Apparently we're a nation of cowards now

[Farscry]

I actually think that political correctness has gone too far. I may agree with the principle behind it (essentially, "try to be excellent to one another"), but it's flawed in execution.

And I agree that it plays a part in our national cowardice regarding -isms. Racism and classism are both alive and well in the US, and we refuse as a nation to face up to it.

[Autistic Angel]

wow ill admit when i posted that cartoon i thought thered be some debate about the prevalence of racism still in america but i NEVER thought thered be talk that the it wasnt uncomfortably racist

Racist imagery can be a very culturally relative thing.  It's pretty rare that people vomit up their cheap prejudices and denigrating stereotypes on a public stage: it's much safer to come up with little euphemisms that others can identify, but are j-u-s-t ambiguous enough for plausible deniability.  Unless you know the racial connotation of a particular idea -- conflating black people with monkeys, in this case -- the slur could easily pass unnoticed.

If you're ever interested in the colorful and varied world of bigoted euphemisms, I recommend subscribing to the live house feeds of CBS' reality show Big Brother.  Every season, without fail, there's someone in the house who spends all their downtime musing aloud about the Jews or the gays or the blacks, and it won't be long before you'll encounter some sort of regional macaca-esque slur you've never heard before.

It's a veritable fount of idiocy! (NSFW)

-Autistic Angel

[Moliere]

Great op-ed from Walter Williams on this subject.

Just because some activity is not racially integrated does not mean that it is racially segregated.

I have experienced his reference to white professors that accept behavior from black people that they wouldn’t begin to accept from whites in my college classes. The professor makes a point of "randomly" calling on everyone except the black student because every time he does the student's response is always "uh, how should I know, you're the teacher" or some such nonsense. This type of pass in class discussion should be unacceptable.

[Blackadar]

Great op-ed from Walter Williams on this subject.

Just because some activity is not racially integrated does not mean that it is racially segregated.

I have experienced his reference to white professors that accept behavior from black people that they wouldn’t begin to accept from whites in my college classes. The professor makes a point of "randomly" calling on everyone except the black student because every time he does the student's response is always "uh, how should I know, you're the teacher" or some such nonsense. This type of pass in class discussion should be unacceptable.

No doubt.  It goes back to us being a nation of cowards.  We're so afraid to call it on both sides that we effectively hide from it.  Just like we have apologists for the cartoon, which anyone with half a brain can see could be easily interpreted to be in extremely poor taste, we have have apologists who will allow the celebration of "culture", with total disregard to the exclusionary practices that celebration entails. 

[cheeba]

I'm stupid. You're smart. I was wrong. You were right. You're the best. I'm the worst. You're very good-looking. I'm not very attractive.  - Cheeba

Aww, look at you reading OO but too afraid to post there, that's so cute! 

[Autistic Angel]

Great op-ed from Walter Williams on this subject.

From that article:

Black illegitimacy stands at 70 percent; nearly 50 percent of black students drop out of high school; and only 30 percent of black youngsters reside in two-parent families.

In 2005, while 13 percent of the population, blacks committed over 52 percent of the nation’s homicides and were 46 percent of the homicide victims. Ninety-four percent of black homicide victims had a black person as their murderer.

Such pathology, I think much of it precipitated by family breakdown, is entirely new among blacks.

In 1940, black illegitimacy was 19 percent; in 1950, only 18 percent of black households were female-headed compared with today’s 70 percent.

Both during slavery and as late as 1920, a teenage girl raising a child without a man present was rare among blacks.

Yeah, it was rare among whites, too.  In fact, I suspect you'd find that the rate of high school dropouts, single parent households, and "female-headed households" were also lower among white Americans during the pre-Civil Rights era of aggressive discrimination and brutally enforced segregation and Professor Williams is citing.  Unless he's suggesting that race relations back then were somehow more conducive to a healthy society, the point of his statistics escapes me.

In other words: the American divorce rate was a lot lower prior to 1920 when the 19^th Amendment granted women the right to vote.  Discuss.

-Autistic Angel

[RuperT]

Great op-ed from Walter Williams on this subject.

Just because some activity is not racially integrated does not mean that it is racially segregated.

I have experienced his reference to white professors that accept behavior from black people that they wouldn’t begin to accept from whites in my college classes. The professor makes a point of "randomly" calling on everyone except the black student because every time he does the student's response is always "uh, how should I know, you're the teacher" or some such nonsense. This type of pass in class discussion should be unacceptable.

No doubt.  It goes back to us being a nation of cowards.  We're so afraid to call it on both sides that we effectively hide from it.  Just like we have apologists for the cartoon, which anyone with half a brain can see could be easily interpreted to be in extremely poor taste, we have have apologists who will allow the celebration of "culture", with total disregard to the exclusionary practices that celebration entails. 

I suppose you consider me one of these 'apologists', as I saw the monkey and thought 'government' instead of 'black president'?  I fully understand that some people will interpret it differently, and may even feel strongly enough to try to address the grievance.  I'm insulted by an insinuation of bigotry (or half-brainedness) by you or others who think they have extraordinary insight into what people are really thinking.

[Autistic Angel]

I'm insulted by an insinuation of bigotry (or half-brainedness) by you or others who think they have extraordinary insight into what people are really thinking.

I've written a number of messages on this topic, yet I have not insinuated that you are either bigoted or "half-brained."  Who are the "others" that you're referring to?

-Autistic Angel

[Blackadar]

Great op-ed from Walter Williams on this subject.

Just because some activity is not racially integrated does not mean that it is racially segregated.

I have experienced his reference to white professors that accept behavior from black people that they wouldn’t begin to accept from whites in my college classes. The professor makes a point of "randomly" calling on everyone except the black student because every time he does the student's response is always "uh, how should I know, you're the teacher" or some such nonsense. This type of pass in class discussion should be unacceptable.

No doubt.  It goes back to us being a nation of cowards.  We're so afraid to call it on both sides that we effectively hide from it.  Just like we have apologists for the cartoon, which anyone with half a brain can see could be easily interpreted to be in extremely poor taste, we have have apologists who will allow the celebration of "culture", with total disregard to the exclusionary practices that celebration entails. 

I suppose you consider me one of these 'apologists', as I saw the monkey and thought 'government' instead of 'black president'?  I fully understand that some people will interpret it differently, and may even feel strongly enough to try to address the grievance.  I'm insulted by an insinuation of bigotry (or half-brainedness) by you or others who think they have extraordinary insight into what people are really thinking.

You simply don't get it.  Read what I posted again.  It's not YOUR interpretation that counts here.

[RuperT]

I'm insulted by an insinuation of bigotry (or half-brainedness) by you or others who think they have extraordinary insight into what people are really thinking.

I've written a number of messages on this topic, yet I have not insinuated that you are either bigoted or "half-brained."  Who are the "others" that you're referring to?

-Autistic Angel

It seemed to me you argued that any "innocent" interpretation of the cartoon is a product of either ignorance or deceit (eg your first rebuttal to Lettuce).  Maybe I didn't understand your position entirely (like you apparently misunderstood my innocuous use of 'theoretical'), and I certainly don't think you meant it maliciously, but it came off that way to me.  I'm not emotionally wounded or anything, but I don't care to be categorized as an 'apologist' or anything else other than maybe 'mildly insensitive to monkey metaphors'.

[RuperT]

Great op-ed from Walter Williams on this subject.

Just because some activity is not racially integrated does not mean that it is racially segregated.

I have experienced his reference to white professors that accept behavior from black people that they wouldn’t begin to accept from whites in my college classes. The professor makes a point of "randomly" calling on everyone except the black student because every time he does the student's response is always "uh, how should I know, you're the teacher" or some such nonsense. This type of pass in class discussion should be unacceptable.

No doubt.  It goes back to us being a nation of cowards.  We're so afraid to call it on both sides that we effectively hide from it.  Just like we have apologists for the cartoon, which anyone with half a brain can see could be easily interpreted to be in extremely poor taste, we have have apologists who will allow the celebration of "culture", with total disregard to the exclusionary practices that celebration entails. 

I suppose you consider me one of these 'apologists', as I saw the monkey and thought 'government' instead of 'black president'?  I fully understand that some people will interpret it differently, and may even feel strongly enough to try to address the grievance.  I'm insulted by an insinuation of bigotry (or half-brainedness) by you or others who think they have extraordinary insight into what people are really thinking.

You simply don't get it.  Read what I posted again.  It's not YOUR interpretation that counts here.

Who else's interpretation would count here?  Are you just speaking rhetorically?  If you actually want to have that 'candid discussion' or 'call' somebody on something, you need to get your head out of the clouds. 
By 'apologists', are you referring to people, like me, who claim not to have seen a racist agenda with the cartoon, or are you more sensibly referring to people who think no one should have a problem with that cartoon?  I just ask you to be more careful with perjorative labels in a thread, especially when they've already been applied so, dare I say it, 'liberally'.

[Blackadar]

Great op-ed from Walter Williams on this subject.

Just because some activity is not racially integrated does not mean that it is racially segregated.

I have experienced his reference to white professors that accept behavior from black people that they wouldn’t begin to accept from whites in my college classes. The professor makes a point of "randomly" calling on everyone except the black student because every time he does the student's response is always "uh, how should I know, you're the teacher" or some such nonsense. This type of pass in class discussion should be unacceptable.

No doubt.  It goes back to us being a nation of cowards.  We're so afraid to call it on both sides that we effectively hide from it.  Just like we have apologists for the cartoon, which anyone with half a brain can see could be easily interpreted to be in extremely poor taste, we have have apologists who will allow the celebration of "culture", with total disregard to the exclusionary practices that celebration entails. 

I suppose you consider me one of these 'apologists', as I saw the monkey and thought 'government' instead of 'black president'?  I fully understand that some people will interpret it differently, and may even feel strongly enough to try to address the grievance.  I'm insulted by an insinuation of bigotry (or half-brainedness) by you or others who think they have extraordinary insight into what people are really thinking.

You simply don't get it.  Read what I posted again.  It's not YOUR interpretation that counts here.

Who else's interpretation would count here?  Are you just speaking rhetorically?  If you actually want to have that 'candid discussion' or 'call' somebody on something, you need to get your head out of the clouds. 
By 'apologists', are you referring to people, like me, who claim not to have seen a racist agenda with the cartoon, or are you more sensibly referring to people who think no one should have a problem with that cartoon?  I just ask you to be more careful with perjorative labels in a thread, especially when they've already been applied so, dare I say it, 'liberally'.

That's nonsense.  The swastika might be a symbol of peace in Hinduism and Buddhism, but it's obvious why it's offensive to many people.  It's been detailed here how that cartoon exploits all sorts of racial issues and whether you believe it does or not isn't important.  If you don't see why it does, then I'd say you are either extremely dense or you're being dishonest.  Either way, that's the cowardice that Holder was referring to. 

[RuperT]

The swastika might be a symbol of peace in Hinduism and Buddhism, but it's obvious why it's offensive to many people.  

You think this analogy has some utility to our discussion?  Do you expect a Hindu to abandon appropriate usage of the symbol out of respect to New Delhi jews?  That question was rhetorical; I see no point in torturing this analogy.

It's been detailed here how that cartoon exploits all sorts of racial issues and whether you believe it does or not isn't important.

"Detailed"?  Not really.  It "exploits...racial issues"?  These heavy racial issues are, what, "jerky racists say black people look like monkeys" and "black people don't like to be shot by cops"?  Is that right?  Why isn't it important whether I believe it or not?  What could be more important in this context?  I'm people, too, and according to you one of those who are in dire need of education, or is it "calling out"?  Do you prefer candid discussions with people who already agree with you?
I can only tell you that I'm not being dishonest, and I'm not sure how I'd convince you that I'm not extremely dense.  I also don't know how you think I am exhibiting 'cowardice'(fine time for you to get on topic BTW).  I make no claims of being without prejudice and thus have no fear of hypocrisy; what do you think I'm afraid of?
Care to talk about it, or should I don my smoking jacket?

[Autistic Angel]

It seemed to me you argued that any "innocent" interpretation of the cartoon is a product of either ignorance or deceit (eg your first rebuttal to Lettuce).  Maybe I didn't understand your position entirely (like you apparently misunderstood my innocuous use of 'theoretical'), and I certainly don't think you meant it maliciously, but it came off that way to me.  I'm not emotionally wounded or anything, but I don't care to be categorized as an 'apologist' or anything else other than maybe 'mildly insensitive to monkey metaphors'.

Yes, I have a lot of trouble so far accepting the "innocent" interpretation: it requires you to believe that the notorious racially-charged imagery in the comic, penned by a man with a documented history of similarly inflammatory work, should be set aside in favor of a far more complex interpretation that no one seems able to articulate.  The story seems to be that the dead monkey represents "Nancy Pelosi" or "one of the many, many sponsors of the stimulus bill," or maybe "all of congress," though it could also be an allusion to a group of "typewriting primates"...basically, it could be almost anyone or anything, but definitely not Barack Obama?

It's like arguing that this guy was taking an innocent swipe at the White House groundskeeper, or that this GOP women's group was trying to underscore the value of a balanced diet.  This whole "racist by accident" defense wears pretty thin when the same wink-wink nudge-nudge ideas keep cropping up in the same context over and over again.

-Autistic Angel

[RuperT]

I'm insulted by an insinuation of bigotry (or half-brainedness) by you or others who think they have extraordinary insight into what people are really thinking.

I've written a number of messages on this topic, yet I have not insinuated that you are either bigoted or "half-brained."  Who are the "others" that you're referring to?

-Autistic Angel

It fits now, doesn't it?  Your heart's in the right place, but you're going way overboard with it.
Sometimes a monkey's just a monkey.  Some people see a 'negro metaphor' and some see an 'incompetent metaphor'.  I'm honestly one of the latter (and I grew up in south Georgia, FWIW), and your failure to accept that just seems like a big blind spot in understanding race issues beyond what's in the headlines.

[Brendan]

Sometimes a monkey's just a monkey.  Some people see a 'negro metaphor' and some see an 'incompetent metaphor'.  I'm honestly one of the latter (and I grew up in south Georgia, FWIW), and your failure to accept that just seems like a big blind spot in understanding race issues beyond what's in the headlines.

What a laughable assertion - the "big blind spot" in this thread is your disingenuous refusal to acknowledge that one of the common interpretations of that image was going to be "Obama portrayed as a dead monkey". 

Even if we were to take your claim of naivete at face value, I suspect that you're capable of wracking your brain and concluding, that, just maybe, there's a pretty incendiary history of that particular meme, and perhaps a well-intentioned editorial cartoonist might shy away from drawing the image.  It's not like the racists are consigned to history.

[Autistic Angel]

I'm insulted by an insinuation of bigotry (or half-brainedness) by you or others who think they have extraordinary insight into what people are really thinking.

I've written a number of messages on this topic, yet I have not insinuated that you are either bigoted or "half-brained."  Who are the "others" that you're referring to?

-Autistic Angel

It fits now, doesn't it?  Your heart's in the right place, but you're going way overboard with it.

No.  Questioning the reasoning behind your stance on one specific issue is a far cry from impugning your intelligence, honesty, or racial tolerance.  I find your interpretation of the comic unpersuasive because it requires a spectacular amount of faith in Sean Delonas' motives and none whatsoever in his intellectual, social, or artistic acumen.  That makes you astonishingly optimistic; not morally corrupt.

Sometimes a monkey's just a monkey.  Some people see a 'negro metaphor' and some see an 'incompetent metaphor'.  I'm honestly one of the latter (and I grew up in south Georgia, FWIW), and your failure to accept that just seems like a big blind spot in understanding race issues beyond what's in the headlines.

We are not debating over what you believe, but *why* you believe it.  I've explained the rationale behind my stance and if you think you can explain away those racially charged overtones, you're welcome to try.

Otherwise, based on Delonas' history on depicting minority groups in grotesque and offensive ways, I'd like to know what makes you so willing to give him the benefit of the doubt here.

-Autistic Angel

[RuperT]

Sometimes a monkey's just a monkey.  Some people see a 'negro metaphor' and some see an 'incompetent metaphor'.  I'm honestly one of the latter (and I grew up in south Georgia, FWIW), and your failure to accept that just seems like a big blind spot in understanding race issues beyond what's in the headlines.

What a laughable assertion - the "big blind spot" in this thread is your disingenuous refusal to acknowledge that one of the common interpretations of that image was going to be "Obama portrayed as a dead monkey". 

When did I refuse to do that, and how the hell would you ever know if I was being disingenuous if I had?  I can understand the imagery well enough now that the sentinels of equality have pointed it out, but I don't think it's exactly a burning cross when viewed objectively.  The 'blind spot' I was referring to (of which there could surely be more than one) is a blindness to people like myself (and others in this thread I think) who just don't feel deeply enough about this particular issue to immediately react to this cartoon.  Worse, we're called liars.

Even if we were to take your claim of naivete at face value, I suspect that you're capable of wracking your brain and concluding, that, just maybe, there's a pretty incendiary history of that particular meme, and perhaps a well-intentioned editorial cartoonist might shy away from drawing the image.  It's not like the racists are consigned to history.

Well, sure, a 'well-intentioned editorial cartoonist' (which seems something of an oxymoron, BTW) might 'shy away'. I think you might have found the best example yet of AG Holder's 'cowardice'.  Would you disagree?

[RuperT]

I'm insulted by an insinuation of bigotry (or half-brainedness) by you or others who think they have extraordinary insight into what people are really thinking.

I've written a number of messages on this topic, yet I have not insinuated that you are either bigoted or "half-brained."  Who are the "others" that you're referring to?

-Autistic Angel

It fits now, doesn't it?  Your heart's in the right place, but you're going way overboard with it.

No.  Questioning the reasoning behind your stance on one specific issue is a far cry from impugning your intelligence, honesty, or racial tolerance.  I find your interpretation of the comic unpersuasive because it requires a spectacular amount of faith in Sean Delonas' motives and none whatsoever in his intellectual, social, or artistic acumen.  That makes you astonishingly optimistic; not morally corrupt.

It's like arguing that this guy was taking an innocent swipe at the White House groundskeeper, or that this GOP women's group was trying to underscore the value of a balanced diet.  This whole "racist by accident" defense wears pretty thin when the same wink-wink nudge-nudge ideas keep cropping up in the same context over and over again.

How do you follow 'questioning' with a paragraph like the above and claim no insinuation of bigotry? 
As far as Delonas' motives or offensive history, I have no interest in defending him whatsoever; he seems like a dick.  Frankly, looking at some of these other comics, I believe you're giving him too much credit for subtlety; I think he would've drawn a cigarette in the monkey's hand if he was specifically referring to Obama.  Conversely, it seems to me that the less obvious the racist metaphor appears, the more damning it becomes to you.  This works to a point, but who watches the watchmen?
Look, I'm just speaking up because I didn't want my 'stance' (which is basically "I didn't immediately see a racial connotation to the cartoon, and that doesn't make me a bad person") misapplied and used as some kind of 'bad example' or talking point for some of our master debaters.  That's all it is.  I'm not arguing this from some right-left political standpoint, and I've tried to avoid getting too deep into the sociological aspects.  I just don't want to be misunderstood or establish some identity as 'racist guy'.
Throw me a bone, huh?

[Brendan]

When did I refuse to do that, and how the hell would you ever know if I was being disingenuous if I had?

Do you forget your previous posts immediately after authoring them?

"I think maybe you're too savvy if you consider your racial assassination metaphor as more obvious than 'cops shoot a monkey, interrupting his characteristically inept crafting of stimulus legislation'."

I can understand the imagery well enough now that the sentinels of equality have pointed it out, but I don't think it's exactly a burning cross when viewed objectively.  The 'blind spot' I was referring to (of which there could surely be more than one) is a blindness to people like myself (and others in this thread I think) who just don't feel deeply enough about this particular issue to immediately react to this cartoon.  Worse, we're called liars.

I don't think you're a liar - just that you're either obtuse and/or disingenuous.  No one here has claimed that some people might not see the racial imagery in the comic - clearly you exist and are not some elaborate and irritating Turing Test participant - but to suggest that the Post and Delonas didn't know the probable imputation of what they were publishing defies common sense.

Well, sure, a 'well-intentioned editorial cartoonist' (which seems something of an oxymoron, BTW) might 'shy away'. I think you might have found the best example yet of AG Holder's 'cowardice'.  Would you disagree?

Yes, of course I disagree.   It isn't a credit to you that, when the Attorney General suggests that we be honest and frank in our discussions about race, you're mostly concerned about the (unabridged!) right of an editorial cartoonist to publish something that could be dropped without alteration into a Council of Conservative Citizens tract.

[Autistic Angel]

No.  Questioning the reasoning behind your stance on one specific issue is a far cry from impugning your intelligence, honesty, or racial tolerance.  I find your interpretation of the comic unpersuasive because it requires a spectacular amount of faith in Sean Delonas' motives and none whatsoever in his intellectual, social, or artistic acumen.  That makes you astonishingly optimistic; not morally corrupt.

It's like arguing that this guy was taking an innocent swipe at the White House groundskeeper, or that this GOP women's group was trying to underscore the value of a balanced diet.  This whole "racist by accident" defense wears pretty thin when the same wink-wink nudge-nudge ideas keep cropping up in the same context over and over again.

How do you follow 'questioning' with a paragraph like the above and claim no insinuation of bigotry?

Unless you are Mayor Dean Grose or Diane Fedele, I am not insinuating anything at all about you.  I'm making the point that racist propaganda is often packaged to allow an "innocent" interpretation, and it's typically the same one: "Gee, golly, gosh, gloriosky, I meant something else and the hypersensitive PC police are just misinterpreting me!"  This New York Post cartoon is better disguised than some, but the explanation still requires us to believe that gay-mocking, Democrat-hating Sean Delonas *accidentally* stumbled into racially charged territory this time.

Frankly, looking at some of these other comics, I believe you're giving him too much credit for subtlety; I think he would've drawn a cigarette in the monkey's hand if he was specifically referring to Obama.

Then the defense would be that Obama (apparently) kicked his smoking habit in 2008, so the monkey was obviously someone else.

I don't think Sean Delonas' cartoon is the least bit subtle: it's a single panel dominated by an internally reinforced racial slur and a direct reference to legislation that was assertively championed by our first black president.  The only thing I'm crediting him with is the minimal degree of social awareness necessary to recognize common cultural mores -- a handy skill for an editorial cartoonist -- and the arrogance to think he found a clever way to pull it off.

Look, I'm just speaking up because I didn't want my 'stance' (which is basically "I didn't immediately see a racial connotation to the cartoon, and that doesn't make me a bad person") misapplied and used as some kind of 'bad example' or talking point for some of our master debaters.  That's all it is.  I'm not arguing this from some right-left political standpoint, and I've tried to avoid getting too deep into the sociological aspects.  I just don't want to be misunderstood or establish some identity as 'racist guy'.
Throw me a bone, huh?

Based on the content of this thread, I don't believe you to be bigoted, misinformed, foolish, dishonest, prideful, or even particularly stubborn.  I simply disagree with the idea that this cartoon has a plausible innocence behind it.

Regardless of cheeba's assertions, people on this forum are not typically labeled "racist" or "stupid" for expressing conservative beliefs, but for expressing racist or stupid ones.  If you think your behavior in this thread falls into either category, rest assured that you've got a long way to go.

-Autistic Angel

[cheeba]

Regardless of cheeba's assertions, people on this forum are not typically labeled "racist" or "stupid" for expressing conservative beliefs, but for expressing racist or stupid ones.  If you think your behavior in this thread falls into either category, rest assured that you've got a long way to go.

In other words, you still don't understand sarcasm? Damn, I had hoped you could understand my original argument by now, but it appears to have fallen on "obtuse" (as Brendan puts it) shoulders.

RuperT, you're on a forum where they called me racist for thinking the term "Obama's baby's mama" was kinda funny. Then, these people threw a fit when I called Michelle Obama racist for calling Barack her baby's daddy. I even explained it was a joke, and they still couldn't get it.

In other words, if you want intelligent discussion about race, inquire elsewhere.

[RuperT]

When did I refuse to do that, and how the hell would you ever know if I was being disingenuous if I had?

Do you forget your previous posts immediately after authoring them?

"I think maybe you're too savvy if you consider your racial assassination metaphor as more obvious than 'cops shoot a monkey, interrupting his characteristically inept crafting of stimulus legislation'."

Oh, I forget lots of things these days... but I still don't see there a "disingenuous refusal to acknowledge that one of the common interpretations of that image was going to be "Obama portrayed as a dead monkey". "  I will acknowledge that one of the interpretations of that image is going to be "Obama portrayed as a dead monkey".

I can understand the imagery well enough now that the sentinels of equality have pointed it out, but I don't think it's exactly a burning cross when viewed objectively.  The 'blind spot' I was referring to (of which there could surely be more than one) is a blindness to people like myself (and others in this thread I think) who just don't feel deeply enough about this particular issue to immediately react to this cartoon.  Worse, we're called liars.

I don't think you're a liar - just that you're either obtuse and/or disingenuous.  No one here has claimed that some people might not see the racial imagery in the comic - clearly you exist and are not some elaborate and irritating Turing Test participant - but to suggest that the Post and Delonas didn't know the probable imputation of what they were publishing defies common sense.

Well, I guess I have to take 'obtuse'.  Might it be a blind spot to assume that I and other non-acutes are instead just being disingenuous?  I've made no claims regarding the producers' intent.

Well, sure, a 'well-intentioned editorial cartoonist' (which seems something of an oxymoron, BTW) might 'shy away'. I think you might have found the best example yet of AG Holder's 'cowardice'.  Would you disagree?

Yes, of course I disagree.   It isn't a credit to you that, when the Attorney General suggests that we be honest and frank in our discussions about race, you're mostly concerned about the (unabridged!) right of an editorial cartoonist to publish something that could be dropped without alteration into a Council of Conservative Citizens tract.

Finally!  This is a much more interesting and relevant discussion than a defense of my character, and with your permission maybe we could focus our efforts here.  AAngel, I'd ask the same of you.  I accept that you weren't intentionally making any insinuations, but you should admit the context might have made it seem so to me.  Thinking about it, I'd say you guys are obviously more political than I am; I think you make some distinctions that escape me.  This probably significantly informed my impression of the cartoon; I have a more nebulous concept of 'the government' as a self-serving gaggle of, well, monkeys who throw poop at each other and try to find bananas.  I think you give more of a personal identity to Obama, in a way.  He's not foremost in my mental model of 'the government'.  This may be why I didn't draw a natural reference to him from the cartoon.  Maybe.
Now:
Given that our cartoonist is well-intentioned,  why wouldn't you consider him one of Holder's 'cowards'?  Say some non-Delonas had obtusedly drawn that cartoon to comment on the ineptitude of the government, of which Obama is the figurehead, and the editor exclaims, "Cripes, Kliban!  It looks like you're calling Obama a porch monkey!  We can't print this!"  You wouldn't think Kliban is one of Holder's 'cowards' for capitulating?  I mean, that kind of thing is going to be the impetus for any meaningful racial discussions, isn't it?  Can you give me a better example?

[Autistic Angel]

Given that our cartoonist is well-intentioned,  why wouldn't you consider him one of Holder's 'cowards'?  Say some non-Delonas had obtusedly drawn that cartoon to comment on the ineptitude of the government, of which Obama is the figurehead, and the editor exclaims, "Cripes, Kliban!  It looks like you're calling Obama a porch monkey!  We can't print this!"  You wouldn't think Kliban is one of Holder's 'cowards' for capitulating?  I mean, that kind of thing is going to be the impetus for any meaningful racial discussions, isn't it?

If hypothetical cartoonist Kliban's intent is to make a statement about the general ineptitude of government but the cartoon he produces is more likely to be read as a statement about the ineptitude of black people, then he's a failure twice over: once for missing his mark, and again for antagonizing the readership.  The security guard who escorted Mr. Kliban off the premises could spend a cigarette break doodling on a discarded napkin and come up with a better way to make the same point.

Even in an alternate universe where the image in the comic carried no racial connotation whatsoever, the most charitable, mature, sophisticated reading of that comic is "OMFG stim bill sux LOL!!1!"  It offers no satirical insight into the bill's shortcomings, no hint of how it could be improved, no humorous critique of the political environment around the bill -- just a grotesque vilification of the people who support it.

As far as inspiring meaningful racial discussions, the likelihood of productive dialogue flowing forth from a starting point of "black people are unevolved animalistic brutes" seems low.

When Eric Holder talks about the myth of a Great American Melting Pot providing false comfort to avoid discussing real racial issues, I believe the topics he envisions center on the real socio-economic disparities we see along racial lines in this country.  African Americans comprise about 13.5% of the total population, yet make up approximately 40% of the prison population.  Is that a cultural problem stemming from the glorification of gang violence and drug use?  A societal problem born from substandard education and social systems in inner city areas?  How much of it can be attributed to a despairing belief in heavy-handed oppression and disenfranchisement, and how much of it is the result of *real* oppression and disenfranchisement in the form of racial profiling and unequal sentencing?  And why do these issues seem to affect African Americans more than Hispanic or Asian Americans?

Holder's point is that, rather than taking a hard, honest look at failures at the family, community, city, state, and federal levels, everyone prefers to avoid the issues.  Some convince themselves that America offers equal opportunity for all and place the blame for failure on people too "lazy" to take advantage of it, while others may feel hopelessly disadvantaged and place the blame on a society engineered to keep them down, but there's painfully little discussion about it.

Personally, I think the best place to start a constructive conversation about such things is, "What can *I* do to improve the situation?"  I don't know how to force other people to be more involved parents or provide a stable and secure home life, but with so many ways left for our society to improve inner city access to education, safety, and health services before they come up to par with middle-class suburbia, there seems to be little point in passing judgment on how individual single mothers should be pulling their lives together.

-Autistic Angel

[RuperT]

A fine post, but I'm uncomfortable with your excessive villification of monkeys.  Did one chew your genitals off or something?   
Regarding Kliban, I'm not talking about the 'success' of his comic per se, I'm talking about his defending or even just exploring his own misunderstanding of the scope and antagonism of 'monkey' imagery, if not with the readership than with the editor himself.  Would that be closer to the 'cowardice' towards race issues? 
I interpret Holder's comments as referring to more personal dialogues, very reduced in scope from socio-economic disparities or anything that might be proposed by a politician or said into a microphone.  I think there is already discussion on these issues (and they are 'safer' in that no one person can do anything about them anyway).
Person to person, I do think "How many white people think that black people are unevolved animalistic brutes?" should result in more meaningful and constructive dialogue than anything concerning gerrymandering or disenfranchisement. 

[Purge]

Me personally?  I'm not racist.  I'd have to actually care to be racist.  I don't.  I think that idiots come in all colors. (and most of them drive BMWs)

I doubt this has a BMW.


Back to the discussion at hand: in Canada we are "multi-cultural" and the melting pot idea isn't pushed on people here. You are Canadian regardless of race or religion, but there is no expectation on the populous to drop their existing traits (law-breaking aside). Here melting happens naturally. People give away stuff they no longer have use for willingly - take it away from them and they will dig in their heels. Imposed segregation causes people to get their backs up, whereas communities who want to live separately are welcome to do so.

[Autistic Angel]

Regarding Kliban, I'm not talking about the 'success' of his comic per se, I'm talking about his defending or even just exploring his own misunderstanding of the scope and antagonism of 'monkey' imagery, if not with the readership than with the editor himself.  Would that be closer to the 'cowardice' towards race issues?

I still don't understand what form such a conversation would take.  If Kliban's juvenile assault on the stimulus bill was innocently wandering into the territory of perceived racism, the only reason not to change the comic is if he can't imagine any other way in which to make the same point.

Editor: Ah, Kliban, just the man I wanted to see!  Sit down, my boy, sit down!

Kliban: Uh, yes sir.  You wanted to see me?

Editor: Indeed, indeed.  Yes, eh, this new comic of yours, what say you walk me through it.

Kliban: Oh!  Well, sir, I was thinking of ways to undermine public confidence in the new administration's stimulus package before it has time to take eff-

Editor: Right!  Sharp idea, sport, sharp as a tack!  Execution's all wrong, though!  Two white cops gunning down a monkey on an urban street?

Kliban: I thought by saying the bill had been written by that lunatic monkey from Connecticut-

Editor: That's where you've lost me, boy-o.  That Barack Obama's been all over the goddamn news trying to stir up support for this bill!  If the public sees this comic, they'll think we're pulling out that old chestnut about blacks being monkeys!

Kliban: Wow, is that really a racial stereotype?  I had no idea!  I'm kind of nervous about it now...does this mean we can't make fun of Obama's liberal socialist Muslim extremist fascist policies any more?

Editor: Hah!  We're the New York Post, my boy, the New York frickin' Post!  We'll publish anything we damn well please!  There are plenty of ways for us to get Obama!  Going after race, though, that's just going to piss people off.

Kliban: Hmmm...maybe if I redraw the cartoon with Nancy Pelosi writing the bill by smearing her feces on that sculpture of the Ten Commandments....

Editor: Now you're thinking, eh!  Now, get me a new comic by this afternoo-  Oh, hold on, Kliban: boss is coming.

[Supermodel enters.]

Supermodel: Hey guys, finish laying out Page 6 yet?  I've got another newspaper I need designed!

Editor: We just finished the rumor mongering and just need to tighten up the comics a little bit.

Supermodel: Great!

[Supermodel smiles seductively and leaves.]

Kliban: Man, I can't believe we have jobs doing this!

Editor: I know, and my mom said conservatism would never get *anywhere* with all these stupid little games!

I interpret Holder's comments as referring to more personal dialogues, very reduced in scope from socio-economic disparities or anything that might be proposed by a politician or said into a microphone.  I think there is already discussion on these issues (and they are 'safer' in that no one person can do anything about them anyway).

Person to person, I do think "How many white people think that black people are unevolved animalistic brutes?" should result in more meaningful and constructive dialogue than anything concerning gerrymandering or disenfranchisement.

That's counterintuitive to me: gerrymandering, voter suppression, unequal sentencing, workplace discrimination, substandard education systems, racial profiling -- these are all real issues that hurt race relations and undermine the values of equal opportunity that our country claims to embrace.  They're also problems that can directly addressed in concrete ways.

By contrast, what is constructive about the question, "How many white people are racist?"  Teens in urban California are not joining up with violent street gangs because some tiny circle of morons in West Virginia feel like tough guys behind their pointy masks, nor because any of their crackpot ideas about the evolutionary status of non-whites are right, but because they think it's the best of their available options.  Racist individuals may be intellectually and morally offensive, but I think their opinion is immaterial compared to the definable systemic failures that are denying people access to equal opportunity and protection under the law.

-Autistic Angel

[Purge]

This isn't new, but it certainly is sad.

Rachel Ray's "kaffiyeh" incident : http://www.newsweek.com/id/139334

followed by this ...
inspired by a doll that praises Islam, and and a DS game with a doll in it saying the same thing.

Talk about reading into things.