Obama's Cartoon Connection
July 15th 2008 04:16
It was late 2005 when the world lampooned Islam for ‘over-reacting’ to set of cartoons in a Danish newspaper depicting the image of the Prophet Muhammad. Muslims protested, violence escalated and a wave of anti-Scandinavian sentiment resounded throughout the Islamic world. In response, the Western nations closed ranks in support of Denmark and the right to free speech, claiming that Muslim’s were trying to impose their world view on the Western world.
Now flash forward to 2008 and it’s time for yet another Cartoon Controversy, but this time it’s not Muslim’s that are in righteous indignation: it’s the Americans. The New Yorker magazine’s cover cartoon depicting Barack Obama dressed as an Arab thought by many to resemble a terrorist was intended as a satirical commentary on the unfounded and ridiculous allegations that have dominated the Obama campaign thus far. As I say, that’s how it was intended. But that’s not how it was taken.
Obama’s campaign has called it “tasteless and offensive”. Even his competitor John McCain has distanced himself from the cartoon, saying it was inappropriate. The television networks went into overdrive (in a period where the election campaign has hit the quiet before the storm and ANYTHING will fill airtime). But the question is why this image is so offensive. Surely it’s a gimmick. People see a cartoon of Obama dressed in Arabic clothing, and in turn buy the magazine to read the article that then pokes fun at Obama’s opposition inferring that an Obama victory would also be a victory for terrorists. But in a time where the President of the United States has made it his duty to be the guiding light in the fight against terrorism, is arguing over a caricature image of a candidate that is obviously intended as satire really the right way to spend our time?
Maybe some might call it a “taste of their own medicine”. After all, it was the US and the rest of the Western world that condemned the Muslim overreaction to the Muhmmah cartoons in 2005. And they had more cause to be angry than Obama. In Muslim faith it is a grave insult to show a depiction of the Prophet Muhammad, and to do so is a violation of Islamic practice. So they protested an offensive breach of practice that most publications would respect as a matter of course. But it’s not a breach of any faith to show depictions of Obama. Not even in Arabic garb. Not even with his wife Michelle, complete with Kalashnikov strapped to her back. Although, that in itself is enough to make you run for your life is you were to mistake the cartoon for reality.
But the thing is, you wouldn’t. There is no way anyone but the thickest human being alive could look at a cartoon cover that is a caricature of right-wing claims that Obama is a Muslim friend to terrorists and think that it may be an accurate depiction. These type of cartoons can be found in newspapers the world over every single day. Peter Beattie used to be depicted in Courier Mail caricatures as having eyes and a mouth resembling a three-prong powerpoint. Did we all try to jam our electrical appliances into him? No. Because people can tell the difference between satire and reality. It’s why The Daily Show with Jon Stewart is a success. It’s why people can sit back and laugh at the things Stephen Colbert says, understanding the subtle irony behind his on-screen persona. In a cynical world, people are far more discerning about political commentary than they are given credit for.
So when it comes to the Obama campaign’s fury about this caricature I say get over yourself. The image was a satire of commentators attacks against Obama. In fact, the cartoon was intended to be a positive for the Democrat, disarming his opponents by making them look ridiculous through humour. It’s time to stop underestimating the people, and thinking they are stupid enough to take a cartoon as gospel.
However, in saying that, if I ever have to see Michelle Obama with a Kalashnikov again I may just have to run for the hills.
Now flash forward to 2008 and it’s time for yet another Cartoon Controversy, but this time it’s not Muslim’s that are in righteous indignation: it’s the Americans. The New Yorker magazine’s cover cartoon depicting Barack Obama dressed as an Arab thought by many to resemble a terrorist was intended as a satirical commentary on the unfounded and ridiculous allegations that have dominated the Obama campaign thus far. As I say, that’s how it was intended. But that’s not how it was taken.
Even in a cartoon Michelle Obama with a Kalashnikov is scary...
Obama’s campaign has called it “tasteless and offensive”. Even his competitor John McCain has distanced himself from the cartoon, saying it was inappropriate. The television networks went into overdrive (in a period where the election campaign has hit the quiet before the storm and ANYTHING will fill airtime). But the question is why this image is so offensive. Surely it’s a gimmick. People see a cartoon of Obama dressed in Arabic clothing, and in turn buy the magazine to read the article that then pokes fun at Obama’s opposition inferring that an Obama victory would also be a victory for terrorists. But in a time where the President of the United States has made it his duty to be the guiding light in the fight against terrorism, is arguing over a caricature image of a candidate that is obviously intended as satire really the right way to spend our time?
Maybe some might call it a “taste of their own medicine”. After all, it was the US and the rest of the Western world that condemned the Muslim overreaction to the Muhmmah cartoons in 2005. And they had more cause to be angry than Obama. In Muslim faith it is a grave insult to show a depiction of the Prophet Muhammad, and to do so is a violation of Islamic practice. So they protested an offensive breach of practice that most publications would respect as a matter of course. But it’s not a breach of any faith to show depictions of Obama. Not even in Arabic garb. Not even with his wife Michelle, complete with Kalashnikov strapped to her back. Although, that in itself is enough to make you run for your life is you were to mistake the cartoon for reality.
But the thing is, you wouldn’t. There is no way anyone but the thickest human being alive could look at a cartoon cover that is a caricature of right-wing claims that Obama is a Muslim friend to terrorists and think that it may be an accurate depiction. These type of cartoons can be found in newspapers the world over every single day. Peter Beattie used to be depicted in Courier Mail caricatures as having eyes and a mouth resembling a three-prong powerpoint. Did we all try to jam our electrical appliances into him? No. Because people can tell the difference between satire and reality. It’s why The Daily Show with Jon Stewart is a success. It’s why people can sit back and laugh at the things Stephen Colbert says, understanding the subtle irony behind his on-screen persona. In a cynical world, people are far more discerning about political commentary than they are given credit for.
So when it comes to the Obama campaign’s fury about this caricature I say get over yourself. The image was a satire of commentators attacks against Obama. In fact, the cartoon was intended to be a positive for the Democrat, disarming his opponents by making them look ridiculous through humour. It’s time to stop underestimating the people, and thinking they are stupid enough to take a cartoon as gospel.
However, in saying that, if I ever have to see Michelle Obama with a Kalashnikov again I may just have to run for the hills.
| 53 |
| Vote |
Add To: 
subscribe to this blog
