Reply #24: So Cute... really?

[neoblues]

Well, not everyone entirely agrees.

First, man is an "ape" as one of the "great apes", where man is a hominid (members of the biological family Hominidae; including chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans). Second, the only way calling someone an "ape" is racist is with respect to those of black skin--wherein the "ape" reference is to the Gorilla (noting the black color, massive strength, physique (do I detect a hint of jealousy?) and similar (often vague) attributes (which aren't necessarily negative sorts of qualities--if it weren't for the presumed low intelligence of the Gorilla and it's "non-human-ness", the word might not even be an insult!))(it should be noted that such comparisons frequently include (imaginary) comparisons of other (often less attractive) attributes--even where no similarity exists, such as 'brow ridges' that simply don't exist to any real degree in most humans--and certainly to no greater degree in those with black skin).

Some researchers include Chimps and Gorillas, both, along with humans in the biological genus "Homo" (no reference to sexual orientation). Which simply means that they are closer to us than are the orangutans. It has been suggested here that Chimpanzees are cute, clever animals while Apes and monkeys are not. The example given is that "Chimps" are "humanized" (anthropomorphized) in circuses for fun. It should be noted that Chimpanzees exist in far greater numbers, cost less to feed, house and transport, and, being smaller are much more easily trained. However, it was stated that Apes and/or Monkeys are indeed "ugly" and "at times attack people". What is or is not beautiful is a personal and subjective choice and varies from person to person. Personally, I find Chimps to be the ugliest, crudest, and most gross of the bunch, while Apes are the most handsome, awesome and regal; Monkeys are variously beautifully colored, finely detailed and... cute (and Organgutans are bizarre looking, and so ugly they have a sort of dignity). I doubt there is any survey/poll of which of these animals is considered more beautiful or not. However, the insinuation of violence simply couldn't be more wrong. While all "wild" animals will attack humans given the right circumstances (more often than not involving provocation by the human), especially if kept captive in a Zoo. Overall, Gorillas in particular are strikingly peaceful, especially in nature and very rarely attack humans. Monkey's are neither large nor as intelligent as Chimpanzees and scarcely represent much of a threat. People are probably attacked by pet dogs more at a higher relative frequency than any attacks by Monkeys and the dog attacks are significantly more dangerous. Of the three, however, Chimpanzees are very much more aggressive (are actually known as the most aggressive of the apes (other than man)) against humans and their attacks are extremely dangerous and brutal (often involving adjectives such as "vicious", "gruesome", etc.). Alas, I found no reference at all to any attacks by Gibbons.

What about Monkeys? "Monkey" refers to any member of two of the three groupings of simian primates called "New World" or "Old World" monkeys. The third group refers to members of a family called Gibbons. Gibbons are sometimes called the lesser apes, and differ from great apes in being smaller, pair-bonded, in not making nests, and in certain anatomical details in which they superficially more closely resemble monkeys than the great apes.

Obviously, none of these animals is close enough to mankind to be considered members of the human race and therefore no such referance or comparison is formally "racial". However, as a matter of the component of human language where words are intentionally misused in a way intended to cause insult or cast a derogatory meaning, yes, "ape" and it's relatives have been used, and it's also true that it tends to be associated with or applied along the lines of race. In the U.S., 'ape' used in that manner, called a "racial slur", is usually intended to mean "black person" (see explanation above).

Race shouldn't be a cause for discrimination. One might be able to argue (unsuccessfully, but argue nonetheless) for discrimination based on 'culture' though, and culture sometimes tends to vary by race. I figure it's those behavioral, attitudinal and language differences as a part of the cultural difference between groups that accounts for or forms the basis for much of the predjudice and discrimination we see. Having a negative opinion of various cultural traits might be withing a person's right to have their own opinion, but when one takes such opinions, conflates them with race and extrapolates them to make judgements about people/groups and particularly individuals--it's just plain wrong. Likewise it's small-minded and immorally hurtful to engage in racial slurs, especially those involving such meaningless comparisons to innocent animals.