Comments on: how is this racist? http://antipaucity.com/2009/02/19/how-is-this-racist/ fighting the lack of good ideas Thu, 12 Aug 2010 03:31:16 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1 By: antipaucity http://antipaucity.com/2009/02/19/how-is-this-racist/comment-page-1/#comment-16350 antipaucity Sat, 21 Feb 2009 15:58:25 +0000 http://antipaucity.com/?p=235#comment-16350 Tanner, first, the Post didn't apologize for the cartoon, they apologized that certain people (including Roland Martin and Al Sharpton) chose to read-into this cartoon something that isn't there. Second, I am well aware of history. Anyone who would think this was a slight on the President is remarkably naive, or just wants to be offended. There is nothing in the cartoon that indicates the comment is aimed at the President: Congress writes bills. The President merely signs (or vetoes) them. Perhaps those who want to be offended are the problem, and not those who make something that is purely innocent on its own. A good hermeneutical, exegetical response to this cartoon would look at the surface meaning. On the surface, this is a reference to the shooting of a chimpanzee in Connecticut. On the surface, as anyone who knew anything about how our country works would know, Congress writes legislation (hence being the Legislative Branch). If you want to change from exegesis (reading what is there) to endogesis (reading-in to the material), you are welcome to do so. But saying that that is what it *really* means is intellectually dishonest. The cartoonist, the editors, and the publishers all say they didn't think anything was "under the surface". Could it be to save face? Certainly. But why presume the worst of these professionals? Isn't it more reasonable to presume they're not all lying, and that they're actually telling the truth? People who want to be offended will be regardless of what anyone does. That is a huge problem in our politically-correct society - we can't be seen to possibly offend anyone, whether or not there really is an offense to be taken. A perfect commentary on this situation can be found here: http://stuffwhitepeoplelike.com/2008/05/28/101-being-offended. Tanner, first, the Post didn’t apologize for the cartoon, they apologized that certain people (including Roland Martin and Al Sharpton) chose to read-into this cartoon something that isn’t there.

Second, I am well aware of history. Anyone who would think this was a slight on the President is remarkably naive, or just wants to be offended. There is nothing in the cartoon that indicates the comment is aimed at the President: Congress writes bills. The President merely signs (or vetoes) them.

Perhaps those who want to be offended are the problem, and not those who make something that is purely innocent on its own. A good hermeneutical, exegetical response to this cartoon would look at the surface meaning. On the surface, this is a reference to the shooting of a chimpanzee in Connecticut. On the surface, as anyone who knew anything about how our country works would know, Congress writes legislation (hence being the Legislative Branch).

If you want to change from exegesis (reading what is there) to endogesis (reading-in to the material), you are welcome to do so. But saying that that is what it *really* means is intellectually dishonest.

The cartoonist, the editors, and the publishers all say they didn’t think anything was “under the surface”. Could it be to save face? Certainly. But why presume the worst of these professionals? Isn’t it more reasonable to presume they’re not all lying, and that they’re actually telling the truth?

People who want to be offended will be regardless of what anyone does. That is a huge problem in our politically-correct society – we can’t be seen to possibly offend anyone, whether or not there really is an offense to be taken.

A perfect commentary on this situation can be found here: http://stuffwhitepeoplelike.com/2008/05/28/101-being-offended.

]]> By: Tanner Lovelace http://antipaucity.com/2009/02/19/how-is-this-racist/comment-page-1/#comment-16344 Tanner Lovelace Fri, 20 Feb 2009 15:00:54 +0000 http://antipaucity.com/?p=235#comment-16344 I'm sorry Warren, but if you can't see how the cartoon could be construed as racist then you're either incredibly naive and ignorant of history, or profoundly intellectually dishonest. Even the New York Post now agrees since they've apologized for it. I’m sorry Warren, but if you can’t see how the cartoon could be construed as racist then you’re either incredibly naive and ignorant of history, or profoundly intellectually dishonest. Even the New York Post now agrees since they’ve apologized for it.

]]> By: Greg Brown http://antipaucity.com/2009/02/19/how-is-this-racist/comment-page-1/#comment-16336 Greg Brown Thu, 19 Feb 2009 15:21:29 +0000 http://antipaucity.com/?p=235#comment-16336 Yeah, Roland Martin, he's a piece of work. I liked this thinly veiled arguments that Mike Vick shouldn't be in jail on dog fighting charges. When I saw the article I thought the cartoonist was referring to Congress who have been collectively acting as sensible as the dead chimp. If Martin knew as much as he claims he'd know that Congress writes Bills and the President signs them. Roland is grasping at straws here. Yeah, Roland Martin, he’s a piece of work. I liked this thinly veiled arguments that Mike Vick shouldn’t be in jail on dog fighting charges. When I saw the article I thought the cartoonist was referring to Congress who have been collectively acting as sensible as the dead chimp. If Martin knew as much as he claims he’d know that Congress writes Bills and the President signs them. Roland is grasping at straws here.

]]>