Classy: Pulitzer cartoonist portrays US prez contender’s kids as monkeys

_{Denyse O'Leary

December 23, 2015

Culture, Darwinism}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

ted-cruz-daughters-cartoon — Cruz’s daughters, Catherine and Caroline are 4 and 7 years-old!

And, no surprise, she is into Darwin.

MSM cartoonist Ann Telnaes has been taking some heat for honestly expressing the widespread elite view that the kids of anyone who opposes the progressive agenda (in this case Canadian-born US politician Ted Cruz) must be like monkeys.

The usual disgusting round of “apologies” (snicker, snicker) have followed from the Washington Post, whose Top People may well think that the kids ought to have been portrayed as vermin instead. See what happened re lots of other pol’s kids.

Having gotten used to Darwinworld over the years, I had a sneaking suspicion—and sure enough, Telnaes is fond of portraying people as monkeys, in defense of “evolution.”

She currently hopes to persuade the public that still rads the Washington Post that her schtick is really all about old-fashioned organ-grinders.

She might wish to consider pulling those other cartoons from her licencing site then. Naw, don’t bother, Ann. The New York Times will soon report that it is all fake but accurate. That’s good enough, right?

Maybe a film will be made about her terrible ordeal.

See also: Creationalism

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Comments

PHV's vicious mean-spirited Christmas morning attack deleted. He will no longer be commenting in these pages. Pro Hac Vice_{December 24, 2015
December
12
Dec
24
24
2015
09:57 PM
9
09
57
PM
PDT}

Glib dismissers, Let me focus the elephant in the room again from 8 above for those who came in late:
I first suggest that by implication portraying a Hispanic family as in effect reversing the notorious monkeys to man icon that traces to Haeckel et al and has hints in Darwin;s Descent of Man, is loaded. And, in an era of racial hypersensitivity, that SHOULD have been spotted as over the line. It was not, until protests were made. That speaks volumes about perceptions of Republicans, even when they come from minorities in the US context. (Would WaPo have ever countenanced such a cartoon portraying the Obama family in a similar light? The question answers itself and begs for a follow-up: why then do this to a Republican, minority candidate just as he seems to be doing well? That answer is also patent, and telling: such are viewed as straying from their “proper” party-home, and so invite critiques reserved for traitors or “throwbacks. Which is EXACTLY what the image suggests. In short it is laced with a second order racism that implies denial of the right of individuality and/or implies that something is seriously defective in a person who is not “true” to the expected party/ideological profile . . . . The basic issue is, something ugly is going on with standards of morality and civility in our civilisation, and it is linked to the ruthless factionism that will seep ever more into our culture as we are immersed in a climate of amorality, radical relativism and general might and manipulation make ‘right’ tracing directly to the dominance of evolutionary materialistic scientism.
Pardon having to call back attention to such on an evening like this, but if we are to set the rot to rights, we will have to deal with some pretty unpleasant problems. And yes, that includes an all too relevant longstanding point made by Plato in exactly the context of governance culture and damaging but fashionably influential worldview influences. We would be well advised to refresh our memories: http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/laws.10.x.html KFkairosfocus_{December 24, 2015
December
12
Dec
24
24
2015
05:14 PM
5
05
14
PM
PDT}

Which does not stop you from going on to defend it
Is that what that was? I thought I was just discussing the context, and I found the irony interesting. In these hypersensitive times, unfortunately, any form of discussion is seen as inappropriate, the only thing one should do is rage. UDEditors. Yes, that is what that was, and of course you know that as well as we do, which adds "disingenuous denial" to your list. Santa will not be pleased. goodusername_{December 24, 2015
December
12
Dec
24
24
2015
03:09 PM
3
03
09
PM
PDT}

Personally, l think that people who resort to terms like "speaks volumes", speaks volumes as to their lack of credibility. UDEditors. Oh snap. That's a zinger. Reminds us of the "I know you are but what am I" taunt from the 2nd grade playground.paul sussman_{December 24, 2015
December
12
Dec
24
24
2015
02:57 PM
2
02
57
PM
PDT}

GUN:
I do think the image is over the line
Which does not stop you from going on to defend it.Barry Arrington_{December 24, 2015
December
12
Dec
24
24
2015
02:39 PM
2
02
39
PM
PDT}

Colin at 16:
I make a concerted effort to not let my partisan affiliations define my beliefs
You are the most hyper-partisan person who comments regularly on this blog. That you think otherwise of yourself speaks volumes. I actually think you believe that manifestly false statement about yourself, which demonstrates that you cannot be honest with anyone, including yourself.
But depicting Cubans as monkeys is not [a racist trope].
Thanks for clearing up that it is OK to depict innocent children as monkeys on a string in a political attack piece as long as it is not a racist trope. Idiot.
But if someone draped traditionally Mexican images on the Cruzes, I would definitely be upset.
Liar. You would find some way to justify that too.
Here, the cartoonist explains that she meant that Cruz uses his children as props. Which he does, although I don’t think any more obnoxiously than many politicians.
Yes, politicians use their families as props. And up until now it never occurred to anyone that made them fair targets for vicious political attacks. And up until now no one would have defended such viciousness. But since the attacks are against an awful conservative they are OK. So much for not letting your politics define your beliefs.
The idea that it’s a commentary on their race is not nearly as well supported by the cartoon itself or the artist’s prior work.
Who cares if it is a commentary on their race? It is a vicious mean-spirited attack centered on the children.
The author’s intent is irrelevant.
That is correct.
So let me reiterate–the artist is a fool.
No, she is a vicious mean-spirited hack.
Merry Christmas, Barry!
Insult me and then wish me a merry Christmas. Hypocrite.Barry Arrington_{December 24, 2015
December
12
Dec
24
24
2015
02:33 PM
2
02
33
PM
PDT}

I do think the image is over the line, but the point of the image is that she feels that Cruz was using his kids like trained monkeys in a recent ad campaign. So from her pov, she probably feels that it is ironic that people are saying that the image is inappropriate given that the point of the image is that it is inappropriate the way that Cruz is using his kids.
Jim Smith at 1, I’ve seen pictures of people in distress posted more often by those who care than by those who don’t
You miss the point. In this case, it's the picture itself that's supposedly the source of the distress.goodusername_{December 24, 2015
December
12
Dec
24
24
2015
02:30 PM
2
02
30
PM
PDT}

PHV, no argument from me on Cruz' nationality. But why should where a person was born be an issue? You are either a citizen, with all the rights that entails, or you are not. How many other countries require birth in the country to be the leader? Mine doesn'tpaul sussman_{December 24, 2015
December
12
Dec
24
24
2015
01:51 PM
1
01
51
PM
PDT}

What I don’t understand about Cruz is that a huge uproar was made about Obama claiming that he was not born in the US. Yet, nobody is jumping on the fact that Cruz was born in Canada and until recently, maintained his Canadian citizenship. Birthers are primarily political conservatives, and not inclined to attack Cruz in the same way. And their complaints were never very well founded legally or factually, so there's nothing meritorious for centrists or leftists to use against Cruz. As far as I know, while the question's technically not completely settled, it isn't seriously in doubt that Cruz is constitutionally qualified to be president. He was born to an American citizen abroad, and that makes him a natural born citizen under the consensus analysis.Pro Hac Vice_{December 24, 2015
December
12
Dec
24
24
2015
12:59 PM
12
12
59
PM
PDT}

If a cartoonist had made monkeys of Obama’s children you would be, rightly, outraged. Yes, and because I make a concerted effort to not let my partisan affiliations define my beliefs--an effort I commend to you, without any hope of your choosing to make it--I would also be outraged if someone depicted Carson's family as monkeys. Because depicting black people as monkeys is an established and awful racist trope. But depicting Cubans as monkeys is not. (ETA: Meaning that it's not an established trope, not that it can't be racist depending on meaning or context.) So if someone portrayed the Obamas wearing sombreros and eating tacos on May 5, I wouldn't shriek about the racist implications. But if someone draped traditionally Mexican images on the Cruzes, I would definitely be upset. Here, the cartoonist explains that she meant that Cruz uses his children as props. Which he does, although I don't think any more obnoxiously than many politicians. That reading is consistent with the context of the cartoon and Cruz being portrayed as an organ grinder, rather than a monkey himself. The idea that it's a commentary on their race is not nearly as well supported by the cartoon itself or the artist's prior work. But that's irrelevant. The partisan whistle has been blown: this is a wrong cartoon by a bad person. Context is irrelevant. The author's intent is irrelevant. All that matters is that the lines and guns and cartoons be drawn according to the pre-defined teams. And so people who never had a word to say about the racist implications that Obama wasn't a true American are suddenly finding offensive messages about their own preferred candidates--and people who found those messages about Obama so offensive are struggling to see why anyone cares about this cartoon. So let me reiterate--the artist is a fool. She should have known that her work would be misinterpreted by the Newses of the world, for ideological reasons if nothing else. And there's no reason to drag kids into that partisan battle, even if her intention was to criticize Cruz for politicizing them. Is she a racist? Is this cartoon an assault on civilization that Plato warned us about? Is the message a stealthy advocacy of evolutionary biology? Sure, whatever helps you freak out this holiday season. That you are not outraged when it happens to Cruz’s children speaks very poorly of you. Merry Christmas, Barry!Pro Hac Vice_{December 24, 2015
December
12
Dec
24
24
2015
12:53 PM
12
12
53
PM
PDT}

I agree, it is a stupid classless cartoon. But what the hell does Plato have to do with it? Or Darwin? Or evolution? What I don't understand about Cruz is that a huge uproar was made about Obama claiming that he was not born in the US. Yet, nobody is jumping on the fact that Cruz was born in Canada and until recently, maintained his Canadian citizenship.paul sussman_{December 24, 2015
December
12
Dec
24
24
2015
12:33 PM
12
12
33
PM
PDT}

KF, Is Louis CK part of a racial minority then? If the cartoon depicted his children, would that be racism?daveS_{December 24, 2015
December
12
Dec
24
24
2015
12:30 PM
12
12
30
PM
PDT}

F/N: Plato's warning:
Ath. . . .[The avant garde philosophers and poets, c. 360 BC] say that fire and water, and earth and air [i.e the classical "material" elements of the cosmos], all exist by nature and chance, and none of them by art . . . [such that] all that is in the heaven, as well as animals and all plants, and all the seasons come from these elements, not by the action of mind, as they say, or of any God, or from art, but as I was saying, by nature and chance only [ --> that is, evolutionary materialism is ancient and would trace all things to blind chance and mechanical necessity] . . . . [Thus, they hold] that the principles of justice have no existence at all in nature, but that mankind are always disputing about them and altering them; and that the alterations which are made by art and by law have no basis in nature, but are of authority for the moment and at the time at which they are made.-
[ --> Relativism, too, is not new; complete with its radical amorality rooted in a worldview that has no foundational IS that can ground OUGHT, leading to an effectively arbitrary foundation only for morality, ethics and law: accident of personal preference, the ebbs and flows of power politics, accidents of history and and the shifting sands of manipulated community opinion driven by "winds and waves of doctrine and the cunning craftiness of men in their deceitful scheming . . . " cf a video on Plato's parable of the cave; from the perspective of pondering who set up the manipulative shadow-shows, why.]
These, my friends, are the sayings of wise men, poets and prose writers, which find a way into the minds of youth. They are told by them that the highest right is might,
[ --> Evolutionary materialism -- having no IS that can properly ground OUGHT -- leads to the promotion of amorality on which the only basis for "OUGHT" is seen to be might (and manipulation: might in "spin") . . . ]
and in this way the young fall into impieties, under the idea that the Gods are not such as the law bids them imagine; and hence arise factions [ --> Evolutionary materialism-motivated amorality "naturally" leads to continual contentions and power struggles influenced by that amorality at the hands of ruthless power hungry nihilistic agendas], these philosophers inviting them to lead a true life according to nature, that is,to live in real dominion over others [ --> such amoral and/or nihilistic factions, if they gain power, "naturally" tend towards ruthless abuse and arbitrariness . . . they have not learned the habits nor accepted the principles of mutual respect, justice, fairness and keeping the civil peace of justice, so they will want to deceive, manipulate and crush -- as the consistent history of radical revolutions over the past 250 years so plainly shows again and again], and not in legal subjection to them.
We need to pause, think again and pull back from the brink. KFkairosfocus_{December 24, 2015
December
12
Dec
24
24
2015
12:23 PM
12
12
23
PM
PDT}

DS, You full well know that in the US context, Hispanic is an ethnic-racial minority identity. And, yes, one member of such a group can skewer another to gain an advantage. As in race traitor and throwback by implication of how dare you stray from the "right" party. KFkairosfocus_{December 24, 2015
December
12
Dec
24
24
2015
12:20 PM
12
12
20
PM
PDT}

First, I can see how portraying a politician's children as monkeys could be offensive. I don't approve of the cartoon. But since the word "racism" has come up, what "race" does Ted Cruz belong to? He is identified as Hispanic, but so is Louis CK.daveS_{December 24, 2015
December
12
Dec
24
24
2015
06:43 AM
6
06
43
AM
PDT}

PHV, If a cartoonist had made monkeys of Obama's children you would be, rightly, outraged. That you are not outraged when it happens to Cruz's children speaks very poorly of you.Barry Arrington_{December 24, 2015
December
12
Dec
24
24
2015
06:39 AM
6
06
39
AM
PDT}

kairosfocus at 8, thanks for sanity. Yes, of course people picked up on the racist implications. But bringing it up would only result in hearing the Blubbering Bunny Song one more time ... (yes, it's true, I did invoke a notorious Darwinian racist theme, but- [because that connection is real and demonstrable], it's just so absolutely totally off-limits to even mention it. And those awful, awful people have no right to accuse me ... ) Sorry, kairosfocus, at my age I can no longer get eardrum insurance. That woman and her supporters can all go tell it to Bimbette during their regular appearances on Airhead TV. Maybe the studio will give them monogrammed crying towels and non-run weepy makeup. See also: The fate of Africans under the Darwinian biology of the Second Reich. Oops, my bad for mentioning it. Now back to work for me. Darwin's followers can lay astroturf all day if they like. Lord knows, they won't want for an audience.News_{December 24, 2015
December
12
Dec
24
24
2015
04:27 AM
4
04
27
AM
PDT}

PHV, Pardon a comment from an outsider, as the issue is tied to the sociocultural worldviews linked side of policy debates on the design inference and the longstanding, will to power factionalism implications and consequences of inherently amoral and radically relativistic, evolutionary materialistic scientism. (Plato was pointing such out in The Laws, Bk X 2350 years ago.) I first suggest that by implication portraying a Hispanic family as in effect reversing the notorious monkeys to man icon that traces to Haeckel et al and has hints in Darwin;s Descent of Man, is loaded. And, in an era of racial hypersensitivity, that SHOULD have been spotted as over the line. It was not, until protests were made. That speaks volumes about perceptions of Republicans, even when they come from minorities in the US context. (Would WaPo have ever countenanced such a cartoon portraying the Obama family in a similar light? The question answers itself and begs for a follow-up: why then do this to a Republican, minority candidate just as he seems to be doing well? That answer is also patent, and telling: such are viewed as straying from their "proper" party-home, and so invite critiques reserved for traitors or "throwbacks. Which is EXACTLY what the image suggests. In short it is laced with a second order racism that implies denial of the right of individuality and/or implies that something is seriously defective in a person who is not "true" to the expected party/ideological profile. Hence the notorious double standard that targets Republicans of racial minorities in the so-called quality press. Lurking beyond is the implication: you will be danced around rhetorically and made to look worse if you dare complain. Sorry, the insults are patent and are therefore willful -- nobody at that level in the media could be so naive. And indeed it raises the question of a below the belt punch then withdrawal on objection, damage having already been done. Any future appearance of the candidate's family is now tainted.) It has long been a reasonable conclusion that minor children -- here 4 and 7 it seems -- should not be targets for political nastiness. Likewise, unless spouses or adult children directly and actively insert themselves in campaigns and policy debates, they should be out of it. The sole reasonable consideration is that a serious character revelation coming from family life may have something to say to us about a candidate's fitness for office. Though, in the nastiness of politics, standards of adequate warrant, too often are conspicuous by absence. (As in, in the mouth of two or three independent witnesses, etc . . . ) Further to this, the you're another rebuttal talking point misses out one crucial fact: utter media dominance at top level of one side, the Democrats. This alone guarantees disproportionate impact. The basic issue is, something ugly is going on with standards of morality and civility in our civilisation, and it is linked to the ruthless factionism that will seep ever more into our culture as we are immersed in a climate of amorality, radical relativism and general might and manipulation make 'right' tracing directly to the dominance of evolutionary materialistic scientism. So, it is doubly important to highlight its self referential incoherence and radical lack of a foundation for responsible, rational freedom. KFkairosfocus_{December 23, 2015
December
12
Dec
23
23
2015
11:06 PM
11
11
06
PM
PDT}

Secondly, rather than jumping to conclusions about what the cartoonist is portraying, I would be interested in understanding what the cartoonist’s primary point is. Is it that Mr. Cruz has two kids? Probably not. Its got to be something about how the kids behave, or how he behaves around the kids. It's an incomprehensible cartoon if you don't know the context. Cruz has a reputation as an unlikable guy, and he's working to defuse it. Maybe for that reason--at least, I think so--his kids feature relatively prominently in his campaign materials. Pretty standard approach to a pretty standard political problem. The cartoonist tweeted the cartoon with a statement about how Cruz trots them out like campaign props. The cartoon is suggesting that he makes them perform for his benefit, like an organ grinder with monkeys. It doesn't have anything to do with the kids' appearance or manners or evolutionary history. News's interpretation of it is, well, bananas. The cartoon's hitting all the expected partisan stops. Notice how News throws up a link to how those evil liberals make fun of conservatives' kids? Absurd to think it's a one-sided affair--conservative commenters made plenty of hateful hay with Chelsea Clinton. Liberals are going to be inclined to say, "This cartoon is no big deal, she's just commenting about how he uses his kids as props." Conservatives are going to say, "It's appalling that they attacked his kids." If Cruz was a Democrat, the complainers and apologists would trade places. The most evenhanded rule would just be to leave kids out of it completely, since it's so predictable--and understandable--that people will take offense even if the intent wasn't to insult them.Pro Hac Vice_{December 23, 2015
December
12
Dec
23
23
2015
10:23 PM
10
10
23
PM
PDT}

Firstly, I think it nasty politics to bring in the children -- period. Its hard enough to be a politician, or in any way famous without having to worry about bringing your kids into the picture. Secondly, rather than jumping to conclusions about what the cartoonist is portraying, I would be interested in understanding what the cartoonist's primary point is. Is it that Mr. Cruz has two kids? Probably not. Its got to be something about how the kids behave, or how he behaves around the kids. My guess is that these kids totally love their Daddy, and climb all over him like monkeys. I guess that he loves to let them do so. I guess that the real message of the cartoon is that Mr. Cruz is an excellent, loving father. My guess is that the cartoonist is jealous.bFast_{December 23, 2015
December
12
Dec
23
23
2015
10:07 PM
10
10
07
PM
PDT}

Pro Hac Vice:
So you think this cartoon is intended to stealthily advocate evolutionary theory?
First you have to be able to grasp satire. Humans giving birth to monkeys. Yes it advocates the idea that monkeys gave birth to humans, iow, that humans evolved from monkeys, and that the Cruz family is a reversion of that. And here I stop, because I am sore tempted to begin name calling.Mung_{December 23, 2015
December
12
Dec
23
23
2015
10:01 PM
10
10
01
PM
PDT}

Jim Smith at 1, I've seen pictures of people in distress posted more often by those who care than by those who don't. Pro Hac Vice at 2: You outdo yourself. Leave room for the other contenders.News_{December 23, 2015
December
12
Dec
23
23
2015
09:58 PM
9
09
58
PM
PDT}

Those are some classy looking monkeys!Mung_{December 23, 2015
December
12
Dec
23
23
2015
09:56 PM
9
09
56
PM
PDT}

So you think this cartoon is intended to stealthily advocate evolutionary theory? That's.... probably not right. Wow.Pro Hac Vice_{December 23, 2015
December
12
Dec
23
23
2015
09:26 PM
9
09
26
PM
PDT}

I've seen that cartoon posted more times by people who claim it is inappropriate to humiliate children than by people who think it is appropriate. If it is inappropriate why are they posting it? Don't they care about the children? Or are the children secondary to points won against political foes ... which gives them something in common with the cartoonist?Jim Smith_{December 23, 2015
December
12
Dec
23
23
2015
07:54 PM
7
07
54
PM
PDT}

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply