Pharyngula

Posted by: Glen Davidson | May 13, 2008 8:29 PM

Wow!

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7

Posted by: Martin | May 13, 2008 8:32 PM

Must be some of that "Christian Love" I keep hearing about. (I mean, Georgia is the Bible Belt, right?)

Posted by: CrypticLife | May 13, 2008 8:33 PM

After careful consideration, I'd have to say it's racist. Even though I do like monkeys, and bananas, and monkeys are, after all, quite intelligent and related to mankind, I think the intent was primarily to cast a racist slur.

Posted by: Joseph | May 13, 2008 8:34 PM

racism never even crossed my mind until you brought it up

Posted by: TAG | May 13, 2008 8:36 PM

Hey PZ!

speaking of bananas, and uh intelligent design... nah the connection is tenuous, but I just saw this book in Barnes & Noble which was excreted by some DIdiot putting one of Darwin's books among those that have "screwed up the world".

Just thought you might want to know about it:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1596980559

Posted by: Chris (in Columbus) | May 13, 2008 8:38 PM

I thought The Republicans already had their Curious George in The Oval Office?

"Oh, err...well, you see, we were attacked by Afghani terrorists who were mainly from Saudi Arabia...but I'm curious what Baghdad will look like in flames. LET'S BOMB IT! Fun fun for everyone!"

Posted by: Ken Cope | May 13, 2008 8:40 PM

It's racist, and it's trademark and copyright infringement. Quick, get the Stanford Fair Use team on this case to defend it!

Also, cue the Clinton surrogate who'll blame the shirt on Obama playing the race card.

Posted by: Deepsix | May 13, 2008 8:45 PM

I lived in Georgia for 10 years. And other than my wife's entire family, coworkers, vague acquaintances, and random people I met on the street, I never saw any racism.

Posted by: Richard | May 13, 2008 8:46 PM

Well since it seems my posts never get though I guess I will just use this as a rant. Could anyone here explain to me the difference between this shirt and the cartoon depiction of Mohammed in recent months?
Why is it ok in the latter but not the former?

Posted by: Deepsix | May 13, 2008 8:54 PM

And if you want to see how many Georgians feel about Obama, check out http://forum.gon.com/forumdisplay.php?f=9 and scan for the Obama posts. This is a Georgia hunting/fishing forum, but I assure you that these views are held by many Georgians. These guys seem to be obsessed with Obama (or O'bama for my fellow Irish).

Posted by: Etha Williams | May 13, 2008 8:57 PM

Wow. I didn't notice the racist overtones until I read that part of the post. I was just confused...first I thought, "Curious George? Curious George Bush? Curious George Bush fucked our country, so you should vote for Obama in '08?" Then: "Monkeys? Common descent? Obama will be anti-ID, so you should vote for him?"

Only when I read the post did the sad reality of the message set in.

Posted by: Stephanurus | May 13, 2008 8:59 PM

About the book "10 Books that Screwed the world" at
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1596980559 ,
this has only 2 reviews and both gave it 5 stars. Hopefully, the real reviewers will come along shortly and do this book justice.

Posted by: Nick | May 13, 2008 9:09 PM

I helped turn the tide:

It's racist 50.00% 6766
It's fine 50.00% 6765

What racism. I find the guy's comments more offensive than the shirt, really.

"Norman acknowledged the imagery's Jim Crow roots but said he sees nothing wrong with depicting a prominent African-American as a monkey. "We're not living in the (19)40's," he said. "Look at him . . . the hairline, the ears -- he looks just like Curious George.""

Ugh. I suppose I do agree that he has a right to do this kind of stuff, but its still infuriating...

Posted by: Mosasaurus rex | May 13, 2008 9:09 PM

"No, the George in The Oval Office is decidedly incurious."

Yep- and Cheney is too damn fat and nasty to be the Man in the Yellow Hat.

Posted by: Anon from Aus | May 13, 2008 9:17 PM

Belinda:

After reading a few more of the comments, I'm making a guess that there's some sort of cartoon with a character called Curious George that quite probably has the racism buried in it...

The article made reference to "Jim Crow Imagery", which I also don't get... I know about the Jim Crow laws, of course, but not about the imagery. I'm guessing you'd have to be American to understand, though I'm going with you in the non-trollish request for anyone else to aid our understanding...

Anyone?

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | May 13, 2008 9:18 PM

I'm not sure about the Harbhajan/Symonds thing, but the reference here is to American (shit, European) racial codes in which blacks were posited as lesser humans, as apes. It's been a common trope in American popular culture. Disney, in particular (Jungle Book, Lion King...) has done quite well making such associations. The equation of blacks with apes or monkeys is deeply embedded in American racial history.

Hope that helps make it a bit clearer.

Posted by: belinda | May 13, 2008 9:19 PM

Ok now I get it....Now that I've read the news article it is the same. To be honest, when I first heard about Andrew Symonds getting called a monkey last year I didn't understand why that was so offensive either (although it certainly was bad sportsmanship). Chalk another one up to my naivety. (When my American friend mentioned the "n" word I said "What swear word begins with N? "nerd??")

Posted by: Steve Ulven | May 13, 2008 9:22 PM

I am conflicted on how I want this poll to turn out and the implications, so I think I will just avoid it and leave it to the better judgement of your other readers.

Posted by: KCProgramr | May 13, 2008 9:25 PM

#28: Yes, there's a cartoon monkey in a series of children's books called Curious George, but the racist content isn't from that. It's from the blunt "black people are monkeys" implication, which was (and, alas, obviously still is) a common racist meme here in the US.

Ugh. I can't believe it's even close to 50-50. I'd have thought that sort of thing went way out of bounds years ago.

Posted by: Phil | May 13, 2008 9:28 PM

Racists in the South? I'm shocked. Shocked I tell you. Why, comparing a black man to a monkey...how can that be racist? It's totally harmless comparing blacks to monkeys...what harm can come from that? It's not like white people would then think of blacks as sub-human or anything...or less deserving of being treated as a fellow human..that would never happen....

Posted by: Ouchimoo | May 13, 2008 9:29 PM

It's racist 50.68% 7001
It's fine 49.32% 6812

Need backup.

Posted by: BoxerShorts | May 13, 2008 9:30 PM

When Obama began to emerge as a serious presidential candidate, I wondered how the Right-Wingnuts would attack him without being overtly racist. I mean, surely they realize that overt racism doesn't really fly anymore, right?

...right...?

Posted by: Nick | May 13, 2008 9:32 PM

How about option 3: "It's racist and it's fine", for those of us even more behind the times

Posted by: Ryan F Stello | May 13, 2008 9:33 PM

No reference yet from the 'liberal' media.

Funny, since this is the kind of thing that would help shore up the claim that Repuglicans are (kinda) racist.

Posted by: chief | May 13, 2008 9:37 PM

Why is it that the people that are most likely to vehemently deny that we are cousins of apes are also the ones most likely to compare blacks to monkeys?

Nobody sees the disconnect there? Are they that....oh, right.

Posted by: Dennis N | May 13, 2008 9:39 PM

Cognitive dissonance is their game, and they play it well.

Posted by: gordonsowner | May 13, 2008 9:42 PM

I'll stipulate it's fine as long as someone does a take-off on the T-shirt with Curious George looking confusedly at his finger with a banana sticking out of his rear and a caption saying 'George W.: 2000 - 2008'.

Why ponder the racist-ness of the T-Shirt when you can use it to totally pwn the other side with a better variation?

Posted by: ihateaphids | May 13, 2008 9:44 PM

As opposed to all the other polls I've been directed to, the ignorant side seems to be holding its own on this one. The grand wizard that owns that bar sure has some clever marketing schemes.

Posted by: David Utidjian | May 13, 2008 9:56 PM

To those people that, at first, didn't get it, that would be a great thing and an indicator of progress especially if you were black. Unfortunately that isn't the way things are.

Near the end of the article:

The Tennessee native figures he's providing a public service of sorts, reminding people they have a right to offend.

Sheesh... like the world needs reminding that we have the right to be assholes to each other.

-DU-

Posted by: Anonymouse | May 13, 2008 10:09 PM

>Good evening, Prof. Myers.
what a formal anonymous commenter! Salutations to you, Anonymous. Let's have it, what have you got to say about the poll about the t-shirt calling Obama a monkey?

>I did vote, but the results of this farce should be broadcast everywhere,
Ok, that was tricky. Let's break it down. You DID vote, BUT the results should be broadcast everywhere. hmm. implying that your voting or not... affects whether the poll results... should... or shouldn't... be better known... 'everywhere'.

I really don't follow. If you hadn't voted, then they should NOT be better known everywhere? What does your voting have to do with anything?

Oh, and 'farce'. Nice! i gotta use that more. 'farce'. Like fart and face combined, but totally wuthering heights-ish. Farce. I Say, this unsoliscited analysis of this random comment at Pharyngula about a poll about a t-shirt that calls Obama a monkey is a farce! Good day, Sir! I said, GOOD DAY!!!

> so that those who would deny that racism remains a problem today, can try and refute this.

Yes! those racism-is-a-problem-today-deniers! that's the problem right there. We gotta get a handle on these folk! Racism-denying egg will be on their faces when they try some refuting on this one, once it becomes known everywhere, despite your having voted for it!

Man, i'm saying the words right, but it still don't make a lick of sense.

> I am appalled, which just shows my naivete, since the ID movement has so many adherents, too.

Totally! My naivete is also out there, too! Pants around its ankles, pasty ass cheeks blinding in the sun. I mean, come on! There's tons of ID'ers, thus, we are naive, illustrating how appalled we are, because there is a poll about a t-shirt comparing Obama to a monkey!

Who am i kidding. This is a pointless farce. I can not make any sense of this. I really wish the Yahoo! boards were back. There's an article saying the Vatican is okaying belief in aliens. You know what insane kinds of fun I could have on THAT comment thread? sigh...

Posted by: SC | May 13, 2008 10:15 PM

This made me think of these candies in Spain called Congolitos (can't find a picture online - they have to be seen to be appreciated), which always seemed racist to me but not really to friends of mine who weren't from the US.

Also reminded me of the Sambo's controversy years ago. There was one, briefly, in my town.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sambo's

Posted by: The Hammer | May 13, 2008 10:17 PM

"The strange thing is I don't see that much racism here. Of course I only associate with intelligent beings."

Sarah. Are you retarded...or just stupid? No, I really mean it. I want an answer. If your statement is just some meta-joke I don't get, then I apol..no, wait a minute. Screw you, you racist idiot. Wake the fuck up, bitch!

The Hammer

Posted by: unicow | May 13, 2008 10:21 PM

I think the racist undertones of the monkey imagery are not well-known not only to non-Americans, but even to most younger Americans. Well, younger white Americans, anyway.

Hell, even Macaca had a lot of people scratching their heads.

Interestingly, what is blatantly racist and over-the-line in the eyes of older generations often seems totally innocuous to many younger people. And for good reason. Without the historical context, the darker meaning behind much racist imagery is not at all obvious. And we're so afraid of talking about race in this country that we do a terrible job of giving that historical context.

Perhaps the confusion over whether or not this shirt is racist is a result of certain racist terms and images falling out of fashion amongst all but a subset of the deeply racist and the genuinely ignorant (who don't realize the subtext). Younger people simply haven't been exposed to them, so the racist connotations are considerably less obvious.

Posted by: Bob L | May 13, 2008 10:24 PM

I suppose there is a social comment in that the racist here is some loser pushing t-shirts and the man he is attacking has a good chance of becoming the most powerful man in the world. Still, what a douch bag scum sucker.

Posted by: Pete Dunkelberg | May 13, 2008 10:30 PM

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5ijDA5bgxiHlTvS_r-SSjskS1Tq1wD90L4L680
APNewsAlert

13 minutes ago

JACKSON, Miss. (AP) -- Democrat Travis Childers wins special election for Mississippi's 1st Congressional District

===

Not quite a jewel, perhaps insufficiently compressed coal but still....

===
see also
http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Top_News/2008/05/13/flier_links_candidate_to_kkk_statue/4419/

Posted by: Richard | May 13, 2008 10:30 PM

Man, even Bush got compared to Curious George...

http://www.bushorchimp.com/images/pic49.jpg

Posted by: Kyle W. | May 13, 2008 10:31 PM

Let it stand so the people in my state can at least take credit for their ignorance.

And just think, that's only the people here who know how to use the internet.

/wishes to move far, far away

Posted by: SC | May 13, 2008 10:36 PM

That reminds me - I still kind of want a Screechy Monkey(TM) t-shirt.

Posted by: Amplexus | May 13, 2008 10:41 PM

Commedian David Cross hates the Altanta-journal Constitution

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B2QqrvSryQA

That's heaven AND squagels

Posted by: Chadwick | May 13, 2008 10:42 PM

What do monkeys have to do with being racist? I'm not seeing the connection.

Posted by: J-Dog | May 13, 2008 10:44 PM

It looks like George W McChimpy to me, but I still voted for racist, cuz it is. FWIW, the monkey actually looks WAYY smarter thatn George W.

Posted by: YoungLinguist | May 13, 2008 10:48 PM

That took me a moment to get.

Posted by: Ed Darrell | May 13, 2008 10:50 PM

I'm with Etha. There have been lots of comparisons between George Bush and Curious George. It was confusing.

Apart from the confusing stuff, it's just racist to use it against Obama as it is. I see no resemblance. I see a lot of animosity instead.

Posted by: Jen R | May 13, 2008 10:52 PM

Discrimination against blacks linked to dehumanization, study finds

"Crude historical depictions of African Americans as ape-like may have disappeared from mainstream U.S. culture, but research presented in a new paper by psychologists at Stanford, Pennsylvania State University and the University of California-Berkeley reveals that many Americans subconsciously associate blacks with apes.

In addition, the findings show that society is more likely to condone violence against black criminal suspects as a result of its broader inability to accept African Americans as fully human, according to the researchers."

Posted by: konquererz | May 13, 2008 10:54 PM

I went in and voted racist. I will NEVER cede ground to bigots, racists, or ignoramus's(sp?).

Posted by: Chadwick | May 13, 2008 10:56 PM

OK... so I think I have it figured out. Some people out there think black people are monkeys. Or visa versa... Whatever. I wouldn't have thought anything of it until I read through the comments here. I think the so-called non-racist people on this thread are doing more damage to their cause by drawing attention to the association of black people and monkeys. What? Am I to believe they associated or something? If you didn't say anything about it, I would have gone on thinking that curious george supports obama. What about the association of Japanese people and monkeys? You know, as a consequence of all that world war II propaganda? Maybe the person selling these shirts is really calling Obama a Japanese? Damn that racist woman.

Posted by: Moses | May 13, 2008 10:57 PM

Are you kidding? We should vote "it's fine." :)

Posted by: Anonymous | May 13, 2008 11:00 PM

Hammer, Sastra outright said that the shirt was racist. What exactly is he being naive about? Surely not that the two look somewhat alike, which I don't see but which is entirely a matter of opinion. The very nature of most modern racism (where the explicit/conscious message is much less important than the implicit/unconscious message) almost guarantees that a lot of racist symbols will allow for innocent interpretations. That's all he was pointing out.

I was one of those that was just confused by the picture. Prompted to look for racism, I get it, and I don't understand how anyone could vote "it's fine" when clued in to the possibility of a racist interpretation, but had there just been the picture and the question: "are you okay with this shirt?", I'd have answered 'yes'.

Posted by: Physicalist | May 13, 2008 11:01 PM

Chadwick, you're a fool. Go re-read #56, think about who's selling the T-shirt where, and why. Do a little research if you have to. You might start with the link in #29.

Posted by: Robert Ward | May 13, 2008 11:05 PM

Wow. Amazing.

Posted by: Wayfaring Relation | May 13, 2008 11:10 PM

GWBush banana is considered manna by the Mulligan's owner and his supporters. Moreover, the mention of Homo sapiens gets them hot.

Posted by: Chadwick | May 13, 2008 11:11 PM

@Physicalist
Hey now, enough with the name-calling. I can accept naive, but fool is a little offensive. Alright, I accept that people used to use associate monkeys with black people-- they should be called racist.
However, if someone did not point it out to me, and I was an Obama supporter, I would have worn this shirt proudly. Should I be forced to do research in order to find racist implications, however minuscule in every single thing I wear?

Posted by: Brittany | May 13, 2008 11:14 PM

i don't get it....seriously.
The first thing that came into my mind, was oh! it's curious george, he's so cute.
And then i thought, oh, i get it, it's like the opposite of our george.
And then told me it was supposed to be an insult.
I didn't see it.
10 people i asked thought the same thing as me.
I don't know what that says about me, i'm college educated, before you ask i have a bs in forensic biology. I'm not an idiot.
i think that whoever made this shirt missed the "current and relevant to today's voter's" boat. I think if they were trying to be racist well, as a private citizen you have to allow people to say and believe whatever they want. And it makes me physically ill that people abuse this right. But it happens. So, i have to say it's fine, fine in the way that some mormons won't allow black people in their wards, fine in the way that people send hate letters to women who are leaders, fine in the way where some bald white man paints nazi glorification murals all over his house.
You can't educate the hate out of people, make it illegal, or purge society of hater. Getting rid of hate starts with the individual and the perspective of social norm.
Without our rights, we have nothing to fight racism with.

Posted by: Steve_C | May 13, 2008 11:16 PM

Add if you hadn't noticed, they still do call African American's, even those running for president, monkey's. They even put it on t-shirts and think it's hysterical.

Posted by: Ichthyic | May 13, 2008 11:20 PM

Because people used to

would you be offended if I called you a nazi, and made up a picture of you with a small, square mustache and slicked-back black hair?

seriously, stop already. If someone is unaware of the use of this particular racial slur, that doesn't mean it isn't still racist. Instead of proclaiming that those pointing out it's racist are somehow at fault, why not take the opportunity to educate yourselves on the usage of this slur historically?

damn, it's like someone telling me burning a cross on my lawn doesn't mean anything because, well crosses aren't racist and neither is fire.

I hate to say it, but this is an example of projection:

you aren't personally familiar with the racial slur, so to you, it doesn't seem racist.

seriously, would those that keep saying this try to look at it from the perspective of those who actually, in their personal history, have been called "monkeys" or "jungle bunnies" themselves?

I realize it's a good sign that it's been long enough that many have forgotten the use of many racial slurs, but I personally think that still doesn't excuse us from learning the history of racism in this country. It would be like saying it's just fine to forget all the signs and symptoms that lead to the rise of fascism in Germany, or to forget the things that lead to the internment of Japanese in this country, or to those that lead to McCarthyism in the 50's.

trite to say, and I'm surprised I even have to around here, but:

"Ignorance is no excuse".

Posted by: Patricia C. | May 13, 2008 11:20 PM

I didn't get it as racist. I thought it was an ape eating a banana - pro evolution vs that Comfort dork. Or Curious George = Obama loves children.
I'm not even on the right dock for the boat am I?

Posted by: Ichthyic | May 13, 2008 11:27 PM

I'm not even on the right dock for the boat am I?

'fraid not.

Posted by: Chadwick | May 13, 2008 11:28 PM

@Ichthyic (94)
So I grew up in an era and a location where I didn't hear the term "porch monkey" to refer to black people and now you're calling me ignorant or maybe even racist? There has to be some sort of logical fallacy associated with that. I'd call myself privileged or lucky... maybe even a little naive.

Posted by: Steve_C | May 13, 2008 11:28 PM

Patricia,

You're in the desert on an inner tube.

Posted by: Nik | May 13, 2008 11:31 PM

Wow, that's bad.

BTW, PZ, have you seen this article? http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7399661.stm

Posted by: AppreciativeLurker | May 13, 2008 11:34 PM

I'm with Ichthyic [#107] people should make the effort to learn about the overt and covert symbols that are still being used to communicate racism. But I really object to the hateful name-calling shown by others in this thread. It's good that we've made enough progress that some people of good will don't immediately recognize these symbols. Of course a lot of racism still exists, especially of the subconscious variety. However, the kind of self-education that will help people learn to recognize and counteract it is not encouraged by making them angry or defensive.

Posted by: extatyzoma | May 13, 2008 11:34 PM

shouldnt this be the t shirt for comfort and cameron?

Posted by: SC | May 13, 2008 11:37 PM

Brittany @ #103: I'm not an idiot.

With all due respect, you've offered a great deal of evidence to the contrary.

Constitutionally-protected does not equal "fine." And every expression of annoyance, disgust, or outrage is not a call for a totalitarian state. When someone says something explicit about curtailing people's right to free expression, then it is appropriate to note your support of it. Until then, stop reading implicit challenges to rights into everything.

Posted by: Chris | May 13, 2008 11:38 PM

Honestly, I had to think for a few moments to even understand the problem here. "Curious George?" I thought to myself, "Why would they put curious George on a pro-Obama T-shirt?" I thought,and I thought, and then I got it. Now I'm utterly sick.

There are millions of people at the least that would love to be citizens of this country. Many are well-educated, hardworking, honest, and exactly what we would want in citizens. Many of our current citizens are afforded the privelage only by birth. Can't we allow more immigration of people that would make good citizens and simply make up the difference by exporting the disgusting pigs that make things like this T-shirt somewhere else?

Posted by: Physicalist | May 13, 2008 11:40 PM

@ Chadwick (#101). Naivete is a perfectly acceptable excuse for your first post. Indeed, I'm among those who saw nothing out of the ordinary when I first looked at the shirt; it was only when I started thinking about the racism charge and looking at the article that it all made sense.

However, once you've got the framework in place, as you do by your second post, it is indeed foolish to claim that

the so-called non-racist people on this thread are doing more damage to their cause by drawing attention to the association of black people and monkeys. (#89)

The relevant point is that the racists and their victims understand the symbolism very well. (As David Utidjian pointed out in #56. I assume you're not black; if you are, then I'll take your naivete to be a good sign because it means that there's some racism you've been spared.)

We have an obligation to shine light on the evils of racism, and not to just put a happy face on it and congratulate ourselves on being ignorant of the abuse that others face.

But a single foolish statement does not a fool make, so I'm happy to retract my so labeling you.

Posted by: Wayfaring Relation | May 13, 2008 11:43 PM

Watch lists contain way too many names, yet there is justification for some individuals to be on them. Displaying the wish that presidential candidate Hillary Clinton should have died by murder should qualify Mulligan's owner Mike Norman to be placed on a watch list by the United States Secret Service.

Posted by: JM Inc. | May 13, 2008 11:46 PM

Wow, I never would have pegged that as being racist. I assumed it was a creationist thing about the teaching of evolution - a little obscure, maybe, but it didn't look to be like a professionally produced piece of merchandise so I figured some guy must have had it custom printed.

Well that's more than a bit disturbing. Every once in a while I hear something on the TV about, "Is America ready for a black president" and I get completely exasperated; "Jesus f****** Christ, haven't we all f****** gotten over that yet" are words I believe I've once used with regarding the subject.

I guess I just grew up sort of sheltered - where I live (affluent, cosmopolitan southern Ontario), I never encountered anything that looked at all like racism to me; ethnicity just never came up at all.

In a sense, I almost desire for Barack Obama to win because he's "black". I mean, I suspect he'll be a good president and I like his politics (a little heavy on the "change" rhetoric for my tastes, I prefer the quiet braininess of Stéphane Dion), but in a vindictive sort of way, I'd like to stick it to all the dimwits out there who are still living half way back to the middle ages. It's easy to understand children or rebellious teenagers getting suckered into that sort of racism while they are impressionable and still don't know any better, but how the hell do you manage to grow all the way up and not shed it when it really starts to intellectually reek?

This sort of thing is above and beyond the sort of repugnant intellectual excrement characteristic of 'intelligent design' creationism, which only indirectly threatens our contemporary enlightened ideals. This is a direct affront to a sizable minority of Americans and as such is a direct affront to liberal respect for the autonomy of all persons. From what I've read in some news stories while investigating this shirt thing, it sounds to me quite like a non-trivial subset of the United States need their heads forcible removed from their colons, and a "black" president who does a good job and is admired for it would be just the ticket for some of the less delusional ones.

Posted by: Ichthyic | May 13, 2008 11:46 PM

We have an obligation to shine light on the evils of racism, and not to just put a happy face on it and congratulate ourselves on being ignorant of the abuse that others face.

well said.

I'd further it to suggest we all have an obligation to lift each other out of our own personal ignorances. It's simply the best way to prevent things like racism, creationism, etc., from gaining ground to begin with.

Hell, isn't that a big part of what Pharyngula, and Science Blogs in general, is supposed to be about?

Posted by: Patricia C. | May 13, 2008 11:50 PM

Ichthyic many of us get racial slurs, ethnic slurs, and sexual slurs.
Does - stupid ass ignorant hill-billy, ridge runner whore, cracker cunt - count? Of course there are more to go with that - you can imagine.
You are right that ignorance is no excuse for persons old enough to know better - including me. I just 'assumed' we had moved passed that stupidity.
But I know from mentoring young people that one of the questions they really do not know is this: Who was Hitler, and what happened to him?
They don't know the answer. The school system here in my part of Oregon sucks. History begins with the Viet Nam war. The students tell me what they know. I don't know what the teachers actually teach. I have no children.
Normally I agree with you book and verse Ichthyic - but this time I didn't get the message the same. Fillet me, I expect it.

Posted by: RamblinDude | May 13, 2008 11:52 PM

I have to say I'm a little heartened by those who admit they didn't get it first time around.

I've seen just enough of the ugly side of racism that I have no doubt that the purveyor of the shirt is snickering among his redneck friends at finding a way to compare Obama to a monkey. But I'm also inclined to think, now, that at least some of the votes for "fine" didn't necessarily come from ill will. The question is; what percent? This was in Georgia, after all.

Whatever the case, there is going to be a lot of this kind of thing cropping up in the next months. It will be an excellent chance for Obama's to display what he's made of, and to prove his leadership ability. (Can't help it, I'm just a glass half full kind of guy...)

Also, there's an interesting dynamic going on here between those who would let it stand and those who would vote "racist".

My impulse was to jump in and vote to try to correct the problem. (Hey, it's not like it's a different country.) But honestly, I don't know that that is the most productive thing to do in this case.

(I'm reminded of this challenge at Zeno's Coffeehouse a few years ago, for those of you who find this kind of thing interesting. They even did a real experiment a few weeks later, offering real money, and they didn't have to pay!)

Posted by: craig | May 13, 2008 11:54 PM

Regardless of what some here were aware of, I guarantee that those people in GA who voted "its fine" weren't just thinking it was cute Curious George.

Even if not everyone in GA is racist, they all are damned well aware of racism and typical racist imagery that was used.

Posted by: BlueIndependent | May 13, 2008 11:57 PM

This Norman individual sounds like the classic right-winger. He thinks the totality of society has been pussified by political correctness (which some corners have been, though not nearly as many as the repugs would like us to believe), so in retaliation, he thinks he can say anything as an act of defiance and what ever he says automatically has some predetermined amount of credence simply because said act was in defiance of a stricture he thinks exists in far wider suply than it realistically does. Plus, it has the added effect of "hiding" his long latent views out in the open.

This is an act of little, petty people. The inevitable march of progress has left this guy behind intellectually, and he doesn't like it, so, he's going to become defiant and act like the child he is in order to "get back".

Posted by: Steve_C | May 14, 2008 12:00 AM

Arachnophilia...

1. Yes calling Bush a chimp is funny. Yes it's racist to apply the same to Obama. And no it's not a double standard.

2. Yes, all humans are primates, we just happen to have opposable thumbs and speech. Humans have evolved apparently to the higher brain function that blinds us to a person's talents and only let us judge them on their skin pigmentation. Some of us humans vote based on that bias. The chimps don't seem to have that genetic trait.

Posted by: Ichthyic | May 14, 2008 12:04 AM

I just 'assumed' we had moved passed that stupidity.

a lot of us have. some have not.

It's not the point though, is it?

You touch on it in mentioning that many kids haven't the slightest clue who Hitler even was.

However, I don't think I can state it any more eloquently than Physicalist did, so I'll just post it again:

We have an obligation to shine light on the evils of racism, and not to just put a happy face on it and congratulate ourselves on being ignorant of the abuse that others face.

It's great that many have never faced, and in fact are innocent of some of the evils we have faced historically. However, it's sad to see that the lessons of history are so quickly forgotten, as yet another old and trite saying comes to mind:

Those that forget history are doomed to repeat it.

I really don't think that racism is so far behind us that we can afford to forget the impact of it in this country, let alone globally.

If children are our future, then how will they recognize racism when it appears if we don't show them what it means?

How will they be able to prevent another Hitler if they don't know the signs?

I'd love to be able to say that teaching kids about racism, or nationalism, or warmongering, is irrelevant.

Frankly, I rather think we have MANY generations to go before that might even be remotely accurate.

that said, the particular thing that got me angry in this thread were the people suggesting this is only racist because those of us who remember pointed it out.

Posted by: Patricia C. | May 14, 2008 12:06 AM

#115 - Steve - You're right. I am. Dang!

Posted by: k9_kaos | May 14, 2008 12:07 AM

"if it isn't racist, then what the hell is it trying to say?"

I think it most likely is racist, but we should think of other possibilities too.

If it's not racism, it could be something just as bad, namely, comparing Obama to a monkey because he's sympathetic towards evolution.

And that banana looks strangely phallic too. Are they calling him a wanker? ;-)

Posted by: Autumn | May 14, 2008 12:09 AM

I assure you all that every single vote for "it's fine" was by a person well aware of the inherent racism. I live in the south, and while it is not the hell-hole of ignorance some think it is, it is very decidedly a racist area.
I think it's wonderful that some have never been exposed to such blatant racism, but anyone from Georgia who claims to be ignorant of the shirt's intended meaning is a liar.

Posted by: Kenny | May 14, 2008 12:10 AM

The intolerance on this blog makes me sad. It's just a big hatefest towards people who believe that black people are monkeys.

It's my OPINION that black people are inferior to whites. Scientists know this because black people never reports NDEs, so obviously they don't have souls. I come on here to defend my OPINION, and all you can do is insult me and call me names. And you call that "reason and logic."

All you liberal atheists probably believe that race is a social construct with no biological basis, and a black person is worth more than 3/5 of a white person. Typical.

Posted by: William | May 14, 2008 12:15 AM

It's only racist in your mind.

I thought the shirt was fine. It's a monkey and banana. There's no connection to black people on this shirt.

Posted by: Art | May 14, 2008 12:15 AM

First, the Tee-shirt appears to be a picture of Curious George from the PBS show:
http://pbskids.org/curiousgeorge/

It is easy to see the shirt and assume it is, was intended to be, an insult. But there is some chance it isn't or wasn't intended that way. Or at least there is some chance it isn't a direct one.

Is it possible it was put together by someone who just likes Curious George and is so unaware, or tone deaf, to racial slurs that hey missed the potential insult?

Perhaps it was assembled knowing the potential to be taken as an insult. Without appearing to be so directly. It is sort of like the joke about about a prudish lady who assaulted a man at a bus stop. He said he was just humming a tune. She told the police that not only was he humming a tune but that 'she knew the words' to the obscene song.

Are people taking the shirt as an insult because we 'know the words'? The racial inferences.

Personally I like Curious George. He is a plucky, supportive and positive character. Is it not possible to ignore the potential insult and assume that it was assembled with good intentions? The point to insulting people is to make them feel bad and get their goat. What happens if the person being insulted refuses to act or feel insulted.

Sometimes I have found that the most aggravating thing I can do in retaliation for an insult is to refuse to feel insulted. They then escalate the insults and, over time, they cross a clear and universally accepted line. When they do I get to smack them down without mercy. And when i do those around me, people who witnessed the crossing of the line. All say I was entirely justified and had given them every possible chance to walk away and avoid violence.

Posted by: MB | May 14, 2008 12:17 AM

Aw geez, Kenny's back... I thought they killed Kenny!

and I had a typo in the N-word - guess it's a good thing I don't type it enough to have the the muscle memory...

Posted by: Nephi | May 14, 2008 12:19 AM

There is still racism in Utah, the land of Mo. Because of a folklore and myth regarding the origins of the Africa-Americans--As well as the Native Americans. Superstition, myth and ID go hand in hand.

Ahh...the good old day when the GOP was progressive, the party of Robert Ingersoll, now it's a corrupt party of religious fanatics and white sheet wearing bigots. Goldwater was right; the religious right will destroy the GOP.

Posted by: MB | May 14, 2008 12:23 AM

Let's repeat for anyone seriously suggesting this is not racist....

Banana and non-human primate references to Black people from white people are de facto racist. That is their intent and they will and should always be construed that way. Using cute and copy-righted Curious George does not mitigate it in any way.

This has been explained by several posters in several different ways. It's racist and if you want to argue that somehow it is not, you're either Kenny or a fucking racist idiot.

Fine, you were naive, now you're not. Now you know better and have no excuse.

Posted by: Kseniya | May 14, 2008 12:26 AM

Ichthy @ #150: Sounds good to me.

Posted by: RamblinDude | May 14, 2008 12:28 AM

heh, that reminds me of when I read the original Edgar Rice Burroughs Tarzan books as a boy. Even then, they seemed more than a bit racist to me.

I remember feeling that way, too, when reading the Tarzan books. I think Burroughs mellowed out in the later one's in the series, but he was definitely a product of his times.

Posted by: SC | May 14, 2008 12:32 AM

A good clip from the Daily Show about Disney:

http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=84572&title=frog-princess&tag=generic_tag_disney&itemId=105039

BlueIndependent - Pussified? Can't say that I care for that word.

Posted by: Ichthyic | May 14, 2008 12:34 AM

Ichthy @ #150: Sounds good to me.

consesus! I'll drink to that!

btw, no i did not catch the satire in your earlier comment, as I was swept up trying to fight for the value of history.

;)

Posted by: MB | May 14, 2008 12:40 AM

Pierce, the "macaca," S.R. Sidarth, was an Asian filming the Allen campaign event for Sen Webb, Allen's opponent. Allen was pointing Sidarth out as the only non-white in the room and seemed to settle on "macaca" in fumbling for a description of him... and it gloriously backfired on the racist shitbag.

Sidarth looked like a fucking furener to Allen, but was actually born and raised in Virginia.

Posted by: s.a.m. | May 14, 2008 12:41 AM

I don't understand why this is racist. It doesn't contextually make sense, as I don't know what a cute monkey cartoon has to do with a presidential candidate, but I don't think it's racist.

But then, I'm Generation Y, whadda I know?

Posted by: Kseniya | May 14, 2008 12:42 AM

Doesn't anyone else remember 2006, when Virginia Senator George Allen torpedoed his own political career by calling a black campaign worker for his opponent "macaca"?

Yes, indeed! Though I believe the target of Allen's comment, a student who was filming his appearance, was of Indian descent. Not that it particularly matters. Allen was an ass, and good riddance. I love it when they torpedo themselves...

Posted by: Hematite | May 14, 2008 12:43 AM

That's cute. I think it's entirely appropriate given how much Obama likes monkeys.

What? What do you immediately think of when you see the t-shirt?

(before you ask, yes, I'm playing)

Posted by: Dahan | May 14, 2008 12:46 AM

I went to my nieces high school graduation in the middle of Georgia two years ago. The graduation was held on the football field. It's hard to believe, but everyone who was black sat on one side of the stands, whites, the other. It wasn't "segregated", but everyone knew their place. Except my wife and I. We made a point to mingle with everyone afterwards. We got a lot of looks.

Afterwards, we were driving to a picnic spot (were I noticed KKK scratched almost everywhere in the wood surfaces) and noticed a billboard that read "Carpetbaggers go home!".

We did a little check, and there was a church for every 35 people in that town of under two thousand. I don't need Steven King. Reality holds enough nightmares as it is.

Wish I were making this up.

Posted by: SC | May 14, 2008 12:47 AM

Ah - I'll try again with a shorter Daily Show link. Sorry about that.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=84572&title=frog-princess

Posted by: Charles | May 14, 2008 12:48 AM

Oh, why do you even bother, Ichthyic?

Woe is you, oh, wise and beneficent teacher...please don't leave us in our ignorance.

Enlighten us, teacher.

Posted by: mikeg | May 14, 2008 12:51 AM

let it stand

Posted by: Chet | May 14, 2008 12:53 AM

I don't understand why this is racist.

If the shirt said "Vote for the Nigger!" would you get the racism, then?

Posted by: mikeb | May 14, 2008 12:54 AM

It's racist 55.67% 9079
It's fine 44.33% 7231

Posted by: MB | May 14, 2008 12:57 AM

The more people who don't understand this is racist the worse off we are. Why would intelligent people think ignorance is a good thing?

See the references to smallpox above and look at the trial attempting to link vaccines to autism. Not gonna let my kid get autism - smallpox, what's that?

I'm white and live in a white world, why would I care if some KKK wannabes in GA are having fun with racism? Yeah, let's all be good Germans.

Posted by: Ichthyic | May 14, 2008 1:03 AM

actually, the ignorance of the history of smallpox has already lead to parents not inoculating their kids for smallpox (it's become a serious issue, as you are probably aware).

actually, I am more thinking of polio, as smallpox hasn't been vaccinated for in quite a while, but outbreaks of polio still exist around the world.

Posted by: ricket | May 14, 2008 1:07 AM

Wait a second... isn't that an image of Curious GEORGE?

Posted by: Benecere | May 14, 2008 1:13 AM

Please let it stand. Those who hail from that state consider "Georgia" a religion rather than a region. I'm thrilled to see it shown for what it truly is ... an arrogant, regressive embarrassment to the remainder of the country. Please secede from the Union, you rebel flag flying atrocity.

I don't care for Georgia, can you tell? (I lived there for years, too)

Posted by: Kseniya | May 14, 2008 1:14 AM

Even more disturbing: This!

Mike Norman missed the [swift-]boat. If those lapels don't make Obami-wan unelectable, I don't know what will.

Posted by: Kseniya | May 14, 2008 1:20 AM

Azky (#196), I totally agree. "Hammer" was such freaking idiot, I didn't even bother to respond. It was obvious what Sarah meant, and he not only mangled it, he had the gall to lambaste her for his own error.

Posted by: Ichthyic | May 14, 2008 1:26 AM

An Obama presidency will be a huge step forward toward the day this type of thing doesn't happen.

hopefully.

Posted by: Kseniya | May 14, 2008 1:34 AM

They're more like the Buddhist monks that were going, "What the heck is upsetting these people?"

What's worse is that the Nazis (mis)appropriated the symbol from eastern spiritual practices. The stigma is significantly greater here in the west than in the areas where the symbol originated. The Buddists have rights, and the Nazis violated fair use...

Posted by: mcow | May 14, 2008 1:45 AM

As someone who lives in Georgia, I'm torn between letting the indictment stand and crashing the poll. Looks like it's already pretty well tipped now, though.

Posted by: Etha Williams | May 14, 2008 1:46 AM

but it's not fair to assume that everyone who voted that the shirt is fine is racist or terminally stupid. Because they don't run around looking for people who are racist to see what they say about others doesn't mean they're ignorant of the history of racism, either.

Yeah, but you don't really have to run around looking for evidence of racism...you just have to read the article:

Norman acknowledged the imagery's Jim Crow roots but said he sees nothing wrong with depicting a prominent African-American as a monkey,

(Emphasis mine.)

Posted by: Azkyroth | May 14, 2008 1:56 AM

PSS:

Instead of proclaiming that those pointing out it's racist are somehow at fault,

Err, did anyone actually say that?

Posted by: Etha Williams | May 14, 2008 2:04 AM

@#212 Azkyroth --

Instead of proclaiming that those pointing out it's racist are somehow at fault,

Err, did anyone actually say that?

Yes; for eg, Chadwick in #89:

I wouldn't have thought anything of it until I read through the comments here. I think the so-called non-racist people on this thread are doing more damage to their cause by drawing attention to the association of black people and monkeys. What? Am I to believe they associated or something? If you didn't say anything about it, I would have gone on thinking that curious george supports obama.

Posted by: Jon | May 14, 2008 2:09 AM

It's racist AND it's fine. What's the big deal? I think it's kinda funny, even though I wouldn't feel comfortable wearing it.

Posted by: 55 | May 14, 2008 2:09 AM

I'm another Georgian, Obama voter, not a racist. But I am so ashamed.

We're not all like this, especially many of us in the north.

Posted by: Benecere | May 14, 2008 2:19 AM

I wouldn't worry about it too much. What does an online poll REALLY say about anything after all?

Were this hellish place not the wretched, overly self-absorbed area it is, this poll would exist. Believe me, the "Rebel" Flag is a significant part of the "Georgian experience". If one leaves one's home, one will not avoid hearing the rebel call of: "The South Shall Rise Again"...What do you think is meant by that statement?

BTW, I've resided in several southern states and I don't think this about any of the others. It's an overwhelmingly hateful region of this earth.

Posted by: Ichthyic | May 14, 2008 2:24 AM

right after #214, we get #215; as if to prove the point.

*sigh*

Posted by: Benecere | May 14, 2008 2:37 AM

it would be clearer if you were a regular at this bar.

Posted by: Jean | May 14, 2008 2:42 AM

The tide has turned. Unreal that anyone could think this was okay. Sad that the poll is so close.

It's racist 57.83% 10108
It's fine 42.17% 7370

This establishment also has a sign to the effect: Too bad Hillary didn't marry OJ.

Unfortunately, this is only the beginning. The swift boat guys are revving up their engines in defense of McCain.

Sad for us all.

Posted by: Janine ID | May 14, 2008 3:08 AM

For those people who claim that they can look at this shirt and see no implied racism, the message implied by the image was not meant for you. But for racists who see black people as apes and monkeys, the message could not be any clearer.

If you need proof, just google the words "nigger", "ape" and "monkey". The filth will gush from your screen.

This kind of coded racist message is hardly new. One of the biggest and worst example of this in American history is Ronald Reagan giving his first major campaign speech in 1980 from Philadelphia, Mississippi. In 1964, the town was where there civil rights workers were murdered. For the general population, it was a regular speech. But for those who felt those men got what they deserved, the meaning could not be any more clear. Why else would have Reagan gone to such an out of the way place?

Just because you may not see racism does not mean that racism was not meant. You are out of the loop.

Posted by: MartinSGill | May 14, 2008 3:11 AM

I had to think for a while before I got the racist angle. I just thought it was a funny t-shirt.

The only reason you can find it racist I suspect is because it's a reminder of insults and insinuations used by racists in the past, guilt by association in other words.

Could it be that so many people not thinking it racist is actually *good* news? I mean maybe American society has moved on enough that most people voting (on the internet, so most likely younger people) don't actually remember or even know about the old association and hence don't see what the problem is?

If the t-shirt had Clinton's name on it would it have been considered racist or maybe just a bit unflattering? Why not? If it's not racist for Clinton aren't those that call it racist running the risk of simply being seen to think that what it's alluding to is actually true but merely too rude to mention?

Aren't we giving the racists power by seeing racism in that t-shirt, essentially by accepting their premise and bigotry? Doesn't that mean we've already surrendered the choice of battlefield to the enemy? Surely the best defence against this is for Obama to simply look at it and say "that's quite funny, looks a bit like me" thereby totally taking the wind out of the sails of any racists?

Maybe I'm just naive or too much an idealist.

Posted by: Mondo | May 14, 2008 3:27 AM

"If the t-shirt had Clinton's name on it would it have been considered racist or maybe just a bit unflattering? Why not? If it's not racist for Clinton aren't those that call it racist running the risk of simply being seen to think that what it's alluding to is actually true but merely too rude to mention?"

I can't decide if your comment is a parody or not. The people not seeing a problem with this shirt are either super young and have a legit reason to be ignorant of the past or old and inexcusably ignorant of the past.

Posted by: Aquaria | May 14, 2008 3:36 AM

it really hasn't been that long since the Civil Rights act (1964). these things take time (generational time).

Yeah, yeah, patience, how long is that gonna take? /lame joke

I know what you're saying, but it gets so disheartening.

I was a kid in the 60s. I grew up in about as racist an environment as there could be (East Texas). I remember the segregated schools. The separate fountains/bathrooms were just about gone, but not completely. So we have left that behind, but only moved what feels like painful inches forward.

I guess it's just difficult for me to wrap my mind around why people cling to these ideas. Life is too short to hate people who have done nothing to you.

Posted by: Benecere | May 14, 2008 3:40 AM

guilt by association in other words.

No, it is guilt by willful ignorance. One could adorn oneself with a Swastika and claim no ill intent, but unless one lives in an area of total seclusion or suffers severe mental disability, one would know better if one bothered to care about such things. Would those objecting to that Swastika be ""giving power to the Nazis" by objecting? That's balderdash! It's a hateful, readily understood symbology and so is this stupid t-shirt.

You've got internet, so if you don't know better, I am not buying ingenuousness and wide-eyed innocence. These are issues of significance and those with the means to know about them are responsible for making damn certain they do! It's no wonder we have the Government we do. Asserting oneself as simply too innocent to understand just won't fly, especially if one votes since his or her ignorance is affecting us all.

Make an effort, people, please!

Posted by: Ichthyic | May 14, 2008 3:46 AM

Would those objecting to that Swastika be ""giving power to the Nazis" by objecting? That's balderdash! It's a hateful, readily understood symbology and so is this stupid t-shirt.

this whole thing reminds me of the reasoning behind why many of us spent so much time railing on the disinformation and outright lies in Expelled, while others claimed we were simply doing the creationist's advertising for them.

the benefit to the racist/creationist in advertising their monstrosity by speaking of it is far outweighed by clearly explaining what is wrong with it to begin with.

It wasn't wrong to expose "Expelled", and it's not wrong to shine a light on this, either.

Posted by: Enok | May 14, 2008 3:50 AM

"Would those objecting to that Swastika be ""giving power to the Nazis" by objecting?"

That's exactly what it does. It's like keeping the wounds open. As a non-ignorant and non-narrow minded person swastika surely brings nazis to your mind, but at the very second instant you would remember it is just an ancient symbol given many beautiful meanings in different cultures during the human history.

Letting nazis to ruin that symbolism is really weak I would say.

Posted by: Enok | May 14, 2008 4:01 AM

"As many others have stated, just because you're too ignorant to understand why this would be perceived as racist doesn't mean that we are that ignorant."

There's a difference between ignorance and fighting the false presumptions people are trying insist on you. Surrendering yourself to this meaning of racism in this t-shirt gives racism an another victory.

Posted by: Azkyroth | May 14, 2008 4:12 AM

Who was it upthread that wondered who had called us racists for understanding the reference?

At the point I made the comment I had overlooked Chadwick's statement but it was otherwise true.

Posted by: themadlolscientist | May 14, 2008 4:17 AM

Bleccchhhh. The only difference between this shirt and the "Macaca" wisecrack is that (AFAIK) a politician didn't make the shirt.

As someone whose extended family looks like the United Nations when we all get together and whose brother-in-law has memories of being terrorized by racist @$$#073s when he was a kid, I have to say that this kind of crap not only offends me, it scares the hell out of me.

(That's right, my sister did "marry one," and no one died of it. In fact, of my three sibs' and my first marriages, theirs is the only one that didn't crash and burn. So sue me.)

I voted a few minutes ago. "It's racist" has pulled ahead, 10,500+ to 7500+. But this poll is patently unfair. It only lets you vote once a day. We declare shenanigans!

Posted by: Antonio | May 14, 2008 4:21 AM

What if it said "McCain '08"? Would that be racist too?
C'mon, Obama does look like a friendly chimp to me and I don't mean that in a disrespectful way. I don't think it should be seen as racist.

Posted by: Enok | May 14, 2008 4:24 AM

"surrendering yourself to recognizing the swastika as a symbol of naziism gives naziism another victory"

Yea word twisting can always make a great deal of amusement. Does anyone else see a difference between verbs "surrender" and "recognize" in this context?

Posted by: ACLU | May 14, 2008 4:37 AM

freedom of speech, laws against hate speech, are wrong because we all have that right to say what ever when ever.

Posted by: Peter Ashby | May 14, 2008 4:42 AM

to all those who think the shirt is not racist: go buy one, then wear it around Black colleagues and in Black neighbourhoods and see what the reaction is. Of course now we have told you that it is offensive, it would be crass of you to wear it knowing it was offensive to other people, yes?

You have been told it is offensive to others, and why. What is your problem with that? Just because it is not offensive to you does not exclude it being offensive to others. I do not see the problem with this. If you truly think there should be no consequences to wearing such a thing, go ahead and wear it, go on, I dare you.

Posted by: Kenny | May 14, 2008 4:47 AM

Well, looks like obvious racism and I don't understand it.

I think it is a shame. I like Obama and I hope he becomes president. I don't really care for the democrats liberal positions on many of the issues. However, National heathcare is really needed and Obama seems like he is on the ball. Besides hillary is going to go after Iran if she gets into office.

Not so happy about the religion comment obama made in San Fran. I am not scared running for guns or to my religion (I don't own a gun. I know of some people that do and they go hunting with it for food). I am not running to religion because I am afraid. I believe in God for many of the reasons posted here.

I am also not happy about obama's own pastor. He isn't Godly at all. He is just playing politics in the African American community.

It's sad how people are sometimes really misinformed. My wife's aunt in Oregon thought that he was a practicing muslim and I told her no he wasn't and she was sure he was.

Also, I am a Christian who did not vote for Bush. I don't believe that he was the right person to lead the country and I think he has taken advantage of people to vote for him. I never wanted him to get in this war and he did but that is water under the bridge.

Posted by: Mrs Tilton | May 14, 2008 5:09 AM

Any skilled graphic designers/silk-screen press operators out there? Want to make big big simoleons with this "offensive tshirt" racket? Let me suggest you make and market tshirts reading:

Reconstruction -- it can still work!

No no, don't mention it; a modest 5% royalty will be more than ample expression of your gratitude.

Posted by: Cafeeine | May 14, 2008 5:14 AM

Peter Ashby:
"You have been told it is offensive to others, and why. What is your problem with that? Just because it is not offensive to you does not exclude it being offensive to others. I do not see the problem with this. If you truly think there should be no consequences to wearing such a thing, go ahead and wear it, go on, I dare you."

Thing is, one of the main arguments used (by me as well) when religious people object to certain depictions of their faith is that " you do not have the right not to be offended". Why does this not apply here?

Posted by: Mrs Tilton | May 14, 2008 5:20 AM

Ichthyic @122,

If you call an African American today a "porch monkey", you are attempting a racial slur

No, no; it's OK! Randall "took it back" in Clerks II.

Posted by: negentropyeater | May 14, 2008 5:29 AM

Racist ? But of course it's racist, it's just supposed to reinforce some good old prejudices, that blacks aren't as intelligent as whites, oooh they can be nice and cute and friendly, but they're just not as capable as us white folks !
Oh, he's friendly that chimp, but who cares about friendly ?

What I found even more racist, is people who don't find this shirt racist. Just shows that these stupid prejudices are still so deeply rooted in their brains that they can't even reason them out.

Posted by: Bengt77 | May 14, 2008 5:38 AM

Has anybody ever considered that people not finding the image on this t-shirt to be offending, shows a society that has conquered racism?

Let me clarify my statement. Say, somebody says something that might offend someone else, but he or she didn't mean it that way and didn't even realize it might be taken offensively. Then, when another person points out it might have been a bad thing to say, that third person is in fact the offending one.

Of course, I have no doubt about the meaning the 'designer' of this t-shirt's print had. But in my opinion, to point out that it is offending is as bad as, and maybe even worse than, making the t-shirt. So, why do you even respond so vigorously to this post? Just let it be. Barack Obama would stand above it, I'm sure. Shouldn't you?

Posted by: Mrs Tilton | May 14, 2008 5:47 AM

arachnophilia @136,

devil's advocate question no. 1: comparing our current (white) president to a chimpanzee or to curious george, funny. comparing a presidential candidate who happens to be half black to the same things, racist?

OK, I realise you're only playing devil's advocate here. Still, tell your client to listen to Etha Williams: context is everything.

Yes, one can make out that Curious George has a bit of a resemblance to both Incurious George and Barack Obama (it's the ears, mostly). The humourous potential of a caricature pointing this out is, to my mind, mild at best, but de gustibus and all that.

But that's the humourous potential viewed in a vacuum; now let's put it in context. Two factors could spoil the fun, as I see it. (1) Does there exist a racist trope of "blacks = monkeys"?; and (2) Is the butt of the caricature black? If both statements are true, then the caricature is not only humourously lame but racist and inappropriate as well.

Now (1) is incontrovertibly true. (2) is true of Obama but not of Bush. So the "Obama as CG" shirt is offensively racist in a way that "Bush as CG" would not be, and no, that's not a double standard. See? It's easy if you just think it through systematically.

PS -- Given the nature of this website community, I am amused to consider that the formal title of the official popularly called "Devil's Advocate" is "Promoter of the Faith". Sadly, Arachnophilia has no hope of getting this job, as Wojtyla abolished it during his papacy. Who knew he thought faith shouldn't be promoted?!

PPS -- your nym is, however, spectacular.

Posted by: negentropyeater | May 14, 2008 5:54 AM

Actually, if there was one poll not to crash, it's this one.

Because I'd like to know what is the reality of the situation of racial prejudice in America on this one, not the filtered version.

I want to know if there is still a majority of people who have these deeply rooted racial prejudices.

I don't want this to be hidden.

This is a very good test, because at first glance it appears just so naïve. But in reality, it's excellent, because it really brings out the underlying biases.

If you'd ask in a poll, "are you racist" you'd probably get more than 90% negative answers. People are very good at denying their own prejudices as if they didn't realise they were subject to them.

So I'll stick with the initial data, before us Pharyngulites started to overturn this poll : there are still a majority of racists in America.

And that's the sad reality of it.

Posted by: Benecere | May 14, 2008 6:07 AM

Re: Post #260

I would certainly never maintain that anyone had no right to any opinion. A person has every right to be offended or not be offended by ANYTHING. Certainly every one has rights to any opinion they hold, even violent ones. (I do wish the blissfully ignorant would refrain from the polls, but that's a whole other ball of wax)

I would never hold that anyone hasn't the RIGHT to wear this shirt, a swastika, or a KKK robe. However, when the people wearing any of those things tells me that doing it does not signify racist malevolence or promote harmful factions, I'm going to tell them they're talking nonsense. I am going to tell them that it sends a message as clearly as typewritten words send a message. Someone can argue all day long that, to them, H-A-T-E spells love, but it doesn't. And because these are just little symbols we use to represent our thoughts does not mean they are random or that I can spell "yellow" B L U E. When one puts certain letters together, they project and communicate a particular thing. These shirts spell out their meaning quite concisely.

I'd never tell folks that they cannot overtly advertise their racism, though; I'm glad they do. I'd just as soon know right up front rather than down the road.

Posted by: spencer | May 14, 2008 6:13 AM

Woohoo! Not Florida! YESSSSSS!

Of course, we do have plenty of stone ignorant racists here too. Oddly enough, they seem to get more and more numerous as you drive north on I-75 and get closer to Georgia. Hmmmm.

Posted by: floy | May 14, 2008 6:31 AM

@ #263:

Oh, I understood your point when you made it. I just don't agree with it.

Whether you like it or not, racist discourse is a two-way dialogue between discriminators and the people they discriminate against. They're the ones who determine what constitutes a racial slur. Not us, the third party.

So you can claim that turning a blind eye to someone's racist comments disempowers them. But they're not calling *you* a porch monkey or a nigger; they couldn't give two shits what you think.

In fact, I'd say by *not* calling them out for their racism, by *not* pointing out what fucktards they are, you are aiding and abetting their dipshittery. You are letting them get away with it.

Posted by: spencer | May 14, 2008 6:48 AM

#136:

devil's advocate question no. 1: comparing our current (white) president to a chimpanzee or to curious george, funny. comparing a presidential candidate who happens to be half black to the same things, racist?

Yes, because context matters - it always matters, especially in matters like this. There's no history of referring to white people as monkeys in the US; on the other hand, there is a well-documented history of the use of that word as a racial slur against blacks.

#175:

I don't understand why this is racist. It doesn't contextually make sense, as I don't know what a cute monkey cartoon has to do with a presidential candidate, but I don't think it's racist.

But then, I'm Generation Y, whadda I know?

I've taught a few members of Generation Y during their first year in college, and I still haven't figured out what, if anything, Gen Y kids actually do know.

Posted by: ACLU | May 14, 2008 6:57 AM

AWWWWWW, this is going to sound racist! but look closely at both abama and curious george they look alot like each other the big ears, im black and i found it very funny, lighten up take that pole out of your ass and look at how funny it is, monkeys look alot like black people, to bad theres not a animal whites look like, so what we look like apes but god makes up for it, some of you might get that joke.

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | May 14, 2008 7:03 AM

would u say that is racist because black people like chicken........

It's fun to watch racists trying to say there's no racism by using racist tropes.

Posted by: Edward | May 14, 2008 7:06 AM

How the f**k is Curious George racist? Why are you so obsessed with race? Are YOU racist?

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | May 14, 2008 7:09 AM

i'm black u fool
Posted by: John | May 14, 2008 7:08 AM

And yet you still use totalizing racist tropes.

Posted by: BlackPower | May 14, 2008 7:18 AM

it will be a cold day in hell befor i let ombama become commander and chief, and thats my freedom of speech, don't care what you think, hes a noobie HE knows less then bush,

Posted by: supportAREtroops | May 14, 2008 7:28 AM

you want to support are troops? well then vote for MCcain he was a soldier, unlike abama and hillary, Mccain fought in vietnam, meanwhile obama and hillary wer protesting the war, and spiting on soldiers who wer coming home, do you realy want to vote for some one who protested american soldiers??????????????????????????????

Posted by: Nan | May 14, 2008 7:30 AM

If y'all want to depress yourselves any time (or if you feel the need to induce vomiting), read some of the comments on the Journal Constitution's blogs. By about the third comment into any discussion it's guaranteed some knuckle-dragger will be ranting about the coloreds ruining life for all decent folk.

The guy who owns the bar selling the tee-shirts was on the local news saying he's not doing anything wrong, people love the shirts, and he's going to keep right on selling them. IMHO, someone needs to go after him for copyright infringement -- isn't Curious George a protected image? Even racists respond to being hit in the wallet.

He is an equal opportunity hater -- he put up a sign a few months ago advocating that someone kill Hillary.

Posted by: bill r | May 14, 2008 7:33 AM

Must be a generation thing. I looked at it and saw an anti-Bush statement. Then, if I stretch, a racist thing. The shirt would work with "Hillary" or "McCain" substituted for Obama.

Posted by: Fernando Magyar | May 14, 2008 7:38 AM

Spencer re #273,

Yeah, the further north you drive the more Confederate flags you see.
Living in Hollywood Florida.

Posted by: DaveX | May 14, 2008 7:55 AM

I don't think I would have immediately thought the shirt was racist at all, to be honest. I've heard blacks called "monkeys" before (go Southern Illinois!) but this shirt would have just left me sorta confused. I'd have initially guessed it was some sort of political joke on GW, or just the work of someone who dug Curious George.

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | May 14, 2008 8:09 AM

But I chose not to view it that way. And that, I believe, is how to overcome racism. The same as bullies in a schoolyard. Once their victims choose to ignore them, the bullying loses it's appeal.

*headdesk*

Posted by: John | May 14, 2008 8:13 AM

That gotta be the stupidest argument I've read for a long long time.

Well, no, John, pea brain, it's not racist, because it's not reinforcing any negative prejudice against blacks is it ? Can you try to think before you write ?

neither is a monkey eatin a fuc*ing banna. i refuse to post any more, if a fuc* wit like u is commenting on it.another fine exmple of american genius

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | May 14, 2008 8:20 AM

neither is a monkey eatin a fuc*ing banna. i refuse to post any more, if a fuc* wit like u is commenting on it.another fine exmple of american genius

In other words, the cultural history--both popular and political--in the United States that has consistently dehumanized black people by linking them to monkeys and apes is completely irrelevant in a situation in which a monkey is used to represent an African American candidate for President.

Doesn't take a genius to see what's going on, just someone paying attention.

Posted by: negentropyeater | May 14, 2008 8:31 AM

Bengt77,

It's certainly despicable. And yes, it's most likely meant to be racist. But I chose not to view it that way. And that, I believe, is how to overcome racism. The same as bullies in a schoolyard. Once their victims choose to ignore them, the bullying loses it's appeal.

You don't overcome racism by ignoring it. The same can be said of all these stupid prejudices that have impregnated the brains of so many over the course of time, prejudices against women, against homosexuals, against jews, etc...

History shows that what you are suggesting has never worked. It is only by denouncing and fighting severely those prejudices that one can over time make things better. The rest is just wishful thinking.

And we're talking of adults, not children in a schoolyard.

Bengt, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, you might not be racist yourself, pardon me for the accusation.

But this whole story just demonstrates the obvious, that America is far from having rid itself from its racial prejudices (BTW I'm French, and on the racial issue it's probably even worse here in Europe, so don't get me wrong).

As long as our societies are far from having overcome these negative prejudices, these kind of things like this T-shirt need to be point blank condemned. People who come up with these ridiculous ideas should be shameful. It is our responsibility to make them feel the shame. That is the way you overcome racial prejudices.

Posted by: Peter Ashby | May 14, 2008 8:37 AM

Cafeeine the difference is you can choose and change your religion, you cannot choose or change your race. So when religion gets criticised it is different from racism.

Posted by: Nin | May 14, 2008 8:41 AM

Only someone obsessed with race would interpret this as racist, thus making them effectively racist. For anyone normal, it's just Curious George, regardless of how other people chose to interpret it.

You don't fight hate speech like this, that only validates it.

Posted by: jim | May 14, 2008 8:54 AM

Kseniya(#202): I found it interesting that he'd choose to berate somebody for her (perceived) prejudices by calling her a "retard" and a "bitch".

I can't keep up with the discussion here, so I'll inject some comments pretty much at random.

One problem with the issue is that we seem to have lost the concept of intent somewhere along the line. Something is either racist or it isn't, and if it offends somebody it's de facto racist. I think a lot of the defenders of the shirt here (racist trolls aside) are caught in the backlash against this, while getting themselves caught in the same trap. People are bending over backwards to find any way in which the T-shirt could be construed as innocent, without considering the cultural context and the likelihood that it really is innocent--or indeed, the fact that the guy came right out and admitted that it was racist...

It's the same trap with those who are asking how making the same comparison to Bush could not be racist. Viewed in isolation, of course, it couldn't--Bush and Obama are members of the same species, and both are related to any given monkey to exactly the same degree. The comparison in itself isn't racist, but you have to consider it in context, and there's some very unpleasant context that's present in one case and absent in the other.

Consider Jackie Chan's "what's up, my nigger" scene in "Rush Hour". It's funny because Chan's character clearly has no idea what he's just said--he's simply copying Chris Tucker, and he really is so ignorant of the culture he finds himself in that it doesn't occur to him that a friendly greeting coming from a black man can be a killing insult from somebody else. But it wouldn't have worked with any other character; you just wouldn't believe it could have been an honest mistake. Similarly, it beggars belief that a native of the southern U.S. could not be aware of the implications of deliberately comparing a black man to a monkey. There's no room for reasonable doubt--it's simply racist, and people looking for reasons to believe that it isn't are barking up the wrong tree.

Witness, for a somewhat more trivial example, Richard Dawkins' use of the word "Darwinist". Perfectly innocent--it's not got the same connotations over here that it has in creationist hotbeds in the U.S. Dawkins has a perfect right to use the term, but when called on it, he didn't start angrily defending that right, he said, "good point, I hadn't considered that, I'll try to stop using it in future." There is, as others have said, an appropriate response. Sometimes it's "wtf? Get over yourself", of course, but if you've bumped up unwittingly against a nasty piece of historical "ism", it's probably best to apologise, through gritted teeth if necessary, and try to be a bit more tactful in future. I don't see that happening here.

Posted by: Cliff | May 14, 2008 9:04 AM

Racism is alive and well in America. If you doubt this, if you, like PZ, are "stunned that this t-shirt could be proudly displayed anywhere anymore," go to a diner located in a neighborhood unlike the one in which you live, sip a cup of coffee and listen to what people who frequent the diner are talking about. Frankly, I am stunned that so many people who post on this blog seem divorced from the reality that comprises their larger world, although I shouldn't be. According to the homophily-heterophily theory in the social sciences (particularly in the field of communications), the "stunned" reaction of posters to this blog is exactly what would be predicted.
One's intimates tend to be those who are most like one's self in terms of social characteristics such as age, educational and economic statuses, values, etc. When one interacts with others who are dissimilar to one's self, information transmittal tends to be less intimate, consisting of things not central to one's core beliefs and values. This creates subtle social barriers that are infrequently crossed, and consequently semi-isolated groups of people who do not know what other groups think, feel or value. And, since mass media is sensitive, by and large, to expressing opinions which may offend whole classes of people and as a consequence adversely affect the willingness of their sponsors to continue their support, it fails to act as bridge between these semi-isolated groups.
Karl Rove (despicable, perhaps, but nonetheless attuned to American society) has warned that there is much more that will surface if/when Obama becomes the Democratic Party nominee. It's only just begun...

Posted by: Matt Penfold | May 14, 2008 9:10 AM

"'m bothered by the "I'm not from the U.S., so I don't get it" views above: as someone in the thread remarked, Europeans and Asians can be very attached to the black people = monkeys association."

I am British and can confirm that there is a long history of racists associating black people with monkeys and bananas in this country. When I saw this T-shirt, and that there seem to be some people who cannot see anything wrong with the association of a black presidential candidate with a monkey eating a banana I was shocked. There was a time in the UK when black players at football games (soccer) would regularly have bananas thrown at them, and be taunted with monkey chants. Thankfully that is pretty much a thing of the past since the authorities took a tough line on such behaviour, banning them from attending any football games for example. Sadly there a parts of Europe where it still happens, although again the European football bodies are cracking down hard by banning teams who's fans behave in a racist manner from competition.

Posted by: B | May 14, 2008 9:14 AM

Its only racist if you want it to be. I personally, do not think it's racist. Just with any other racist word or icon... society is what makes it racist. If you were to show this to someone in say, uganda, would they view this at all as racist?

NEW PERSONAL GOAL-- to forget that any word or imagery is racist, so as to not get offended when bigots use them.

Lets face it, the end to racism has less to do with government/media controls, and more to do with our teachings and perceptions. if were really serious about stamping out racism, we'd start by not writing articles like this, and start actively not reacting to racism.

Posted by: Jamie | May 14, 2008 9:18 AM

"Only someone obsessed with race would interpret this as racist, thus making them effectively racist."
What a moronic thing to say. Strike "obsessed with race" and replace with "who is not totally ignorant". If you claim to never have heard monkey used as a racial slur, you're either lying or you live on Mars.

Posted by: ~~~~ | May 14, 2008 9:21 AM

"Just with any other racist word or icon... society is what makes it racist. If you were to show this to someone in say, uganda, would they view this at all as racist? "
No. If you were to call people in Uganda "dirty stupid nigger", who didn't know what "dirty stupid nigger" meant in English, would they view that as racist? No. So if that's the measure you use to determine whether something's racist, I advise you to go try that somewhere with a large, armed, black population, and see if they agree with you.

Posted by: negentropyeater | May 14, 2008 9:22 AM

Nin, and his facist sense of "normality" #312,

Only someone obsessed with race would interpret this as racist, thus making them effectively racist

No, only someone who wilfuly denies what this T-shirt was clearly intended for would pretend this is non racist, thus making them effectively racist.

For anyone normal, it's just Curious George, regardless of how other people chose to interpret it.

Do you realise that extrapolating one's own sense of normality on racial issues is the perfect breeding ground for facism ?

You don't fight hate speech like this, that only validates it.

So here you admit it's hate speech, but just above you just said it was only a depiction of curious george. So is it hate speech or not ? You seem to be very confused.

Posted by: Nin | May 14, 2008 9:24 AM

No jamie, I don't. Just as I can't decide that the word Jamie now means something racist. People can only define Curious George as something racist if they themselves are racist. It's just a fucking monkey with a banana, stop dignifying these people with any recognition at all.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | May 14, 2008 9:26 AM

I intend to vote for Obama but I think it's fine. We as a country need to get over ourselves. Nobody else has this problem but we're still bogged down by this. "It's fine" for me.

No one else has what problem? Racism? Really?

Posted by: Matt Penfold | May 14, 2008 9:32 AM

"No jamie, I don't. Just as I can't decide that the word Jamie now means something racist. People can only define Curious George as something racist if they themselves are racist. It's just a fucking monkey with a banana, stop dignifying these people with any recognition at all."

No, it is NOT just a monkey with a banana. It is a monkey with a banana being linked to a black man in a country with a long history of racist treatment of black people. The image in isolation would not be racist, when it gets linked with a black person it is. Do you really not get that ? Like how a picture of a gas oven would not be anti-semitic, link with a Rabbi though and it would be.

Posted by: MartinSGill | May 14, 2008 9:35 AM

Kseniya #314 makes a very valid point. The one about intent and context.

While I agree that the intent of the T-shirt may well be racist (and judging by the other things that guy sells it's very likely to be intended that way) the t-shirt in and of itself isn't racist.

It's only racist in the context of history and specifically in the context of American (and other) racists using a comparison to apes to insult black people.

I'm not American and I don't consider myself racist, nor do I consider the society and culture I grew up in (which admittedly was a bit sheltered) racist. I just don't see those connections because I was never exposed to them.

I actually feel sorry for the people that automatically see that t-shirt as racist. You have been so conditioned and influenced by the racists that they dominate your thinking so that you automatically conjure up in your mind the images they've been seeking to promote whenever you see those images. Someone who didn't grow up in that sort of environment just sees an innocent (and possibly cute depending on personal tastes) t-shirt. I don't automatically associate black people with monkeys because there's no reason to. You do, whether you agree with it or not, because the racists have imprinted that connection in your mind. Only a true racist (or someone who grew up in a society where their views had power) would make that connection automatically.

Once the context and the intent of the t-shirt is revealed, then yes, it's intended to be racist and that is the real problem, the intent. The t-shirt without the intent is harmless. That's almost a bigger problem in our various societies than racism, those people that really are innocent are condemned as racist/whatever simply because the thought never entered their mind, which is as it should be for someone that isn't racist.

While I agree that racism does need to be stamped on and out, hard, wherever it's encountered, I also think that without intent, there is no crime. By condemning (and insulting) people who have already become that which we strive for (people who aren't racist and who just don't see race/colour etc. factoring in any decision or view they hold) we are actually undermining that which we strive for.

The t-shirt is not racist, there is no inherent racism in it or it's image. The man who made it is racist, because he implies and promotes a connection that doesn't actually exist. That's the distinction that should be made.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | May 14, 2008 9:36 AM

i'm a southerner(south carolina), and i didn't get the reference at first. had i simply voted from looking at the shirt, i would have said "it's fine." i honestly have to wonder at the people who say it's racist. why did you assume that a shirt with a monkey on it was racist? if you do, doesn't that make you the racist? sheesh, all i see is curious george with a banana. if anything, i thought it was a commentary on our current president.

I'm also from SC and you are either being ignorant to the history of comparing Monkey's to blacks being used as a racist technique or you are lying.

That or you are terribly nieve.

Posted by: Julie K | May 14, 2008 9:39 AM

Has anybody ever considered that people not finding the image on this t-shirt to be offending, shows a society that has conquered racism?

No, it shows an ignorant society.

You can't make a problem go away by sticking your fingers in your ears and singing 'lalalalalala'.

Each generation must be taught that some groups of people thought other groups of people were not human. Each generation must be taught how racism manifested itself in the past so that they can (hopefully) better recognize signs of it emerging again.

Wrapping oneself in willful ignorance of history does not make racism go away. I'm appalled at the shirt and absolutely horrified by the notion that continued ignorance by some can somehow erase history.

Posted by: Matt Penfold | May 14, 2008 9:41 AM

"It's only racist in the context of history and specifically in the context of American (and other) racists using a comparison to apes to insult black people."

Which is exactly what this t-shirt does, and what makes it racist.

Posted by: spgreenlaw | May 14, 2008 9:42 AM

Any different than 8 years of comparing George Bush to a monkey? Is it different just cause Obama's black? Sounds stunningly hypocritical to me.

To answer your questions, ctiberius, yes. When there has been a long historical precedent of blacks being compared to monkeys, gorillas, and the like so as to make them appear subhuman, uncivilized,and unintelligent, there is a difference. There is no racist context that likewise colors a similar comparison with Bush, who is white, rather than Obama. How could they possibly be the same thing? Past use always affects the way we interpret and use language and images and the connections we draw from them, and this shirt is drawing on very well established racist imagery.It's not hypocritical to recognize this.

I've lurked around this website for a long time now, and have always found the discourse in the comments so enlightening and intelligent that I never felt as if I could add much. But this post has really brought out the stupid, and I felt it necessary to try and do something about it.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | May 14, 2008 9:44 AM

So what do those defending the shirt think that the intended meaning was consciously choosing that picture to use on the shirt?

Why not a picture of a Tree? Or the Sears Tower? Or Captain Kirk?

If it has no meaning, why that picture?

Posted by: CalGeorge | May 14, 2008 9:50 AM

In historic Rockville, Maryland, the street settled by freed slaves was "known to blacks as 'The Lane' or 'The Back Lane' and to whites as 'Monkey Run'."

A 2003 discrimination lawsuit in Baltimore claims employees were called 'sand nigger' and 'black monkey'.

From a 2006 suit:

Beginning in May 2002, Green worked with Jared Howard, a teller at the Washington Avenue location. Howard is a Caucasian male. According to Green's deposition, Howard began harassing her and using racial slurs to describe her. Specifically, Howard called Green "monkey," "black monkey," and "chimpanzee."

The t-shirt is incredibly racist.

Posted by: Cherish | May 14, 2008 9:51 AM

I recall mentioning about 150 comments ago that they don't teach you individual racist slurs in school. One can be quite aware that racism exists and its history in our country without knowing that black people were called monkeys.

Making generalizations that people are stupid and/or racist because they've never run into this sort of thing is...well...stupid. It says more about their class, privilege, geography, what have you, and doesn't mean that they are complicit in racism in any fashion.

Posted by: Dahan | May 14, 2008 9:56 AM

@ 292

Just in case this isn't a parody (sorry, it's hard to tell for me sometimes).

"you want to support are troops? well then vote for MCcain he was a soldier, unlike abama and hillary, Mccain fought in vietnam, meanwhile obama and hillary wer protesting the war, and spiting on soldiers who wer coming home, do you realy want to vote for some one who protested american soldiers??????????????????????????????"

Holy shit, wow. Please try to learn how to write. It's hard to even understand you. It's the reading equivalent of trying to listen to someone giving a speech while gargling jello.
OK, that said, Do you think having fought in a war gives you some sort of special ability to lead a nation properly? Does sitting in the Hanoi Hilton for 5 years give you extra insight into the complexities of statecraft? Hey, props to McCain for his service from one vet to another, but gimme a break.
Obama was born in 1961. Hard to believe he was out there spitting on troops during the war before he was even a teenager. Actually, there are no documented cases of protesters EVER spitting on troops. There are a hearsay cases which have been mostly discredited. Oh, and Rambo talked about it, but, well, that's a movie.

I'm sure I just wasted 5mn of my time because this MUST be a parody, and if it's not, the writer will be unable to understand anything I've said, but what the hell. Something to do while drinking coffee.

Posted by: Matt Penfold | May 14, 2008 10:00 AM

"I recall mentioning about 150 comments ago that they don't teach you individual racist slurs in school. One can be quite aware that racism exists and its history in our country without knowing that black people were called monkeys."

It might well be possible. However that does not explain the following.

1. Why the t-shirt is still on sale. Had it simply been a ghastly mistake you would expect those selling to be mortified when they realise they missed the racist context. You would also expect them to stop selling the t-shirt with immediate effect, destroy existing stocks and offer the profits from any sales to an organisation that seeks to combat racism. None of this seems to have happened.

2, Why are people still trying to justify the t-shirt. If they really were ignorant about the racist context why not admit that, learn from it, and stop saying there is nothing racist about it.

Those who now know the t-shirt has a racist context have no excuse for their continued attempts to claim there is nothing wrong with it. Ignorance is only a defence up until the time you cease to be ignorant. Support of a racist t-shirt one you know to be racist is racist, and anyone doing it deserves to be labelled as such.

Posted by: Nin | May 14, 2008 10:01 AM

To the people crying out about this t-shirt being racist:

What are you achieving? What do you hope to achieve? You think that making a stink about this going to dissuade the creators of this stupid t-shirt? Or do you think, just you know, perhaps, that making all this noise is giving them the attention they want and validating their racism as something you recognise?

So what if some fuckwits make a t-shirt they interpret as racist. Their racism comes from within, you're not going to stop them thinking that way by bitching on the internet, you're only joining them in their pathetic interpretation of Curious George.

You're not defeating racism, you are perpetuating it by recognising it.

Posted by: Corvis_9 | May 14, 2008 10:03 AM

Cobb county, might have known. When I lived in Atlanta in the early nineties Cobb county had a separate mass transit system. The Cobb county system could ride MARTA (Atlanta's system) with their passes but the MARTA passes were worthless in the Cobb system. Basically to keep Atlanta's car less Blacks and Latinos out of their little white trash clubhouse. Cobb county is politically identical to a trailer park. They are the folks who; gave us Newt Gingrich, almost lost the opportunity to host Olympic volleyball in 92 over some homophobic legislative push, those stickers in biology textbooks and the inevitable follow-up court case.

Yes, it is racist, quite intentionally so.

Posted by: skeener | May 14, 2008 10:05 AM

I live in Atlanta (this shirt is being sold just outside of Atlanta) and I can tell you that this viewpoint is in the minority. In fact, I have seen many street vendors selling pro-Obama shirts.

Posted by: Matt Penfold | May 14, 2008 10:07 AM

"I recall mentioning about 150 comments ago that they don't teach you individual racist slurs in school. One can be quite aware that racism exists and its history in our country without knowing that black people were called monkeys."

It might well be possible. However that does not explain the following.

1. Why the t-shirt is still on sale. Had it simply been a ghastly mistake you would expect those selling to be mortified when they realise they missed the racist context. You would also expect them to stop selling the t-shirt with immediate effect, destroy existing stocks and offer the profits from any sales to an organisation that seeks to combat racism. None of this seems to have happened.

2, Why are people still trying to justify the t-shirt. If they really were ignorant about the racist context why not admit that, learn from it, and stop saying there is nothing racist about it.

Those who now know the t-shirt has a racist context have no excuse for their continued attempts to claim there is nothing wrong with it. Ignorance is only a defence up until the time you cease to be ignorant. Support of a racist t-shirt one you know to be racist is racist, and anyone doing it deserves to be labelled as such.

Posted by: Matt Penfold | May 14, 2008 10:13 AM

"thank you number 346. i'm not a liar, nor naive, nor racist. i'm only 25 years old which may explain things, seeing as how it's an archaic term at best. i've heard MANY MANY a racial slur, but have never heard a black person called a monkey. EVER.

if that makes me culturally ignorant, i could care less. i don't make it my life's work to go around finding every archaic racist term and whipping it back out 40 years later to use against someone that has never heard it. besides, who considers learning racist terms being cultured? i'd consider that damn near the OPPOSITE of cultured.

i didn't see racism in the shirt until i read the comments, and i'm glad. i'm glad that every time i see a depiction of a monkey or banana, i don't think "OMG RACIST!!" i'm glad that i can't pass that information down to my children, thus sullying an innocent image of a cartoon character. "

You may not be racist, naive is arguable, but there you cannot escape the charge of ignorance on the subject.

Now you that are aware that there is a long history racists associating black people with monkeys and bananas I trust you will not longer try to defend this t-shirt, and accept that it is racist ?

Posted by: jim | May 14, 2008 10:14 AM

MartinSGill(#334): That was me--I was addressing Kseniya in my first paragraph. Yes, kind of, but I was trying to say that you can't separate something like that T-shirt from its historical context. Any defence of it is necessarily contrived. The guy clearly knew exactly what he was doing, and is unapologetic. I still think there has to be intent involved, yes, but that's kind of irrelevant to this case. The T-shirt is racist and the guy who is selling them is an arsehole. I think we can consider that proven beyond reasonable doubt. Yes, there are people who see racism everywhere, indended or no, but that doesn't mean that they aren't sometimes, unfortunately, right.

There's a difference often highlighted on this blog between ignorance and wilful ignorance. Hence my comment about "Rush Hour". Chan is playing the innocent, and the incident and subsequent fight are handled as slapstick--the audience is aware that it's all a misunderstanding and can sympathise with Chan, still knowing why he got that reaction. And nobody is really hurt. But if afterwards, somebody had explained to him the cultural context behind what happened, and he'd blustered and defended his right to speech, and undertaken to carry on talking like that knowing the context and how offensive it was, then he'd be behaving like our little trolls here. It's behaviour bordering so closely on racism it's basically indistinguishable from it.

Posted by: Matt Penfold | May 14, 2008 10:21 AM

"i'm sure there were people defending the shirt. i'm not. i'm defending my right not to be aware of every racial slur that exists or has existed. i'm defending my right not to be called "naive, racist, dense, uncultured, etc" just because i'm not aware of every racist term that exists or has existed."

You have admitted you were ignorant. If you really did not know that this was a racist slur then fine, but do not make excuses for your ignorance. You should have known, being a part of a society that has a long history of racism and of the use of this particular slur. As a responsible adult you have a duty to be aware of thing such as this, and saying you did not know is not an excuse.

I knew it was slur in America, and I am not even American.

Posted by: Cherish | May 14, 2008 10:24 AM

But I suspect that this case is one of using dishonesty in an attempt to defend a racist suggestion.

I grew up in a very culturally homogenous area. However, I also spent a year working in the juvenile detention system in Los Angeles County. I ran into TONS of racism there...and it was very eye-opening.

Even with all the crap I got to hear (I heard a lot, and yes, had to have most of it explained to me), I never heard someone call a black a monkey. Of course, even if I did, I probably wouldn't have known enough to be offended.

And although I would not buy the shirt, now knowing what it means, it's really upsetting that someone would take a cartoon character who is supposed to be a symbol of good qualities in people and use it that way. I can see why a lot of people would be incredulous. If they'd stuck a gorilla on there, it might not be such a big pill to swallow.

Posted by: SteveM | May 14, 2008 10:28 AM

This monkey however is known for his curiosity, loveability, and general overall childlike nature. And then there's the banana.

Oh, and I'm sure that this is how you see it when Bush is compared to Curious George. That they are highlighting Bush's curiosity, lovability and childlike nature. [well that last part is right]. No, it is meant as an insult to compare Bush to CG and even without the racial overtones, it would be the same to compare Obama to CG.

Suppose a "vote for Bush" t-shirt showed Bush with a tiny little mustache just under his nose. I guess that would be perfectly fine, after all Charlie Chaplin had a similar mustache, maybe we are comparing him to the "Little Tramp".
Bullshit. and so is your comment.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | May 14, 2008 10:31 AM

it's really upsetting that someone would take a cartoon character who is supposed to be a symbol of good qualities in people and use it that way.

Well of course, but it's not like cherished symbols have never been abused by ill meaning groups to further some agenda completely unrelated to the symbol.

Posted by: Jamie | May 14, 2008 10:44 AM

"People can only define Curious George as something racist if they themselves are racist."
In presumably much the same way as those who recognise a swastika or a burning cross as something racist are the REAL racists. Get a grip.

Posted by: Jams | May 14, 2008 10:48 AM

The Author's Intent Doesn't Matter

The real or imagined intent of an author (of alleged hate) is only relevant when charging an author with a crime. It's irrelevant when determining the damage or the effect of hate.
Take a swastika for example. Sure, maybe a gaggle of Buddhists who happened to be visiting from Tibet, happened by a synagogue and decided they urgently needed to pray, so spray painted a swastika on the wall. That's perfectly innocent, however, the damage that is about to be done results from what that symbol means to the Jews in this neighborhood, irrespective of what the symbol means to its author.
Of course, Buddhists aren't racists, but swastikas are - unless the author does something to clarify its meaning (ie. left a little note reading "thanks for letting us pray - the Buddhists").

I noticed a few people were having problems with this. There are three separate questions here: is the author racist? is the shirt racist? is it hate?

Posted by: ash | May 14, 2008 10:49 AM

if there had been a line drawn through curious george it would make more sense. The messsage however seems to be "pro" Obama.

Posted by: Kseniya | May 14, 2008 10:51 AM

Excerpted from today's NYT:

Clinton Beats Obama Handily in West Virginia

[*snip*]

Mrs. Clinton defeated Senator Barack Obama Tuesday in a primary where racial considerations emerged as an unusually salient factor. She drew strong support from white, working-class voters who have spurned Mr. Obama in recent contests.

The number of white Democratic voters who said that race influenced their choice on Tuesday was among the highest recorded in voter surveys in the Clinton-Obama nomination fight. Two in 10 white West Virginia voters said that race was an important factor in their vote, and more than 8 in 10 of them backed Mrs. Clinton, according to surveys of voters leaving the polls.

[*snip*]

The voter surveys showing a strong racial component to the West Virginia voting suggest that Mr. Obama would still face pockets of significant Democratic resistance if he does become the party's first black nominee.

[*snip*]

[N]o Democrat has won the White House without winning West Virginia since 1916.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | May 14, 2008 10:53 AM

if there had been a line drawn through curious george it would make more sense. The messsage however seems to be "pro" Obama.

And burning a cross in someone's yard is a reminder that Jesus loves you very much.

Posted by: Dahan | May 14, 2008 10:54 AM

MartinSGill @ 371,

Here's where your argument falls down. We're saying the shirt is racist, because of the context. Now think of your bottle. If it's used to hit someone with and cause harm, we'd say it was a weapon. Why? Because it can and was used in that way. You, apparently would say "No! The bottle isn't a weapon. It's not the bottles fault!" Context matters.

Why do you think you can't have glass bottles in the stands at baseball games? Or baseball bats for that matter? Just because some here would say "Wow! I never thought of a bottle as being a weapon!" will still not get you into the game with one.

Posted by: Cherish | May 14, 2008 10:56 AM

That's perfectly innocent, however, the damage that is about to be done results from what that symbol means to the Jews in this neighborhood, irrespective of what the symbol means to its author.

Swastikas have been used for millenia by Buddhists, long before the Nazis misappropriated it. And, in fact, when I lived in CA, a nearby Buddhist temple came under fire for exactly this. Once people realized that the Buddhist symbol is rotated the opposite way and has been used by the Buddhists for far longer than it had been associated with the Nazis, they felt ignorant.

You have to look at intent. Just because someone wears the shirt or likes the shirt doesn't mean they're racist. Context and intent aren't the same for everyone, and just because you have that association doesn't mean everyone does!

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | May 14, 2008 10:58 AM

jsn, really please. You're embarrassing yourself.