Explore Ashvegas
Tags
art (65)
Asheville (2725)
Asheville Citizen-Times (82)
Asheville City Council (202)
Asheville Police Department (102)
bar (63)
beer (279)
Biltmore Estate (61)
Black Mountain (73)
brewery (153)
coffee (60)
comedy (84)
craft beer (330)
crime (66)
Curate (60)
downtown (163)
Esther Manheimer (68)
featured (1728)
film (114)
food (264)
French Broad River (64)
Grey Eagle (108)
grocery store (63)
Haywood Road (177)
Highland Brewing (62)
hotel (114)
Lexington Avenue (78)
Merrimon Avenue (74)
Moogfest (59)
movie (91)
movie review (278)
music (142)
New Belgium Brewing (80)
newspaper (60)
Patton Avenue (59)
photography (68)
restaurant (242)
River Arts District (167)
south slope (127)
Stu Helm (292)
The Mothlight (62)
The Orange Peel (113)
The Week in Film (85)
UNC Asheville (70)
West Asheville (292)
Menu
"We will really be in a post racial society when people can look at this, laugh (or not), and move on."
Thank you for proving my theory that the people most vocally in support of a "post-racial" society don’t actually care about minorities being treated well. No, "Post-Racial" to you means holding onto your privilege to mock minorities and not having to be made to feel bad about it by the "P.C. Police." Sorry, but that is not progress, that’s the same old racism dressed up in a fancier suit.
"Why, when I draw insulting pictures of white people, am I not being racist?"
I find it quite sad that in America, in 2009, grown men are still asking this question.
Whites simply do not have hundreds of years of racism working against them. Blacks do. Therefore, while both types of racism are wrong, racism against blacks is automatically more hurtful.
The title of this cartoon was "Post-Racial America." OBVIOUSLY there was supposed to be a racial component at work here, and OBVIOUSLY the race of Obama and the black criminal was supposed to be a main feature of the cartoon.
By painting both the black men in this cartoon as thieves stealing from white men, Cohen was CLEARLY feeding into black stereotypes. There is simply no other explanation.
I really look forward to the day when I can stop explaining why things are obviously racist.
I guess if you were offended by a cartoon, it must hit a little too close to home. I am personally tired of blacks screaming racism, when they call each other the N word everyday. Typical sharpton mentalities,when its only racist when WHITES do it. Keep up the good work, David, and don’t apologize for your art.
Born at Memorial Mission, graduated 1957 from Lee Edwards, white, Citizen-Times carrier in the ’50’s, and now retired in Florida, I am from a Buncombe County family that has there since the 1800’s. This "cartoon" is just a racist slur that should never have appeared in the Citizen-Times. How could you be so out of step with the times and the sensibilities of your readers?
I honestly gave the artist the benefit of the doubt until he posted. The explanation of how he was playing with language barely links with the subect of people’s concern and the ‘Boondocks’ comment is frightening in what it reveals about the creator.
Regardless of Mr. Cohen’s intentions, two things about the cartoon immediately struck me as offensive:
(1) The comparison of salary caps to being robbed at gunpoint. Might I remind you that only the salaries of CEO’s whose stewardship cost their stakeholders millions would be capped under this measure. This isn’t racist; just asinine.
(2) The comparison of President Barack Obama to a violent, gun-toting thug. Who just happens to be black.
Having read Mr. Cohen’s explanation, I admit I was surprised to learn that he supports not just Obama, but the salary cap as well. I’m still not entirely sure I understand his point… was he trying to portray the second option as an improvement over the first? Which goes to show that – whatever his intended point about "post-racial" America – his message got BADLY mangled in the execution.
I liked this cartoon because it reminded me that black people are generally jive-talking sociopaths.
As Dean says above, a good cartoon is one which makes you think. And David’s cartoon makes me think that I should be afraid of black males.
"When I heard about the salary cap proposed by the President, my mind looked for a comparable phrase that might be related and cartoonable. I have personally heard, not only in person, but also in published, broadcast music, the phrase," putting a cap in yo’ ass", not to mention a Chris Rock routine on Comedy Central.
Now, to illustrate that point, I drew a black man pointing a gun at a white man. Not to represent ALL black people; A black person. Every white person that I draw only represents that person, not all white people."
Mr. Cohen, I understand that you didn’t mean for the image of the assailant to represent "all black people," but frankly sir, that is beside the point. What is clear from your own explanation is that you see the face of violent crime in this country as a black face, which is exactly what makes the image racist.
As an antiracist, let me make this clear—I could care less about the intent of folks who perpetuate bigotry. It’s the effect that is the problem. How do you think a young African American man attending UNC-Asheville would feel about your cartoon, Mr. Cohen? A person working hard to put himself through school, who probably looks up to President Obama as a role model, only to see both himself and the President of the United States compared to a violent thug. Can you see why folks are angry?
wow….
"And one more piece of the puzzle——-
The title, "Post-Racial" means that on one hand, the pre-racial representation shows that capping something means something entirely different than what the President is capping in the post-racial representation.
No-one, so far, has complained about the white guy’s suit or haircut or myopic vision."
That is ridiculous and poorly thought out. If the representation of "capping," with the man holding the gun was the "pre-racial" representation, then why wasn’t there a representation of capping that was "racial?" If this cartoon wasn’t meant to represent the fever dreams and myopic vision of certain white men, who imagine that they are oppressed, then what was the point of mentioning race at all? Were there no salary caps before President Obama? This cartoon is awful. Also, references to music or comedy performed by Black People aren’t likely to mollify the perception that the white man who created the cartoon is having adjustment issues.
Why don’t you try again and do a cartoon playing executive salary caps versus athlete salary caps? If you need a "controversial" way to work President Obama in there then have Obama, as an amateur athlete, striking a "blow" against executives to avenge athletes whose executive bosses sought to cap the compensation of athletes.
"Didn’t mean it that way"
"Just a coincidence it looks like racism"
"Black people say it"
"Chris Rock routine"
"Victim of reverse racism"
BINGO!
http://www.flickr.com/photos/lizhenry/3185596306/
Everyone loves to toss that racist term like a trump card that gives them moral superiority. It is a cheap tactic made cheaper by overuse. We will really be in a post racial society when people can look at this, laugh (or not), and move on.
Having been introduced to Mr Cohen’s work this evening and scrolling back over the collection, I would say that his humor tools are more on the order of bludgeon than rapier. I understand that the intent of the genre is to make you think, but mostly it made me think he lacked knowledge of his topics and of his craft.
So he’s not being racist, he’s just being boring. Which is a worse sin IMO.
Like most populist themes, capping executive salaries comes with a host of unintended consequences: some good and some bad.
In the good column is the story that Goldman Sacs is working hard to pay back their billion so they can get back to giving each other big raises. More power to them as I’d like to see us get back our money quicker.
In the bad column is the reality that there are very few CEO’s with hard earned experience in corporate turn arounds. Those that have the experience and skills will naturally go to the highest bidder. By capping salaries, Obama denies the companies the talent they need to get off the dole.
Bad cartoon. Reductive and unfunny.
"Is Aaron McGruder, the black cartoonist who draws "The Boondocks’, being a racist when he makes white people look ridiculous?"
Mr. Cohen, surely youre intelligent enough not to think that making white people look "riduculous" is parallel to your strip! That sentence says so much about your cluelessness about society, the prejudices you fed into, and the hurt the strip causes…why not just call us porch monkeys next time..
My god, if it takes that much cyber-ink to explain a two-panel cartoon, it obviously is an idea that didn’t work. Gary Larsen didn’t write that much explaining 10 years worth of Far Side cartoons in his last published collection. As for the cartoon itself, it was horribly racist even to this Good Ol’ Boy, but I’m bothered more by the grade school sketching in Cohen’s cartoons.
I find it absolutely hilarious that Mr. Cohen thinks that it would be too offensive to spell out "ass," but didn’t recognize how the rest of the content could be seen as offensive.
Mr. Cohen suggests that the black man in the first panel is not intended to represent any larger group of black people, but is only one man. If that’s so, I guess I don’t really get the "Post-Racial America" caption. Is it meant to suggest that in post-racial America black people threaten us through salary caps rather than guns? What is the point of a reference to race at all?
If it’s not deliberately offensive, it’s thematically incoherent. I would not be surprised to see it on someplace like Stormfront.
One last thing. This was the first cartoon I clicked on at David Cohen’s website; it’s awesome:
http://www.cohencidents.com/images/whichcamefirst.gif
I realize that the idea that I was trying to get across was lost in another, completely different set of contexts, that, when looked at as most of the commenters have, would be extremely racist and offensive.
Believe me that was not my intention.
I must apologize to anyone offended by the cartoon, and can only promise that further efforts to illustrate my opinions will be clearer and better portray what I am trying to say.
Again, Ash, thanks for the forum and thanks to everybody’s comments.
It’s too bad that editorial cartooning is a dying. But this cartoon makes me think that might not be such a bad thing after all.
The comments here are asinine, as is Mr. Cohen’s response. It’s racist, clearly, because it equates President Obama with a violent criminal, when there’s no linkage there other than the color of their skin. It quite clearly implies that black men were/are criminals, and then makes that linkage to Obama. It doesn’t make you think, it doesn’t appeal to higher logic, it simply appeals to the base racist idea that a black man is a criminal.
It would be just as racist if someone compared President Bush to a leprechaun because they’re both white.
I would expect to see lots of national media attention on this one, to the racist denizens of Asheville, as a result of this cartoon and the sympathetic responses it’s getting.
And no, this isn’t political correctness, it’s called not being a donkey’s ass.
Okay, Mr. Cohen, now I understand. I had no idea you were so well-reasoned in your processes. My hat’s off to you, and in the future I’ll be able to glean more from your works, knowing there’s a real brain behind it.
This cartoon offended me not because of it’s racial overtones (Cohen is right, if he wanted to represent ALL black people, he’s have written "Black People" on the man in the left panel, that’s how political cartoons work, obvs), but because of its facile interpretation of economics.
I’d feel sympathy for someone getting held up, no matter the race of the victim or assailant. But I’m supposed to feel bad because an executive of a company he ran into the ground is getting a pay cut as a condition of a government bailout, instead of his company being finished and his job being eliminated? Really? Hey, I took a pay cut to keep my job – did the black man do that, too?
The cartoon isn’t racially offensive, it’s patently stupid, and a lazy pun to boot. (Also, come to think of it, involving race in the economic problems caused mostly by white men seems pretty offensive.)
And one more piece of the puzzle——-
The title, "Post-Racial" means that on one hand, the pre-racial representation shows that capping something means something entirely different than what the President is capping in the post-racial representation.
No-one, so far, has complained about the white guy’s suit or haircut or myopic vision.
I agree that art is difficult to define.
So is prickdom.
Good post, and comments!
It went too far. We do not need cartoons like this at this time in America. There are plenty of things to cartoon about, let’s not compare President Obama to a thug.
Whether you explain it or not, that’s how it appears.
David, thanks for weighing in.
Obviously every cartoonist wants people to read, and be affected by, his works.
In the same way that e-mails sometimes get misinterpreted because there are no visual facial clues or tone-of-voice changes, cartoons can miss their intended mark. I have received a number of e-mails from readers as far away as Australia about this cartoon, and almost all of them have misread my intentions with it.
Normally, a cartoon should speak for itself; I have failed in my effort if I have not made myself clear with it. Here is what I was thinking—–
As a cartoonist drawing about our national political scene, I am inevitably going to be drawing caricatures of silly, overimportant white males. I am allowed, generally with impunity, to make them look as ridiculous as I can while still capturing some essence of them that makes the drawing recognizable.
We now have a black president, which means that I have to come up with ways to characterize him, too.
If we were someday to elect a Jewish president, I will be one of the first cartoonists to skewer him with my barbed pen.
I DO try to be an equal opportunity offender.
Now, THIS cartoon——-
A lot of my work, for those who have followed it over the years, is based on the glories of the English language and it’s many opportunities for satire and manipulation. When I heard about the salary cap proposed by the President, my mind looked for a comparable phrase that might be related and cartoonable. I have personally heard, not only in person, but also in published, broadcast music, the phrase," putting a cap in yo’ ass", not to mention a Chris Rock routine on Comedy Central.
Now, to illustrate that point, I drew a black man pointing a gun at a white man. Not to represent ALL black people; A black person. Every white person that I draw only represents that person, not all white people.
Cartoonists use shortcuts a lot of the time to get a point across; unlike columnists, we don’t have a thousand words, so we have to get to the heart of the matter pretty quickly and succinctly.
Were the black man’s characteristic facial features, track suit, threatening posture, and gun meant to represent ALL black people?
No.
Has there ever been a black man that looks and acts like that? I would say yes. The same way that there has been a white CEO that runs off to the Caymans with your bailout money in his fat, soft fingers. The same way that Bernie Madoff has once again given anti-semitic ranters fuel for their bigotry.
I really like Barack Obama. I voted for Barack Obama. I am still working on how to capture him in cartoons. I hope that his honeymoon continues, but I also believe that he has qualities we need to help the U.S. gain back some of what was lost in the last 8 years even if it means some "tough love".
Putting a cap on CEO salaries is a symbolic gesture, but one that I applaud. You just can’t let them keep on giving themselves compensation for failure, at the expense of so many people losing their jobs.
Why, when I draw insulting pictures of white people, am I not being racist?
Is Aaron McGruder, the black cartoonist who draws "The Boondocks’, being a racist when he makes white people look ridiculous?
My position, with this cartoon and my work in general, is that if you are out on the stage as a player, you are subject to whatever the cartooning world can come up with. I have standards, and there are things that I won’t say or draw, but tiptoeing around because I’m supposed to give a certain group a pass doesn’t make any sense to me.
I will continue to draw what I feel is applicable, and I will continue, hopefully, to draw commentary both critical and praising from people who care enough to make their views known.
Thanks to all who have responded to the cartoon.
Keep reading!
Stereotypes of any kind should not be used to express your opinions. If used it shows lack of creativity due to the reflection of the artist intelligence.
I got a laugh out of it.
Cohen is saying that before the election a black man in America could only be a thief (stereotype) with illegal power to take. Now, in post-racial America a black man can be a president with legal power to take.
Are we really post-racial? No. The vast majority of people voted for Obama out of desperation, not because of his race. Otherwise why would liberal, presumably open-minded people become ‘offended’ by pure political cartoonery?
Leonard Pitts of the Miami Herald has written a column recently, "Where Clint Eastwood draws the line", in which Pitts laments that political correctness stifles our dialog with each other. "Sometimes, I think that’s progress. Sometimes, I call it something else entirely." Those are key sentences in the piece.
Political correctness, or as Adolph Hitler termed it, ‘social correctness,’ is a sure symptom of a society heading towards authoritarianism. Authoritarianism, whether it’s Hitler’s, Mao’s or Stalin’s brand is something to be fought at all costs.
I believe that Pitts has finally picked up on the fact that if we are not talking with each other then very soon will be be doing something far more ugly. It is something that Pitts does not name and I shall not either.
I’m just a bit confused about how this exemplified post-racialism.
It could have meant several different things, but it’s defined by the title. Although it’s a bit confusing as the title is exactly above the first panel, leaving us unsure of the time-line. Nonetheless, it crosses a moral-line. But it’s a racial line, and racial lines have always begged to be crossed. So Mr. Cohen, yes you are indeed a prick. But art is difficult to define. I only hope there was artistry in your intentions.
It’s a cartoon. It’s drawn to make you think.
Mission accomplished. Good political cartoon.