[vyper]

honestly, I don't see anything particularly racist or overly offencive about any of them, there all much more tame than the average political cartoon I see in my local paper. just stop for a moment, look at any political cartoon, just grab a random one, and put it next to the worst one of these, is this realy 'wanker' material?

The implication of the cartoon is that all muslims are terrorists. That's a much stronger and much more racist view than you'll see in most political cartoons except those published by the KKK or BNP. Hence the term wanker. I've called Ann Coulter a dumb ***** for expressing similar sentiments. Why should I tone that down just because someone puts the same xenophobic sentiment in a cartoon?

Let me ask you this. If this was a cartoon depicting Martin Luther King as a drug dealing gang member simply because he was black would you believe that it was equally mild?

I'd laugh at the irony.

[Flipside]

As a wise man once said to me, "If an asshole calls you an asshole, does it count?"

[aldo_14]

Takes one to know one?

[Flipside]

In my experience, the exact opposite is true

[Ford Prefect]

The implication of the cartoon is that all muslims are terrorists. That's a much stronger and much more racist view than you'll see in most political cartoons except those published by the KKK or BNP. Hence the term wanker. I've called Ann Coulter a dumb ***** for expressing similar sentiments. Why should I tone that down just because someone puts the same xenophobic sentiment in a cartoon?

Let me ask you this. If this was a cartoon depicting Martin Luther King as a drug dealing gang member simply because he was black would you believe that it was equally mild?

Well it's not really "racist" because Muslims aren't any more of a race than Christians are; Islam encompasses several different races and ethnicities.

Anyway, I really don't think that one can assume these cartoons are implying that all Muslims are terrorists. I tend to agree with the interpretation that they're attacking the militant elements of the religion that are twisting it into something simple-minded. There's plenty of satire that attacks radical Christianity by satirizing its symbols, but no one takes that to mean that all Christians are hateful extremists.

[Bobboau]

how is that any less 'racist'? do I see you calling the people who made it and the _many_ others far worse wich are out there 'wankers'? no, I don't... why is that?
because it's a political cartoon, it isn't racist, just like these cartoons were political cartoons and they aren't racist.

[aldo_14]

Well it's not really "racist" because Muslims aren't any more of a race than Christians are; Islam encompasses several different races and ethnicities.

Anyway, I really don't think that one can assume these cartoons are implying that all Muslims are terrorists. I tend to agree with the interpretation that they're attacking the militant elements of the religion that are twisting it into something simple-minded. There's plenty of satire that attacks radical Christianity by satirizing its symbols, but no one takes that to mean that all Christians are hateful extremists.

Race can be generally used to refer to any group of similar individuals, rather than just ethnically similar, although the correct legal definition in most countries AFAIK generally refers to the series of (the obvious) distinguishing and generically derived physical differences.  I think already the US census bureau (for example) uses 'hispanic' as a race despite it being an ethnicity (as well as using self-identification of personal race, which asks questions of actual genetic vs percieved race); but in any case IMO it's fairly common practice to use racism as a term to refer to any large group who have, in general or stereotypical terms, a shared physical profile.  Plus I'm not sure what the most appropriate converse term is; sectarianism is probably the best that comes to mind, but it has a very specific context and meaning for a Scot that perhaps doesn't translate all that well.

[Ford Prefect]

Race can be generally used to refer to any group of similar individuals, rather than just ethnically similar, although the correct legal definition in most countries AFAIK generally refers to the series of (the obvious) distinguishing and generically derived physical differences.  I think already the US census bureau (for example) uses 'hispanic' as a race despite it being an ethnicity (as well as using self-identification of personal race, which asks questions of actual genetic vs percieved race); but in any case IMO it's fairly common practice to use racism as a term to refer to any large group who have, in general or stereotypical terms, a shared physical profile.  Plus I'm not sure what the most appropriate converse term is; sectarianism is probably the best that comes to mind, but it has a very specific context and meaning for a Scot that perhaps doesn't translate all that well.

Yes, race refers to physical characteristics, (which is why it's so artificial), but my point still stands: Muslims are not united by any distinctly racial or ethnic parameters. There are Muslim Arabs, Persians, Slavs, Africans, and East/Southeast Asians, and most of these break down even further along ethnic lines. At the risk of sounding obtuse, I'm assuming that karajorma was referring to people generalizing about Arab Muslims, but the fact remains that the cartoons are technically about Muslims, not Arabs specifically.

Also, just as an aside, the latest U.S. census forms actually do treat "Hispanic" as an ethnicity and not a race.

[Bobboau]

and y'all like totaly missed my post...

[karajorma]

how is that any less 'racist'? do I see you calling the people who made it and the _many_ others far worse wich are out there 'wankers'? no, I don't... why is that?
because it's a political cartoon, it isn't racist, just like these cartoons were political cartoons and they aren't racist.

And the Martin Luther King cartoon I mentioned presumably wouldn't be racist too then ?

The cartoon you've posted doesn't ever claim that what is being said is the majority view of all Americans but by depicting Muhammad as a terrorist you instantly imply that his followers are terrorists too.


@ Ford  -  Feel free to point me at a better word to use to decribe bigotry to a group soley on the grounds of religion I'm more than happy to use it. Till then it gets the point across adequately enough as long as people decide not to nitpick when perfectly aware of my intentions.

[Bobboau]

And the Martin Luther King cartoon I mentioned presumably wouldn't be racist too then ?

I don't think that is a comparison, the cartoons in question obviosly are directed at a specific cultural element, I can not beleive some of you are so quick to find something to lay on the cartoons to justify your 'everyones to blame', no the danish paper did nothing to warent this, it is entierly the 'fault' of the people rioting and killing over it.

there is nothing -racist- about those cartoons, there is however a -political- mesage, that is obviusly being proven corect.

[Bobboau]

ok, let me put it another way,if there was a cartoon that protrayed all Nazis as racist totalitarians, would that be racist? as in would that be saying that all germans were totalitarian racists? no, it would be directed at a particular element within german society of the 1930s.
in the same respect these cartoons are directed at a movement within muslim society.

[Ford Prefect]

And as I said earlier, there is plenty of material that attacks Christian extremists, but people don't try to claim that this satire is targeting all Christians.

Kara, you just supplied the appropriate term yourself. "Bigotry" is what I would use in this context.

[Bobboau]

and lets not forget the thing they are actualy protesting is _not_ the suposed bigetry in the cartoons but they are protesting the fact that the paper violated one of there religion's tennents, and they are demanding that there religion's punishment be applied.

[karajorma]

Bob. You're making the mistake of assuming that the extreme position is the only opinion on this. Try asking some moderate muslims what they find so offensive about the images and you'll see that it's not the same thing.

[vyper]

In the end, it's all religion and thus deserves a good slap.

[aldo_14]

ok, let me put it another way,if there was a cartoon that protrayed all Nazis as racist totalitarians, would that be racist? as in would that be saying that all germans were totalitarian racists? no, it would be directed at a particular element within german society of the 1930s.
in the same respect these cartoons are directed at a movement within muslim society.

I think you're losing sight that these cartoons, reagardless of how offensive from our cultural perspective, have one rather powerful difference - they are applying their criticism not to a subgroup, but explicitly with an image that symbolises an entire religion and it's believers. 

The cartoon you pictured, in contrast, depicts 2 individuals who are used to poke at a specific group, but which does not define the scope of that group; in other words, it's saying 'some people are like this', but not who those some people are.  That's a key difference.  Additionally, being accused of being wrong. niave, etc is a lot different from being accussed of being murderous fanatics, paedophiles and zoophiles (the latter 2 referring to the cartoons circulated but not originating with the other 12). A cartoon that said "We're americans, we murder children and have sex with dogs" (perhaps depicting the President or a historical figure like George Washington performing said act) would probably be a lot more offensive than a satirical swipe at an essentially undefined group.

[Jetmech Jr.]

@Aldo: Bullcrap. The Cartoon Bobb posted makes no mention of any subgroup. Applying your fuzzy logic to the Muslim toons, it should be quite obvious to all involved that the cartoons aren't making fun of Islam in general, but rather the extremists and murderers that claim to practice the teachings of Islam.

And who the hell cares what they're portrayed as in the cartoons? Like the toons aimed at america, those cartoons are made based on the actions of the loudest and most obnoxious group. In this case, thats terrorists, religious fanatics, and crusaders. In our case, it's idiots.

[TrashMan]

He has a point...But this really is a big problem - a balancing act of a sorts.

What did the artist try to say?
What do you THINK he said?
Did he find a right way to say it?
Do you have the right to say your oppinion, no matter what that is (liek for instance - "I think Islam sucks!".. Is that hate-mongering or jsut oppinion stating?)

See...you can debate this left and right for ages and still not come to a firm conclusion, since people percive the same thing in a different way and react differently...

[Bobboau]

realy now, I thought the charictichers in the cartoon were suposed to be generalisations about Americans, that were a bunch of whit bred idiots more concerned about not haveing our house of cards view of the world knocked down than dealing with reality. there is a bit of that steriotype going around the world these days, yes? well I can't see any qualitative or quantitative diference between showing the steriotypical American patridiot and makeing fun of it verses showing a steriotypical islamist and makeing fun of it.

what is the diference?
also this made me think of something, oftine you'll hear Americans useing words like Islamist, terrorist, islamo-facist, and you'll think 'oh, hes got some racist thing against muslims'. NO these words are used to diferentiate against the normal muslims, when in conversations if someone says 'the muslims' two or three people will stop them and corect them 'oh, no it's not all muslims, just the ones trying to kill us'