I’m not surprised that there was a controversy over that cartoon which appeared in the Post (one link, in case you haven’t seen it). Al Sharpton, among others, has claimed racism, saying that the cartoon is “troubling at best, given the historic racist attacks of African-Americans as being synonymous with monkeys.”

But what we have here is a failure of logic, combined with human bias. That some depictions using monkeys are racist does not mean that any depiction of a monkey is. Political cartoonists have a habit of using caricature, or when they don’t, of labeling the targets of their satire, neither of which happened in this case. The problem with this medium is that it’s subjective, and interpretations made by individuals reveal their preconceptions and biases — if we look too hard, we see things that aren’t there. I’ve seen it in my own cartoons, when people told me how clever/stupid/offensive I was for including some imagery, which was a surprise, since that’s not what the intent was. After that happened a few times, I realized that I wasn’t going to be held responsible for how someone (mis)interprets a cartoon. It’s rare that something can’t be misconstrued. Al Sharpton is an activist/protagonist. Of course he’s going to see racism.

Here’s another example — and you shouldn’t go below the fold if you aren’t willing to risk being offended.

Did you hear about the construction of the new lesbian community home?
There are no studs — it’s all tongue-in-groove.

Think that’s offensive/dirty? Studs, or lack thereof, and tongue-in-groove are both legitimate carpentry terms. Any “inappropriate” connection you’ve made is in your own mind. In telling the joke, I’m banking on the listener to make this connection, so it really helps that most people do have dirty minds. If you didn’t, you’d never make the connection, and start asking about what router bits were being used.

The Post has already clarified the cartoon, in case anyone still wonders.