That might not be a word but for today we are going to pretend it is for all intents and purposes.
Root word is hypersensitive and all it means is that someone is excessively sensitive to something. Most of the time this word is looked at negatively because being excessive towards anything is usually a problem, not to mention being sensitive is looked down upon by many in society. So when you stick the two together it's very difficult trying to convince some that the word itself is not something to always be looked at as negative.
Which brings us to this monkey business from the New York Post.
Everyone has their opinions on how others should feel about it. I can't speak for anyone else but I will say this....as a general rule, when you put something out for public consumption and you want it to be interpreted a specific way, it is your social responsibility to convey EXACTLY what you want people to get. If you don't, and you leave things up to others interpretation, that's your fault. We can all assume the artists meant something negative...that goes without saying.
I think it's a little uncalled for to start labeling Black/African American people hypersensitive because of the interpretation that can be logically associated with the picture. One of my friends said the other day if someone has a piece of toilet paper on their shoe and 5 people have stopped them on the way back to their seat to tell them they have toilet paper on their shoe, of course they are going to somewhat snap if the a 6th person stops them. The 6th person might be trying to tell them something else but after 5 people in a row have said the same, it's kind of hard for the person with toilet paper on their shoe to even want to believe that.
Same thing with Black/African American people...if they experience things on a day to day basis that mirror racism, discrimination, some form of segregation (just because it's illegal doesn't mean it doesn't still exist) and then see this, the first thing to pop in their head is not going to be "Oh, what a funny cartoon". Granted, that isn't EVERY Black/African American but it is a lot of them. Personally, I think if the monkey was supposed to represent Congress, the artist had a responsibility to make that known. If it was supposed to represent Obama, same responsibility. If it was just supposed to represent a dumb ass monkey, hey, still his social responsibility.
Don Imus got suspended from his job for calling a basketball team of predominantly Black/African American women, nappy headed hoes. If he had said this in conversation with a friend at dinner in a private setting, hey that's on you Imus. Not that it makes it any better but that's a private conversation. Being a disc jokey and saying it publicly for everyone to hear, bad idea. There is a social responsibility people in the media have and it's about time they started acknowledging it.
My blog is of no real importance on a scale of media relevance but should millions everywhere start reading it and commenting, I too have a social responsibility to watch EVERYTHING I write. Kind of stifles the whole freedom of speech thing but it reminds you of one thing: ACCOUNTABILITY.
We are all entitled to view things as we want at the end of the day but if we have "the public" to answer to, it would do well to watch what we say and write.