Actually, having just (finally!) read the explanation/defense given for the cartoon, I believe that Mr. Marlette’s grasp of the 1st Amendment and the political cartoon is just fine.
To all of the offensisensitivity floating about: get over it. Almost every American sub-culture has been targeted by political cartoonists of one political stripe or another.
It’s just the Arab’s [of the militant/terroristic bent] turn in the barrel. Arab-Americans can bitch and moan about it all they want, or suck it up with dignified chagrin and realize that the few amongst them who believe killing the “enemies” of Islam is a holy task are no more representative of them than gang-bangers bustin’ caps in their homy’s ass is representative of American gun owners, and better direct their energies protesting and combatting the true injustices being perpetrated upon them.
I don’t think that’s the proper analogy though. If the caption read “What would Jesus do?” and the picture showed Jesus, say, shooting an abortion provider, I think most of us would understand the point the cartoonist was making. I think some of the reactions to this have been a bit knee-jerk.
So many interpretations here you would think that we are looking at some kind of ambiguous picture. And it is that.
Quibble about the “true intent” of the cartoonist all day if you like, but you must admit that the offensive interpretation of his work isn’t too hard to make. That being said, I believe he has the right to express himself, just as others have the right to be deeply offended. If he doesn’t feel an apology is needed then that is his perogative, just as it would the perogative of anyone who was offended to complain to the people who distributed it. And that’s just about it. Racists exist people, let it go.
Seems to me that Mr. Marlettes’ primary job is to get people moved in some emotional way. Since he’s not a reporter and doesn’t have a column to express his views he did it his own way…a simple drawing of a cartoon that like it or not…think it’s rascist or not…made alot of people discuss it.
He’s a political cartoonist…virtually anything he put in that box is going to “deeply offend” someone somewhere.
This man is a veteran cartoonist is it not possible that the ambiguity in whether that is actually Mohommad deliberate? And depending on YOUR own preconceived notions that you brought to this depiction of a guy driving a Ryder truck with a bomb in the back would determine how you interpreted who was driving.
Personally I thought it was a generic Arab terrorist and was making a point that THINKING you are doing Gods’ will is not the same as truly doing what God would want you to do(Whatever deity you believe in). It was just a Middle Eastern man since that’s what is on everyones’ mind for some time now. In another time it might of been a Timothy McViegh type driving and a WWJD sign on the truck.
His whole point was people sometimes just THINK they are doing Gods’ will…a very simple point and one that can apply to ANY religon
Is this comic racist, or racially motivated? It can be interpreted as such, I guess. Does Marlette have a right to publish it? Certainly, the First Amendment protects him from government action. Does his employer have the right to fire him? I don’t know the details of his contract, but I bet they probably reserve that right.
However, is this comic a great work of trolling? Absolutely.
If this is true, then the cartoonist is absolutely right in portraying a fundamentalist Muslim like that. This whole “if you imply Islam is anything other than the Religion of Peace, we’ll kill you” attitude proves Marlette’s point exactly. The people who emailed death threats to Marlette obviously let their fanatical beliefs blind them to the irony–in fact, they could very well be that hypothetical person in that hypothetical Ryder truck that is delivering a bomb in order to defend the honor of the “religion of peace.” Of course, this message can really apply to any religion that claims to be peaceful, but uses violence as a method of persuasion (you may have heard of the Crusades).
That being said, his whole “First Amendment” argument is pretty frail. Unless a bunch of the letters threatened to provoke government action, that is. Hell, I don’t even have a problem with people writing his paper asking for him to be fired. At least that’s a peaceful solution. But threatening physical harm just proves his point, namely that religious fundamentalists that preach violence are hypocritical bastards.
IMO it’s a very mild cartoon. Yes it’s a joke against Mohammed but so what? Maybe we should try really hard not to offend anyone ever. What a interesting world that would be :rolleyes:
People get offended all the time about things like this. If the guy had of done a off colour 9/11 cartoon this thread would most likely be in the PIT and have a lot more posts to it.
The cartoon is fairly unambiguous - the driver is meant to be the Prophet, who is depicted as a stereoptypical Arabic terrorist. To you and me it’s mild, but I’d say there’s fairly obvious precedence for it not being accepted so well by the Islamic community.
To credit the cartoonist with a shred of intelligence, I’ll bet he knew it was going to cause a shit-storm. A touch of self-publicising, perhaps? Was he aiming for the Salman Rushdie Award for Free-Speech Martyr?
The only way you could see this cartoon as seriously saying that Mohammed would be a terrorist is to take it literally and completely ignore the sarcasm. Those who are offended by it need to take a class in political cartoon interpretation, or at least look at a few more cartoons to get a general idea about them.
The cartoon is based on “What would Jesus drive?”:
In other words, WWJD is based on a group of Christians telling people what kind of car Jesus would drive.
Now, do you believe the artist is one of the WWJD Christians? Do you think he tells people with a straight face what car Jesus would drive? If not, then why would you think he is any more serious about telling what kind of car Mohammed would drive? It is a clear comparison between two groups, the wacky Christians and the terrorist Muslims, making absurd judgements about what their prophet would drive.
In other words, he is making fun of the “Jesus would drive a smaller car” Christians, and he is making fun of the “Mohammed would be a terrorist” Muslims. He is not making fun of Jesus, or Mohammed, or all Christians, or all Muslims. There is nothing wrong with cartoon.
I didn’t understand what the cartoonist was trying to say until I read his explanation. Then I got it - and was offended.
He seems to be implying (as far as I can tell) that Islamics are terrorists. You don’t have to agree with the description of Islam as “a peaceful religion” to reject an overly sweeping generalization like that.
And I rarely buy the “I offend all sides so my opinion must be centrist” argument he tries to sell in his explanation. Some people offend extremists by being fair-minded; others offend everybody by acting like a jerk. If his previous cartoons attacking Jim Bakker and Tammie Fae stated or implied that all Christians were deluded dolts or corrupt thieves, that was as offensive to Christians as the current cartoon was to Muslims. And as wrong-headed.
What I saw was a political cartoon very poorly expressing a wrong-headed notion. He doesn’t strike me as much of a cartoonist, if this is the most noticeable thing he ever created.
I’m not offended by the cartoon per se, I’m just dissapointed he wrote such a lame response which neither justified what he did nor made an apology.
The more I think about it, the more I think he was trying to hold violent Islamic fundamentalists up for ridicule to the general public of the US but he did it in such a way that it did not distinguish between them and any other practitioner of the religion. Thus he was communicating poorly, and he should at least own up to that if not apologize.
His response is not intended to justify or apologize for anything. Neither justification or apology is necessary.
It isn’t fun to think about, but in this world terrorists exist who murder in Mohammed’s name. Muslims exist who believe terrorism will be rewarded in the afterlife. The artist simplifies this into “What would Mohammed drive?” in order to make it seem ridiculous, just like he presumably thinks the WWJD Christians are ridiculous. He is connecting a scary group, terrorist Muslims, with a group that is easy to laugh at, WWJD Christians.
As for not distinguishing between them and other Muslims… I think the bomb was a pretty good tip off that he is depicting a terrorist, rather than the average Muslim. At least it was for me.
Then what was he doing, other than making some lame appeal to free speech that was completely beside the point?
Never underestimate the stupidity of the American public.
What about referencing Mohammed implies he’s only alking about terrorists? That’s a blanket reference to an entire faith with many denominations.
The distinction has to be inferred on good faith, because there is absolutely no indication that he is making that distinction and requires the awareness of the distinction to be able to do so.
For those who have an uninformed opinion of Islam this cartoon would only appear to validate and reinforce their assumptions. For those who are sensitive to the image of Islam and the possibility of retribution on those of Arabic appearance this could rightfully be assumed to be a slander on their religion.
If he didn’t mean it that way, fine. But he has to realize that intentions were not clear in the least to many people. As far as I’m concerned, he’s a professional and should be able to communicate effectively. The professional and polite thing to do would be to recognize the mistake, apologize for the misunderstanding and move on.
That was my interpretation as well, but was precisely why I thought it would be offensive to Muslims. The message seems to be “Christians are funny because they are telling us what kind of car to drive; Muslims are funny because they are violent terrorists.” The comparison is certainly not apt, and I have no trouble seeing why it would offend the majority of Muslims who are not terrorists, and do not advocate violence. And to add insult to injury, the cartoonist’s “explanation” seems to be that it’s o.k. because that’s how a lot of people think about Muslims. Seems to me that’s exactly why it’s NOT o.k.
To his credit, the cartoonist does explain that he wasn’t talking about ALL Muslims, but before he explains that, he says this:
I just don’t see how it would have killed the guy to more strongly emphasize that his cartoon was NOT referring to all Muslims. He does say “many” Muslims support terror, not “all” Muslims, but why did he have to say that at all? I’m not saying he has any obligation to appease his critics, but I don’t see the reason for him to be such a sanctimonious jerk about it.
I have to agree with this and with the others who were capable of recognizing the subtlety in this cartoon. The whole point of the WWJD campaign is to get followers to think about what their prophet would do. And this cartoon is aimed at a minority (but still a pretty significant minority) of Moslems who have a poor idea of what their prophet would embrace.
As previously noted, this: "Quite a few (of those who contacted the cartoonist) threatened mutilation and death." shows that there are attitudes that need adjustment.
Sometimes you’ve got to think when reading a political cartoon instead of knee-jerk reacting.
Sure, his critics have a right to complain.
For the record, I think his cartoon did have the capacity to offend. And it was on target. And I laughed.