Sense and Sensitivity
By Ted Rall Posted Sun, Jan 1 2006
A Berlin woman reads the German daily Die Welt on Feb. 1. The headline reads “Protest against Muhammad-Drawings Effective.” The article explains the boycotts of Danish goods.
CARTOONS DEPICTING the Prophet Muhammad published by a Danish newspaper in September 2005 (and subsequently reprinted by publications around the world) have sparked the most violent reaction to a drawing since iconoclasm rocked Byzantium.
Hundreds of thousands of Muslims, angered by what they deem a sacrilegious violation of Islam's stricture against figurative art in general and ridicule of the Prophet in particular, have marched in Arab, South Asian and Turkic capitals. Danish consulates in Beirut and Damascus have burned, and dozens of protesters have been shot to death by police in Afghanistan, Indonesia and elsewhere.
I was surprised by the scale of anger over the Muhammad cartoons but not by the rage itself. The cartoons, drawn using a paucity of words characteristic of many European cartoonists, came off as vague assaults on Islam rather than specific comments on, for example, the phenomenon of Islamist terrorism. They relied on ham-fisted symbolism (the turban as bomb) that recalls earlier examples of anti-Muslim bigotry. Those exacerbating factors, coupled with Muslims' sense of humiliation due to America's Global War on Terrorism and Danish clerics' circulation of the 12 offending cartoons in a package with even more vituperative images of the Prophet engaged in bestiality and pedophilia, added a malignant potency to a batch of fairly lame drawings. But what makes cartoons popular is what makes them dangerous: Words can't elicit the same reaction as words plus pictures. Had I expressed the same opinions in the form of my weekly opinion column, the reaction would have been relatively mute. John Temple, president, editor and publisher of the Rocky Mountain News in Denver says: “Good editorial cartoons have to be very uncompromising. This makes them difficult, challenging. I think that engages people, even when it enrages them.”
We political cartoonists are well aware of the power of our work to provoke controversy. Six of my cartoons have prompted outsized responses during the past five years alone. One mocked the subset of 9/11 widows and widowers who televised their grief to push books, another the excessive lionization of firefighters, still another the Bush Administration's use of Pat Tillman — the former NFL star who died from “friendly fire”— to promote militarism and its invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. Thousands of angry e-mails, hundreds of death threats, dozens of angry right-wing talk radio hosts and thousands of dollars in losses due to client cancellations followed each cartoon.
Each week, I jot down cartoon ideas in a notebook. Then, each Monday, I sit down to sort out which ones will become the three pieces I send out to Universal Press Syndicate. First I look for topics, or points of view that I haven't seen expressed elsewhere. Originality is my top priority. Then I consider how important a subject is. Social commentary cartoons about bad TV and bad relationships tend to get put on the back burner during a week when stories break about the U.S. torture of prisoners of war. Finally I subject my semifinalists to the laugh test: I leave them on my desk overnight. If I still think they're funny on Tuesday, I draw them up.
The Danish cartoons were gratuitous. But what's wrong with that? I rarely, if ever, consider whether a joke is offensive or a jab is necessary in order to make my point. I don't intend to cause offense, but I don't care if I do. (The exception is “collateral damage,” when I inadvertently strike an unintended target undeserving of criticism.)
One of my most controversial cartoons of recent years, and still one of my personal favorites, depicts “appropriate punishments” for members of the Bush Administration after they leave power. In a line that continues to outrage her supporters, I drew Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice at an “Inner City Reeducation Camp” where she is forced to hand over her bottle of hair straightener. The broad important point here is that she's an African-American who works for an administration whose policies hurt blacks. It's a fair, defensible panel. My gratuitous slight against Rice's hairstyle and her physical denial of blackness draw attention to her politics in a way that a careful dissection in prose could not.
The strongest editorial cartoons question authority and conventional wisdom. The Danish Muhammad cartoons, on the other hand, join a post-9/11 clash-of-civilizations media pile-on that equates Islam with terrorism and repeats now-tired jokes about jihadis dreaming of bedding 72 virgins after blowing themselves up. It must be noted that the cartoons appeared in a right-wing newspaper published in a European democracy. The same cartoons, running in an Arab-run magazine in Riyadh or even in a left-wing American journal like Mother Jones, would have required a certain courage to draw and publish that might spark a worthwhile exchange of ideas. As it actually happened, that was never going to be the case.
In the United States, the First Amendment grants cartoonists the right to create work that blasphemes against church and state alike; there's no point having such a right unless we take it out for a spin every now and then. Generally speaking, it's best to cause offense only in the service of making an important point in order to elicit vibrant discussion. Sometimes, however, a cartoonist's faulty execution causes that goal to be lost, leaving controversy and nothing else.
At other times, a cartoonist decides to cause offense just because he or she can. Please don't be surprised when we cartoonists indulge ourselves in such childish behavior, riots and fatwas be damned. We're an immature bunch. When the rest of you graduated from school and went off to work in the “real world,” after all, we were the guys who kept drawing funny pictures.
Ted Rall, hailed by www.cartoon.com as “the most controversial cartoonist in America,” won the Robert F. Kennedy Journalism Award for Outstanding Coverage of the Disadvantaged in 1995 and 2000. He was a finalist for the Pulitzer Prize in 1996. His cartoons reach 140 newspaper audiences through the Universal Press Syndicate.
Media Reactions from Around the World
“My guess is that no one will draw the Prophet Muhammad in Denmark in the next generation, and therefore I must say with deep shame that they have won.”
—Carsten Juste, editor-in-chief of Jyllands-Posten (The New York Times)
“I understand that it may shock Muslims, but being shocked is part of the price of being informed.”
—Robert Menard, secretary general of Reporters Without Borders (The New York Times)
“We defend unpopular speech around the world all the time. Sometimes we sort of have to hold our nose, but they've got the right to say that, and we defend their right.” —Joel Simon, deputy director of the Committee to Protect Journalists (Washington Post)
“I am disappointed that some politicians have chosen to frame their responses in terms of the media's responsibility without balancing such calls against the need for religious leaders and the heads of Muslim countries to do likewise.” —Johann Fritz, IPI Director (press release)
“So, we must apologize to them because the freedom of expression that they refuse, day after day, to each of their own citizens, faithful or militant, is exercised in a society that is not subject to their iron rule. It's the world upside down.” —France Soir (The Guardian)
“Does Western free speech allow working on issues like America and Israel's crimes or an incident like the Holocaust or is this freedom of speech only good for insulting the holy values of divine religions?”
—Iranian daily, Hamshahri (Reuters; The New York Times)
“Many of these extremists don't read English, they just saw the pictures. And the article was accompanied by an editorial, saying the cartoons were terrible. It's the intention behind the publication, not just the publication. What I did was in defense of the Prophet, and I don't think God will let me down for doing that.” —Muhammad al-Asaadi, editor in chief of Yemen Observer, who was arrested for printing the cartoons (Newsweek)
“If these cartoons were designed to provoke Muslim fundamentalists, maybe they have done more to reveal the prejudices of Europe. Europe has a history of turning on its minorities. Will that be its future too?”
—Sarah Joseph, editor of Muslim lifestyle magazine, Emel (in a column for The Guardian)
“As the newspaper industry has declined in both readership and influence, so too have the journalistic responsibilities of editors, who opt for publishing generic syndicated cartoons over provocative, staff-drawn cartoons because they are cheaper and generate fewer phone calls.” —Jim Romenesko (Editor and Publisher; Poynter)
“Some people are acting as if the way to protect Islam is to ban these things—like if you're exposed to too many cartoons you'll become a Christian or an atheist. But faith is something you renew every day. You are exposed to things you do not like and you keep your faith.”
—Aboubakr Jamai, editor of the Moroccan weeklies Assahifa al-Ousbouia and Le Journal Hebdomadaire (Time)
“Once this controversy passes it will be valuable to determine just who exploited the flap to foment anti-Western outrage, and to inquire what 'moderate' Muslim voices said.” —Jerusalem Post column (The Guardian)
The Fallout
Sept. 30, 2005:
The Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten publishes a series of Muhammad cartoons in response to an article in another Danish newspaper Politiken, which said a children's book author could not find an illustrator to depict Muhammad.
Oct. 20:
The BBC reports that 10 Islamic countries complained to the Danish Prime Minister, Anders Fogh Rasmussen.
Nov. 4:
Two Jyllands-Posten cartoonists are forced into hiding after receiving death threats.
Jan. 10, 2006:
Norwegian evangelical newspaper Magazinet is the first of many media outlets to reprint the cartoons.
Jan. 26:
Saudi Arabia recalls its ambassador from Copenhagen.
Jan. 29:
Libya closes its Danish embassy.
Jan. 30:
Gunmen attack the European Union offices in Gaza and demand an apology for the cartoons.
Jan. 31:
Jyllands-Posten issues an apology for insulting Muslims. The newspaper receives a bomb threat, and the Muslim world begins to boycott Danish goods.
Feb. 1:
Cartoons are reprinted throughout Europe. Syria recalls its ambassador.
Feb. 2:
Cartoons are reprinted around the world. Editors from France Soir in France and al-Shihan in Jordan are the first of many editors to be fired for decisions to print the images.
Feb. 3, 2006:
The International Association of Muslim Scholars declares a “day of anger.” In Gaza, 50,000 people protest.
Feb. 4:
Protestors in Damascus attack Danish and Norwegian embassies.
Feb. 6:
Three people are killed during a protest in Afghanistan. At least one dies in Somalia. Hamshahri, an Iranian newspaper, announces a contest for cartoon submissions depicting the Holocaust.
Feb. 7:
Four more protestors die in Afghanistan. Danish aid workers in Chechnya are suspended.
Al-Hurreya, a newspaper in Yemen, is the first to be shut down for printing the cartoons.
Feb. 13:
Seven thousand protest in Peshawar.
Feb. 16:
In Karachi, Pakistan, 40,000 protestors gather and burn effigies of the Danish prime minister.
Feb. 17:
Minister Roberto Calderli wears a T-shirt of the cartoons. In response, at least nine are killed in Libya outside the Italian Consulate.
An Islamic cleric in Pakistan offers a $1 million reward for the murder of the cartoonists.
Feb. 18:
Six people are killed in a Nigerian protest.