New York Post Chimp Cartoon Compares Stimulus Author To Dead Primate

A cartoon likening the author of the stimulus bill, perhaps President Barack Obama, with a rabid chimpanzee graced the pages of the New York Post on Wednesday.

The drawing, from famed cartoonist Sean Delonas, is rife with violent imagery and racial undertones. In it, two befuddled-looking police officers holding guns look over the dead and bleeding chimpanzee that attacked a woman in Stamford, Connecticut.

"They'll have to find someone else to write the next stimulus bill," reads the caption.

An email to Delonas and a call to the New York Post went unreturned. The cartoon appears both on the New York Post website and page 12 of the Wednesday paper.

At its most benign, the cartoon suggests that the stimulus bill was so bad, monkeys may as well have written it. Others believe it compares the president to a rabid chimp. Either way, the incorporation of violence and (on a darker level) race into politics is bound to be controversial. Perhaps that's what Delonas wanted.

UPDATE: Rev. Al Sharpton has weighed in on the cartoon in a statement:

"The cartoon in today's New York Post is troubling at best given the historic racist attacks of African-Americans as being synonymous with monkeys. One has to question whether the cartoonist is making a less than casual reference to this when in the cartoon they have police saying after shooting a chimpanzee that "Now they will have to find someone else to write the stimulus bill."

"Being that the stimulus bill has been the first legislative victory of President Barack Obama (the first African American president) and has become synonymous with him it is not a reach to wonder are they inferring that a monkey wrote the last bill?"

UPDATE II: The New York Post has released a statement defending its cartoon and slamming Al Sharpton. Read it here.

UPDATE III: Post employees are unhappy and ashamed of the cartoon.

Comments

[AnalyzeIT]

05:21 PM on 03/01/2009

Murdoch this will not go away. We have not forgotten.
03/01/09

[meonyou]

03:54 PM on 02/27/2009

The cartoon is provocative, but the responses to the cartoon are what's most telling. I'm glad this cartoon was published. I'm even more pleased with the transparency of the responses; as they really expose where this country is. Here are some interesting things for consideration:

Often times in surveys taken questioning the relationship of whites with blacks, white commentators consider most conflicts in a historical context often making comments like, "I think we're past all that stuff now". -Mind you, similar responses occured during the marked times of Jim Crow when lynchings, bombings, tarrings were common place. Likewise during the most notable periods of Mexican, Japanese and Chinese exploitation. Curiously, as people of color were directed the same questions, most answers identified a serious dissatisfaction or need for improvement.

Now, instead of explicit denial we have something worse -clichés like, "let it go" or "can't we just move on". When a member of the white race has anything aggressed toward them that disrupt their comforts or entitlements, their reactions are often extreme, yet always justified.

People of color have long tried to move on. What do you think the Black, Brown, Red and Yellow Power movements were all about? To gain the capacity to move on -justly!! The thought of waking up in the morning without the constant reminders of minorityship and without the entitlement culture always taken the liberty to define and explain that which they have never lived is what the fight has always been about.

[willt7311]

09:50 AM on 02/25/2009

This cartoon and the arguments surrounding it gives me the perfect opportunity to talk about reacting emotionally and reacting logically.

One is reacting emotionally when they perceive the cartoon as racist. They automatically assume that the chimp represents the President and that it turn is racist and threatening. There are no facts to support this assumption, they just know that is what the cartoon means.

A logical reaction is to look at the cartoon, read the words, and understanding that the President does not write a bill so the chimp does not represent the President. This is factual and logical.

Letting emotions control how your perceive something is very dangerous because emotions lack facts and tend to be baseless.

[Spesabsquemetu]

11:30 AM on 02/25/2009

This cartoon promoters of the message of racism and inferences to harm the president, and NY apologists proposing that the NY Post cartoon has nothing to do with racism and the an inference to harm the president are creating alibis for a TEXT and IMAGE used by the NY POST to suggest the president as a "chimp", gunned down wtih 3 bullet holes to the torso, using racist imagery and a clear text that suggested that image: "They'll have to find someone else to write the next stimulus bill."

Automatically, the NY Post apologists claim "Travis the chimp from Connecticut" as the alibi for the identity and the meaning of the text and image - that, clearly has nothing to do with Travis. Thus, the explanation: "This is Travis, from Connecticut" is nothing more than an alibi for what appears as an intent to communicate the assassination of the writer of the stimulus bill - a bill only associated and refered to as the President's Stimulus Plan, while using a racist image of a "chimp" to denigrate the President.

Suggesting that alibis delude the truth over what the text and imagery clearly communicated, leaves the public with lots of alibis and an absence of truth and more opportunities for racism and inferences to harm the president.

The TEXT, the IMAGE, are the FACTS.
It is against the law to infer harm towards the president of the United States.
There is no place for racist imagery in the media.

[willt7311]

12:29 PM on 02/25/2009

Above is an example of an emotional reaction to the cartoon.

Don't worry about the real facts, only concern yourself with what you think was implied.

Don't worry about the explanation of the intent, just go with what you know the cartoon meant.

Thanks for helping me out by providing a great example of an emotional reaction.

LOGICAL STEPS

The monkey represented the people that wrote the stimulus bill
The President does not write bills
Therefore, the monkey could not represent President Obama

Simple

[willt7311]

12:54 PM on 02/25/2009

You know what you should do since you are so emotionally invested in this? You should take this guy to court and sue the hell out of him.

Oh wait, that wouldn't work.

1) You wouldn't be able to prove racist intent

and

2) You have no standing

[Sean I]

09:14 AM on 02/25/2009

I'm no apologist for Racism, but IMHO this was NOT racist. Barack Obama himself did not write the Stimulus Package, the democratic leadership (Pelosi, Frank, etc...) inserted many items that BHO did not pitch in his campaign.

All the satirist is trying to depict is that a rabid monkey could have just as well written the stimulus document. The next 4 years are going to be especially difficult for us as a nation if everyone has to walk on eggshells and can't say what they feel.

Just one black man's opinion.

[zurie101]

11:07 PM on 02/24/2009

1) the fact that he used a monkey to depict someone that is black knowing there is a racial underline associated with blacks and monkeys was irresponsible I find it hard to believe that the subject did not come up before publishing. knowing that there is police brutality in the black community, using 2 white cops as the shooters was in poor taste.
this is where the racial underline comes in whether it was intentional or not.
2) if the author of this cartoon states that the racial implications was never his intent then why is it so hard to believe. the fact that the monkey was used to depict president Bush also, not everything that involves a monkey is racist .its very easy to see that he took one current event and used to it to express his feelings regarding another.

my first thought was racist fool. after the anger of the cartoon subsided I realized that not everything is black and white.just because there are people in this world who use the monkey to depict black people in a racist way does not make this artist a racist. think about it same monkey different president because the president is black now and not white is he suppose to pick another way to to express his feelings when he thinks the president is stupid? YES because of the pain behind it. that makes the cartoon a poor choice not racist.

[willt7311]

07:45 AM on 02/25/2009

And logic fails another member of HP.

It is not "FACT" that the author used a monkey to depict a black person. An explanation was given about the cartoon and that "FACT" was not included.

Actually debunking what you assume to be "FACT" is quite easy. The cartoon read "WRITE" the stimulus bill. Presidents do not "WRITE" stimulus bills so your "FACT" is baseless which unfortunately makes the rest of your comment meaningless.

If you were to use logic instead of emotion than you wouldn't get your "FACTS" confused.

[Ryan Small]

06:35 PM on 03/07/2009

YOUR SO WRONG!!!

We know the president does not write the Stimulus Bill however his name is the final signature which makes him responsible for the success or the failure of the Bill.
He takes responsibility for the bill itself... (Meaning he put it together)

Thats Logical...And be realistic. What does a monkey have to do with the Stimulus Bill. There has to be a connection because its in the cartoon. Think for a minute.........

Your not black, and probably disconnected yourself from that community so you only have one point of view..

[Chas128]

08:41 PM on 02/24/2009

Seems to me that this 'cartoon' is a death threat on the president of The United States. Doesn't the secret service investigate all death threats? Doesn't this 'cartoon' encourage someone to kill the stimulus bills sponsor?

Besides the obvious overt racism of the 'cartoon', this was also one of my first thoughts. A picture of what must be POTUS with bullet holes in him. geez.

[willt7311]

09:09 PM on 02/24/2009

Greeting illogical one. I see that you have some difficulty with reading words. The cartoon read "WRITES" while you typed "SPONSOR". Even if it meant read "SPONSOR" that still wouldn't point to the President since the President cannot "SPONSOR" a bill.

Also, I don't see much encouragement in the cartoon nor have I ever been encouraged to do anything by a cartoon. Except of course when I was a kid and I had to look at smokey the bear cartoons but those were pretty boring.

[skibloke]

12:26 PM on 02/24/2009

This cartoon represents the stupidity of one man. It was an awful attempt at humor in poor taste. This cartoon also represents the ridiculousness of this nation. The author was simply trying to voice his discontent with the stimulus package by comparing it's main proprietor's intelligence to that of a monkey's. For anyone out there who is still confused, he was saying that Obama is stupid....that's it, nothing else. To prove it, please see the link below

http://www.bushorchimp.com/

This was the first thing I could find, I'm sure there's plenty of other material out there comparing Bush to a monkey. For the record, I'm a white, liberal, Obama supporter. I completely understand that my born attributes render me of incapable of ever truly understanding what it's like as an African American in this country. I am, however, perfectly capable of understanding the lack of wisdom associated with picking at old wounds. Applying some contrived meaning to a CARTOON is no way to address the racism that exists in this country.

[tipone]

01:17 PM on 02/24/2009

thank you for stating it so eloquently! i really am turned off by the fact that not seeing this cartoon as racist somehow makes me a racist.

[willt7311]

01:26 PM on 02/24/2009

No, not reality. Don't do that to these poor libs that desperately want this cartoon to be racist.

I don't think he is saying Obama, I think he is pointing to congress.

[Aksamake]

02:04 PM on 02/24/2009

Then he should have drawn several monkeys! Got it now?

[blahdeeblah]

11:45 AM on 02/24/2009

I don't think the race of the cartoonist matters. He took a current event and made a political statement. There was a chimp who was shot by the police, and apparently he feels like the stimulus package is a bad idea. And like any other situation in the world, we compare things that we think were designed by idiots to monkeys. There was a Career Builder commercial where a guy was in an office with a bunch of monkeys. I don't feel that was a racist commercial. I think Al Sharpton is just a radical who wants to be at the forefront of a fight. Race is his platform and he wants every chance to stay in the spotlight. I'm sure he'll demand some sort of compensation. What does he call it? Oh that's right, "Reparations!"

[tipone]

11:43 AM on 02/24/2009

here's how racism works:

when i wrong a white person, im just a bad person
when i wrong a black person, im not just a bad person but also a superbad racist
when i wrong other races, it is bad but not as bad

isnt that sad?

[FightBackwithMedia]

11:22 AM on 02/25/2009

No, this is how racism works...

When a white person wrongs another white person, he knows the law judges them equally.
When a white person wrongs a black person, he knows the law is on his side.
When a white person wrongs anyone of another race, he knows the judge tosses a coin.

[willt7311]

12:04 PM on 02/25/2009

Typical.

Give examples.

[tipone]

11:36 AM on 02/24/2009

this might be irrelevant but this has to do with why i dont see it as racist. back in my college days i used to drive the university transit buses part time. the student driver body was very diverse and was one loving family. it became a problem when some passengers started accusing that the drivers discriminate passengers based on race. i drove and rode the bus daily, and failed to notice any kind of racial discrimination. it really had nothing to do with race and the drivers found it absurd. the bus is scheduled to leave at a certain time, and if a passenger misses that time, i'm sorry but no matter what your race is, the bus is gone. it seems like when something unfavorable happens, some people just blame it on the race, while the intent had nothing to do with it. that's when i started thinking that if you think everything in terms of race, everything seems racist. while the passenger might think 'the bus driver didnt pick me up because of my race' the bus driver thinks 'i didnt pick you up because you weren't here on time.'

i dont think obama's slogan 'change' meant he will change everything better for all of us. i think it means we all - government and inviduals alike - have to pitch in. im sorry the historical context of a chimp is insulting but we can't let the past solely determine who we are because the future is

[tipone]

10:46 AM on 02/24/2009

i personally found the email in alaska a lot more offensive - the one about how there is one more black family in government housing. where were al sharpton and naacp then? i wish black leaders cared about other minorities and issues other than race as much as they care about "their people."

[FightBackwithMedia]

11:03 AM on 02/25/2009

I actually take your comment very offensive... and inconsiderate... and ignorant.

For centuries, African Americans have fought AND DIED for the equality of all people of color in this country. Can you name another minority in the 20th century who also died for the cause??? I didn't think so. There may be a few out there.. but thats the problem - they are only a few. Who were your MLKs, your Malcolm Xs, your Rosa Parks???

For you to say that "i wish black leaders cared about other minorities..." only conveys just how ignorant you are about the history of and fight for equality in the US. There werent and still arent many other people of color supporting the movement. In the 20th century alone, there has been more white support in the movement for equality than support from other people of color.

So how dare you say, you wish we cared.... We do care - We have always cared - We will continue to care.. and fight... and probably die for continued freedom and equality in the US. Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson among others will keep heading up the media today and using our voice as our weapon as we have for centuries. We will continue to lend our voice to everyone and anyone who need it. We will continue to "care" for all.

The question is: Will you?

[willt7311]

09:57 AM on 02/24/2009

And here it is folks, straight from Rupert's mouth or hand.

http://www.nypost.com/seven/02242009/news/regionalnews/statement_from_rupert_murdoch_156676.htm

When you read it notice how explains the intent and how it was perceived. THERE WAS NO INTENTIONAL RACISM.

I doubt this explanation will matter though.

Wait for the "he is covering himself" comments in 5 4 3 2 1

[tipone]

11:38 AM on 02/24/2009

yea somehow apology doesnt seem to make it better. people started saying that this apology is meaningless and they just should have not publish the cartoon in the first place. there are lotsss of things i think should've not happened but it did. move on.

[bigtown]

09:29 AM on 02/24/2009

What about the most important question? If Obama is the one who should be offended, why hasn't anyone asked his opinion about the cartoon? Are they afraid to ask?

see my blogpost: http://interpretersgroup.blogspot.com

[tipone]

09:51 AM on 02/24/2009

the spokesperson gibbs said this issue wasn't noteworthy... i think that sums it all. if anyone was serious about any threat to obama, s/he probably wouldnt put it in the newspaper.

[willt7311]

09:54 AM on 02/24/2009

Interesting take but not one the libs are going to support.

You see, they have already decided that THEY are offended and the cartoon is offensive. It wouldn't matter if Sean Delonas came out and explained it either. They would just say he is covering himself.

Oh wait, an explanation has been given but it didn't matter.

Nothing is going to change how they feel about the cartoon. Logic certainly doesn't work.

[beenaroundtheblock]

10:46 PM on 02/23/2009

Don't know why anyone would think Obama wrote the policy Most of the media credits Nancy Pelosi and the house Democrats. So, seems like the chimp would represent he. instead of racism, the issue is sexism. Never mind, it's giving me a headache. Gonna go walk the dog.

[AbrakadaBarak]

03:29 PM on 02/23/2009

"Now they will have to find someone else to [SIGN] the stimulus bill."
The New York Post's subliminal message. OMG, don't let it happen!

[willt7311]

04:32 PM on 02/23/2009

Another example of applying meaning that wasn't there. There is a big difference between "WRITING" a bill and "SIGNING" a bill

Now you want to change the wording of the cartoon to fit your cause which does not exist.