Monkeys and apes are both primates, but belong to different superfamilies (depending on your exact method of classification). There are two groups of monkeys, Old World and New World, and then there are apes, which are more closely related to Old World monkeys. Humans are apes, so it would be more accurate to call a chimpanzee a human than a monkey.
There is a huge diversity of monkeys in the world. A very slightly representative sample of New World monkeys:
And - surprise! None of these look much like Obama. The closest, I suppose, would be the juvenile rhesus monkey or baboon, because they have prominent ears, which they eventually grow into as adults.
So is every instance of comparing Obama to a monkey racist? Not necessarily. But I’d be highly suspicious of anyone who made a shtick out of it.
Full disclosure: discussing Democratic presidential candidates with friends back during the early days of the Democratic primary, the question came up of which candidate was easiest on the eyes. Edwards was the consensus, but I made a case for Obama. “Of course,” I said, “his ears do stick out a bit, which makes him look like a bit like a…” :eek: So even though, somewhere in my subconscious, big ears are associated with monkeys, I had enough sense to keep that thought to myself. It helped that I’d just finished reading The Mismeasure of Man , by Stephen Jay Gould, an excellent book about racist pseudoscience used over the past few hundred years for nefarious means. Yes, there were a lot of papers published on how, exactly, black people were like monkeys or apes. And yes, people took it seriously. Some people still do.
Uh, sorry, still don’t see it. The only potential resemblance I can see between the two photos may be in the ears. Certainly, I doubt anyone could claim the sock monkey has a ‘…long skinny face’. Maybe I’m just too literal.
Only semantically. It’s my understanding (I can’t remember the cite I came across recently; maybe someone else can find it for me, or correct me) that genetically speaking, old world monkeys are more closely related to apes than to new world monkeys, so the only way to refer to both old- and new-world, um, primates as monkeys is to include apes in that nomenclature. Unless, again, you’re speaking colloquially and not taxonomically. Again, I’m curious to see if anyone can find a cite supporting my understanding or correcting it.
Old World Monkeys are more closely related to apes (and humans) than they are to New World Monkeys. So, according to modern principles of classification, there cannot be any formal category that includes both kinds of monkeys, that does not also include apes. So just as humans are a kind of ape, apes are a kind of monkey, cladistically speaking.
Of course, earlier systems of classification made a distinction between apes and monkeys, just as it did between apes and humans. But this is no longer true, according to cladistic systems.
Probably you are thinking of gibbons.
ETA: Of course, all humans are more closely related to other humans than they are to any kind of ape, so it is absurd to consider any particular racial group or population as being closer to apes or monkeys.
I’ve most recently read it on these boards (Colibri, I think, and I don’t just mean in this thread ), but maybe you read The Ancestor’s Tale by Dawkins?
For the longest time I didn’t believe my SO’s claim that her cousins hadn’t even seen a black person until they were 15/16, and hadn’t spoken to one until they went off to college.
Primatology is a subfield of anthropology. Dubious, perhaps, but the rationale is that anthropology is the study of humans, humans are primates, and thus studying non-human primates helps us understand humans. In many universities, the primatologists are housed in the anthropology department.
Two years back or so, I was working on a video game that was attempting to cut in on the Grand Theft Auto market: urban setting, main character was a street thug, most of the gameplay revolved around committing crimes of one sort or another. Most of what was presented as “humor” in the game had a pretty nasty racist undertone. For example, one of the levels in the game took place in the run-down apartment complex where the protagonist lived. Every single room you could enter was filled with empty 40 ouncers and buckets of Kentucky Fried Chicken.
The development house that made this gem was located in Salt Lake City.
Now, I find it entirely credible to assume that the developers did not, in fact, actually know any black people. But they were clearly well aware of racial stereotypes about black people, and they had absolutely no qualms about using them to try to turn a buck.
That doesn’t surprise me. I don’t get the Salt Lake City gets a pass thing. Mormons are pretty well known (around here at least) for not liking blacks and every Mormon I’ve gotten to know well has eventually expressed - at least - uppity disdain for black people. They systematically discriminated against black people until the 1970s.
Disclaimer for the inevitable reactionary backlash: The above is a generalization. Not all mormons hate black people. To deny that the two groups have a checkered past, though, would be incorrect IMO.
The subject (or whatever group) looking like monkeys came up at a card game years ago. A Smart Guy I know claimed, “We all look like monkeys, we just don’t notice it in people who look like ourselves.”
I just saw Clerks 2 recently, and there was a whole running gag devoted to the term “porch monkey.” It’s pretty hard to avoid racism when comparing a black person to a monkey.
As for what animal to caricature him as…maybe a donkey? Big ears, big teeth (not really, but his smile usually shows an awful lot of them), and it ties into the Democrat mascot. Or does that have racial connotations too? I don’t honestly know.
Growing up in western Canada, I didn’t see a black person in real life until I was about 13. There were two black kids in my graduating high school class. And yes, we know that comparing black people to monkeys is racist.
Just yesterday I saw a campaign button for sale that showed a monkey with Obama’s facial characteristics. It was unmistakable.
White men have never had to make a point of being fully human. Our Constitution did not consider them so. To me that’s why there is an initial difference in portraying GWB as a monkey and doing the same with Obama.
The second reason is Bush’s glaring stupidity. I expected him to lift his arms and scratch his ribs at any moment.
But there is no need to use animals for charactures anyway. Just enhance the most outstanding features of the people. That is the traditional method.
My understanding is that people from differing racial groups can have more DNA in common that some people from the same racial groups.
From the little I’ve read about cladistics, I think this system of classifying is more realistic. I wish it had been around when I was younger.
), but maybe you read 
