(See more from J. Kirkintilloch at Sorepoints.com)
Its easy to ask yourself….
Why should I, who never owned a slave, who never prevented a woman from voting, who never stole any land, and who never sent anyone to a gas chamber, have to feel guilty about what other people did in the past? Clearly I had no control over these historical events, so why should I feel guilty? Why should I have to censor myself? And what can I, as an individual, really do to end hunger or war, or injustice?
The problem is, we’re not just individuals. We are, for good and bad, part of the world. We can’t escape history any more than we can control it, and trying to ignore it, is just putting one’s head in the sand. What’s that saying about: evil triumphing when good (wo)men do nothing?
So we come up against things like the ‘N-word’. A white guy can’t use it, without coming off racist, but a person with darker skin can use it in the most congenial of manners, or as humor, as long as the ‘er’ gets softened to ‘ah’.
Feminists, and jews, and homosexuals, and atheists complain about words a lot too. Do people have a right to do this? Do we have the right ‘not to be offended’? My mother always said ‘sticks and stones’, but the truth is, you don’t have to be a child for words to hurt. The pen can indeed be mightier than the sword….
Now, there are some very specific reasons why this New York Post cartoon is offensive to people.
First, one has to understand that historically, darker skinned people didn’t have it so good in the USA, and second that many lighter skinned people compared them to animals, specifically apes, and treated them as such. And there has also been an issue, from time to time, of Police not treating people equally either.
Does all this mean the cartoon is RACIST?
From an African American guy on CNN:
We all know that the stimulus bill was the first priority of the new president, so when reading the caption, it was easy to infer that the cartoonist was implying the president of the United States.
You know, the black guy.
And that’s where the problem comes in.
What could be seen as silly humor if President George W. Bush were in the White House has to be seen through the lens of America’s racist past, as noted by the leaders of the New York Association of Black Journalists, who also are demanding an apology from the Post.
Now, having said that it was a dumbass thing to do (some times people are damn stupid) I don’t consider insensitivity to be the same as racism (which implies a bit more in the way of hatred). It was also insensitive of certain newspapers to publish cartoons about Muhammad. Its insensitive to criticize people who are trying to do a good job.
The truth is though, humor and especially political humor is often at other peoples expense, it needs to be, so I can’t really see a way to supporting the NAACP when they talk about people getting fired over a cartoon. But when you do something damn stupid, and people are kind enough to point it out, you apologize… and profusely.
You can’t ignore history. But I don’t think we have to treat this presidency with kid gloves either. In fact, given the state of the world economy, WE NEED to keep on top of what this American-President is doing, and that includes keeping the political cartoons rolling. Cartoonists should not be afraid to criticize, but should apologize when they so obviously screw up. So should dumbass Editors… and the dumbass newspaper.
Its a cartoon. People who should really be offended are the poor woman who was attacked by the chimp, and her family. They should be angry that a cartoonist would use her tragic situation as fodder for a political cartoon.
Comments (2) 
Themocracy