Some people are convinced that this is the most blatant racism, based on historic portrayals of african americans as monkeys or apes. They contend that it is an attack on Obama. (Vehemently argued here: http://www.cnn.com/2...toon/index.html)
If you haven't seen the editorial in question, it shouldn't take you long to figure out that the subtle message was clear: comparing President Obama to a chimpanzee.
In the cartoon, a cop is holding a smoking gun and, with another officer, looking at a bullet-riddled body of a chimpanzee. The caption reads: "They'll have to find someone else to write the next stimulus bill."
The other side says, hey, remember that chimp attack? That's what this is about. I'm inclined to agree with this side. I don't think that every single time there is ever a monkeyt in something, we have to assume that it's a racist profile. No one got up in arms over Far Side cartoons. I also can't believe that the NY Post would run a cartoon that intended to show not only the president in the crudest possible stereotypes, but also being gunned down by police officers.
In Martin's article, he asks
"How do you think the Jewish community would feel about the use of rats in any depiction of them? How do you think the Italian community would feel about being generalized with mobsters?" the organization said in a statement.
I feel like there is absolutely nothing to connect the black president with this chimp other than the note about the stimulus bill (which he didn't write). Even so, the more relevant news story is the chimp attack. Obviously, I'm not as close to this as some, but I think that if everything has to pass a test of completely arbitrary associations, nothing would ever get done.