See All Topics

Home / Section: Comic strips

Jim Bush cartoon offends NAACP

A cartoon by Jim Bush that ran in the Providence Journal has drawn ire from the local NAACP which called it “inappropriate to depict a person of color as subservient.” The cartoon in question shows Rhode Island House Majority Leader Gordon Fox shining the shoes of House Speaker William Murphy. Fox, how is half Irish and half Cape Verdean (small island off of west Africa). The paper has since explained that the cartoon was not meant to refer to Fox’s ancestry. The local NAACP says the paper’s explanation is “a step in the right direction.”

Community Comments

#1 Mike Beckom
October/15/2009
@ 2:34 pm

oh for the love of…..ARE YA KIDDING ME,HERE? If they are offended by that, I can’t WAIT to see how they vilify me when I butcher them in MY toon! They have basically held the state of South Carolina for ransom for the last 6-8 years. There was a huge fight over removing the Confederate battle flag from atop the statehouse. The legislators who could make such a decision to move it…did. All ‘seemed’ to be ok. Til the NAACP decided that it wasn’t good enough to just remove it to another monument on the grounds. They somehow conned the NCAA into NOT allowing any post-season tournaments to be played here in SC…..costing the people and the state of SC untold MILLIONS in revenue. Because….get this….having the flag on a MONUMENT was still offensive! Well, hang onto your shorts NAACP….you are squarely in my sights….and the toon is fermenting as we speak.

#2 Shane Davis
October/15/2009
@ 4:48 pm

The thought police Gestapo are out goose stepping again….

#3 Dave Stephens
October/15/2009
@ 7:43 pm

Those thought police are flexible, goose-stepping with their heads so deeply imbedded in their nether regions…

#4 Mike Peterson
October/16/2009
@ 5:18 am

A shoeshine boy? A SHOESHINE BOY? What on earth was he thinking?

This isn’t nearly as debatable as the monkey cartoon. This is a total screwup. I’d be looking at the cartoonist AND the page editor for an explanation of this.

However, before the League of Poor Beleaguered White Folks get too deep into their crying towels, let’s note that the NAACP objected, the paper responded, the NAACP accepted the explanation. “Thought Police” were not called out, so the Thoughtless Police should stay in their barracks as well.

#5 Jacquie Roland
October/16/2009
@ 11:46 am

OMG. I agree with Mike Peterson completely. Except the ‘thinking’ part. My question of Jim and his editor would have been “what, have you been drinking?” They obviously weren’t thinking.

#6 John Cole
October/16/2009
@ 12:23 pm

Yawn.

#7 Dave Stephens
October/16/2009
@ 12:55 pm

â??inappropriate to depict a person of color as subservient.â?

ROTFLMAO!!

It’s an inappropriate planet, full of inappropriate people doing inappropriate things in inappropriate ways…

Thoughtless? Thought so.

#8 Joshua Skurtu
October/16/2009
@ 1:52 pm

Why must people always look down on the profession of shoe-shiners? Can a man not make an honest living in an outdated 1920’s profession without being considered “beneath” someone else?

-Josh

#9 Mike Peterson
October/16/2009
@ 3:49 pm

Josh, either you are too young to understand historic symbols or you are working waaaaaay to hard to find something to be not offended over. Assuming you are here in good faith, the figure of the black shoeshine boy (“boy” often being a man in his fifties) is a very common stereotype from movies, songs, etc. Now, you don’t have to agree. You can argue how noble the art of shoeshining is, and you can point out how many white shoeshine boys there have been down the years. Not the point. The point is, it is well established that this portrayal really angers black people. If you use it, it is assumed that you did it to make them angry.

In this case, the fellow claims he didn’t know, and the NAACP claims to accept that notion. I don’t know if I believe either of them, but I love happy endings, so wotthehell arch wotthehell.

#10 Mike Peterson
October/16/2009
@ 4:40 pm

Just realized that was probably intended as humor.

Geez, it’s hard to say anything silly on-line that someone else hasn’t said in all seriousness.

#11 Brian Martin
October/16/2009
@ 8:20 pm

Dave…
I really hate to throw the train of conversation off track…but what does ROTFLMAO mean???? I am an idiot when it comes to that kinda stuff and I am too darn lazy to figure it out.
Thanks in advance

The Idiot

#12 Woodrow Barlettani
October/16/2009
@ 9:29 pm

… time to enlighten, Amos and Andy slipping on a banana peel, is not and never was humor, neither an Italian slipping on the same peel,a Chinaman,a Mexican, ah Pakistani and so on & so on… the humor just ain’t there, except in a small, unenlightened mind, who thinks they are better than everyone else,… that isn’t like them, ( from Goodfellows) ,”now go home and get your shine box,.. Tommy ! ” Joe Pesci killed him for that…. intended racial slurs suck

#13 Dave Stephens
October/17/2009
@ 2:13 pm

ROTFLMAO

Rolling On The Floor Laughing My Ass Off

from the early squirrely days of the text-only internet to modern times, this is the phrase that pays…

â??inappropriate to depict a person of color as subservient.â?

LOL

Double standards are the jibber-jabber of the politically correct. When these goose-steppers Genuflect, it’s always worth a chuckle.

#14 Mike Peterson
October/17/2009
@ 2:40 pm

Okay, but since it is obviously insulting to apply certain stereotypes — the Jewish moneylender, the Irish drunk, the black shoeshine boy — what phrasing would NOT send you into peals of laughter? When does a plea for common decency become “goosestepping”? And does the goose sauce also work for the gander, or is this a “majority rules” kind of situation?

#15 Garey Mckee
October/18/2009
@ 6:31 pm

The trouble is, the NAACP has cried wolf so many times, it’s difficult to take them seriously even when it IS warranted.

Talk about a cartoon, the NAACP has become a cartoon of itself.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.