I'd say in general neither, as context is needed.
Are you calling Obama a Monkey because he's dumb like a monkey or because Blacks are historically considered such? Then yes.
Are you calling Obama a Monkey because he has big ears and you get a shot of him with his lips in the right way? Then no, its the EXACT same kind of thing as Bush.
Are you calling Obama a Monkey because you think he's an idiot and doing the job a monkey could do? Then no, its the EXACT same kind of thing as Bush.
Its the same thing as that idiotic Stephen A. Smith started saying this cover was purposefully racist:
cause it depicts the big, angry, black man looking like an ape hording over the white woman. Where as to me, I saw a clever play on the masculenity of a physically amazing person in LeBron with the feminitiy of one of the biggest models juxtaposed in a picture leading one to remember the famous images from King Kong, allowing the viewer to feel a bit of familiarity in the photo. But oh, Kong was an ape, so naturally the entire point of the cover was racists .
You down with TPP?
Intent does have a place in the topic, as you already pretty much said above.
You know, when that cartoon appeared my mother brought it in and showed it to me. I snickered. She asked, "Don't you think that's racist?"
Me: "Why would I think that?"
Her: "Well, it's comparing Obama to a monkey... "
Me: "Did Obama write the stimulus package?"
Her: "Well... I think so."
Me: "Did you assume that because when you saw the picture of the monkey it made you think of Obama immediately?"
Her: "Well, I think it was supposed to."
Me: "Maybe it's not the cartoonist that has racist tendencies then... "
Her: "What did YOU think when you saw it?"
Me: "That the cartoonist was saying a trained monkey could have written the stimulus bill. I actually have no idea who technically wrote the thing. They likened Bush to a monkey all the time, though."
Her: "Yeah, I guess so... but I think it's different now."
Me: "Why should the press put on kid's gloves just because a black man is president? If they can compare Bush to a monkey, they can compare Obama to one - IF that's even what they were doing."
Her: "I guess... It just seems borderline to me."
She then shows the cartoon to my father and asks, "What does make you think immediately?"
He answered (without having heard our conversation), "That a monkey could have written the stimulus package... ?"
She shook her head and said, "Okay, maybe it IS just me... but I really saw it as racist."
I told her I thought she, and plenty of others, were LOOKING for 'racist' things to see, and if you look for racism in everything, you're going to find it all over the place.
Anywho... long story short, Neither of pics are racist. And, I will not tolerate the bull**** 'racist' whining a moment longer in this country. It stopped on Nov. 4th.
Here’s an old mans take. I believe that they all are derogatory to a certain age group (mine),but the first one would be considered to have a touch of racism in it.
Now, I hope we can get to the point after that comparing someone to a monkey is just considered derogatory. It took a few decades (in my case at least) but I feel I can spot a dickhead regardless of race.
Oh, by the way rev, congregations on a pretty good thread. Got the ole brain cell kicked into second gear.
The haggardness of poverty is everywhere seen contrasted with the sleekness of wealth, the exhorted labor of some compensating for the idleness of others, wretched hovels by the side of stately colonnades, the rags of indigence blended with the ensigns of opulence; in a word, the most useless profusion in the midst of the most urgent wants.Jean-Baptiste Say
Technically, humans are primates but…
Black people are compared to monkeys to denote their race is inferior to basically white people, thus Picture A would move toward racist.
Bush is compared to a monkey as a knock on his intelligence not because of his race thus is not racist.
'The whole universe is going to die!'
Last edited by Cardinal; 02-27-09 at 11:05 AM.