Opinions on a cartoon (No, not THAT cartoon!)

[darkpenguin]

wow for a cartoon it's being taken waaay too seriously, where's all the fun gone in the world?

 

[spacemonkey]

But that's not the only image. You mentioned another image you find objectionable, that of women in hijab. Spike Lee's film Malcolm X earned over $48 million at the box office and $19 million in video rentals, and the film garnered multiple nominations and awards. I think most Americans have a pretty good idea who Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, Muhammad Ali, and Cat Stevens are, and if they think about it they've probably seen Louis Farrakhan on TV or read Fareed Zakaria's column in Time.
quote]

Most of the people you listed here are members of the Nation of Islam (aside from Cat that is), and are not a good representation of the average Muslim.

 

[lilithu]

You didn't answer his question, Lilithu. Why should he answer yours? He wanted to know how you would go about depicting a Christian in a cartoon, particularly one done up in the traditionally grotesque and distorted fashion.

My question was my answer to his question. My point was that it cannot easily be done.

But if I were to try to draw a Muslim, I'd probably draw a person holding the Qur'an. For a Christian, I'd probably draw someone with a cross around his/her neck. It seems to me that would get the point across effectively without resorting to stereotypes.

As for your argument that caricatures are supposed to be exagerated, well yes, for individual people. So a cartoonist can draw Jay Leno with a ridiculously large chin or George Bush with beady eyes and his ears sticking out and people will know it's those gentlemen (and I use the term loosely with respect to the latter). But the cartoonist is not drawing an individual here; he or she is depicting an entire group of people. In that case, the things that are exagerated are stereotypes, not characteristics. It's not the same thing.

 

[lilithu]

wow for a cartoon it's being taken waaay too seriously, where's all the fun gone in the world?

Political cartoons are meant to be taken seriously. They are making a political statement.

It's easier to "have a sense of humour" when you're not the one being targeted.

 

[lilithu]

Whether or not it would be fine is debatable, but it certainly wouldn't be racist.

The cartoonist knows that not all Muslims are bearded men with swords, but like has been pointed out, the cartoonist needs to get his point across consicely and without going in to too much detail and what better way to do that than using a stereotype? Whether or not that stereotype is true, and whether or not people believe it to be true, they instantly recognise it and what it is representing.

Fine, let's take "racist" off the table. Tell me that it would be ok with you - you wouldn't find it objectionable whatsoever - to always see "Buddhists" depicted at slanty-eyed, bald-headed, Asians wearing saffron robes. Yes, people would instantly recognize what it's representing. Does that make it ok?

 

[darkpenguin]

Political cartoons are meant to be taken seriously. They are making a political statement.

It's easier to "have a sense of humour" when you're not the one being targeted.

ok then one would asume black comedians shouldn't joke about white people because its racist but they do, and it's funny (i'm white) and so the simpsons is wrong with apu? i don't think so living in an area of the uk populated equally ethnicly i know i can go into a paper shop and see a asian serving and running them more so than white english people. as i said before you can't laugh at someone else unless you can laugh at yourself first!

 

[darkpenguin]

Fine, let's take "racist" off the table. Tell me that it would be ok with you - you wouldn't find it objectionable whatsoever - to always see "Buddhists" depicted at slanty-eyed, bald-headed, Asians wearing saffron robes. Yes, people would instantly recognize what it's representing. Does that make it ok?

it's narrow minded people who make it not okay, not the artists!

 

[spacemonkey]

Fine, let's take "racist" off the table. Tell me that it would be ok with you - you wouldn't find it objectionable whatsoever - to always see "Buddhists" depicted at slanty-eyed, bald-headed, Asians wearing saffron robes. Yes, people would instantly recognize what it's representing. Does that make it ok?

Just because you think something is not "OK" doesn't mean that it should not be allowed. Something that is offensive to one person is not offensive to all people and who will say they have the right to decide what is approriate for everone else, Fidel Castro maybe. If you find a cartoon that a publication runs to be offensive, DON'T BUY THE PUBLICATION!!!!

 

[lilithu]

ok then one would asume black comedians shouldn't joke about white people because its racist but they do, and it's funny (i'm white) and so the simpsons is wrong with apu? i don't think so living in an area of the uk populated equally ethnicly i know i can go into a paper shop and see a asian serving and running them more so than white english people.

Dave Chapelle and the Simpsons are not the same as a political cartoon talking about terrorism. Context is everything.

as i said before you can't laugh at someone else unless you can laugh at yourself first!

True; neither should we be making fun of someone else and expect them to laugh. That's why it's one thing for a black person to tell a black joke and quite another thing for a white person to tell a black joke. Context is everything.

 

[darkpenguin]

that's the thing though, black people do laugh its just down to political correctness that black jokes arnt allowed any more, which is silly really as political correctness is really a contradiction in terms as anything political is never correct but oh well!the cartoon is just raising a point as to where the priorities lie with people fussing over such cartoons, maybe such people should take heed!

 

[Simon Gnosis]

The Roman Catholic Church is based in Rome. There are more Christians in Africa than there are people in Europe. There are more Christians in Brazil and Mexico than there are in the United States.

If one insists on dividing humanity into "races" -- a questionable undertaking in itself -- it's sheer nonsense to imagine that people whose heritage and ancestors are far more African and Amerind than European are "white" or Caucasoid.

Of course not, and I didn't imply that you did. You said "most," and that's not true. There are, for instance, more Muslims in Indonesia and Pakistan than there are native speakers of Arabic in the world.

The Muslim in the cartoon was not a terrorist; he was, in fact, opposed to terrorism. Do you characterize any man in a turban as a "savage rag head"?

I don't see lots of things that aren't there.

You are utterly wrong on all points.

1.The European population is 799,466,000 since 2003
Estimated number of African christians 335 million

2.Whether you are aware of it or not RACES exist...and turban wearing sword wielding angry asians are synonymous in the western eye with non white Islamic fundamentalists/terrorists/freedom fighters.

3.What are you talking about when you say in your last comment...how does the cartoon show a man who is 'angry with terrorism'..I mean what are you on about?

Do I characterise any man wearing a turban as a 'savage rag head'?
The cartoon did....
I choose that term incidently because I have heard it from so many americans, it epitimises your attitude..
You imply I am racist?
LOOOOOOOL
Far from it matey.

I will say it again....that cartoon should carry the following message.

WARNING
THIS CARTOON REINFORCES NEGATIVE STEREOTYPING!

It is careless, it is racist and/or anti Islam, it is childish, it is stupid.

Your distaste for my use of the word race or bringing in race into the equation is just hard cheese..its a fact that we are of many races and religions...I dont know what you meant by 'questionable undertaking' but I assure you I know EXACTLY what I am talking about and I resent your insinuation or judgement....you know NOTHING of me.

"Whether longe range weapon or suicide bomber wicked mind is a weapon of mass destruction.
Whether caucasian or a poor asian racism is a weapon of mass destruction.....
Some good lines from Faithless.

 

[c0da]

Fine, let's take "racist" off the table. Tell me that it would be ok with you - you wouldn't find it objectionable whatsoever - to always see "Buddhists" depicted at slanty-eyed, bald-headed, Asians wearing saffron robes. Yes, people would instantly recognize what it's representing. Does that make it ok?

If it was in a cartoon, as in the OP, and the cartoonist was trying to get the audience to think 'Buddhist' as concisely and hastle-free as they could, I wouldn't be particularly bothered, because I would trust that most people know that all Buddhists aren't slanty-eyed bald headed Asians wearing saffron robes.

 

[Simon Gnosis]

If it was in a cartoon, as in the OP, and the cartoonist was trying to get the audience to think 'Buddhist' as concisely and hastle-free as they could, I wouldn't be particularly bothered, because I would trust that most people know that all Buddhists aren't slanty-eyed bald headed Asians wearing saffron robes.

How about a cartoon with saffron clad cymbal bashing baldies begging for money?

(Haha look at those dumb Hare Krishna merchants, see how funny and different they are to us..what a bunch of retarded noobs!)

Is that an accurate representation of Buddhism?

Because the cartoonist could quite easily have represented Buddhists in this general manner.
What if for some reason Buddhists and Christians had enmity between eah other due to geo political factors?

Would that cartoon then be helpfull?
I doubt it.
Ergo then, ipso @&%\^$! facto, is the real cartoon depicting a turban clad maniac, declaring what all Muslims hate with appropriate sword weaving, going to be helpful to anyone?
Hell no!

Do I detect anti Islamism here in this forum...I think I do...there can be no other explantion for the rationale behind some of the posts on this thread...I am disgusted no I am....dis-mayed...

HOW can it NOT be offensive.....?

 

[c0da]

How about a cartoon with saffron clad cymbal bashing baldies begging for money?

(Haha look at those dumb Hare Krishna merchants, see how funny and different they are to us..what a bunch of retarded noobs!)

Is that an accurate representation of Buddhism?

No, it is not an accurate representation of Buddhism, because the International Society for Krishna Consciousness aren't Buddhists.

Would that cartoon then be helpfull?
I doubt it.
Ergo then, ipso @&%\^$! facto, is the real cartoon depicting a turban clad maniac, declaring what all Muslims hate with appropriate sword weaving, going to be helpful to anyone?
Hell no!

Beyond giving some people a little giggle, no it isn't helpful, but I don't recall anybody claiming otherwise.

Do I detect anti Islamism here in this forum...I think I do...there can be no other explantion for the rationale behind some of the posts on this thread...I am disgusted no I am....dis-mayed...

HOW can it NOT be offensive.....?

I hope that is not directed towards me.

I did not say that it was not offensive. I said that it was not racist. I also said that I wouldn't be particularly offended if somebody used a bald, Asian guy wearing saffron robes to represent the Buddhist community, but at no point in this post did I say the original cartoon was not offensive.

 

[Simon Gnosis]

No, it is not an accurate representation of Buddhism, because the International Society for Krishna Consciousness aren't Buddhists.

You think everyone knows that?
Or would care to notice the difference?

No.

 

[Simon Gnosis]

I said that it was not racist. I also said that I wouldn't be particularly offended if somebody used a bald, Asian guy wearing saffron robes to represent the Buddhist community, but at no point in this post did I say the original cartoon was not offensive.

It is racist and Islamophobic, but if you have to spell it out repeatedly, then why bother?

My last statement is directed at any bigot.

 

[Flappycat]

It is racist and Islamophobic,

As I keep repeating, you don't have any grounds for making this statement. The cartoon admits to being cheeky and edgy by the style after which it was drawn, but, beyond that, there is no real "Islamophobia" in it. The charge of racism seems to be nothing but a bit of emotional language, for it seems to have nothing to do with the subject beyond being a handy thing to throw on top of your other baseless charge.

My last statement is directed at any bigot.

The word is generally used as a pejorative against those who remain obstinately devoted to their prejudices even after they have been challenged or proven false. Is there anyone like that present?

 

[Smoke]

All you're doing is proving my point. There are a variety of Muslims living in America and yet, when it comes time to draw a cartoon depicting a "Muslim", what do we see?

Suppose you tell me what you'd like to see.

I said, that's the only way that gay men are depicted in mainstream culture. And I also said that most of my GLBT friends find the depiction of queer folk in popular culture to be objectionable because it is so one dimensional. If someone did not have friends who are gay, they might likely think that what's on tv is what all gay men are like.

I dislike "Queer Eye" because it's shallow and materialistic. If you want to improve your life, you need a better haircut, new clothes, new furniture, and a good party planner. However, that is not by a longshot the only way we're depicted in popular culture, and I wonder whether your friends don't just dislike those kinds of gay men and resent them for showing themselves on television.

Interestingly enough, you did not question my "assumption" about the man being Arab until just now. Instead you defended the link between Islam and Arabs. Methinks for you to suggest now that the cartoonist did not have an Arab in mind and it's just me reading that into it is disingenous.

I've been addressing your concerns as you've brought them up. It's disingenuous for you to blame me because you keep changing your argument -- and I can't help noticing that you've refused to answer the question.

For the last time, the characteristics are not offensive in and of themselves; they are offensive because of the context, because of the stereotyping.

That said, let's take race out of this altogether and say for the sake of argument that the cartoonist simply depicted a "Muslim" as being a bearded man wearing a turban and waving a scimitar. How is that less offensive?

Well, by your own admission, there's nothing offensive about any of those things in themselves; it's the context and stereotyping you find offensive. What, exactly, is it about the context that you find offensive? And how would you depict a Muslim in a political cartoon? (And speaking of disingenuous, how is it that you demand I answer your question when I've already answered it, but you see no reason to answer my questions?)

 

[Smoke]

Most of the people you listed here are members of the Nation of Islam (aside from Cat that is), and are not a good representation of the average Muslim.

Louis Farrakhan, obviously, is a member of the Nation of Islam. Malcolm X converted to Sunni Islam (and changed his name to Malik El-Shabazz) before his death. Muhammad Ali has been a Sunni Muslim for over thirty years. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, who has also been a Sunni Muslim for over thirty years, was never a member of the Nation of Islam, nor was Fareed Zakaria, a lifelong Sunni.

 

[Smoke]

My question was my answer to his question. My point was that it cannot easily be done.

But if I were to try to draw a Muslim, I'd probably draw a person holding the Qur'an. For a Christian, I'd probably draw someone with a cross around his/her neck. It seems to me that would get the point across effectively without resorting to stereotypes.

You'd have the draw the Qur'an big enough to write "Qur'an" on it; wouldn't it be easier just to write "Muslim" across the figure of the Muslim? And you'd have to draw that cross pretty large to make your point. Regardless, it seems to me that stereotyping is in the nature of the thing. When you draw a Muslim holding the Qur'an or a Christian wearing a cross, you are again resorting to stereotyping, but you've chosen stereotypes you find less offensive. I might, if I chose to take offense at your cartoon, object to the way you depict Muslims carrying the Qur'an everywhere they go, or the way you depict Christians as if they all wear large pectoral crosses.