Is this racist and harmful or silly humor? Does it matter?

CNN posted an editorial today about a political cartoon that appeared in the N.Y. Post yesterday. First, I want to say that it is never a good idea to underestimate or dismiss people's feelings on an issue, especially when it comes to race. I saw the cartoon the editorialist was referring to. Since I keep up with current events and politics, I thought nothing of it. After all, two cops shooting a chimipanzee? That's been all over the news. The part people have had problems with comes in the caption. It reads "They'll have to find someone else to write the next stimulus bill". Hmm... is that racist as the editorialist contends? Well, that probably depends on your perspective. I did not find it racist at all. After all, Nancy Pelosi is credited with authoring the stimulus bill, so if the monkey is supposed to be a person, you'd think it would represent her. However, the monkey isn't labelled as a specific person, which cartoonists are fond of doing. To me, the monkey represented something else. Remember the old saying about probabilities that if given enough time, a monkey could write a symphony? Well, I thought the author was simply saying that a crazed monkey had written this horrible stimulus bill. I read it as an obvious joke on what a bad piece of legislation this was. So, I found this response very interesting. Roland Martin, in his editorial, contends the cartoon is obviously racist and the N.Y. Post editors should have seen that it was racist and rejected it, but should now apologize. I read his response, and I see why he, and many others, think it is racist. They believe the monkey is depicting Obama. If that were the case, I'd agree with him wholeheartedly. After all, this is a common and degrading depiction of African Americans from our nations past. In addition, he points out that the Post is trying to pass blame off on someone else, accusing Al Sharpton of being politically motivated and hypersensitive. Well, the Post might be right, but it is simplistic of them to use this argument. The cartoonist himself said the monkey did not depict any particular person and if it could be interpreted to represent someone, he said it would most likely be the author of the bill, Ms. Pelosi. Mr. Martin has a point though in regards to the Post editor's response. It was simplistic and careless of them to think that accusing Mr. Sharpton would make it go away. The response from the cartoonist was much more appropriate. All that said, Mr. Martin hurts his own argument by this statement. "What could be seen as silly humor if President George W. Bush were in the White House has to be seen through the lens of America's racist past, as noted by the leaders of the New York Association of Black Journalists, who also are demanding an apology from the Post." He goes on to note that Jews and Italians would not like themselves being depicted in certain ways either. I'm sure this is true. Every (yes I mean every) racial group has something to be offended by in history's depiction of them and we should be sensitive to that. However, Mr. Martin himself said this cartoon would have been nothing more than silly humor if GW were President. This being because GW was white and therefore couldn't be compared to a monkey, I'm guessing. He's right in a way, but I contend that if it is silly humor for one President, it is silly humor for any President. I'd be completely on board with Mr. Martin here if the cartoon labelled the monkey as Obama. I can even see why Mr. Martin sees this as offensive. I didn't find it offensive or racist, or even to be depicting our President when I read it. Is that a failing on my part or are people reading more into it than actually exists by seeing the monkey as the President. I don't know the answer to that. If you want to see the cartoon, go here and select the cartoon for Feb. 18, 2009. Is it racist? After reading Mr. Martin's response, maybe it is, at least to some. Should the Post apologize? I'm not sure they should for two reasons. It is clear that a reasonable person could view this cartoon and not find it offensive, unless I'm not a reasonable person. The second reason is more subtle. It is a matter of freedom of speech and of the press. I still contend that people have a right to be bigoted, sexist, racist, whatever. I'd argue against them and fight those notions until I was blue in the face, but they still have a right to them. This includes in print. In fact, asking the Post to apologize for this reminds me of what happened to a particular Danish newspaper when they printed cartoonish images of Mohammed. Have we become so sensitive that we have to reject freedom of speech and the press so as not to offend anyone? That is what we are talking about here at the root after all. You can never please anyone 100 percent of the time and no matter what your intent, whatever you write or draw will likely be seen as offensive by someone. Therefore, under the precedent being set here, if something could possibly be perceived as offensive by someone, then a newspaper, tv station, whatever, shouldn't print it. Really? Is that where we want to go as a people? I see something on a daily basis in the news or on tv that I could choose to take offense at (such as violence, sex, anti-Americanism, etc.), but I choose not to be offended. I'm sure some will think that I am in fact taking people's feelings lightly or diminishing the real hurt African Americans have felt over the years. I would not do any such thing. I simply ask the question. Does the desire to never be offended outweigh freedom of speech, of the press, etc.? If you believe that it does, then the N.Y. Post should apologize for this cartoon. If you believe that it does not, then we really have to examine where the political correctness path we are on is taking us.