Seriously to I have to post the defintion of racist terms for you to understand?

[LynneSin]

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=porchmonkey

To anyone and everyone out there who is offended by this word I truly truly apologize.


And btw, this is just one of the less offesnive but still very offensive examples. I can't believe I have to SHOW you the racism

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

1. No, everybody understands.

They're simply pretending not to.

Don't feed the trolls.

[LynneSin]

2. But these aren't low-post count people replying

some of these folks have been at DU for ages.

I have a guy justifying it like removing Ten Commandment Sculptures from Government Properties.

It baffles my minds and I'm in tears that people aren't aware of the history of monkeys being used as racism against African-Americans along with other minorities. Oh and what is Barack Obama - African-American and what did he do? Help right the stimulus bill.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

3. No, they're high post count trolls.

Many of whom have made racist comments in the past.

[damonm]

4. Honest to God, I didn't.

But I do now - this cartoon flap has educated me in that regard.
I had never heard the term "porchmonkey" before in my life until today.
Some advantages in growing up in CA, I guess - don't get a lot of the overt stuff here.

[AndrewP]

7. Many so called progressives aren't that aware on this issue

Or choose not to be aware.

[LynneSin]

23. Sometimes it's just best to be empathetic to those who are offended

You can't change the mind of those who refuse to read or or close their ears but you think they'd have a bit more understanding to those who are especially since there are so many people here offended - not just in DU but outside of here too.

[EFerrari]

40. You'd think. What is it with people who are arguing this stuff?

I get that as Americans we generally suck at talking about race but you'd think after multiple black DUers have checked in along with many other DUers, people would try to rethink this from someone's shoes.

[LynneSin]

I think for me the big wake-up call was realizing I was doing the same with the Rick Warren issue

although mind you at first I was on the "It's just a prayer" team but figured perhaps if all these people are yelling and screaming that perhaps a bit of STFU and listen might do me some good.

[EFerrari]

55. Exactly.

:yourock:

[RobinA]

45. I Dunno

"Porchmonkey" isn't heard that much these days in my neck of the woods. I'm 51 and I've heard it maybe five times in my life, none recently. Now, I don't hang out with crackers, of course, so I may have a skewed view of the usage. But I wouldn't be surprised if my neice and nephew, aged 20 and 18 and with less exposure to crackers than I've had, haven't ever heard the word.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

5. Sadly, this just makes me think of Clerks 2

[LynneSin]

10. I heard of it before Clerk II

and if I recall Randall (who is pretty much a racist asshole) said it to both Rosario Dawson and Wanda Sykes - both who were very offended by the term.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

15. Yeah, I heard it before Clerks 2, but for some reason it makes me think of the movie

Yeah, you summed up the scene correctly.

[Milo_Bloom]

27. You kinda miscategorized Randall...

He isn't a racist asshole... he is just an idiot.

[LynneSin]

44. Actually he is but then againt aren't most racists idiots?

I mean if a racist actually had a clue they'd think about what they are saying and realize just how offensive they are.

[Milo_Bloom]

47. All racists are idiots, but all idiots aren't racists

Randall never cared about the color of anyone's skin. He had equal contempt for all people. That was the beauty of that scene... he used the word because he didn't assign ANY racial tone to it... to him it was a term used to describe lazy people.

[noiretextatique]

62. all racists aren't idiots

i don't think intelligence has anything to do with racism.

[Milo_Bloom]

64. How can it not?

Can someone judge someone else on the basis of their skin color and not be an idiot?

[noiretextatique]

67. because that attitude was the norm for quite a long time

in this country. racism wasn't always considered bad as it is now...it was considered normal. it's hard to realize how pervasive it was if you consign it to a few babbling idiots.

[Milo_Bloom]

70. Who said anything about a "few" idiots?

half the country voted for bush in 2000 and 2004... the idiot label does not belong to a babbling few.


I stand by my all racists are idiots.

[vaberella]

76. Agreed. A true racist has power in order to act out his racism.

Institutionalized racism was made de facto law by those with money, power, prestige, and a level of wit. Most of them are lawyers who became politicians.

[Milo_Bloom]

25. Great scene

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x2DxyAGzGxM

[Kaylee]

52. OMG. LOL! I've always meant to watch this movie, but

never got around to it. That scene fits this situation perfectly!

[billyoc]

6. One specific problem with this week's controversy is that Bush was called a chimp for 8 years.

It watered down the chimp-as-racist-icon.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

8. That is not a specific problem.

And it does not "water down the chimp-as-racist-icon"

This claim is absurd.

[CreekDog]

11. agreed, it didn't change nor is even relevant to this

and this is the third time this morning i've heard the argument that because Bush was called a chimp that it's not racist. the two other times i heard it were from Republicans.

was this idea on Hannity's blog or something? :shrug:

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

13. It's standard racist apologia.

"It's OK for me to use the word nigger because they do it all the time in rap music."

[CreekDog]

14. shame to see it here

:eyes:

[billyoc]

18. Yes it is and yes it does. Eight years of chimp cartoons depicting Bush

create a "good for the goose, good for the gander" situation.

[LynneSin]

21. Is Bush Black?

:shrug:

There will be offensive words and cartoons used against Obama for the next 8 years. This one wasn't offensive to just Obama but to most African-Americans, minorities and those of us who were exposed to enough racism to recognize why this was wrong.

Oh and the monkey was shot too.

[EFerrari]

32. No, it doesn't. n/t

[LynneSin]

12. Is Bush black?

Look, in the next 4-8 years plenty of insults are going to be used against Obama. That's expected. And we aren't doing ourselves a favor by screaming 'racism' everytime we hear something that is used against Obama. However, Monkeys/Gorillas/Chimps/Apes have historically be used as insults against African-Americans and other Minorities not 'acceptable' to white supremists.

The cartoon was just wrong on so many levels.

[billyoc]

19. I agree, I just think it's nonsense to complain about calling the President

a chimp after I've been doing it for eight years. Just an unfortunate side effect of bush looking like a chimp, I guess. :shrug:

[LynneSin]

22. The whole cartoon just mimic'd the racist propaganda that have existed for decades

I suppose if Obama was white it would be funny as hell. But the first thing that popped into my mind and the minds of so many was the racist association of the animal.

[Zodiak]

39. It NOT about calling the President a chimp...

It is about calling a BLACK MAN a chimp. Get it?

There is a WORLD of difference between the two.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

16. Bush is a white man who looks like a chimp

[billyoc]

24. I konw, he really does look like a chimp!

:rofl:

[EFerrari]

34. LOL

:rofl:

[Numba6]

66. 8 years doesn't counter 300 years of racist dehumanizing of blacks

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=8213555&mesg_id=8214125

No matter how many racists want it to

[Gman]

9. HEY! We're taking it back!

[jpgray]

17. Monkeys have been used as racist iconography. But not all use of monkeys in culture is racist

Understand? You can't just say, "there's a monkey in this cartoon, 'porchmonkey' is a racist term, therefore it is Obama, therefore it is racist." In the NY Post toon, there is no clear evidence either way whether it is meant to represent Obama, Reid, Pelosi, their aides and colleagues, or simply an impersonal generalization of all the bill's authors. That's the problem--it's ambiguous to the extent that it CAN be freely and fairly interpreted as racist, and should never have been published.

Just because a symbol as general as an animal has been used for bigotry, doesn't mean any and all usage of that symbol is de facto evidence of bigoted intent. Can it still be interpreted that way, and fairly? Sure!

[LynneSin]

20. Ironcially Racists also believe that what they say is not offensive

they tell themselves it's ok to say it.

In a nutshell - you don't give a shit that there are a ton of progressives here on a progressive website that are upset. And that there are even MORE progressives out there in the world that are also upset.

I know how you felt, I felt the same way about Rick Warren. I knew what he had done to the GBLT community but felt "Oh it's just a prayer it doesn't mean anything". And trust me, a few times I had a new asshole ripped out of me and perhaps I lost a few friends too. So I thought perhaps I should just shut up and listen to what these people upset have to say and I realize somehting - it was way more than a prayer. Perhaps Obama has some higher purpose to doing this but it was wrong for him to pick Warren.

You can be wrong or perhaps better yet, you can be sensitive to the fact that others are upset. Maybe you don't get it and there clearly is nothing we can sell to express why this is upsetting. But perhaps your best judgement is just to give up on this arguement. YOu can believe you are right but at least recognize why so many people are upset about this.

[jpgray]

29. I'll continue to apply your own rules in order to show you why I disagree

It leads to ridiculous statements. You've said that the cartoon is racist because so many here feel it is racist. You have also said that anyone who doesn't see it is full of bullshit, and is an apologist for bigotry. So take this case:

Joe Biden called Obama "the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean." Most on DU believed that was racist. Obama did not. Obama himself, therefore--by your rules again--is a racist apologist who believes what racists say is not offensive; also he is full of bullshit.

Do you see how absurd this kind of reasoning can get?

[EFerrari]

30. Racism is always about context. And that's how racists slip out of their bs,

by claiming that it's only you, that it was a mistake, and etc.

There is no clear evidence that monkey was meant to figure Obama -- except that the bill is largely associated with him, except there's a racist tradition hundreds of years old, except the GOP has been figuring him as some kind of simian for the last year.

So, apart from YOUR experience and cultural literacy being brought to bear, there is no objective evidence that monkey was Obama. And that's how racism usually works.

[jpgray]

31. There is no clear evidence of WMD, but that just shows how devious Saddam is in hiding them

Again, this is simply a bad argument. Without evidence as a standard for judgment, you lose all capability of avoiding absurd (and wrong) conclusions. I can't believe I'm seeing an ostensible progressive make the argument that a lack of proof is actually -more proof-. Do you hear yourself?

[EFerrari]

33. No -- you're confusing racism with other things.

Racism has its own rules, its own features. You can't generalize from racism to WMD -- that's absurd.

You need to rethink this and look at the mechanisms of racism. That's why I posted that Lou Dobb's appearance on Amy's show yesterday. One of those mechanisms is coding. Coding allows racism to operate just below the radar and allows bigots to say, "How can you accuse me of something so terrible?!", wink, wink.

[jpgray]

35. No, it's still absurd. Take the word "niggardly," for example

There have been several instances of prominent outrage over the word, due to its phonetic similarity to the racial slur "nigger." Yet the two words are completely unrelated, both in history of application and etymology. By your logic, though, it's impossible to tell if someone using the word "niggardly" is engaging in a racial slur or not. The lack of evidence is not a concern, and may be used as a devious shield, no? How are we to tell innocent usage from a "wink" in that case if all accusations of racism without evidence are to be held as valid?

[EFerrari]

36. No, it's not impossible. The context is entirely different.

There is no marker on the word "niggardly" that makes it racist. But someone using the word archly to refer to a black person sure can use it as a racist slur. Context.

If a black woman comes to my door and I say, "Gal, how can I help you?" -- that is a racist greeting even though there is nothing that marks the work "gal" as racist absent context.

Same with the homophobic slur "Nancy", an example I used yesterday. When the dad on "Everybody Loves Raymond" says to one of his sons, "Get a grip, Nancy", he's telling them not to act "gay". There is no marker on the woman's name "Nancy" that makes it a homophobic slur. It's the context.

ETA: Here's a good one for you. My racist brother in law used to find all kinds of ways to let me and the family know he hated "mexicans" -- it didn't matter that I'm not Mexican. One day he greeted me with, "Oh, and here's our little linguist" -- a remark that has no objective marker as a racist slur but we all understood that he meant I was a (bi-lingual) "wetback".

[jpgray]

37. You posit cases of clear attribution, when not even the attribution is clear in this case

In the cases of outrage over "niggardly," there was no evidence of direct attribution to an individual on a racial basis. And there is no clear evidence in the case of the Post cartoon. Is there any reason to doubt the chimp was intended to represent Obama? Yes. He did not write the bill. If instead of "write" the term used was "sign," the attribution would be clear and racist. But as it stands, things are thrown in the air--Pelosi/Reid and some amorphous group of colleagues and aides wrote the bill. Is the chimp meant to represent one of them? All of them? Or is it a throwaway one-liner, such as "this bill is so bad a Xanax-addled chimp probably wrote it?" Since all of these cases are plausible, why seize on one without evidence?

Is this ambiguity intended to disguise racist intent? Now we have two questions of intent, and little evidence to support either. The cartoon is -ambiguous- in this sense, and that is why the Post should never have published it, and that is why no one can pretend to absolute certainty that it was intended as racist or not.

I think that the lack of evidence supports the case for ambiguity. You believe the lack of evidence -is- evidence, for racism.

[EFerrari]

38. I posit cases of clear attribution to show you the mechanism

not to try to simplify the case at hand.

You are looking for the wrong kind of "evidence". In the case of racist remarks or representation, the context IS the evidence. And yes, ambiguity is exploited by racists. Take the case of the guy with the monkey doll at the Palin rally. He did argue it was just a doll and not meant to figure Obama. And yet, when he saw the cameras on him, he handed the doll off to a child because he knew what he was doing with that doll. So, there you have a case of a racist who used ambiguity to defend himself and yet, showed his guilt by his behavior.

No one is seizing anything "without evidence". The evidence is in the context. That cartoon doesn't exist in a cultural vacuum or, indeed, in a representational vacuum. The right wing started representing Obama himself overtly as a simian months ago.

I'm sure you don't know this but it is precisely arguing intention that racists try to get off the hook.

[jpgray]

41. The guy with the monkey doll is another case of clear attribution, though

The doll had an Obama sticker put on as a makeshift turban, no? Do you think anyone would have trouble identifying the intent if the cartoon stuck a big Obama label on the chimp? A better question to evoke the attribution problem would be something like this: a child brings a monkey doll to a Palin rally, with no sticker or anything directly tying it to Obama. Is the child making a racist gesture directed at Obama? It's possible, but it's also possible that the doll is just a doll. That latter case is -not- possible with the Palin rally guy, based on the evidence.

You're correct to say none of these analogies really fit the question at hand, and my last one particularly doesn't. But if we agree that there are cases where intent really is unknowable along with cases where murky intent is only argued as an excuse, then we at least agree on the heart of things. My question is, how do you tell the cases apart? There have been both cases where people misread intent completely and falsely accused people of racism, AND cases where people were rightly accused but escaped wholesale censure by claiming innocent intent. Does this case lie completely on one side or the other, or somewhere in the middle? For me, it's definitely somewhere in the middle.

[EFerrari]

49. I think I understand your question.

Spotting racism is largely about cultural literacy -- the ability to evaluate context. It isn't a matter of discerning intention per se -- an artist or speaker's intention is only a part of the communication, right? What the viewer or reader brings to the transaction is at least as significant.

In general, as a nation, we're not great at recognizing or discussing the language of racism, as Holder pointed out the other day. So, it's perfectly possible to be very culturally literate but have a blind spot in this area. We pretty much discourage each other from thinking or from talking about it -- that's where you get the whole "calling out racism is racism" trope that the right wing uses so successfully.

One thing that you might want to consider is that most (like 95%) of false claims of bigotry come from the right wing. That's what they do. Think about it. As liberals, we tend to try to see the other side of arguments because we aren't asshole authoritarians. Our impulse is mostly to look at both or all sides of an issure. We don't usually jump the gun and make horrible false claims. So, just numerically, by the time liberals call foul, the situation is usually damn foul. (That's our culture and it counts as part of our context, right?)

I can only speak for myself. The reason this case isn't in "the middle" for me is that the right wing started putting out representations of Obama as an ape or a monkey at least a year ago. This cartoon is like a dog whistle. A well intended person could look at it and try to construe it as something else -- because that's what we do. But, when you consider the source, their audience, and the right wing representations of Obama as a monkey or an ape, and consider the whole genre of these cartoons, the context builds to a conclusion. That's how I got there, anyway.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

57. Well said, eferrari.

Thank you very much for the post. As I've said, if this didn't come from THIS cartoonist and THIS newspaper, I'd perhaps consider it just a ham-handed cartoon. But, in the context involved, there's no question of it being racist.

Where I, and I believe JPGray draw the line, is in the assertion of "I think it's racist and therefore, it is absolutely racist" without consideration for a myriad of other variables or context.

[EFerrari]

60. I think when people say "I think this is racist", they're telling you their conclusion

but not the process that occurred in the privacy of their mind. And since we as a culture generally tiptoe around this topic, it's a challenge to tease out the whole logic / context.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

61. Perhaps you missed one of Lynne's other threads

The basic gist was "I think it's racist and anyone who doesn't agree completely is a racist and should be ashamed of themselves", laying that as the metric for what is and is not racist.

[EFerrari]

63. No, I didn't miss that. And I disagree with this concerted critique

of Lynne's method that distracts from the substance of what she was saying.

Because that just feeds right back into the dynamics of racism, whether intentional or not.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

71. "Feeds right back into the dynamics of racism"

So, basically, we should never question anything, because questioning, in and of itself, is racist, whether intentional or not?

This is the problem with discussions of race - applying the same kind of rules of logic you would for any other type of discussion winds up, in your words, "feeding right back into the dynamics of racism" - which is both patently absurd, and yet somehow still true.

Here's the thing about "distracting" from Lynne's substance - no one is really disagreeing with Lynne's substance. In cases where we do agree on the details, is that not the exact time to discuss the finer details of the issues involved? When else do we discuss this issue? Or is Holder right - that we ARE cowards for not wanting to discuss race more openly?

[EFerrari]

72. But this discussion wasn't about "the finer details" but about her method.

Form over substance.

And the conclusion that "we should never question anything" doesn't follow, does it? And yes, imo, Holder is right. Look how this thread devolved into legalisms over addressing the issue. We don't really do this very well, do we?

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

73. So you're saying I should have set up an entirely different discussion

which, of course, would have been against the rules of DU, because then I could be accused of calling out another DUer. Yes, I know - few pay attention to that minor detail these days, but I prefer to address people directly, thanks.

And the method itself is a rather fine detail, is it not? Further, I fail to see the "legalism" involved in the discussion. I just don't like the concept of defining something as serious as racism by the whims of an amorphous mob, or by whomever has the megaphone at any given point in time. I think it is entirely unhealthy to ALL civil rights movements to not give any healthy amount of thought to these things before acting. And you call it "legalisms" as if it's something unworthy of consideration, when in fact, I believe it is precisely these things that we need to be paying more consideration to.

Look, we can have as many angry mobs as we want - whether its Imus or the NY Post, someone is going to act like a racist pretty damn near every week. It's easy to sit here and scream about that. What about the schools minority children attend? What about the incarceration rates? What about poverty rates among minorities? Those are far, far and away more harmful forms of racism that no one bothers to pay attention to because we'd rather scream bloody murder about a fucking cartoon. What are our bloody priorities? And while all this is going on, we can't be bothered to have a serious discussion as to how we define what is racist? Of course not - that takes precious media time away from the angry mob scene. Are you kidding me? Cowardice is right.

And yes, action should indeed be taken in these cases, although I'm not sure what further action I could take against the NY Post - I already don't patronize their business because they've had a history of bigotry and sensationalism.

[Two Americas]

48. you must be kidding

No one claims, or would claim, that "just because a symbol as general as an animal has been used for bigotry" therefore means that "any and all usage of that symbol is de facto evidence of bigoted intent."

No one makes any such claim.

[noiretextatique]

26. don't apologize

why would anyone be "offended" by that word?

[yurbud]

28. we get it, the question is, what's the best reaction when the object of the slur is powerful?

Racial insults draw most of their sting from the perception of a power imbalance between the insulter and insulted.

If you called Papa Bush a cracker or peckerwood, he would not feel bad about himself or that you had done any harm to him (though you still might commit suicide or be in an odd plane crash that kills your whole family).

[noiretextatique]

42. it's all about malevolent intent, apparently

as i read in another thread. if a person says something that is racist but doesn't have malevolent intent, the comment isn't racist. but if that person does have malevolent intent, the comment is racist.

so...when the CFO where I worked admonished a room full of people of color to "use correct grammar" when communicating, i don't think that was racist because he's a nice guy :eyes:

[jpgray]

43. It does come down to intent, though--if it's not intended to represent Obama, how is it racist?

If you believe it is intended as such, then it is racist. Your example has no confusion about who or what is being addressed.

[noiretextatique]

46. that only makes since if the cartoonist grew up on Mars

most people know something the history of american racism and racist imagery...i am certain this cartoonist does also.
my example shows that intent doesn't necessarily matter. the CFO's comment is racist because he's addressing all the people in the room vs. the 2 people who don't and can't use correct grammar...thereby implying that everyone uses incorrect grammar. the other thing that makes it racist is that he doesn't say that in a room full of white people.
i gave him a pass on it the first time, but if he says it again, i will file a complaint with HR.

[RobinA]

50. If It Wasn't Intended

to represent Obama it was just friggin' tone deaf. I don't know which is worse, the possible racism or the shear, unmitigated stupidity of the lack of cultural literacy if it wasn't. THESE are the people responsible for mainstream media these days???

[EFerrari]

51. No. Intention is only a fraction of the meaning of any representation.

See "The Mona Lisa".

[jpgray]

53. But it's crucial in determining whether an act is malevolent, or merely ignorant and irrepsonsible

There is no question that, whatever the intent, publishing this was an ignorant and irresponsible act. Even if you assume the purest of motivations, any reasonable person who knows the history of racist iconography ought to know this would be offensive to many. That said, if it was actually intended to represent Obama and precisely Obama by both the cartoonist and the editor, it is a far more malevolent act and an outright exhortation to violence, no? I am not sure which of these possibilities it is, but there is a large difference between the two in terms of culpability.

And I think you're giving intent too much of a hard time with regard to art. Absent intent, any ol' inverted urinal could be a Duchamp, right? :D

[EFerrari]

54. Intention is not the overriding factor in determining if an artifact is racist.

Because meaning is construed by the whole group, not only by the individual. And, if you're human and you kick over that urinal as performance art, you are responsible for the effect it creates. lol :)

[Raineyb]

69. What difference does it make if the act was malevolent or "merely" ignorant and irresponsible

The imagery is still the same and it's still racist imagery. Just because someone isn't being deliberately malevolent doesn't mean that they're not acting in a racist manner. Even if the "artist" who drew the cartoon didn't mean anything racist. (And frankly I'm not even considering this a possibility.) It is still a racist cartoon.

It is not intent that makes something racist.

Regards

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

56. Still finding yourself in a logical corner, Lynne?

No, you didn't need to post this, nor should you have posted this. Yes, it is offensive that you have done so.

[dcindian]

58. It is so sad that on a Democratic board that needs to be explained.

I think so often we are told to look the other way or it's not important because for so many it is hard to see that racism can be both overt and wink and nod.

The cartoon is wink and nod racism. And the ape in this cartoon is fast becoming the republicans favorite icon at least in my office you hear him mentioned and see him posted in cubicals of the most offensive of republicans.


The ape in this cartoon is the new "Barry" for them.

[last_texas_dem]

59. Some people (I include myself here) are well aware of racial slurs and depictions

involving black people and monkeys, and simply disagree with how many have interpreted the cartoon.

[Numba6]

65. Racism is as American as apple pie, even from some so-called "progressives"

There is no excuse for anyone who uses the "chimp monkey ape" comparison with blacks, in any way, shape, or form. It's been a standard part of racist attacks in America for 300 years.

As conservative commentator David Gergen put it in response to McCain's racist attacks on Obama during the campaign:

"As a native of the south, I can tell you… that’s code for, ‘he’s uppity, he ought to stay in his place.’ Everybody gets that who is from a southern background. We all understand that. When McCain comes out and starts talking about affirmative action, ‘I’m against quotas,’ we get what that’s about.”

Gosh, how could anyone consider comparing a black man to a monkey is racist? :sarcasm:

From ScienceDaily, “Discrimination Against Blacks Linked To Dehumanization” linked here at this post.

[EFerrari]

68. Gosh, how could anyone just assume that this cartoon was intended to insult?

These people have drunk the Kool-Aid.

They are looking for something to be upset about.

They have no evidence.

They are overreacting.

If you look for racism, you will see racism.

They look like fools.

They are playing into the Republican's hand.

Yeah, right. Bullshit. People need to get over their own guilt and shame and they need to do that asap. We have a country to run here. Maybe there's a 12 Step Program somewhere for recovering apologists.

[Luminous Animal]

74. What do the white supremacists think about this cartoon?

As I posted on another thread:


"http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=5087482&mesg_id=5104978

So I decided to do a little research and (surprise surprise) and I found out that the vile racists at Stormfront immediately made the connection between Obama and the dead monkey. Even praising Delonas for his "bravery".

I will not post a link to Stormfront but put Delonas and Stormfront into google and the discussion should be the first one to pop up.

[jaysunb]

75. That's quite a find...

Can't wait to forward it along to friends...we're always up for a laugh. :shrug: