I remember when BC was truly an excellent strip.
But, due to the content of more recent strips, I’d have to agree that this latest one is another example of a good mind gone very bad, indeed.
I think the most solid part of our relationship is our economic one, not our societal one. For instance, what if he had said “A word seldom used with the popularity of Anime.” I imagine that instead of people being pissed about “waving shiny things” in our faces, they’d be pissed about him demeaning their culture. More importantly, a lot of his audience is probably ignorant, or is only slightly familiar with the term Anime,so the reference would be lost (just like the use of the word “infamy” would be on most outside of his audience); EVERYONE knows what Toyota is and knows that its a Japanese car. The only other thing I can think of is consumer electronics. What if he had replaced Toyota with Sony; would you still be as offended? I assert yes, because a Playstation 3 is everybit as shiny as a Prius (if not moreso).
Let’s try an experiment. For the sake of discussion, let’s assume he was trying to make the point that Oakminister and I got out of it. Let’s also say he was aware that this wording might potentially upset people in the way it did you all. How would you propose he get that point across while remaining relevant to his target audience and somewhat subtle and not be ambiguous enough to be potentially offensive?
Meanwhile, I think if the point was what you all seem to think, he could have easily done so with less ambiguity. Perhaps by using “forgotten” or even “used too seldom” instead of “seldom used” the offensive intent might have been more clear. Specifically, I think the use of the words “seldom used” implies “we don’t use [the word] because we don’t think of them that way anymore as demonstrated by [Toyota sales]”, rather than “we don’t use [the word] because we’ve forgotten what they did to us because of [Toyota sales]”.
Actually, that brings up another good point. How exactly are Japanese cars “shiny” anyway? I can see Italian cars being described as “shiny” but not so much Japanese cars. They are generally regarded, true or not, as being cost effective and reliable. I have a hard time as seeing a reference to Japanese cars as anything but positve for the Japanese and positive for the the American (other than the obvious “Why didn’t you buy American?” remark) for either making or desiring a cost effective reliable vehicle.
The more I think about it, the more I’m confused by the OPs interpretation. It seems to me more like an a priori conclusion from a logic train similar to “he is a fundie, and fundies generally offend me therefore if I can interpret it as offensive he must have intended it that way or it must reflect his true feelings.” Even if it is how he felt, I’d be even more confused by his timing (relative to current events, the date is obvious), his motivation, and why, if he felt this way, hadn’t he expressed it much, much sooner?
The only thing I learned from this post is that the word “slight” has no meaning in your world.
I kid, I kid.
Although, you can probably find that debate in a few threads on this board.
It’s a descriptor of how U.S. consumers are increasingly willing to buy cars from overseas, at the detriment of our own auto manufacturing industry and ultimately our own economy. The price of today’s domestic auto has to cover the retirement and medical benefits of thousands of retirees. Some of of them being WWII vets ironically.
I’m inclided to agree more with Faruiza basic interpretation of the cartoon, though not his reaction to it.
In B.C. they have Christ before Christ.
Yeah. The fact is, our good relationship with Japan predates auto sales, and goes back to when “Made in Japan” was a perjorative term. The reason for our relationship is that Japan renounced militarism, not that we decided to ignore their bad points in order to import cars. Hart seems to be implying that the reason we no longer consider them infamous is that we import Toyotas, and that’s crap.
I’m willing to admit that I hadn’t even considered the alternative interpretation that has been pointed out by Blaster Master and Oakminster. I’d like to point out, though, that I did consider that I was missing something about it. It’s a logical step to come to either conclusion, and I’m willing to concede the possibility that it really is as optimistic as you say. Art being open to interpretation most times…
But I categorically deny that I reached my initial conclusion based solely on my dislike of Christian fundamentalists. I dislike them as a general rule to be sure, but I’m full of caveats to general rules. So to be fair to you, it might be more accurate to say, “He is Johnny Hart, and Johnny Hart generally offends me, therefore if I can interpret it as offensive he must have intended it that way or it must reflect his true feelings.”
As for my level of offense, even though I dislike what the man has to say, it’s been pretty, “meh” up until this.
I think it’s a pretty clearly cynical statement. Reference to car sales in such a way just sounds like a nasty way to say something. And if so, then the OP interpreted it correctly.
Although I think Malcolm X had made the same point years earlier.
Nah. Hart wouldn’t have mentioned sales figures if he was saying forgiveness was a good thing.
To borrow a phrase from my redneck ex-brother-in-law: Ever since Hart “went Christian”, he lost his appeal to me.
If he wants to be a “topical/political” cartoonist, fine, but when he uses the strip to preach, then it’s no better than a religious tract someone tries to hand me on a sidewalk.
This comes from a former fan who named his teenage rock group “BC and The Cavemen”.
Thanks
Q
If we were still mad about Pearl Harbor, we wouldn’t be buying so many Toyotas.
I’m still interpreting it cynically based on the wording sounding so snarky, but I’ll say this:
FUCK him for making it so AMBIGUOUS!! How dare he!!
And his use of “infamy” suggests that he thinks we should be mad.
Jonny Hart seems, from my recollection of him, to be much more sardonic than saccharine. I’m not inclined to think that the interpretation that he is simply remarking on how close we have come to the Japanese is really all that likely.
The only thing that saves this cartoon from being really offensive is that it’s so lacking in logic as to defy rational interpretation.
There’s no connection between our imports of Japanese cars and the degree to which we remember Pearl Harbor. Nor is there any connection between our imports of Japanese cars and our evaluation of Pearl Harbor when we do remember it.
We may or may not adequately remember Pearl Harbor, the servicemen who lost their lives there, or the sacrifices of veterans in the war that followed. But whether we remember adequately or not, cars aren’t the reason. There’s no connection between the two.
Reading this is like listening to a drunk babble to himself on the bus–he probably would be offensive if he were coherent enough to make a point.
The day does live in infamy. There was still the observance at Pearl Harbor yesterday. And there was the irony, perfectly appropriate I think, of the Japanese pilots in attendance in what was described as “an emotional reunion.”
Isn’t there something to be learned from those Toyotas, our German allies, the peaceful relationships with the North Vietnamese, our love of everything Italian?
Many of you youngster will enjoy seeing Cuba someday. I was in my teens when it shut down. I’m sixty-three now. Will I miss it altogether?
Enemies are not forever.
A friend of my Dad’s (who served in the Pacific) is the same way. Still hates the Japanese to this day and gets spitting mad every time the subject comes up. I think some members of the World War II generation will just never let it go. Hart seems to be one of those guys, even though he is a bit too young to have served in the War himself. (Maybe he lost a relative?)
I agree with Zoe. Enemies shouldn’t be forever.