UKC

He appears to be channeling Joseph Goebbels, Viscount Rothermere will be proud!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3321431/MAC-Europe-s-open-borders.h...

In reply to The New NickB:

I wonder if the dislikes are, yes that is pretty abhorrent dislikes, or how dare you criticise the Daily Mail dislikes.

In reply to The New NickB:


You never know

In reply to The New NickB:

Foul racist cartoons. As usual from him.

In reply to The New NickB:

That's a horrible cartoon.

In reply to The New NickB:

Wow.

That actually got published?

In reply to The New NickB:

Or ...

http://ind.pn/1X0L2cY

In reply to Lusk:

Who's suggesting censorship?
jk

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

January 1934: "Hurrah for the Blackshirts!"

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Nq8ud88X32A/VawFaoEBX8I/AAAAAAAAYUY/SJl7NNTLnLA/s...

In reply to Lusk:
I'm very much a fan of criticism not censorship. I would criticise the Daily Mail via their online comments section, but unfortunely they are very much in to censorship.

In reply to The New nickname:

Totally disagree with what the cartoonist is saying, but totally defend their right to say it...

In reply to Lusk:

I do have a problem with him characterising Arabs as ludicrously hook-nosed stereotypes

In reply to The New NickB:

Might be worth looking at the comments. Do you really think they censor them?

What's the problem with the cartoon, just the rats? It certainly doesn't portray all foreigners as rats, so what's the issue? There's loads of them in other political cartoons, they're no nazi monopoly.

In reply to thomasadixon:


I've not looked this time, I've certainly been censored by them in the past.


Are you serious?

In reply to Bulls Crack:


How do you know they're Arabs?

In reply to The New NickB:


Yes. This might be worth a read - http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/shortcuts/2015/nov/18/rats-the-hist... . I doubt I'd have seen it without the Guardian republishing it, but I didn't associate the rats with anything except IS. What's the problem? That it's the DM? That IS can't be portrayed as rats?

In reply to thomasadixon:

If IS are the rats, why are some of the migrants armed. It's a very mixed up image, deliberately in my view.

In reply to The New NickB:

I saw that guy as a border guard looking the other way, so an unguarded border. I think your knee is jerking and you're making connections that aren't there. The woman wearing the burka isn't a rat (clearly a deliberate addition so the people aren't all white looking), the worst implication is some migrants are rats.

In reply to The New NickB:

I'd have thought the main problem with the cartoon was that it fails the primary test of any cartoon; it's not funny.

jcm

In reply to thomasadixon:

Your interpretation doesn't seem to match the actual image, but I guess you have made your mind up!

In reply to The New NickB:

In fairness, all cartoons will effect debate. You only need to read the hundreds of comments below a Steve Bell or Martin Rowson cartoon (which are rarely funny John Cox) dissecting the possible message. Re the image, personally I don't think the Arab appearance is any worse than Charlie Hebdo and I think you are over reacting. It's an amplified/simplified cartoon to portray a message that terrorists infiltrating the immigrants that are flowing over Europes open borders isn't it? ( ( like Abdelhamid Abaaoudare....Salah Abdeslam is wandering Belgium streets apparently, moving easily from France etc.)

In reply to The New NickB:

The argument on the other side appears to be, wow! Omg! What a shocker! It's just like the nazis! It's not very convincing.

In reply to Andy Morley:


Whoever they are, they aren't drawn very sympathetically, which I think is the problem - there isn't a clear contrast between the refugees and the rats.

There are other interpretations. When I looked at it more carefully, the 'rats leaving the sinking ship' metaphor occurred to me, but I have to admit that isn't the first thing that occurred to me.

In reply to thomasadixon:


The iconography is obvious, the message is muddled, some of your interpretation, particularly of the armed immigrant, which clearly isn't a border guard, is beyond credible.

The Charlie Hebdo comparison is an interesting one, I thought they were mainly pretty unpleasant and admittedly limited by my poor French or other people's translations, not very inciteful.

Like Charlie Hebdo, the Daily Mail is more or less free to print whatever they like. I'm more or less free to criticise if I want.

In reply to Dave Garnett:

How many political cartoons do you think are drawn 'sympathetically'?
(a rough guess would help understand how much of a problem you consider this to be)

In reply to The New NickB:

Of course you are, but 'it's obvious' isn't going to convince anyone that doesn't already agree. The connection to a cartoon that many (like I) have never seen is a leap in your mind as far as I can see.

Saying what I saw and thought is beyond credible isn't convincing either, you're just calling me a liar. Use logic and argument and I might change my mind!

Doesn't that fact that we and many others are arguing about and discussing the cartoon suggest it is actually rather good, even if the message is unpleasant, or not, depending on interpretation?

In reply to Andy Morley:
Well, obviously it depends what the target is. To my eye the refugees are a collection of rather uncomfortable and unflattering stereotypes. If the cartoonist is trying to say that among the flow of genuine refugees deserving of our sympathy there are some rats and that the EU's inadequate border control doesn't even attempt to distinguish, then he should draw the refugees more sympathetically.

Either he can't draw, or that isn't what he means.

In reply to thomasadixon:


There isn't a question of the obviousness of the iconography, MAC will know the iconography better than I do. The only question is the purpose.


I'm not calling you a liar, but you willingness to completely ignore my argument is tiresome and doesn't really suggest that I might change your mind.

In reply to The New NickB:

Interesting. If it was in the Guardian, I would interpret the bloke with the gun as an aged soldier fleeing (terrorists are general young men), and the rats as a sinking ship metaphor.

Given the readership of the Mail, I just hope it doesn't contribute to the already increasing (double) reports of racism in the last week. I'm seeing it with my own eyes, daily.

In reply to Dave Garnett:


Isn't that exactly what most political cartoonists do for their bread and butter?

http://static.guim.co.uk/Guardian/culture/gallery/2008/dec/17/art-santa-chr...
http://static.independent.co.uk/s3fs-public/styles/story_medium/public/thum...
http://www.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=http://static.independent.co.uk/s3fs-...



Politics is the painful process through which the vastly different points of view within any country or other grouping somehow adjust to one another. Do you find it surprising that a political cartoonist might express meanings that you personally might not endorse?

In reply to Andy Morley:

Good political cartoons punch up at the powerful. This...
jk

In reply to jkarran:


Who, in the context of current events do you think this cartoon is punching up at? What might other people see as its target?

And are you personally able to answer the second of the above questions?

In reply to Andy Morley:

I don't think it is.

People will see what the want to: EU, muslims, refugees, gunmen, pestilence are all obviously referenced in a rather mixed up way that dangerously conflates different issues.

I don't see why not. I have imagination, I talk with other people, I can empathize. These are normal human abilities that allow us to view the world from perspectives beyond our own.

jk

In reply to The New NickB:

Funniest thing I´ve seen in ages....

In reply to jkarran:


Some people also seem to see ISIS in there (represented by the rats). Your mention of 'muslims' is interesting, especially as you don't mention 'Islam' because one of the less helpful features of current debates is the conflation of 'muslims' (a group of people) with 'Islam' (a set of ideas). So 'conflation' itself could be one of the tendencies that this cartoon highlights, and that is present in the wider debate already. Some people might also see 'invasion' in it - again, that is something that has been highlighted in the wider press - whether or not the current migrations of population refugees in distress or an 'invasion' is a debate many people will have a view on, one way or another.

Ambiguity has also been mentioned here in a similar way to your 'mixed up' and 'dangerously conflates' comments. Life is frequently ambiguous and art and satire often deliberately so. People who protest against ambiguity often do so when they themselves feel insecure, and at no time does this show itself more than in times of change and conflict when this reaction can lead to polarisation and further conflict. "He who is not with me is against me" to quote another religion. That often turns into a call to arms, which many would see as a bad thing, whereas ambiguity allows for negotiation, and "Jaw-jaw is better than war-war" according to one famous military leader of our own.


That almost seems to suggest that everyone is the same. Unfortunately, all those people out there with 'normal human abilities' don't seem to end up having the same perspective, and so your take may be radically different from other people's. I would suggest that the ability to see beyond one's own perspective is actually quite rare and that cartoons in general are often an effective way of jolting people out of their own comfort zone.

In reply to MG:

This is UKC, people will argue about just about anything.

Half serious.

In reply to Andy Morley:
It's not punching 'up' at anyone, it is joining in and encouraging a mob reaction to recent events.

It is conflating refugees with rats, it is implying all refugees are potential enemies, it is implying the EU is opening its borders because of weakness, whereas the reality is the EU is struggling with a desperate humanitarian and moral issue as best it can ... ffs he has even given them all hook noses!

It's vile, and Goebbels would have been proud of it.

In reply to Andy Morley:


If you want to mock ISIS killers as vermin there are better ways that don't also needlessly stoke fear of immigration and in this case, shamefully refugees. Except that's exactly what the Mail does day in day out, it's their stock trade.


Perhaps you could rearrange the words to make a sentence?


The ability to view the world from the perspective of others, imagination if you will is one of the defining qualities of the human animal, it's been key to our success in hunting and forming societies. Some are better than others for sure but the worst of us is still bloody good at it. Why you'd suggest that ability should make us all the same I have no idea except in the same way we're all the same in being large brained, social, bipedal apes.

Sometimes cartoons are just nasty propaganda preying on people's fears to further the paymaster's agenda.
jk

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:
That's my thoughts on it too.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

Dr Goebbels represents the propaganda machine associated with the people behind a previous iteration of historical violence, and I think that you're right in suggesting a pattern here somewhere amongst all this confusion that links to those historical events. I'm not however entirely convinced that the Daily Mail, its proprietors and the people they support are the driving force behind the current waves of conflict.

Personally, I would see others in this wider conflict as more closely representing the patterns that showed themselves in 20th century Fascism, Nazism and also Communism come to that.

In reply to Andy Morley:

FWIW and as a matter of historical fact, the Daily Mail was ALWAYS predicated on the idea that they had to give their readers someone or something new to hate every day, this has been going on for 100 years so Mac is in a long and dishonourable (but obviously lucrative) tradition.

They may not be a driving force, but they sure as anything aren't any part of a solution either.

In reply to The New NickB:

In the context of being in the Mail, it has been designed to appear as, and will be interpreted as, Islamic terrorists flooding Europe's non-existing borders with refugees and it compares them all as rats.

To argue otherwise is just bullshit.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

They are possibly also a dangerous distraction available to those who, for whatever reason want to avoid focussing on the main drivers behind all this current trouble in the world. Though the OP seems to identify the Daily Mail with previous enemies of the English-speaking world, whoever or whatever you think the modern equivalents of Fascism and National Socialism are, I don't think it's the Daily Mail brigade and I just got the feeling that you don't either.

There will always be vociferous bystanders to any conflict who will offer possible distractions for those who are eager to divert attention from what is going on. I'm not sure that you can blame them particularly for any of this, even as a distraction. Who, fwiw, do you think are the real culprits in the current waves of collective pain?

In reply to Andy Morley:

I'm not sure 'culprits' is the right word. Obviously ISIS are the current focus today; but the ME has been a disaster waiting to happen for 100+ years. Ever since oil money meant that the autocrats were able to resist any pressure to modernise and create secular, functioning states, in which young men would have other ways of finding fulfilment by participating, rather than jumping on every crackpot, religious inspired bandwagon.

Culprits: Palestinian, Israeli, Iranian, Iraqi, Syrian and Saudi leaders over the last 50 years, for a start.

In reply to Andy Morley:


I forgot to mention this in my previous reply. You say I don't use the word Islam. You're right because the cartoon depicts people some of whom appear by dress to be Muslims, followers of Islam the religion. All Muslims follow Islam, they're inextricably linked but the cartoon depicts people so I described the people. Taking your post at face value it doesn't really make much sense, I wonder if you might be confusing Islam with Islamism.

jk

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:


OK, let's be honest about this. The English-speaking world (the US and the UK) plus their European allies (France, the Low Countries etc.) haven't just been quietly getting on with their own business these past two or three hundred years. They've been engaging in both trade and military expansion that's bound to have played no small part in current events. In addition to this, they've been jointly and in all probability the most technologically advanced civilisation there has ever been, they've exported their culture and values by means that are less direct but in some ways more of a challenge to other cultures than possibly even their trading and military endeavours. So that could be legitimately seen as one 'side' in the current conflict. They have deployed armies, business and much else besids including propaganda and some of those things have probably come across as just as unpleasant as some of the messages emanating from their enemies such as Goebbels. If the Germans had won WW2, British propagandists of the time would probably be demonised instead of him.

I'm sure that some will dispute even this most obvious statement, but setting those usual UKC suspects aside, the US and UK represent a consistent alliance over an extended period which is currently linked with the EU and which is generally in conflict with who..? Certainly some of the above though Israel and the Saudis are allies of the Americans and as such, could be seen as on the American 'side' to a point? That's not entirely clear though and perhaps we could say that Israel and Saudia Arabia fall into a special category do do with trigger-points and leave them to one side for now...

What then is the common feature of those cultures with which the US/ UK alliance has been in major conflict over the past 100 years would you say?

In reply to The New NickB:


So use of rats = nazi, and this is obvious partly because it's in the DM. Or is there something more to your argument?


Perhaps beyond credible means something else to you. He's standing up straight right in front of the sign, he's got a gun, and he's got a guard's hat on. What makes you think he's an immigrant? I'm not ignoring your argument, I'm pointing out it's poor.

- Rob Exile Ward


The reality is that the external borders aren't enforced because the EU didn't really think about it, and the big argument over Hungary's attempts to control theirs makes that clear. That Croatia and Slovenia dealt with Hungary's attempts to control the borders by passing on the migrants as quickly as possible to the next country (from Serbia who were doing exactly the same thing) makes it even clearer. The deliberate implication that all those walking through borders unhindered, including refugees and migrants, are a potential danger is *true*, not offensive.

In reply to thomasadixon:


The main thing that makes me think he is not a guard is the fact that he has been drawn to look like the rest of the immigrants.

In reply to thomasadixon:


A border guard with the exact same profile as the stereo-type behind him?

In reply to jkarran:


You seem to be assuming that people dressed in Middle Eastern garb are automatically Muslims. In fact a lot of the refugees have been Christians and other minorities fleeing Syria. Whatever refugees wear, it's probably not the sort of clothing depicted in a cartoon, and what that cartoon depiction symbolises is more to do with a geographic location than a specific religion. Refugees themselves tend to be a mixed bunch.

As for "All Muslims follow Islam, they're inextricably linked" - that is certainly the theory behind Islam. The word "Islam" itself means "submission" and as a collection of religious ideas, its original use was to produce a cohesive and obedient populace that went on to provide the base for Mohammad's expanding military empire. But I know many people who self-identify as 'Muslims' who don't follow Islam in this way, just like I know many Christians who don't follow all of Christ's teachings. That doesn't mean that Islam is not a powerful influencing factor in the world today, particularly when it comes to military expansion that deliberately looks to Mohammad's original Caliphate (aka Kalifate) for its inspiration.

In reply to Andy Morley:

' If the Germans had won WW2, British propagandists of the time would probably be demonised instead of him.'

Oh for Goodness sake, a bit of moral relativism is all very well but your statement is plain silly.

No British propagandist ever made a concerted, consistent effort over many, many years to persuade the British that Slavs and Jews (or even Germans, for that matter) were literally non-human - nor did any British propagandist tell lies about 're-settlement in the East' and other euphemisms for mass murder.

You'd be hard pushed to demonise a group whose biggest sin was telling the population that ripping up railings to melt into Spitfires was good for the war effort.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:


You don't know about Churchill and the Cossacks then. War is not a pretty thing and as the same PM said, its first casualty is truth. The clean-cut British heros and the shifty Krauts/ Bosch/ Huns of 20th century Allied propaganda were very similar young men to those who fought on our side; all sides in any conflict engage in propaganda and anyone with any sense will take it with a pinch of salt, including this cartoon.

In reply to Andy Morley:


Which part of 'some of whom' are you struggling with? The cartoon clearly depicts a lady in a niquab. Now you're right, that could be a drawing of a non-muslim person wearing what is, despite your protestations, clothing closely associated with devout/oppressed (delete as you feel appropriate) followers of Islam (Muslims) but it probably isn't. It's probably supposed to look like a Muslim lady.

Muslim was one of several words I used to describe, when asked what some might see in that cartoon.


I'll hold my hands up here, you've kinda lost me, I'm not sure what point you're making.
jk

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:




Absolutely. As others have pointed out, its not a border guard- the silhouette is identical to the figure next to him who is unequivocally a refugee.

If the rats weren't there, it could be argued it was a reasonable comment on there being armed terrorists among genuine refugees.

The rats are a problem though. Could they be intended to represent rats leaving the sinking ship that is the middle east?

Maybe.

But it could very easily also be interpreted as equating refugees with vermin.

Given the attitudes and confirmation biases of many DM readers it is likely to have been read that way by many. And MAC abd his employers are not stupid or blind to that context

Best wishes

Gregor

In reply to Andy Morley:


There are several crude stereotypes trotted out, I don't get the impression Mac is particularly sensitive to the distinctions between Muslims, Arabs, Islamists, Jews, rats or terrorists; they're all foreign, that's all that really counts.

In reply to Dave Garnett:


If we had differential treatment of Muslims, Jews, Christians or any other group either by EU border control itself or by a newspaper cartoonist depicting issues to do with EU border control would you have been happier with that?

As for the terrorists and the rats that maybe represent terrorists, have you ever heard of Irgun, Lehi, the Stern Gang or the IRA? Would you like people to be more or less sensitive to distinctions between terrorists because of their religion?

Is there anything wrong with treating people who are not UK or EU nationals as 'foreigners'? That's what they are by definition, isn't it?

In reply to Andy Morley:
What should we infer from the fact that everyone who has posted something that you disagree with has received a 'dislike', and yet not a single one of your posts has? What on earth is that about?

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:


That you're a conspiracy theorist with an over-active imagination.

In reply to The New NickB:

That's probably fair enough (hardly identical though Gregor - he's taller, wearing a jacket not a robe, bushy eyebrows, etc, have you no eyes?).

So he's saying some immigrants bring guns you think. They do, don't they? In light of some of the Paris bombers having waltzed through Greece isn't it pretty fair to make a comment about the utter lack of control the EU has over it's borders? The rats are whatever you like I suppose, but comparing it to Goebbels is a major overreaction. There's a problem, you can't call anyone that brings it up a Nazi.