When the New York Post published a cartoon last Wednesday that depicted a chimpanzee, shot dead by two white cops, with a caption suggesting the chimp had written the stimulus bill, outcry was just seconds away.
The next day, an enormous protest, attended by folks like Amy Goodman of Democracy Now and Al Sharpton, was staged outside of Rupert Murdoch's News Corps building, at 6th Avenue and 48th Street in Midtown Manhattan. And over the weekend, blogs and traditional media outlets were abuzz with talk about the incendiary cartoon.
Some found the cartoon blatantly racist, with the chimp an obvious stand-in for President Barack Obama. Others said the opposite, and everyone needs to just lighten up. One blogger for MotherJones.com, a left-leaning news magazine, joked that the cartoon shouldn't be offensive, unless you're an ape. "Sometimes a joke about monkeys is, well, just a joke about monkeys," he wrote.
Maybe so, but even though a cigar is, sometimes, just a cigar, said Freud, somehow I doubt it would be perceived as such if a cartoon existed depicting one pointed towards towards a woman's crotch by an absent-minded psychoanalyst.
Others have argued that even George W. Bush was often likened to a monkey, rendering the charge of racism moot. Need I remind these people that Bush was likened to a monkey because he shares a name with and bears an uncanny resemblance to Curious George? Sorry, but it's not the same thing.
What shocks me is not the controversy that's erupted over this cartoon, or even the fact that someone drew it. It's that, despite what the cartoonist's intentions were, or how many ways to interpret it there may be, the damn thing made it past numerous editorial desks and got published in one of New York's most widely read papers. Surely someone at the Post has the wherewithal to know that if that cartoon were published, this would happen.
Or maybe not.
[Image: The cartoon in question, by Sean Delonas]