From: mdmodlin@netins.net (Marilyn Modlin)
From… “Iowa’s Vanishing Outhouse” by Bruce Carlson:
“The history of the quarter-moon on the door of the outhouse goes way back. Most serious historians who are students of the subject are of the opinion that the custom started in Europe in the 1500s or the 1600s. It was common practice, back then, to identify which outhouse was which by means of a circular symbol on the door of the mens’ and a quarter-moon on the ladies’. The use of symbols rather than words was necessary due to the widespread illiteracy of the times. When a feller can’t read and is headed for the outhouse, he sure doesn’t need some incomprehensible hieroglyphicson the door to figure out. The circular symbol and the quarter-moon were Europe’s version of the Chinese Yin and Yang. The circle was representative of the sun which symbolized masculinity. The more subdued and submissive moon, on the other hand, represented femininity. The use of the circle and quarter-moon was especially common at inns and houses for lodging. Not only was illiteracy a problem, but also the clientele of such places was more likely to be travelers from another country and another language. These universal signs were easy to make and easy to “read”, so most such places had the little houses out back so designated, one with a circular sign, and one with the quarter-moon. So why is the quarter-moon applied in more recent times to outhouses in general? The answer to that apparently lies in the economics of maintaining outhouses. If one of the outhouses at an inn, for example, were to have fallen into a state of disrepair, the solution was often to transfer, if necessary, the quarter-moon onto the surviving structure. It was reasoned that the men could always simply step into the shadows of the trees. Anouthouse had to be kept for the ladies, of course, so whatever outhousefell apart first was automatically the men’s. This practice became so widespread that in many cases only a women’s outhouse would be available tothose who frequented such public places. Since those carried the quarter-moon, that symbol soon evolved into the sign for any outhouse, in general, rather than one for ladies only.”
For those who honestly think that the crescent moon represents Islam, how else would Hart have represented an outhouse? Should he have put a “MEN” sign on the door, or should it have said “Port-a-Potty”? Nobody’s come up with an apt way to explain away the simplest answer: that this is a (pretty lame) poo joke.
For those citing Occam’s Razor to show that the strip is an Islamic “slam,” it doesn’t cut the way you’d like it to. It shouldn’t (and doesn’t) take a PhD to recognize that many of the daily strips you read in the paper are just astoundingly unfunny. Sorry.
This thread (and this whole argument, PhD’s and all) is a great example of why tempests and teacups shouldn’t mix.
Hart got into hot water on the basis of a religious-oriented strip, and may be on thin ice with members of his syndicate as a result.
Hart may have realized that to spread his “message” safely, he’d need to be a little more subtle. The benefit of such “symbolic” references would be that they’d allow Hart wiggle room in the event of another controversy. Creating controversy is probably a far preferable outcome to Hart than simply being ignored as a once-clever cartoonist on a downward slide.
While it is not a big deal for Hart to reveal his Biblical interpretation of gays’ fate in an open manner, if his “truthfulness” extended to putting that overt message into his cartoons, I wager it’d be far more costly to him. As in loss of livelihood. A pretty good incentive to dodge the truth.
Jackmanni, do you have any evidence to base your assertion that Hart may be on thin ice with his syndicate? Or that he feels any pressure to be more subtle?
Or any of the other assumptions you make in your post, and which you use to discern the incredibly obscure and convoluted anti-Islam message that you think was in the comic?
This is the kind of evidence people used to conclude that Paul McCartney was dead, back in the 70s. After all, he was the only one facing backwards on the album sleeve! And he was wearing a black flower! He must be dead!
Perhaps you can find some public apology that Hart made for a previously offensive cartoon, which would show that he responds to public pressure.
And in return, I will point to the 80% of his cartoons that aren’t very funny, and leave it to others to decide which is the more likely.
Originally posted by blowero
Uh, it’s bigoted and hateful? Might be best to keep those stray thoughts inside your head.
Not really. Just saying “Islam stinks” wouldn’t constitute any kind of criticism. It’s just a blind statement of hate.
What “effort to silence people”? Have they done anything besides denounce him? Did they physically attack him? Have they physically prevented him from expressing his views?
And when such things are said, they are generally met with sharp criticism, so exactly what is the difference? I mean, if I started a thread and said simply “Catholics stink.” or “Jews stink.” or “Protestants stink.”, I would get my ass handed to me on a platter, wouldn’t I?
And Shodan, the way I read Jackmanii’s post, it seemed pretty clear that it was conjecture, not presented as proven fact.
BTW, now I’m kind of interested to see how often Hart does set his comics at night and with outhouses, so I went to the bookstore to thumb through some of them. They didn’t have even one single BC anthology. That shows you how bad it sucks when Barnes & Noble doesn’t even carry it.
Hummmmm, The Barnes & Noble by my house has it, but only one. I called them to see if they could hold it till I can get in there to have a look for myself.
Maybe it’s so good; they can’t keep it on the shelf.
**Yes, indeed I do. I own two Stratocasters and a beat-up old Yamaha acoustic.
I think you’re reading too much into it, though I can understand your interpretation and why that would be offensive. Again, though, I’ll point out that I was reacting to your reaction to the comment, “He clearly meant it to say that Christianity is the fulfillment of Judaism.” I still think your response–“That, in itself, is an offensive statement”–overreacts to the sentence in question. The phrase “in itself” says to me that regardless of what the strip conveyed, this particular sentence is inherently offensive. I don’t think it is, for the reasons I mentioned–i.e., it is a given for many, many Christians who mean no disrespect to Jewish people.
There. The semantic hair should be completely split by now.
Thank you, that’s it exactly. The main point as far as responding to Shodan was to indicate why Hart might not be as candid about messages in his cartoons as he is about his personal beliefs.
Dio- another possible interpretation I’ve just thought of. Is it possible that the menorah to cross switch-a-roo was meant to show the birth of Christianity from Judaism? It is called Judeo-Christian for a reason.
FTR- that “slam” on Islam wouldn’t have occured to me in a thousand years, but I don’t read the funnies anyhow.
I have two of the Wizard of ID books. I like them. They are funny, not vary funny but still good.
Are there any slams on anyone in the books you ask?
You tell me if this one is.
First box: The King is talking to one of his servants (looking at portraits his Ancestors) King said: each and every one a King! Second box:Servant: Weren’t there any Queens? Last box:* King:* Only Uncle Ronald.
I think it’s funny
I retract my accusation. I sincerely apolgise for any insult. I saw things that weren’t there. That’s what happens when one fires off replies without going over the facts. Sorry about that.
THe unbordered vertical panel with the sound effect is a standard technique in Hart’s works (for example, in this panel from Dec 12, 2003.
Hart in 2003 is simply not the brilliant wit of the 1960s who mixed biting social satire with whimsy (anyone remember Clumsy’s water balls?) packaged with marvelous wit. In addition, his current promotion of Fundamentalist Christianty is often heavy-handed and awkward.
However, lacking a demonstration of any serious pattern of anti-Muslim rhetoric in earlier strips or in his non-strip speech, I think the charge is simply an example of people being hypersensitive and taking offense where none was offered.
It’s a comic strip. Can’t they take place at nigh?
IT’S ONLY A CARTOON!
I would have never thought it was anti-Muslim.
Even if it was, SO WHAT! Do you think a cartoon is going to change a persons mind on how they feel about someone or something?
I hope not. If so, you have other problems to deal with.
Make your own comic strip voicing your own views. Its you right.
Freedom of speech
Freedom of the press.
I am working on my own comic strip, (soon to be on a web site I will be putting up)
The more people bitch, the more I will offend them. No one will be left out, including me.
