18 February 2009

A brief rehashing of the New York Post image

Briefly while I take a short break during Lost.

I think that there are some ways that the New York Post article could be misunderstood if the artist's intention was not to be construed as a racial image. I guess they are trying to associate it with some of the primate issues that were going on this past week.

However, there is SO much history behind the connotation of an ape-like creature and African Americans.

Did they not have editors who looked at the image and had second thoughts about it? Did they not have someone who looked at the image and said, maybe this might be a bit offensive?

I don't know.

It all seems kind of fishy to me.

Back to confusing myself with Lost.


  1. oh my God, A, we are on the same page; i just blogged this morning about the same subject. I am so disgusted, and also just really disappointed. Crap like this is a serious challenge to my innate faith in the goodness of people. There needs to be a consequence, like there was for Imus. Imus was offensive, but this piece of crap I can't even call it a cartoon. It's seditious. I will no longer buy anything that is advertised on Fox channels or in the Post.

  2. I think that should hopefully be a wake up call to all the people who thought that we could suddenly all get along after the election decision in November.

    Nothing has changed.

    There are still people around who have their same racist, xenophobic, homophobic views.

    I guess a good thing is that this reminded us of that. I kind of (almost, but not really) like the fact that this came out. At least we know where the artist and the paper stand. And where the commentators who are not offended stand.

  3. I am one of the least cynical people I know! but it seems to me that it would require a huuuuge stretch of the imagination to see this as a misconstruction. I think rather, it was "any flimsy pretext". The power of symbolism can never be underestimated. Everyone was furious with Hillary Clinton when she said that she was staying in the race cuz look what happpened to RFK. This seems just so egregious to me...I'm having trouble getting my mind around it. Mr. Obama is the author of the stimulus package. Saying they meant Nancy Pelosi is just sophistry in motion. This cartoon is violent, scary and truly offensive. It's not like the skin heads need any more fodder for their paricular grist mills. There needs to be as much noise as there was about Imus. This is SO much more offensive. I wish I knew how to make something go "viral" and get enough people to make a meaningful protest.
    Love talkin with you, A, just wish there were a few more pleasant things. Stay strong.

  4. I've tried and tried to see the cartoon through different eyes, but I can't seem to do it. You are right about the power of symbolism.

    I appreciate our digital convos, too. Thanks for reading, and for writing. Hopefully the future will bring more pleasantness. We'll see.


I share my thoughts and would love to read your thoughts, too.