It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Belgium Newspaper Depicts BARACK AND MICHELLE OBAMA as Apes Ahead Of President`s Visit

page: 3
23
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 25 2014 @ 12:05 PM
link   

AutumnWitch657
reply to post by grey580
 
www.ferris.edu...


Your racist choice of words alone puts mankind back 150 years. Good work.
Some people really don't think they are racists.




To be honest, I think I would be happier trying to make conversation with the most raging racist alive, than to try to make it through your gauntlet of easily transgressed emotions. Nothing he said was racist. The word "racist" has no meaning anymore. Because of instances like this, where some over emotive person abuses the very concept.
edit on 3/25/2014 by bigfatfurrytexan because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 25 2014 @ 12:06 PM
link   
As I dig deeper, another ethnic group, the Irish, were once depicted as neanderthal brutes and, yes, monkeys.
That was when there was a great influx of Irish into the United States and they were the "job takers" of that time.
It seems when people are threatened by a new group they perceive as "encroaching on their territory," depicting them as an animal, or sub-human is the way to go in the image wars.

Chinese had to face this kind of image war as well, of course. I'm sure the list would grow if I looked some more, too.

Bottom line, dehumanizing people as a joke...not a good thing, historically speaking.

peace,

AB



posted on Mar, 25 2014 @ 12:34 PM
link   

AboveBoard
Jim Crow Museum

Speaking to the racial aspect, which can be strongly argued if you look at history:
Just like with the Jewish people in WWII Germany, who were also depicted as animals (rats worthy of extermination), it is a way of demeaning a group and creating justification for violence, impoverishment and the perception of "they are less than, not equal, therefore they deserve less than, not equal."

Anytime I see African Americans portrayed as animals, it disturbs me (or any group for that matter, barring the elephant/donkey of our political parties - that is where the intent of the image comes in). Belgium may not have our same imagery war from the Jim Crow Era, but they did see propaganda against the Jews. I can understand a lack of sensitivity on their part to our cultural divide.

So, the intent of the newspaper may not have been overtly racist, but given American History, it was in extreme bad taste and brought to mind for me the ugly past that still lingers - ask "why monkeys - why not wolves or eagles or mice or rats?" What does "monkey" in this context convey? And why would they apply that to two black people? Where else have we seen that kind of imagery? What attitude and actions arose in the past from such depictions?

So, my mind goes to the song "Strange Fruit" by Billie Holiday, written about black men's bodies hanging from the lynching tree. My mind goes to a Jim Crow Era image of a row of naked black babies with the words "Alligator Bait" underneath them. One could also see the pictures of Jewish people depicted as sinister, greedy rats. The goal of these images are the same.

That's what came to my mind when I saw the image of our President and First Lady depicted as monkeys - not everyone will see it that way and I'm not here to judge other's reactions, only to share what came up for me when I saw that. I know American Presidents have been depicted as many things by opposing political parties, by foreign press, etc. Call me "too sensitive," or whatever, it just brought up horrible things in my mind.

peace,
AB



ETA: I just discovered pictures of President Bush being depicted as a monkey, mostly by opposing political groups. It is still in bad taste for me = I didn't find them particularly funny. The intent of the pictures was the same - to diminish and dehumanize in a tasteless manner. The only thing it lacked was a history of violence, oppression and segregation attached to that image by its use on all white people to depict that entire race, to dehumanize ALL white people and thereby justify legalizing lesser treatment, violence, poverty and "lesser" status. I guess that's the difference for me - with Bush, it is a one-individual image, with Obama, it is attached to a deep history. I hope that makes sense.
edit on 25-3-2014 by AboveBoard because: more info.



Your statement does make sense but I (Edit: Dis-)agree with one part. " I guess that's the difference for me - with Bush, it is a one-individual image, with Obama, it is attached to a deep history"

Sure Monkey has been slag for blacks in hopes to demonize them but was that the intent of the article? The bush and Obama pictures both remain tasteless but you will see most American's didn't mind the tastelessness of it being done to bush because we didn't have racial guilt on whites. But as soon as a black guy get's shown as a monkey with what seems to be the same goal as bush, we revert back to racism and slavery. I still sit here wondering why. How are we supposed to progress past the racism if we can demonize one group with a slur but even if it's outdated by decades by the majority can't use it for another with again the same goal?
edit on 25-3-2014 by Antipathy17 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 25 2014 @ 12:55 PM
link   

AutumnWitch657

Which half do you think this caricature was addressing? No really lets not be coy here or pretend we don't know exactly what they were portraying.
The term mulatto may as well be half breed,quadroon, buffalo gal. The n word. What is this 1861 ?


You misunderstand.
Mulatto at least from my Hispanic perspective just means that he's of mixed heritage.
Which he undeniably is.
And yes, of course they were racist or what have you.
It wouldn't be the first time.

However maybe they were ignorant that he's of mixed race.



posted on Mar, 25 2014 @ 12:57 PM
link   

Antipathy17

Your statement does make sense but I (Edit: Dis-)agree with one part. " I guess that's the difference for me - with Bush, it is a one-individual image, with Obama, it is attached to a deep history"

Sure Monkey has been slag for blacks in hopes to demonize them but was that the intent of the article? The bush and Obama pictures both remain tasteless but you will see most American's didn't mind the tastelessness of it being done to bush because we didn't have racial guilt on whites. But as soon as a black guy get's shown as a monkey with what seems to be the same goal as bush, we revert back to racism and slavery. I still sit here wondering why. How are we supposed to progress past the racism if we can demonize one group with a slur but even if it's outdated by decades by the majority can't use it for another with again the same goal?
edit on 25-3-2014 by Antipathy17 because: (no reason given)


I did state that the intent of the image may not have been a racial slur, given Belgium doesn't have our history.

So, I guess I don't like demonizing anyone with a slur? It has never led to good things, in my opinion, but instead provides justification for treating people badly. The "demonizing" may be political, and not racial, as in "those fill-in-the-blank-party bad-words are ruining My Vision of America!" This is true. And what does that do? Creates polarization and gridlock, where the "moral right" against the "evil other" is in full play, so that no compromise or consideration of the other's viewpoint can be allowed without a sense of moral betrayal. That's what I see happening in the right/left political dynamic right now anyway.

So, again, dividing and demonizing, while a national pastime, is not necessarily a good thing, historically speaking. Thank you for the response - I appreciated hearing your perspective.

peace,
AB



posted on Mar, 25 2014 @ 01:05 PM
link   
reply to post by AutumnWitch657
 


My perspective is different from yours.
I'm hispanic and from Miami.
Mulatto is a term that's used by many hispanics. Even by those of mixed race to describe themselves.

Unfortunately this does not come through very well over the interwebs.
Sorry for the confusion.



posted on Mar, 25 2014 @ 01:39 PM
link   

AboveBoard

Antipathy17

Your statement does make sense but I (Edit: Dis-)agree with one part. " I guess that's the difference for me - with Bush, it is a one-individual image, with Obama, it is attached to a deep history"

Sure Monkey has been slag for blacks in hopes to demonize them but was that the intent of the article? The bush and Obama pictures both remain tasteless but you will see most American's didn't mind the tastelessness of it being done to bush because we didn't have racial guilt on whites. But as soon as a black guy get's shown as a monkey with what seems to be the same goal as bush, we revert back to racism and slavery. I still sit here wondering why. How are we supposed to progress past the racism if we can demonize one group with a slur but even if it's outdated by decades by the majority can't use it for another with again the same goal?
edit on 25-3-2014 by Antipathy17 because: (no reason given)


I did state that the intent of the image may not have been a racial slur, given Belgium doesn't have our history.

So, I guess I don't like demonizing anyone with a slur? It has never led to good things, in my opinion, but instead provides justification for treating people badly. The "demonizing" may be political, and not racial, as in "those fill-in-the-blank-party bad-words are ruining My Vision of America!" This is true. And what does that do? Creates polarization and gridlock, where the "moral right" against the "evil other" is in full play, so that no compromise or consideration of the other's viewpoint can be allowed without a sense of moral betrayal. That's what I see happening in the right/left political dynamic right now anyway.

So, again, dividing and demonizing, while a national pastime, is not necessarily a good thing, historically speaking. Thank you for the response - I appreciated hearing your perspective.

peace,
AB


I think it's clear to see, you and I both respected each other's opinions. I think you and I also received each others messages differently than we thought as well. I assume this because your reply about demonizing was understood before you said it but I get that you wanted to make sure your I got your point.

I am more on the side, if someone is damning you express yourself as openly as possible without violating law. I guess I don't get how you feel about Obama in terms of the quoted, " ...but instead provides justification for treating people badly.". I am very against bullying and I put myself out there often to stop it irl and online, I just can't see Obama being demonized by this. I believe it's because how I feel about his character which is strong and evil. Being negative toward someone to me is only okay if the person you are being negative toward is harming your life as I feel our government is doing. I don't think straight negativity with no purpose is okay though. If you are trying to change the person or the person's ability to do you harm with negativity (ecspecially if they are restricting the positive actions you can take) is okay to me.


reply welcomed of course.



posted on Mar, 25 2014 @ 07:13 PM
link   



posted on Mar, 25 2014 @ 07:36 PM
link   

WP4YT


LOL




posted on Mar, 25 2014 @ 07:37 PM
link   

bigfatfurrytexan

AutumnWitch657
reply to post by grey580
 
www.ferris.edu...


Your racist choice of words alone puts mankind back 150 years. Good work.
Some people really don't think they are racists.




To be honest, I think I would be happier trying to make conversation with the most raging racist alive, than to try to make it through your gauntlet of easily transgressed emotions. Nothing he said was racist. The word "racist" has no meaning anymore. Because of instances like this, where some over emotive person abuses the very concept.
edit on 3/25/2014 by bigfatfurrytexan because: (no reason given)


Not often we agree, but I'm with you on this.



posted on Mar, 25 2014 @ 08:09 PM
link   
reply to post by WP4YT
 


the bottom one....that one is the best.



posted on Mar, 25 2014 @ 10:05 PM
link   

CosmicDude
Not sure if this has been posted yet but I find it disgusting, apart from your opinion on Barack Obama ...




Belgian newspaper De Morgen has published pictures of US President Barack Obama and First Lady Michelle Obama depicted as apes, days ahead of Obama's expected visit to the country this coming week.


www.breitbart.com...
edit on 25-3-2014 by CosmicDude because: (no reason given)


Obama is selling weed? Does the DEA know about this? And who is he selling it to because the warmongers in the government could really use some.



posted on Mar, 25 2014 @ 10:11 PM
link   
Because its satire, I don't see any harm. Tasteless yes, very insulting to primates everywhere.



posted on Mar, 25 2014 @ 10:17 PM
link   
Very insulting. Disgusting and tasteless and I must say that I do find it racist. That's just my opinion and I tend to overreact to stuff like this but ...just disgusting.



posted on Mar, 25 2014 @ 10:20 PM
link   
Anyone with half a brain can see the malicious agenda here. As someone who was a victim of one of the biggest sporting disasters GB has ever seen, there are no lengths the media or establishment will go to to make their point, good or bad.

Unbelievably inappropriate.



posted on Mar, 25 2014 @ 10:22 PM
link   

AutumnWitch657

grey580
obtw. Obama is 1/2 white.
He's not our first black president.
possibly our first mulatto president though.

Which half do you think this caricature was addressing? No really lets not be coy here or pretend we don't know exactly what they were portraying.
The term mulatto may as well be half breed,quadroon, buffalo gal. The n word. What is this 1861 ?


Huh? Do you not know anyone with Hispanic background? Mulatto is a common term no need to be über sensitive. I am mulatto, and if someone asks me i typically say: I'm mulatto, half Puerto Rican.



posted on Mar, 25 2014 @ 11:40 PM
link   
oh oh looks like someone got upset something huh.

edit on 26-3-2014 by Nephalim because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 25 2014 @ 11:45 PM
link   

CosmicDude
Not sure if this has been posted yet but I find it disgusting, apart from your opinion on Barack Obama ...




Belgian newspaper De Morgen has published pictures of US President Barack Obama and First Lady Michelle Obama depicted as apes, days ahead of Obama's expected visit to the country this coming week.


www.breitbart.com...
edit on 25-3-2014 by CosmicDude because: (no reason given)



Disgusting is in the eye of the beholder.
Some people are soooo blind to the worlds view of the POTUS. The world sees him as a stupid ape.
And 50% of the people in the US as well.



posted on Mar, 26 2014 @ 12:00 AM
link   

CosmicDude
reply to post by Kangaruex4Ewe
 


Exactly, no matter what`s your opinion on Barack and Michelle Obama, I`d feel insulted if I was a black person and/or an American citizen.


I'm an American citizen and I feel insulted we have these 2 as our first couple.
How a pair of disbarred lawyers with communist leanings can get elected twice in so-called "free and fair" elections is beyond me.
Chimpanzees do not lie compulsively, live lavishly at tax-payer expense nor do they give orders for drone strikes.
I think it's the chimps who should feel slighted.




posted on Mar, 26 2014 @ 12:08 AM
link   
WE ARE THE MOST POWERFUL NATION ON EARTH!!!


I guess that makes this the planet of the apes!




top topics



 
23
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join