Tuesday, April 19, 2011

Media: Bush as chimp = funny. Obama as chimp = offensive.

The Huffington Post has a front page story today about a "racist" email forwarded by a GOP "activist". So its "racist" and offensive when the President is portrayed as a chimp. Seems times have changed since 2007. The Huffington Post was the host site for a column by a Harvard Phd entitled New Scientific Study Reveals Bush is a Chimp. It would be interesting to see how many Democratic activists forwarded this column or any of the innumerable pictures and websites of Bush as a chimp (just google Bush and chimp and see what you get - 1,410,000 results), but that wasn't news because it was "funny". Bush as chimp is funny, Obama as chimp is offensive. Just more media hypocrisy.


  1. If you don't know why putting a black man's face on a monkey is racist then there is no hope for you.

  2. I guess I am puzzled. First, who is a black man? I assume you are talking about our President. Why isn't he a white man? Doesn't his mother's contribution count? It sounds like sexism to me. Or are you adopting those offensively racist standards that Democratic white separatists used in the South to describe their citizens who had European and African ancestry, such as quadroon and octoroon ? That sounds racist to me. Or do mean the President's skin color? His skin color is lighter than Rep. Boehner--whose skin color by the way is natural, despite the stupid jokes. And the President's skin color is certainly not black. And if you are stereotyping people who have African ancestry as looking like chimps, that is racist as well. In fact, European men are in general much hairier than Africans--hence if they grow their hair, they look more like chimps than any African does. Your comment appears to be a talking point of the left, who throw out "racist" when they can't think of anything else to say. But the charge makes no sense, unless it is a form or psychological projection. The left are part of the Democratic Party whose white supremicists roots go far back and still dominated large parts of the party less than forty years ago. Republicans on the other hand, are the party of abolition and civil rights So the argument is silly, distorts history, and reveals an antidemocratic tendency to demonize opponents.