• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Racist or not Racist.

Which of these pictures are Racist?


  • Total voters
    49
Racism is not finished and Obama being elected does not erase the fact that black folks are still discriminated against. :(

The past should never be forgotten either. It will never be over because it is always there.

This is an excellent point.

The fact that affirmative action coughed up a president, sufficiently devoid of accomplishment as to leave no doubt to the method of his ascension, has no effect on the usefulness of any form of rhetoric. The race card remains firmly intact.

However.

It seems a leap worthy of an Olympic Gymnast is necessary to miss the metaphor with the original cartoon. If the stimulus package were the monkey and he were "put down" by those charged with serving and protecting the electorate, or the economy, it wouldn't be racist at all. It would simply be in contradiction to the stated objectives of the administration. Something a watch dog media might print.

In this instance the race card is the Obama administrations' "bad dog! no bone!" to the watchdog media.
 
Neither is racist, nor funny for that matter. However, the first picture - and practically any comparison of Obama with a monkey - is something much more complicated and absurd: A comparison for the sake of hoping someone will claim it to be racist, so that the provider of the picture can assure the accuser that it is not, and in fact he or she is the one who is racist. It's a very silly game. Perhaps it is not racist, but it is, intrinsically, much more concerned with race than the Bush comparison, which is not nearly so convoluted (bush r dumb and monkeys r dumb lol).

Obama r silly and monkeys r silly.
 
I am sick of people playing "Dumb" and acting as if they do not know what is up with this or WHY it is offensive! Cut the crap! :roll:
 
Obama r silly and monkeys r silly.

No one could make the comparison without being aware of the racial implications. I suppose it is possible that someone could compare the two knowing that, and yet not have a motive or prepared counter for the viewers who will inevitably decry it. Simple innocent presidential ridicule. I'll believe it when I see it. It certainly was not the goal of this thread.
 
I am sick of people playing "Dumb" and acting as if they do not know what is up with this or WHY it is offensive! Cut the crap! :roll:

Oh, we know why it's offensive to racists. We just don't care if racists are offended. Why should we? They need to get over themselves, IMO.

No one could make the comparison without being aware of the racial implications. I suppose it is possible that someone could compare the two knowing that, and yet not have a motive or prepared counter for the viewers who will inevitably decry it. Simple innocent presidential ridicule. I'll believe it when I see it. It certainly was not the goal of this thread.
You just saw it. It is not the fault of the OP that there are several folks here with racist glasses on who insist on seeing something that isn't there.

They compared Bush to a chimp all the time. They can compare Obama to one too. What's good for one, is just as good for the other. NO ONE should feel the need to play with kids gloves just because of the color of our president's skin. THAT would be ****ing racist, and I for one am glad that there are some journalists out there that are NOT racist.

What is sad is that there are people here and elsewhere who think that Obama should be treated differently because of the color of this skin. That he should be treated better because of the color of his skin. i.e., racists.
 
You didn't read my post on the previous page, or you didn't understand it, but I'll reiterate my point here for you.

You just saw it. It is not the fault of the OP that there are several folks here with racist glasses on who insist on seeing something that isn't there.

What I saw was a dare, not ridicule. Really, it has little to do with Obama at all. The OP presented it a weird way; typically you would post the Obama comparison, wait for someone to accuse yourself of racism, and then post the Bush comparison, thereby daring the accuser to continue their hypocritical pursuit. Regardless, the goal is the same. I know the OP isn't racist, what he and yourself want is for me to think he's racist. It's a game. It's not racist, it's childish.

They compared Bush to a chimp all the time. They can compare Obama to one too. What's good for one, is just as good for the other.

Of course they can. You wouldn't hear my suggest me otherwise, and you haven't.

NO ONE should feel the need to play with kids gloves just because of the color of our president's skin. THAT would be ****ing racist, and I for one am glad that there are some journalists out there that are NOT racist.

I'm sure you're aware of this, but pictures of monkeys and presidents grouped together don't typically come from journalists. At least, not any journalists I know of, and not any that are worth paying any attention to. They come from chain e-mails, fringe websites, messageboards. This has nothing to do with journalism.

What is sad is that there are people here and elsewhere who think that Obama should be treated differently because of the color of this skin. That he should be treated better because of the color of his skin. i.e., racists.

That is sad. You'll have find a different strawman, however.
 
Last edited:
Oh, we know why it's offensive to racists. We just don't care if racists are offended. Why should we? They need to get over themselves, IMO.


You just saw it. It is not the fault of the OP that there are several folks here with racist glasses on who insist on seeing something that isn't there.

They compared Bush to a chimp all the time. They can compare Obama to one too. What's good for one, is just as good for the other. NO ONE should feel the need to play with kids gloves just because of the color of our president's skin. THAT would be ****ing racist, and I for one am glad that there are some journalists out there that are NOT racist.

What is sad is that there are people here and elsewhere who think that Obama should be treated differently because of the color of this skin. That he should be treated better because of the color of his skin. i.e., racists.

This deserved more than just a thanks.

:applaud:applaud:applaud:applaud
 
What I saw was a dare, not ridicule. Really, it has little to do with Obama at all. The OP presented it a weird way; typically you would post the Obama comparison, wait for someone to accuse yourself of racism, and then post the Bush comparison, thereby daring the accuser to continue their hypocritical pursuit. Regardless, the goal is the same. I know the OP isn't racist, what he and yourself want is for me to think he's racist. It's a game. It's not racist, it's childish.

No, what is childish is that real racists who see monkeys and think "black man" try to project their racism on our discourse and then hypocritcally claim some kind of high ground when those of us who aren't racist refuse to capitulate to their accusations.

I'm sure you're aware of this, but pictures of monkeys and presidents grouped together don't typically come from journalists. At least, not any journalists I know of, and not any that are worth paying any attention to. They come from chain e-mails, fringe websites, messageboards. This has nothing to do with journalism.

You are absolutely right so it's a damned goo thing this was not journalism. It's a political cartoon. C-A-R-T-O-O-N.
 
No, what is childish is that real racists who see monkeys and think "black man" try to project their racism on our discourse and then hypocritcally claim some kind of high ground when those of us who aren't racist refuse to capitulate to their accusations.

There was a comic a few weeks ago that caused a stir, the one with the monkey being shot by police and the officer making an Obama Admin quip. Some people thought it was racist, incorrectly I thought. Considering the news story of the escaped monkey, I thought it was quite reasonable. I even thought it was kind of funny, at least for the low standards political cartoons uphold. Now, were the inherent racial implications not a consideration for the cartoonist in choosing what to focus his comic on? I find that remarkably difficult to believe, but in truth I don't know, and neither do you.

You and I won't be able to agree on the motives of other Obama/monkey comparisons elsewhere, more than likely. But in this particular thread, the motive is not even remotely hidden. The title of the thread makes it known that the poster is fully aware of the implications of the comparison. You guys are taking this way over the level of incredulous if you expect me to believe that the OP was not aware of these implications and did not employ them to his advantage; that this thread would still exist without those implications. It's not racist(I feel like I need to repeat this every post in order to not get turned into a strawman), but it is silly. That's my only point.


You are absolutely right so it's a damned goo thing this was not journalism. It's a political cartoon. C-A-R-T-O-O-N.

Right. Are you agreeing with me? I don't understand. Rivrrat implied that it was journalism, I disagreed.

EDIT: Oops, screwed up the quoting thingies.
 
You think? How about "comparing Obama to a monkey is not racist if and only if history never happened."?
 
And presidents and politicians have been historically compared to monkeys as well.

Hail to the chimp, he's the chip we all hail to....
 
You think? How about "comparing Obama to a monkey is not racist if and only if history never happened."?

Historically, our presidents have been compared to monkeys. It wasn't racist prior to Obama. It isn't racist now. So, it's not racist BECAUSE history happened. The history of cartoonists comparing politicians to monkeys. See how this works?

If it was okay for one, it's okay for the other. If it wasn't racist for one, it isn't racist for another. The people who cry 'racism', are those that think a black man should have different rules applied to him. In other words... racists. I really see no other way to describe the attitude that we should treat a black man differently than a white man.
 
Simply putting a picture of Obama next to a monkey is not racist. Without a contextual qualification it is impossible to determine the purpose behind the reference. For instance:


Obama considers purchasing a pet monkey.
ObamaMonkey.jpg



Anyone who infers racism when there is no context is simply demonstrating their status as a PC thug.
 
Obama considers purchasing a pet monkey but then finds out its his long lost brother.
ObamaMonkey.jpg


Was that racist or just funny?
Racism is just something for weak minded PC people. I have friends that are black and we always crack on each other.
 
Obama considers purchasing a pet monkey but then finds out its his long lost brother.
ObamaMonkey.jpg


Was that racist or just funny?
Racism is just something for weak minded PC people. I have friends that are black and we always crack on each other.

There is still no way to determine whether or not said reference is racist; it requires further clarification. Moreover, racism and hilarity are not mutually exclusive, but I'm sure you already know that.
 
The REAL question is whether racist comedy is racist. :shock:
 
I personally find it disturbing that so many normally logical people are willing to overlook something as important as context when it comes to stuff like racism.
 
I personally find it disturbing that so many normally logical people are willing to overlook something as important as context when it comes to stuff like racism.

It's not even that. People are getting riled up over a cartoon. Something that was meant to be enjoyed by those who find humor in political satire. This is almost as ridiculous as the Mohammad cartoon about a year ago.

Let's say that this cartoon was outright racist. So ****ing what? It's still just a damn cartoon. Anybody remember the Barack and Michelle fist bumping magazine cover? People got all pissed at that too.

When it comes to satire, anything is game. Otherwise, we give up our 1st Amendment rights.
 
Obama inteviewing candidates for authorship of next stimulus package.
Bubbles McChimpy (on the right) is considered frontrunner for the position

ObamaMonkey.jpg
 
It's not even that. People are getting riled up over a cartoon. Something that was meant to be enjoyed by those who find humor in political satire. This is almost as ridiculous as the Mohammad cartoon about a year ago.

Let's say that this cartoon was outright racist. So ****ing what? It's still just a damn cartoon. Anybody remember the Barack and Michelle fist bumping magazine cover? People got all pissed at that too.

When it comes to satire, anything is game. Otherwise, we give up our 1st Amendment rights.

I never said that they shouldn't be allowed to make racist cartoons. Obviously they can. However, they also open themselves up to criticism by doing so. I think it's a bit absurd to just expect people to get over being offended by racism if something is blatantly racist. As for the cartoon that everyone is freaking out about it's obviously not directed at Obama. Like I said in my previous post, I just find it disturbing that people who are normally rational are so irrational when it comes to being offended by things that are racist. They completely overlook the context which is extremely important.
 
Lincoln was regularly portrayed as an ape, but the comparison was not racist. Racism is a subjective distinction, altering through time. I am not surprised that you do not understand why a portrayal of President Obama as a dead monkey is not racist. There are thousands of elderly men in the South who would agree with you. Thankfully, they will all be dead soon.

iht8201298.jpg
 
Lincoln was regularly portrayed as an ape, but the comparison was not racist. Racism is a subjective distinction, altering through time. I am not surprised that you do not understand why a portrayal of President Obama as a dead monkey is not racist. There are thousands of elderly men in the South who would agree with you. Thankfully, they will all be dead soon.

iht8201298.jpg

Where was Obama portrayed as a dead monkey? :confused:
 
Back
Top Bottom