protestants and the Catholics that still motivates people to blow up buildings and kill other Irish because I am not of either of those faiths and have not suffered the historical attrocities done on both sides.

 

Well said. ^^^

 

I agree with Britty and BMJ on this one.

Well, I must admit that when I first saw it, I didn't think it was racist. Then I looked at it again, and knew how it could be seen as that. I personally don't see the problem with it, but I understand why people could. in consideration of the fact that the NY Post is a pretty big paper - they should probably have just called it, and left it out. It's too close and it's too touchy. As if people weren't going to think it's racist...

I guess the point is - it wasn't NECESSARY to put the cartoon in, so they just should have left it out and gone with something less provoking

 

Amazing...white people telling black people what is and is not racist and insulting towards black people.

 

It is extremely difficult for me to look at. I think the insult/injury is deep and on so many levels.

One of the things I see, and that bother me the most, is it mimics the police murders of so many black men. The recent murder of the young father in Oakland, shot by the BART police for absolutely no good reason, thats what it reminded me of.

Not to mention the women who was so disfigured from that actual incident. I heard on the news today she has no eyes left and her lower jaw is completely gone. Yeah, that something to use as comic fodder.

 

+1.

 

Britty, again you are missing the point. Nobody is saying that Black men never masturbate. The subtle racism in the scene you describe, comes from countless negative portrayals where Black men are in fact denied romantic partners, ESPECIALLY if they are white woman in cinema. Very few movies portray black men as the desireable hero, or being part of a healthy, happy relationship. Friday the 13th, is just another in a long litany of portrayals perpetuating that stereotype. Straight Black Men's sexuality is still very much a toxic concept for modern day hollywood, they are extremely uncomfortable with it and would much rather fall back into historical stereotypes (big black buck, pimp, abuser, sex fiend, ect.) than give a true positive portrayals. For example, there are numerous examples of intelligent, articulate, successful Black Men in television and movies, but in order for hollywood to feel comfortable with those characters around women, especially White women, they make the Black men gay, i.e. Spin City, Sweet Home Alabama, ect. thus they are safer and not a threat to White men. Again, not sure you can truly take all this in and really understand this, not only because you are white, but because it is very difficult to process if you have not lived through it. Hope this helps.

 

I see the point of those who are interpreting this thing with the racist bent. It is an undeniable aspect of American history, calling black people simians. Feelings are stirred.

However, it is also an undeniable aspect of American history that we hold free speech dear, more dear even than or precious individual feelings. I find the idea that anyone would be fired over this to be as outrageous as this embarrassment of a political cartoon. I mean, thinking people have pretty much run this into the ground with discussion. The offense is more symbolic than real. The cartoonist's intent has not been proven to be anything other than what he claimed it to be. The stupidity of the employees of the newspaper in question is not germane the discussion of free speech. In fact, the political response is another inflammatory bandwagon effect of right versus left. Which, I personally find damned old.

But I digress...

In America, we protect our assholes right to be assholes. Why? Because all of us are assholes sometimes and we don't want our voices to be silenced by a bullying "majority" who are demanding our heads lopped off for a disagreement of interpretation. I don't give a rat's tushy if it's racism, sexism, or animal mutilation, we protect our artists under the first amendment. That's the American way.

If you disagree with an idea, then you have the right to do so. You have the right to make a cartoon and post it and complain on a message board and reinterpret and hyperbolize anybody esle's speech with your own. You have that freedom. If you want somebody else to lose theirs just because you don't like what they've said, then you are a hypocrite.

Also, I don't think referring to the "large diverse" audience of the newspaper is a place you want to go with your censorship rhetoric either. You are probably not a customer of this birdcage liner. If you were, your rights, as such, would be to stop contributing to their bottom line. If you aren't a subscriber, you really don't have much of a say as to how they can run their business. Rest assured, there are scores of "left wing" newspapers printing pages of follow up articles to this cartoon right now. Perhaps you can have your own letter published in your own newspaper. That's how we do it in the USA.

Freedom of speech. Freedom of the Press. These are not ideals to be taken so lightly nor carelessly abandoned by the capricious court of public opinion. If you demand the freedoms of others to be limited or removed then you are only shooting yourself in the foot. They will come after you next.

 

Very eloquent post Effie, fact based and historically accurate. However "all" free speech is not created equal, there are legal limits. I would ask you to do a little research into the efforts of the NAACP around the turn of last century, they were constantly taking newspapers to task for racist and ugly characterizations of Black people. If you remember the piece of filth film "Birth of a Nation" which was screened and lauded in the Wilson white house, the film trotted out every negative fear-inducing stereotype possible and fanned the flames of hatred for Black people. Various groups like the NAACP and the Urban League rightly screamed and protested. This latest cartoon is just the latest version of Birth of a nation. We will never submit to go back to those days where our humanity can be denigrated on a national scale.

While your argument regarding the evils of censorship does carry weight, you must weigh that against the brutal and ugly history of negative portrayals we have and continue to face as a people.

Words and images are indeed powerful, remember one of the first things Hitler did when he got into power, was to mass produce negative literature and hideous imagery of Jews in order to de-humanize them for the masses, the first step in the Final Solution.

 

That, dear sir, is hyperbole. It is your interpretation as is your right. I'm not saying I disagree. I'm saying it does exemplify, my descriptions of both the extremes people are taking on this issue and of our exercising our rights to speak out.

It carries more than weight, it carries our very existence as a nation. Freedom of speech is a fundamental right of democracy and integral to the respect of human dignity. Without it we are truly dehumanized.

Negative portrayals of people of all kinds is an unfortunate part of the continued price of freedom. The ugliness of that reality is, nevertheless, not combated with censorship. It is rather fought on the battleground of ideas. Hearts and minds are not won with brutality. Why try the same tactic in reverse?

What Hitler did when he got into power was employ censorship. Under Goebbels, Minister of Propaganda's, direction, Hitler outlawed any publications that disagreed with him and burned books and eventually, authors of books. Hitler is an ultimate example of censorship.

 

???

Who said anything about censorship or denying the cartoonist the right to express his sentiments through racist symbolism?

You're setting up a straw man.

 

You missed my point, yes Hitler employed censorship, what I was pointing out that mass producing negative images and words targeting a specific minority group of people, does in fact have a huge impact on the perceptions of the majority and thus plays a large part in de-humanizing said minority group so that attrocities that befall the minority are not as upsetting to the majority, after all, they are not human beings, they are animals, kind of like chimpanzees. Black people have been dealing with these targeted efforts to de-humanize us for centuries upon centuries. And it is only through the efforts of those that stood up and said "NO" that progress has been made, and those efforts included boycots, and lawsuits to shut down such efforts.

 

The petition that you signed requesting the firing of a newspaper editor qualifies as censorship.

The "racist" sentiments expressed, whether by the cartoonist's intent or merely by the symbolism producing such feelings based on interpretations of others is indeed being targeted by a movement of censorship. This isn't really an argument. The argument is whether it matters. I say, it not only matters, but it's dangerous.

Once again, you are expressing your opinion of the meaning of the cartoonist's symbolism expecting your voice to be allowed to be heard. It is hypocritical to demand those who disagree with you to be fired or punished for exercising the same rights that not only you enjoy, but know to be a fundamental human right.

 

Ah, but free speech comes with huge consequences. He can still create whatever he wants, but he has to face the fallout from his creations. I am a small business owner, and if I went on national TV and said hugely controversial comments rife with historical racism, you bet I would not remain in business very long. That is not censorship, and my ex-customers would not be hypocrites for boycotting and picketing my business.

 

Actually, your point is to miss mine I'm talking about a fundamental rights issue and you are arguing the details of this case (as is your right) but it does not change the concepts of free speech. You are expressing your opinions and injecting your perspective. This cartoonist would say that your are slandering him, as he has stated his side of the story and it's different than yours. The point isn't whether I think you are right. This point is you have a right to state what you think and so does he. This is not the same thing as yelling "Fire" in a theater. This is protected speech. The fact that some are calling this guy a racist doesn't make it so. The fact that some are calling this hate speech doesn't make it so. The fact that some say this shouldn't bother black people doesn't make it so. This is were we have the battleground of free ideas and thoughts. As for centuries of history, the only reason that even matters in this discussion is that is why you have the opinion and feelings on the matter that you do. It doesn't change the reality of the fact that you personally have rights and freedoms.

Back to Hitler, he did what he did within the cocoon of censorship (and brutality). This is exactly why we should never be a party to censorship.

My point is fairly well expressed. I just am saying that you cannot say "This is not protected speech because I think it's really really bad." If someone is a fool you have a right to shine a light on it. This is not a Pollyanna sentiment. This is integral to freedom.

 

Absolutely, free speech comes with consequences. Those consequences do not include censorship. Boycotting a business is exactly what I suggested in my early post. (If you are a subscriber to this paper, it would be within your right to not further their economy.) However, demanding someone be fired because you interpreted their speech in a way that you deemed unacceptable is not the same as boycotting a business. That is mob rule and censorship. It is not a precedent to be setting so lightly. As that guy's freedom goes, so goes yours.

 

While it is clear that you and I do not know each other, I do find myself wondering if you would be so focused and concerned with this cartoonist first amendment rights if the cartoon could easily be interpreted as being highly misogynistic in nature, and hugely and historically denigrating and threatening to a woman who had just achieved a monumental and important milestone in the long and storied history of women's rights.

Regardless, it has been interesting debating this issue with you.

 

Ah, but if the boycott and picketing result in my going out of business, the net result is the same. And there is such a thing as "societal standards" that have legal consequences, and if certain actions do not meet these standards legal action can be taken, that is not censorship, its the law. Calling for the dismissal of an employee is simply one way to inflict pressure on said business, the underlying sentiment is that if enough people call for the dismissal and it doesn't happen then sales will suffer, very similar to the boycott.

 

That is an attempt to pull me into an emotional appeal. I have already mentioned sexism in a previous post in this thread. The answer is, "No, my opinions wouldn't change if the guy was a raving sexist." In fact, I think there are more than one of those on this very forum. Nevertheless, I have never told anyone to "shut up".

I am not focused and concerned on "this guys" rights, per say. I am focused and concerned on everyone's rights. I am more concerned with your misunderstanding of the basic concept of freedom of speech now that you say you are a lawyer. Primarily, with the dangers of selectively removing freedoms of your "enemies" thinking yourself safe from the same tactic being used against you. When this trend is left unchecked, we will find our children jailed for not agreeing with majority opinion. Is this intent of law? Is this Constitutional? Is this America?

I enjoy discussing things that matter to me. Same here.