I have no idea why I'm writing this. I must just be a glutton for punishment.
In my time here, there have now been two "cartoon wars", the first about the NY Post shot chimpanzee cartoon and now today's brouhaha about whether or not Pat Oliphant's cartoon today was antisemitic.
While personally, I found neither cartoon to be racist or antisemitic, let alone particularly interesting, what I do find thought provoking is the difference in reaction from the community. This is what I will be discussing here.
Before we continue, I provide to you the two cartoons to which the comments below refer.
First, the NY Post chimpanzee cartoon:
Second, Pat Oliphant's cartoon from today:
This first comment from brainwave regarding why the NY Post cartoon was racist:
You're not making sense (25+ / 0-)
Recommended by:
m3, DelRPCV, lysias, wvhillrunner, grannyhelen, TiaRachel, GN1927, applegal, capelza, Lying eyes, andydoubtless, Blicero, Hedwig, Cali Techie, Piren, leawood, MKSinSA, browneyes, TNThorpe, USAdaughter, chrome327, mallyroyal, ChiTownBlue2000, PaDemTerry, Fire bad tree pretty
* Just because the cartoon takes a news item involving an actual simian as its point of departure doesn't make it non-racist in any way. What matters is that the cartoon creates an association between a dead primate and President Obama.
* Even assuming neither the cartoonist nor the editors of the paper were aware of the age-old racist motif of comparing African Americans to monkeys - and if you believe that, I have a bridge to sell you - but even if you assume that for the sake of the argument, that still doesn't change the fact that the cartoon does in fact play into that motif and is being perceived this way. Even granting there is something like dumb, innocent racism, it's still racism.
An Ceiling Cat rode invisible bike over teh waterz (cskendrick)
by brainwave on Wed Feb 18, 2009 at 12:56:50 PM EDT
Now, compare this to corvo's explanation why Oliphant's cartoon is not antisemitic:
It's an unpleasant cartoon, but (30+ / 0-)
Recommended by:
maxomai, wu ming, MsSpentyouth, Jay C, Catte Nappe, weasel, onanyes, bten, esquimaux, Elvis meets Nixon, beemerr, NewDealer, State Department, mnguy66, dpryan, dlh77489, dark daze, Massconfusion, ArtSchmart, Crabby Abbey, fl1972, TheCid, Floande, Colorado is the Shiznit, GillesDeleuze, MotherTrucker
plenty of armies goose-step -- not just the army of the Third Reich.
The Star of David is also not just a religious symbol, but a national one. It's on the Israeli flag, after all, and Israel, as we are constantly reminded, extends full franchise to that 20% or so of its population that is not Jewish.
by corvo on Thu Mar 26, 2009 at 10:01:29 AM EDT
Am I the only one that sees the hypocrisy? It's not okay to use a chimpanzee in any way, shape, or form that could possibly compared to a black individual, as they have been slurred as apelike by their detractors, but it's okay to possibly refer to Jews as Nazis, a popular slur against Jews and the Israeli state even in these parts (though, thankfully, just as a "blacks are apes" comment, this would be hidden). I mean, corvo can say all he wants that "plenty of armies goose-step," but really, is there any other goose-stepping army that Israel would be compared to?
The one other are of hypocrisy I want to bring up is the difference in the characterizations of Al Sharpton (and his National Action Network) and the Anti-Defamation League's Abe Foxman. (emphasis mine)
Here are two defenses of Sharpton from JoanMar:
Comedian Al Sharpton? Not racist because of (6+ / 0-)
Recommended by:
capelza, Lying eyes, andydoubtless, Cali Techie, Knarfc, mallyroyal
story connected to chimp? You try too hard. Al Sharpton is not a troll and racists do not distinguish between monkeys and chimpanzee, or apes for that matter. The cartoon was racist and you defense of it is suspect.
by JoanMar on Wed Feb 18, 2009 at 01:06:42 PM EDT
So first of all, the NY Post cartoon wasn't racist because racists don't distinguish between monkeys and chimpanzees, but antisemites do distinguish between Jews and the state of Israel?
Instead of attacking the violently racist cartoon (12+ / 0-)
Recommended by:
lysias, GN1927, capelza, Detroit Mark, Hedwig, martydd, deadatom, Knarfc, browneyes, mallyroyal, ChiTownBlue2000, Sapphire1
or its creator, or even NY Post, the diarists attacks Sharpton. Quite clearly the diarist and the cartoonist are birds of a feather.
by JoanMar on Wed Feb 18, 2009 at 01:44:07 PM EDT
Ah yes, attacking Sharpton. And now a comment by pontechango from the Oliphant saga:
A distraction from Israel's use of phosphorous (12+ / 0-)
Recommended by:
weasel, corvo, onanyes, carlyle4, callmecassandra, beemerr, NotGeorgeWill, Crabby Abbey, Floande, Colorado is the Shiznit, Claudius Bombarnac
http://edition.cnn.com/...
Report condemns Israel's phosphorus shell use in Gaza
The Israeli military's firing of white phosphorus shells over densely populated areas during the Gaza offensive "was indiscriminate and is evidence of war crimes," Human Rights Watch (HRW) said in a report on Wednesday.
But whatever. The ADL is freaking out about some stupid cartoon.
Sí Se Puede Cambiar
by pontechango on Thu Mar 26, 2009 at 10:05:47 AM EDT
So only a few were saying that Sharpton was making a big deal about "some stupid cartoon," yet that's the general consensus when it comes to the Oliphant cartoon. The hypocrisy is strong today!
Now before you accuse me of cherrypicking comments, I've looked at pretty much all of the responses to the cartoons, and the percentage of people that found the NY Post cartoon racist is about the mirror opposite of people who find the Oliphant cartoon antisemitic, and none of the comments I chose were HR'ed at all.
Well, I'm done here, make of it what you will and I'll stick around in the comments.