cairchicago

@cairchicago last night! It was very nice! Everyone should support #cairchicago. “People change- if we want to protect our freedom of religion, we need @cairchicago -Imam Siraj Wihaj #CAIRCHI10

Political Cartoons [Editorial Cartoons]

By: Ebony Hardiman

The anti-islamic controversy can be summed up by acknowledging that the editorial cartoons created that depicted islamic people in a negative light were insensitive. But insensitivity is protected by the Bill of Rights, does that make it okay?

The most common picture that is painted is that islamic people are violent and insensitive hypocrites, and that’s only when the prophet Muhammed isn’t turned into a laughing stock.

http-//www.barenakedislam.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/terrorist-school

http-//www.blazingcatfur.ca/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/Islamic_Cartoon9

http-//www.cairchicago.org/images/ariailcartoontribune

This is a difficult subject to explore only because of the double standard I find when I read these articles.

Editorial cartoons have the potential to be crude and offensive but the main goal, in my opinion, is to inform under the cloud of comedy and satire.

However, there is a line. The line that divides the offensive and the things that just shouldn’t be written or drawn is extremely blurred because the freedom of speech, no matter how offensive, is a right given to us by the constitution.

The way I see it, the attacks due to the anti-islamic cartoons were offensive and the level of outrage people felt depended on how close they were to the religion. People who had no connection to it at all most likely weren’t bothered by it. While people with very close ties to it, obviously, got very upset and decided to take actions into their own hands.

But the thing is that we punish them and reprimand them for doing that when we were the ones who casted the first stone. We were the ones who made fun of their culture and their idols, for example the prophet Muhammed.

To me, its no different than if someone who wasn’t “American” came to this country and burned our flags. We would be outraged and we would want to see them punished and persecuted.

So it is not wrong for us to feel that way about our relics and our culture but it is wrong for them to feel that way about theirs?


By: Sharon Carrillo 

Editorial Cartoons create major controversy because it’s based on opinion. Everyone is entitled to their own onion, until someone gets offended. After reading over multiple articles, the one thing they all shared was hatred. These political cartoons are being judged for expressing their view point. These cartoons combine fictional and non-fictional elements to send out a message or to comment on a mainstream topic. What makes them so interesting is that they are relatable. Cartoons address a diverse perspective of present issues; their opinion usually reflects the public’s conception.

A great example of an editorial cartoon going too far is when the 4 cartoonist who worked for the Charlie Hebdo paper were killed. The magazine was known for publishing cartoons that diminished public figures, politics, religion and more. The most attention the magazine got was for its treatments of Islam and the prophet Muhammad. You can see below, where Muhammad is sobbing or below that where a depicting member of the Islamic state group beheading Muhamad. These images along with many more were viewed as disrespect to the Islamic state group.

The main issue the Muslim community has is how poorly they are viewed in American media. When we poke fun of Muhamad, we are insulting everything they respect, everything they know. The only ‘right’ thing for them to do is to speak their rights. Political cartoons, also known as Editorial Cartoons, are a risky job. You’re aware of the negative remarks you will receive.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/07/charlie-hebdo-cartoons-paris-french-newspaper-shooting_n_6429552.html

Sources: 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/07/cartoonists-killed-attack_n_6428962.html?cps=gravity_2684_2895131755380392949

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/religion-jan-june06-cartoons_02-02/

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2015/01/10/376098073/why-youre-not-seeing-those-charlie-hebdo-cartoons

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/07/charlie-hebdo-cartoons-paris-french-newspaper-shooting_n_6429552.html



BY:Angelica Pedraza



https://desertpeace.wordpress.com/category/free-speech/

Political cartoons are a very controversial topic, especially when the topic is revolves around race or important events. In this case many cartoons that were controversial in past years related to anti-islamic issues. In this cartoon we can see the “world” laughing at political cartoons of Mohammed, because these cartoons may seem humorous and not taken very seriously; however, when you see the other paper and you see cartoons of the holocaust you can see that there is a different reaction. In the book it specifies that there are required skills to understand political cartoons or editorials such as knowing background history. In my opinion i believe the media has created a picture that we interpret throught what we see on tv or hear on the radio, when we go look at political cartoon we either don’t get it or we use our own knowledge to interpret these.

http://al-quds.blogspot.com/2006_02_01_archive.htm

Definitely when creating Political cartoons, there is a risk. People who hold this job need to be careful on what message they are transmitting. There have been cases where people really do get offended by these cartoons, even if they were meant to be humorous. These cartoons can be offensive, even if they are trying to just inform hard topics and trying to make in a way an easier topic by using humor. We recently saw the killing of four cartoonist on Paris, and as sad as it is, cartoonist are still in a way  risking the security/life by creating these. Topics such as race religion and politics are popular among cartoons; however, it is controversial and the person/people creating it are expressing their opinon throught these, so when it is out in the end, they are always at a risk to have offended someone.