I’m wondering if syndicated cartoonist Pat Oliphant shouldn’t resist the urge to use his acid brush to depict religious angles. Last time we discussed his work, he was demonstrating his ignorance and hatred of Pentecostalism on the pixelated pages of the Washington Post.
That sparked quite the reader response and a couple of reflective columns by ombudsman Deborah Howell.
He’s back in the news for a cartoon about Jews that I found sickening. Your mileage may vary. Here’s how the Associated Press covered it:
A Jewish human rights group is denouncing a Pat Oliphant political cartoon on Gaza as anti-Semitic, likening its fanged Star of David to Nazi imagery before the Holocaust.
The syndicated cartoon published Wednesday in newspapers across the country depicts a goose-stepping uniformed figure wheeling the Jewish symbol as it menaces a small female figure labeled “Gaza.” …
“The imagery in this cartoon mimics the venomous anti-Semitic propaganda of the Nazi and Soviet eras,” the center said in a statement. “It is cartoons like this that inspired millions of people to hate in the 1930s and help set the stage for the Nazi genocide.”
The center called on media outlets to remove the cartoon from their Web sites.
It doesn’t mention that the Nazi soldier is headless or that the Star of David he’s pushing has vicious fanged teeth. But other than that, the AP story is very straightforward and provides tons of information except how widely distributed the cartoon was. How many papers ran it online or otherwise? The AP explains that Universal Press Syndicate, which distributes the cartoon, did not return messages.
The article says the cartoon is only the latest to offend, citing outcries in 2001 and 2007 over Asian caricatures and a kerfuffle over a depiction of Arabs in 2005. The AP neglects to mention the 2008 cartoon about Pentecostalism that we covered here.
The Washington Post ran the cartoon online this week. I don’t read the paper on dead tree outside of weekends so I’m unsure if it also ran in the paper.
One thing that might be worthy of inclusion in future coverage about Oliphant’s cartoon is that it is derivative of the famous Robert Minor cartoon from socialist journal “The Masses.” I can’t find the cartoon with text but originally it had a military official saying, “At Last, A Perfect Soldier,” showing a headless, muscular soldier.
I happened to come across this story while surfing around the Los Angeles Times web site. It was just a month or so ago that there was so much outrage over the New York Post cartoon that intimated that the stimulus bill was written by a chimpanzee. I’m surprised that there hasn’t been more outrage over this cartoon.
When the Pentecostal cartoon ran on The Post, Howell discussed the fact that it didn’t appear in print — just through automatic feed onto the web site. She added:
I showed it to several Post editors. While it was clever in some ways, most editors — including me — would not have run it. The Post has a policy against defaming or perpetuating racial, religious or ethnic stereotypes. That was why The Post did not run the Danish cartoons about the prophet Muhammad.
Hmm. So, again, it’s okay to defame or perpetuate racial, religious or ethnic stereotypes online so long as you don’t do it in print? And did the Danish cartoons run online at The Post?
And what would you do as an editor? Would you run the cartoon (and let’s stop with the increasingly-silly online vs. print distinction)? How would you handle it if you were Oliphant’s boss? Any suggestions for Oliphant?
Image from Wikimedia Commons.
 | Posted at 12:20 pm |  Print
| Permalink | Trackback |
Comments (19) |
March 27, 2009, at 2:56 pm
“It doesn’t mention that the Nazi soldier is headless or that the Star of David he’s pushing has vicious fanged teeth.”
Maybe the AP doesn’t use the words “vicious fanged teeth” but, even in the part you excerpted, they mention that the star is “fanged.” The headless part is unmentioned, however.
Another thing that the report doesn’t mention is that the Star of David is not just a religious symbol, it’s also on the Israeli flag. While the Israeli state is not secular in the way the US is, the fact that this symbol is on the flag makes it also a symbol of the Isreali state, not just of the Jewish religion. Oliphant could be making a statement simply about Israeli state policy and not an anti-semitic statement. That interpretation is strengthened by the fact that the cartoon does not, as Ezra Klein points out, use symbolism otherwise historically associated with anti-semitism. There’s no hook-nosed Shylock or other such classic anti-semitic image. If Oliphant had really wanted to be anti-semitic, he could have done it much more directly. Of course, he definitely wouldn’t have been published in that case, so maybe this is veiled anti-semitism. But I do wonder how he could symbolically represent the Israeli state without running into charges of anti-semitism. He should be able to, I think, since criticizing the Israeli state is not necessarily anti-semitic, and shouldn’t be seen as such without a good reason. So how would one represent the Israeli state in a cartoon, which means in a caricatured, shorthand way, without being considered anti-semitic. Is it possible?
March 27, 2009, at 3:08 pm
“So how would one represent the Israeli state in a cartoon, which means in a caricatured, shorthand way, without being considered anti-semitic. Is it possible?”
Perhaps not using Nazi imagery at all would be one reasonable guideline.
March 27, 2009, at 3:15 pm
Is the imagery inherently Nazi imagery, or can it be interpreted more broadly as a criticism of the militarism of the Israeli state? If Oliphant’s point is that the Israeli state is overly militaristic, is there a way to depict this in a cartoon that won’t recall Nazi imagery? Are some criticisms of the Israeli state thus not makeable? I find that troubling, to say that one cannot call the Israeli state militaristic. Maybe it is and maybe it isn’t, but if someone thinks so, why shouldn’t they be able to say it without running into charges of anti-semitism?
I think the broader problem is that too many people conflate criticism of the Israeli state with anti-semitism. Admittedly there’s no bright line here, but surely we should be careful about throwing out charges of anti-semitism. It’s like crying wolf.
March 27, 2009, at 3:22 pm
Hoosier,
It did say “fanged” — sorry that I didn’t see that in the clip I put up!
Anyway, as someone who is personally critical of some Israeli policy, I think a start for a cartoonist would be to not compare Jews to Nazis.
But I’m willing to hear opposition to the idea.
And, contra the wise and seasoned Ezra Klein, I think in the history of anti-semitic cartooning, there’s some overlap between Oliphant’s caricature of Jews and Nazi imagery of same. It’s not all about noses, after all:
http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/sturmer.htm
March 27, 2009, at 3:29 pm
Your point is taken, hoosier, that cries of anti-Semitism cannot be used to deflect otherwise (arguably) valid criticism of Israel.
But it’s not really a stretch to see the cartoon’s 1) extended arm and 2) goosesteps, and see them as evocative of Nazism. Considering the severity of the Holocaust experience, and the sensitivity of Jews to the issue, one really should be extra cautious to avoid it. If this doesn’t cross the line, it comes dangerously and unnecessarily close IMHO.
March 27, 2009, at 3:33 pm
I looked at most of the cartoons on the website you linked to. All of the Nazi imagery I saw was depicting actual Nazis, or pure Germans or whatever. The depictions of Jews were about what I would have expected, considering the source, quite nasal. If you’ve got one in mind that’s different, by all means point it out.
March 27, 2009, at 4:50 pm
Could the nods to nazism be more a “ironic that people who suffered at nazi hands now be handing out militaristic misery” thing?
March 27, 2009, at 5:20 pm
If you watch video news from around the world you’ll soon see that goose-step marching is not unique to Nazi Germany. Lots of armies do it. Ours doesn’t — sensibly, it’s unnecessarily tiring — and that may color our associations.
I agree with the points that the Israeli state put the Star of David on its flag and thus made it thereafter a symbol of a state and not just of a people or a religion. And I can see the figure — with btw might have its head down and not actually be headless — as a way of wondering why people who have suffered don’t always learn all the lessons they might from it.
Where the cartoon is lacking — and this is the way I would look at it as an editor — is recognition that Gaza was a source of incessant rocket attacks upon Israeli civilians, by terrorists who hide among Gazan civilians. Of course, a cartoon is not designed to be subtle, but is that an excuse for being markedly one-sided?
This cartoon does not rank with the Danish cartoons. It is not a caricature of an entire people in terms of the actions of a few. It’s about a policy of the state with that symbol on its flag.
March 27, 2009, at 7:13 pm
Because the Israeli flag uses the Star of David as a national symbol I agree it’s fair to use it in cartoon as a stand-in for Israel (BTW, it’s light blue on the flag, not red; however a red Star of David is used as the symbol of Israel’s Red Cross-equivalent, Magen Davd Adom (sorry, crosses don’t work well in a Jewish context).
But I wonder: The Saudi flag is green, a color associated with Islam, and it bears, in Arabic, the words of the shahada, the Muslim profession of faith: “There is no God but Allah and Muhammad is his messenger.” (The flag also has an image of a sword, which is supposed to represent justice - a discussion of which is best set aside now in the interest of brevity.)
But if we’re talking about eliminating double standards, does this mean that cartoonists are free to employ the shahada when they wish to criticize Saudi policy?
What sort of reaction might that evoke among Muslims?
March 27, 2009, at 7:45 pm
“goose-step marching is not unique to Nazi Germany”
I was aware of that when commenting earlier, but I still contend that a portrayal of goosestepping, accompanied by an extended arm, is particularly controversial in the context of anything relating to Israel and/or Judiasm.
This spoken from one born and raised Jewish, so my sensitivities may admittedly be more easily piqued… but judging from reactions I’ve seen elsewhere apparently Mollie and I aren’t the only ones to have picked up on that.
March 27, 2009, at 7:53 pm
danr, I’m of Jewish extraction on my father’s side, so I’m not without sensitivites of my own. When they are tugged on by something like this, that’s when I’m at my most careful — following the example of that same father — to analyze rationally. But I resonate with what you’re feeling.
March 27, 2009, at 9:16 pm
I think that a good rule is to just be sensitive to groups that have been unfairly caricatured, particularly those that have suffered horribly because of unfair beliefs.
Thinking back to the chimp cartoon — I think it’s pretty safe to say the cartoonist had no intention of comparing Obama to a primate. The cartoon criticized the authors of the stimulus bill — all of whom reside in the legislative branch, for instance.
But, on the other hand, I’m sure the editors at that paper wish that they had thought about how the cartoon could be interpreted as racial or racist.
Same thing with cartoons about Jews in Israel. The cartoon doesn’t appear in a vacuum. I don’t think anybody would argue that it’s entirely fair to criticize Israel for its policies. People can disagree about those policies but it’s certainly permissible in a free society to criticize them, no?
But it’s also wise to be conscious of the past stereotypes and caricatures. Perhaps, knowledgeable that the Star of David has political and religious significance, choosing something else to portray negatively. Definitely avoid the goosestepping, I’d say. It’s little comfort to a Holocaust survivor to be told that soldiers other than the ones that exterminated 6 million Jews and brutalized countless other also engage in goosestepping. I mean, there’s a pretty quick association between goosestepping and Nazism.
One of the reasons why I think it’s wise for cartoonists and their editors to think about these things is because very good points can get lost. I immediately just tuned out because the cartoon made me sick. It just reminded me so much of cartoons from the earlier part of the last century that portrayed Jews as sick, bloodthirsty thugs out to destroy frail, fragile women. And I’m pretty sympathetic to the plight of Palestianians (if not, you know, Hamas, etc.).
But in general, I wish people would support the idea that you can criticize a country, a political party, an individual, etc., without being called racist, sexist, anti-semitic, etc. It just takes some working together on both sides.
March 27, 2009, at 11:52 pm
I agree with Stoo’s interpretation… I would guess the resonance with the Nazis is supposed to be in the cartoon because the artist apparently sees some resonances on the ground.
March 28, 2009, at 10:56 am
“The Washington Post ran the cartoon online this week.”
I’m shocked!! The Washington Compost is still in business?!?
March 28, 2009, at 5:01 pm
The link is bad - did the Post remove the cartoon?
March 28, 2009, at 5:18 pm
Gerry,
I bet they did. Good catch!
March 28, 2009, at 10:24 pm
Here’s some negative commentary on the cartoon that says it’s not anti-semitic. Or maybe it just says the anti-semitism isn’t the worst problem. I wasn’t sure.
http://israelinsider.ning.com/forum/topics/barry-rubin-the-loathsome
March 28, 2009, at 10:26 pm
Gerry,
The cartoons for the day prior and after are up so I’m sure this means they removed it for content problems.
Very interesting. Wonder if they’ll write about their editorial decision to take it off the site.
Perhaps it would be a good hook for exploring anti-semitism or how to criticize Israeli policy or the dangers of criticizing Israeli policy.
March 29, 2009, at 6:29 pm
[…] JUDEN! Cartoon double standards? …. […]