Why I Find the Monkey Cartoon Objectionable

There has been a lot of press over the past two days about a cartoon from the New York Post depicting two police officers shooting a monkey. The cartoon visual is based off of a case in Connecticut when Travis the chimp went berserk and attacked Carla Nash, severely injuring her and causing life-altering injuries. Following a 911 call to the police by owner Sandra Herold, the police arrived on the scene and shot the chimp in order to save Carla’s life.

To this visual, the cartoonist added the text, “They’ll have to find someone else to write the next stimulus bill.” Given the size, erratic, and confusing funding rules and laws of the stimulus bill, the cartoonist decided to reference the “Infinite Monkey Theorem.” The “theorem” is based off of the old saying that a monkey, given a typewriter and an infinite amount of time, could produce the works of Shakespeare.

Critics have made the assumption that the mixing of the imagery and text made a reference to President Obama. Monkeys have been used as a slur towards the black population of the U.S. in the past, so the assumption is not totally off base. However, since the text states that it was the monkey that wrote the stimulus bill, the cartoonist cannot be referring to Obama. The originators of the stimulus bill are Representative Nancy Pelosi and Senator Harry Reid (and their staff). Obama only signed the bill.

However, it isn’t the wrongly assumed implication of racism in this cartoon that I have problems with it. I find objectionable the (intended or unintended) imagery of deadly violence towards our political officials. While we often see political cartoons with a bomb about to fall on top of someone’s head or a sword swinging from behind, the subject of the cartoon usually remains alive. Sometimes the subject is shown covered in soot, wearing damaged clothes, and standing in a pile of debris, all concepts implying that a bomb has gone off, but the subject remains alive to make his comment. In this cartoon, however, the subject is lying dead on the ground with blood around it, and that just is not necessary nor in good taste.

With that said, I would like to once again address racism in the United States. This past week, Attorney General Eric Holder made waves with the following comment:

Though this nation has proudly thought of itself as an ethnic melting pot, in things racial we have always been and I believe continue to be, in too many ways, essentially a nation of cowards. Though race related issues continue to occupy a significant portion of our political discussion, and though there remain many unresolved racial issues in this nation, we average Americans simply do not talk enough with each other about things racial.

I do agree with this. People feel so insecure about saying something that might be considered racist that they are either reluctant to say anything at all or quickly jump on the finger-pointing bandwagon claiming to see racism where it does not exist. This weakness has allowed people such as Al Sharpton to gain power over the public when it comes racism, or reversed racism if you allow. His comments over the political cartoon was:

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.”

One does not have to question the intention of the cartoonist when it is obvious what the subject the dead monkey represents. Just because monkeys have been an image used to describe blacks in the past, it doesn’t mean every time a monkey is drawn or referenced is used in a racial manner. Over the past eight years, it is likely that you have seen the classic image of President George W. Bush with a similar looking monkey with the same facial expression along side of him. Does the image of the monkey mean that Bush is black? Of course not. That would just be silly. So is the implication that the cartoonist was making a racial jab at Obama.

It is my hope that one day people can look past skin color and accept people for who they are. That doesn’t just mean “white towards black,” but “black towards white” as well. Racism is a two-way street. I take that back, racism is a cloverleaf interchange since whites, blacks, Latinos, Asians, and other racial and ethic groups are subject towards degrading comments and stereotypes. One of the first steps for getting past our racist history is to stop looking for racism around every corner. Just as our laws assume a person is innocent until proven guilty, a political cartoonist not racist until proven racist.

Related articles:
Black Voices – “New AG Eric Holder Calls Americans Racial Cowards”
Yahoo News – “Holder: US a nation of cowards on racial matters”
Associated Content – “New York Post Cartoon: Al Sharpton Calls Monkey Cartoon Racist”
CNN – “Woman’s life in danger after chimp attack”
Hubdub – “Will the shot monkey cartoon creator apologize?”
Rightwing Nuthouse – “When Reality, Intent, and Webster’s Dictionary Don’t Matter”