Making a Monkey of Michelle Obama?
Aren't we all supposedly related to monkeys?
-
Tools:
One of the more unique aspects of the 2008 election was how, whenever anyone sidled close to making a damaging charge against Barack Obama, they were instantly accused of racism no matter what they were talking about. Republicans suffered most from this tactic, but then that's par for the course; more startling, especially to himself, were the racism charges leveled at Bill Clinton who's more used to being lauded as our "first black president." He doesn't seem to have really recovered or forgiven to this day.
After the election, nothing changed. Stand-up comics have been having a hard slog of it: their most usual source of comedy, the Presidential administration, is off-limits for fear of finding themselves tarred with the infinitely flexible racist brush.
Editorial cartoonists, too, are walking on eggshells. The New York Post made the politically incorrect blunder of including an image of a monkey in a cartoon about the trillion-dollar stimulus bill written by Congress; though it neither mentioned nor even alluded to Mr. Obama or his administration, the cartoonist and his editors were pilloried as KKK-wannabes.
Now comes an interesting report from Greenville, SC, so routinely stereotyped as a den of racist rednecks.
The state NAACP is demanding an apology from a former South Carolina official whose Internet posting suggested a gorilla that escaped from the Columbia zoo was an ancestor of first lady Michelle Obama... Minutes after the gorilla's escape was reported, DePass posted: "I'm sure it's just one of Michelle's ancestors - probably harmless."
The unfortunate Mr. DePass, who contrary to many reports is not a GOP official of any kind, has spent every waking moment from then 'til now apologizing to everyone who will lend him an ear. To no avail: he has lost his (politically unrelated) job, and his apologies have been spurned by all and sundry. Even Don Imus was treated more generously following his far harsher insult against young girls who were private citizens unused to the public spotlight, unlike Mrs. Obama.
And for what? Mr. DePass' connection of Obama ancestry with the great apes is nothing more than what modern science tells us to be true. In fact, virtually without exception, every one of the politicians and media demagogues now calling for Mr. DePass' immolation hold man's descent from monkeys as an article of faith.
In other words, they agree with Mr. DePass and ridicule anyone who thinks otherwise! Could it be that Southern Democrats are in fact closet creationists?
Have we not all been taught since elementary school that mankind evolved from, yes, monkeys? As well as lizards, fish, and amoebae to be sure, but the primates are our "closest relatives." Not just Michelle Obama, but George Washington, Albert Einstein, and Keith Olbermann equally well have Magilla Gorilla in their family tree.
In fact, the only people who don't believe that the Obamas and everybody else evolved from monkeys, are... fundamentalist Christians, who instead believe in the special and unique creation of mankind by God. In literal-biblicist parlance, the resemblance of apes to mankind is only because of God's efficient recycling of engineering designs for bipedal quadrupeds, not from any genetic or hereditary relationship.
By the stated standards of the NAACP and the South Carolina Democratic party, only fundamentalist Christians are not racists. Who's the monkey now?
-
Tools:
What does Chinese history have to teach America that Joe Biden doesn't know?
Even so, I think the author would rightly hesitate to defend any public figure who was on the record as calling Michelle Obama an ape. Can he deny this, or failing to deny it, can he defend his position in light of this article?
Anyway, AFAIK nobody called Obama an ape, they simply said she was descended from them. Two different things. Or are they? Do you think of yourself as an ape? Would you be offended if someone called you one? Or would it matter who was doing the name-calling, even if they said the exact same thing?
I think that's the trouble with this sort of racism charge, it's so absurdly subjective.
I am certain it is the former.
Any adult who doesn't live under a rock or been recently hatched, knows that comparing, insinuating, suggesting, or refering to a Black person as one of the common non-human primates, ranks only below the "n-word" in level of offensiveness to said Black person.
I have no doubt Mr. Hobbes is well-aware of this fact.
Unfortunately, I haven't had the time to respond to all of the regressive thinking that passes for opinion on these pages. And as such, I endure without comment, the daily eye-rolling, forehead-slapping, "Oh Please" inducing "articles" that appear in my email box each day.
But even by Scragged's "standards", this was just too much.
I STILL find myself amazed that after a constanst barrage of "opinions" like this, proudly flying the republican/conservative flag, republicans/conservatives will then attribute the lack of minority (particularly Blacks) support to everything under the sun, rather than the real problem which is staring you guys back in the mirror.
The other year, we saw international Muslims demanding exactly this right, rioting and murdering in response to cartoons published in Denmark that were disrespectful of Mohammed.
Personally, I find the idea that some other individual should be granted an advantage over another based purely on the color of their skin, to be deeply offensive. Yet that's what affirmative action demands, and what current Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor deems to be appropriate. Does the fact that I find that idea profoundly insulting make it out-of-bounds? I wish!
I can't help but note that the fact that Mr. DePass was NOT a political officeholder or official of any kind, but a simple private citizen expressing his opinion, was deemed totally irrelevant.
I would never dream of using the n word, or any number of other foul or vulgar words; anyone who would, is at best a boor. But what does free speech mean, if not the freedom to be offensive? Certainly when it comes to art, the Left proudly wraps sacrilege of the most appalling kind in the cloak of the First Amendment; google Mapplethorpe and prepare to be disgusted.
I had actually written a full response to your recent article regarding wealth and taxes, but this site was malfunctioning and I got a server error when I tried to submit it, and was unable to recover what I had typed. But I thought it was an excellent article, and I agreed in large part with it.
In response to your comment.
Yes, Blacks or any other group of people have the right to insist that when speaking to or about them, you do so in non-offensive terms.
And what's with this "out-of-bounds" stuff? What exactly do you mean here? Do you mean "offensive", or do you mean "legally prohibited". I think your ambiguity here is a clever attempt on your part to cloak this in the 1st Amemdment, when the real issue is that you guys have a problem with people exercising their right to respond to offensive speech.
What has Mr. DePass' public status to do with anything? There are a whole host of employee-handbook-type reasons that private citizens work under threat of being fired for everyday.
So only public office holders should be sanctioned if they appear at a Synagogue in full Nazi SS Regalia? Besides, he stopped being a private citizen when he posted his "opinion" on the internet.
No one has said he doesn't have the legal right to be offensive. Have there been any legal sanctions? No? So what's the problem?
It sounds like you defend his "right to be offensive", but the not the right of the offended to be offended? That sounds downright un-American to me. ;-)
Remember when Obama was getting hung out to dry for his reference to "Special Olympics"? Where was all this right-wing caterwauling in support of free speech then? No one was on here arguing for the President's right to make "retard" jokes because the etymology of the word "retard" proves it to be an accurate description of a slower, or reduced level of mental development.
So what gives here?
If you ask me, everyone's rights with regards to free speech, have been affirmed in this instance.
It will be very interesting to see if conservative white males will still be labeling and (mis)characterizing minority reactions to offensive slurs and racial eptithets as hypersensitive and reactionary, fifty years from now. ;-)
The only really valid objection to it that I can see is that he's supposed to be the President of all Americans, Special Olympians included, and ought not to insult his constitutents; but by that measure he's also the President of the quarter of the country who clings to their guns and religion, and he's quite happy to insult them and nobody on the left much minds.
Do you, then, believe that it makes no difference whether a person is a public figure or a private individual? To me it does - a public official can justly be held to a higher standard of courtesy to all.
Of course you have the right to be offended by what other people say, everyone has that right. The question is, do you have the right to force your offended-ness on everyone else, or to make everyone kowtow to it? I say no. As Voltaire supposedly said, "I disapprove of what you say, but I would defend to the death your right to say it."
Do Muslims have the right to demand that we not speak of Islam as a barbaric medieval religion founded by a pedophile desert pirate?
Do Christians have the right to silence the blasphemies of Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins?
The proper response to bad speech is more speech, not suppression of speech.
Glad to see you back, Tony, and I look forward to a fascinating debate.
No, in my opinion, one's public status is irrelevant. If he/she wants to voice their opinion publicly, then they should be prepared to accept the response to their words. Otherwise it would be a one-way street with only the offensive having rights.
How do you define "forcing one's offended-ness" on someone? If saying "Well, you're entitled to your offensive views, but I am not going to provide you support and succor", is "forcing my offended-ness", then yes, I DO have a right to do so. If I'm renting a house to someone should I forced to continue to rent to someone who begins all communication with me with "Hey 'n-word'"? Would I be "forcing my offended-ness" on that tenant by using my "rent at will" clause to evict that tenant with 30-days notice?
Nobody is forcing anyone to do anything. People are simply saying, you have the right to say what you want, we have the right to choose not to deal with or support you. Where is the forced "kowtowing"?
Yes, Muslims DO have the right to demand that we not speak of Islam.... But do they have the right to kill anyone for doing so? Absolutely not!
Christians certainly have the right to protest the views of Hitchens and Dawkins.
There's no suppression going on here. No one has laid a finger on Mr. DePass, or threatened him with legal sanction. He is still free to post his offensive "jokes" about the First Lady.
So again I say, what's the problem?
* * * * *
Thanks Petrarch, unfortuntely this is a "limited run engagement". I will eventually return as the full-time opposition, but unfortunately, that time is not now.
I will drop in from time-to-time when the site servers allow me to, and when I am sufficiently rankled or bemused enough to take the time to comment. ;-)
Thanks for an interesting and thoughtful debate as usual.
A photographer declined taking a job for a lesbian commitment ceremony, the lesbians sued and won to force the photographer to take the the pictures. Many people would say that its a 'civil rights' win.
If the photographer had been black, and it had been a very pro-KKK themed wedding who would we side with?
I find it America today it is not only okay to insult, degrade, and belittle religion beliefs but is actually encouraged and welcomed.
To do the same with race can destroy a persons financial well being.
That is hypocrisy. I agree with Voltaire. I will fight and die for your right to insult me and my beliefs. I do not feel that there is much return of that sentiment from the other side of the political spectrum.
The difference is that race and sexual orientation are not by choice.
And in any case, why is it OK for your attributes or choices to give you the power to compel me to do something I don't want to do? The homosexuals jonyfries mentioned somehow got the power to force an individual to perform services for them which that individual did not wish to provide. That's not freedom, it's tyranny - actually, "involuntary servitude" which we all ought to oppose.
"How dare the writer put the words 'monkey' and 'michelle obama' in the same sentence"!!
Heck, if you worked for the MSM, you'd be fired right now for even attempting to submit such a title.
This is the problem with our young - they are too invested in emotion to take the time to think.
Everything the author said is right on the money. Forwarded to several friends.
Jonyfries, I would very much like to see the documentation of the event you describe. If nothing else, I'd like to actually see someone foolish enough to *force* a photographer to take their wedding photos.
To your point. If acting on homosexual tendencies were against the the law, then you'd have a point.
So you're saying that the days of "Whites Only" and "NO Coloreds Allowed" were a time of "freedom", and that's the type of society that we as a nation should aspire to?
What if a utility is owned by a co-op of private investors, should they have the right to deny service to a homosexual household?
Actually, yes. Freedom sometimes means getting offended.
"[Is] that the type of society that we as a nation should aspire to?"
Maybe. Freedom sometimes means getting offended.
"What if a utility is owned by a co-op of private investors, should they have the right to deny service to a homosexual household?"
Absolutely. If the co-op is partially state controlled then the voters' opinion would also be relevant, with respect to their percentage of ownership.
If a private store owned by a private individual has racist policies, wouldn't that turn off you and me and most other fair minded Americans? The greatness of truly free markets is how bad decisions will, of their own accord, harm the person that makes them. Let the haters hate. They make themselves bad in the end. The government doesn't need to "level the playing field". We consumers can do that perfectly fine on our own.
Give up? It was Rep. Cynthia McKinney (D, GA). Didn't hear about that one, did you?
http://www.adl.org/PresRele/ASUS_12/4869_12.htm
The evil here is the extreme double standard. Why is it permissible for a leftist politician's staff to use indefensible anti-Semitic verbal assaults, and not permissible for a rightist private individual to say something which some might interpret as a racial insult, but which according to science is objectively true?
I agree with Petrarch that politicians shouldn't insult the people they represent. It's also inappropriate to insult elected national leaders - if you can't respect the person, at least respect the office. OK, Michelle Obama isn't an elected leader, but as First Lady she holds a longstanding historical role.
I can't help but wonder if you had any objection to the outrageous insults leveled at George W Bush for 8 years, everything from being a torturer, liar, and traitor to being an idiot and mental defective. What was the difference there?
Whether you are or not, in my opinion, your views are so extreme, all I can say is:
Uh, ok.
Delores,
"[If a private store owned by a private individual has racist policies, wouldn't that turn off you and me and most other fair minded Americans?]"
Oh? Is THAT why we needed civil rights laws striking down seperate but equal?
Where were all the fair-minded individuals then? All the pictures of "Whites only" establishments I've seen, always looked pretty well patronized to me.
Look at one well-known, fat racist blowhard. He's still flourishing. Why is that? If what you said were true, that in effect, "people would 'self regulate' if only we'd let them", then he'd be on AM radio between 2:17 and 2:47 in the morning, if at all. But instead, he is by some accounts, the defacto head of the republican party.
I'm sorry I disagree for two reasons:
1. There are too many people who share the views of the fat racist blowhards of the world.
2. People, even those with good intentions, tend to do what's convenient.
For instance, most people would agree that at least philosophically, the concept of Walmart is evil. I know I do. And YET, I find myself regularly pulling into the Walmart parking lot, and trudging through the aisles in a zombified state, because it's close and it's cheap. I could easily be shopping at Macy's or Dillards, or other stores that probably take better care of their workers, and that don't destroy local businesses.
We need laws to enforce civilized behavior or else we end up with what I believe is D.Little's vision of what society should be.
You ask an interesting question, one I will happily provide you with a straight answer to as soon as you provide me with a straight answer to mine. The closest you come in your reply is that you think it would be inappropriate to insult Michelle Obama due to her station, which implies that you might be fine with someone calling her an ape if her husband had lost the election and retired from politics.
My answer to your question may surprise you, as my allegiances may not be what you seem to think they are.
And if you wouldn't have defended him, can you explain why not, in light of this article you have written?
I respectfully await an answer.
I also think that elected officials are represented by their paid staff and their actions reflect on them, so it would be appropriate for the official to at least repudiate similar statements by their employees, and even by their close associates. Remember, Hillary Clinton called on Barack Obama to "reject and repudiate" the racist rantings of Rev. Wright, which he did.
For a private citizen to insult another private citizen is rude and discourteous, but certainly not a matter of national concern. If the insult is sufficiently severe, well, we have libel/slander laws and courts to deal with it.
Your turn. :-)
Oh, and Tony? "We need laws to enforce civilized behavior" - how true. So how would you apply that to this article?
http://scragged.com/articles/government-failure-or-hidden-success.aspx
My comment was in response to comments suggesting that government shouldn't make laws proscribing racial/sexual discrimination, but instead, it should either be left up to people to discourage such behavior by "tsk, tsk, tsk-ing" such behavior, or that such behavior should be allowed, even to the point of denying people basic life necessities like food, warmth and shelter. :::still shaking head at that one:::
As to applying my comment to your article, I wouldn't. The mere expression of offensive comments, barring slander and libel, does not, and should not rise to legally sanctionable offense.
Now please answer a question for me. I've tried to get the tone right so as not to come off as disrespectful, but still get my point across. So, with no offense intended:
Why would you try to defend Mr. DePass with such an obviously disengenuous to the point of being farcial argument, suggesting that Mr. DePass' comments should not be cause for offense, because "scientifically speaking", Michelle Obama is in fact related to apes?
If you truly believe that no offense should be taken because of the scientific veracity of the comment, then why all this teeth-gnashing over Mr. DePass' private status?
I mean, if the statement is truly and completely defensible on scientific grounds, then anybody, private OR public should be free to make such statements free of criticism and public censure.
Right?
But I do allow my particular brand of satire is perhaps not for everyone. It's very gratifying to see such an interesting discussion though!
As I alluded to earlier, perhaps you or others like you, will cease to ridicule the reactions of certain historically oppressed/persecuted groups, to the casual insensitivity of those having not been subjected to such historical treatment, when you yourselves become a numercial minority.
I'm sorry you feel that refering to the Black First Lady with a slur just short of the "n-word" is not an occasion for wide-spread outrage.
In my opinion, hyper-INsensitivity is as unattractive as hypersensitivity. It is even more so because I believe it belies a deficit of compassion and empathy; the lack of a willingness to try to see things through others eyes.
That's why I never "tut tut" a legitimately "aggrieved group's" reaction to a perceived offense or insult.
Because I know how it feels.
Hobbes, I said "public figure", not "public elected official". This was not an accident. Clearly you make a distinction between the two because you make an issue of the fact that Mr. DePass is one and not the other -- a "public figure" but not a "public elected official" (He became a "public figure" when he posted a blog to the internet). If I didn't know any better I'd say you were deliberately trying to avoid answering the actual question.
So I will ask you again, because it seems that you must have misread my original:
I think you would rightly hesitate to defend any public figure who was on the record as calling Michelle Obama an ape. Can you deny this, or failing to deny it, can you defend your position in light of this article?
I can make this even more specific to avoid any confusion -- would you have written an article defending DePass if he had come out and called Michelle Obama an ape? If not, why not, given your argument here?
I will answer your question as a show of good faith:
The comments were: "Why do you think she lost? You wanna know what led to the loss? Israel. The Zionists. You. Put on your yarmulke and celebrate."
I don't know the specifics behind McKinnon's loss. If Israel and/or Zionist politics were genuinely a factor, I see nothing wrong with someone asserting that the loss was at least in part caused by Zionists. I do not know the reporter he was speaking to, and if he was in fact a Zionist and the speaker knew that, I also see nothing wrong with his comment, "You", referring to the reporter as a Zionist.
Up until this point, the entourage member had not in my view actually said anything that was clearly anti-Semitic, because I believe that one can be opposed to Zionism and even the actions of Israel without being anti-Semitic (if this were not true, we would have the concept of "anti-Semitic Jews" to contend with, because not all Jews agree with Zionism or Israeli policies).
Saying "Put on your yarmulke and celebrate", though, IS derogatory, in my view, as it is a comment on Jews in general and not just Zionists (Who are a political group -- as an aside, I believe that the most powerful group of Zionists in this country are Christian, not Jewish).
Furthermore, the yarmulke comment taints the context of the others, and makes me think the man was simply calling the reporter a Zionist because he was a Jew (which is also inappropriate).
I would agree that McKinnon should have publicly denounced this expression and should have removed the man from her payroll -- although given the fact that she lost, I'm pretty sure he isn't on her payroll anymore anyway.
Now, if you would reconsider my question, as it was actually worded?
Though I must say, he showed questionable prudence in using his own name on a blog which might provoke a controversy. I notice that neither you nor I have made that particular mistake, and that's wise.
Had he written that Michelle Obama WAS an ape, that would be a low insult showing disrespect to the position of First Lady. I would have been less inclined to write in his defense. But if he'd been arrested for it or otherwise severely persecuted, yes, I would have been inclined to argue his right to free speech.
Actually I did write an article some time back in defense of a group whose theology and tactics I find revolting, as I'm sure you would as well. It received a similarly explosive response; you might find it interesting.
http://scragged.com/articles/fruits-and-nuts.aspx
I'm not anti-ape. I suppose I can call Michelle Obama an ape then. If you get offended, it is YOU who are racist because your guilty mind associates "apes" with "black person" when I meant nothing of the kind.
Posting a blog is equivalent to writing and publishing a book in that anyone may read it. Most people may never hear of the book or you, but it has entered the public domain and the author has become a public figure. But, as always, he who makes the definitions wins the argument.
In any event, you have admitted that if he had in fact called Michelle an ape, you would have viewed it as a "low insult showing disrespect to the First Lady". Now I have to ask you, why would you have seen it as such if Michelle Obama is, in fact, an ape? Is telling the truth a "low insult" in your opinion? Or is there something else at work here?
I read your article on the WBC, and I am in agreement with you to the extent that the WBC should receive the same rights as the KKK or any other group. Were their rights truly denied in this case? As one poster commented, it was a civil trial, although I'm not sure what the difference was in this context.
WBC recently came to my state, and I was sorry I missed them. For some time I have felt I would like to arrive at one of their demonstrations and be terribly nice to them all -- offering baked cookies, hot chocolate, etc. and being as polite as possible no matter what they said. I'm sure they're so used to being screamed at that it doesn't rattle them anymore -- but what if someone came and treated them like human beings who God loves? You know, the way Christians are supposed to treat others?
Sadly, I was unaware and missed my opportunity. Maybe next time.
In any case, all this politically correct speech and attacks on whatever the incorrect speech point of the day may be detracts from freedom of expression.
Because of pride. Pride makes humans consider themselves to be much more important than they actually are and restricts them from seeing the bigger picture. Insults are ground-level attacks; they attack a person's ego. A person that doesn't care about ego and who thinks about the bigger picture ignores insults because they're just a distraction. They don't matter enough to waste the time to reply or get angry.
Thomas Sowell has written a number of great books and essays on the central problems with the black community, going back to the 60s. He believes that the black leadership has sold the community on pride and ego and distracted them from working hard and focusing on academic/traditional values. Affirmative Action was just marketing material for the black leadership to keep stirring the pot. As Sowell pointed out, AA has made black poverty dramatically worse.
Humans only have so much time to work with. If one spends that time dealing with insults - real or perceived - the time for self improvement is frittered away.
What is it? It's just in some conservatives/republicans DNA I suppose.
The introduction of this element in what up until this point was a high quality, intellectual discussion of the actual issues,is indefensible and inexcusable.
Yes lfon, I'm talking to you.
It's absurd to suggest that there is someone out there who is completely immune to insults. Even if a person shows no outward signs, a person would have to be a robot to register NO physiological reaction (anger) to some insult by someone, somewhere. The idea is foolish.
And even if it were possible, it would be THEY who would be exhibiting the outsized ego, not the person who reacts to an insult. It's unbelievable that that wouldn't be obvious. If I believe myself to be above any insult and reacting to it beneath me. What does that say?
That my pride is so consuming, that my EGO is impenetrable to anything negative someone would say about me.
The fact that people ARE capable of being angered or offended by insults, PROVES that their ego and pride is not so over-inflated as to be immune to attack.
But really, all this intellectual quackdom was really so you could take a shot a Black people.
Someone calls the Black First Lady an ape, but the issue isn't that the idiot made the remark, but that Black people are offended... Thereby once again illuminating another cause of the Black community's inability to get it together huh?
Pathetic!
...And typical.
This should be intuitive to ANYONE intelligent enough to use a computer.
I shudder to imagine what would happen if someone brought up Frederick Douglass or Booker T. Washington, both men born slaves but who adamantly believed that black people needed to work their own way up to their rightful place - to prove to themselves, and to everyone else, that they were just as capable as a white man. Which they then proceeded to do. How times have changed!
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91486191
Hope that helps.
I cannot see how you could both hold to the notion that it is OK to say that a gorilla is a member of Michelle Obama's family because science tells us that humans are related to gorillas, and the notion that it is wrong to call Michelle Obama an ape despite the fact that science has also decided that all humans are in fact apes.
My suspicion is that an answer will not be forthcoming. I will leave it to the readers to decide for themselves why.