Uproar over a Cartoon?

Well said Nauman. I think our government, under duress from the opposition and pressure groups, had to make a mountain out of a mole hill. Obviously, demanding that the Whitehouse apologize for something like this was mal-targeted as the Whitehouse had nothing to do with this cartoon. A proper response would have been a cold and snide remark to the Washington Times accusing them of being politically inept and childish. An insult goes much farther than raising a hue and cry.

On a side note, US conservatives are crying foul over a billboard advertisement of a spanish radio station on a California highway leading to LA which reads Welcome to Los Angeles, after which the CA is crossed out and in place of it is written Mexico. So, we are not the only ones prones to prima donna histrionics.

Musharraf does deserve credit for showing some backbone and resisting American requests to send troops to Iraq. Plus the Pakistani government has never approved of the Iraq war. We are allies, but fortunately we have defined our limits.

May be ..... They were testing the temperature.....!!

Nauman, your point is well taken, especially the final sentence.

While the cartoon seems quite innocent from the general American public`s perspective, the political cartoonists are highly intelligent, much more informed, and politically astute to symbolize objects and characters in specific circumstances to get the point across. It is no uncommon to use dual-symbolism in their work, which on the surface says one thing yet gets another more acute message across...kinda like Anwer Maqsood style.

I doubt the Pakistanis have lost the sense of humor, any more than the Americans have. Bill Maher was vehemently denounced by the American public for claiming that right or wrong 9/11 suicide bomber were anything but cowards (as immediately labelled by GWB) who gave up their lives for their cause, whereas the US pilots dropping cluster bombs from high altitudes were, in his talk show ``Politically Correct``.

You`re right about cultural perceptions having more to do with outrage at the public level, and political jabbing at the govt./politician level.

I think the whole rukus is about US treating Pakistan as dog - a four legged, slobering, dumber than human, beast...period. The breed may mean something different to Westerners, but perhaps not to Pakistanis. It doesn`t matter how good the kind is, it is still a beast and cannot be equated a nation. Even in the US and Europe, depiction of a person or nation as an animal is often meant as an insult. Your own example of Blair in the music video is a proof of that. Then western women often use the term ``dogs`` while referring to men.

So, the outrage is not that unjustified. The Pakistani pro-US moderates were awaiting rewards for their loyalty and efficiency as human partners, not demotion to a lesser creature. But then again, this group got exactly what it deserves, and the anti-US group is naturally upset at being insulted despite its political stance. :-)~~

Reply to cartoon mania in Pakistan published on May 10, 2005 in The Washington Times

A DOG’S LIFE (AND TIMES)

``East is east and West is west, and never the twain shall meet.`` The jet airplane and the Internet have rendered a lot of Kipling`s eloquence irrelevant, but the old boy had a point. Cultures, if not necessarily at war, still clash.

Consider the noble dog. In the West we regard him as man`s best friend. For one thing, he sees and hears a lot, and he`ll never tell. Little old ladies have been known to bequeath fortunes to his interests. ``A gay dog`` was once a sly compliment for the man about town and with very different connotations than such a compliment would imply today. Shakespeare characterized mighty armies with canine metaphor (``let slip the dogs of war``). Great universities invoke him as mascot for their beloved athletic teams. Yalies sing a hymn to him: ``Bulldog, Bulldog, bow, wow, wow,`` and the Georgia Bulldogs are annually the scourge of college football. The most loyal Democrats of yesteryear proudly called themselves ``yellow dogs.`` Loyal Democrats of the present day style themselves ``the blue dogs,`` and our soldiers are ``working like dogs`` on far-flung fronts today in the interests of what our French friends celebrate as liberte, egalite, fraternite. Indeed, we regard the dog as one of God`s greatest gifts, one of the noblest expressions of patience, loyalty, kindness and devotion.

A dog, in short, has soul, if not a soul. But this, alas, doesn`t always translate accurately to other cultures. In much of the Islamic world, for example, the dog is not, not to put too fine a point on it, held in such high repute, and is often regarded as not much better than, say, the sole of a man`s shoe. You can offend a devout Muslim, as the editorial page of this newspaper has learned to our chagrin, with a canine comparison that would cheer a conscientious Christian.

Our Bill Garner, whom we regard as the most incisive and talented cartoonist at work on American newspapers, set out last week to express, in a cartoonist`s irreverent way, a little gratitude for Pakistan`s work in the pursuit and capture of Abu Faraj al-Libbi, believed to be the third-in-command of al Qaeda.

In an unexpected ``tribute`` to the long reach of the influence of this newspaper, the Pakistani parliament adopted, unanimously, a resolution decrying Mr. Garner`s cartoon, and the Pakistani embassy has protested ``an insult to the sentiments of the people of both Pakistan and the United States as it strengthens the hands of the extremists.`` This imputes more power to a mere newspaper than any newspaper deserves, but we take the embassy`s point and offer the assurance that no insult was intended. Other Pakistani politicians have demanded an apology from no less than the president of the United States. The suggestion that any American newspaper speaks for the government or a president betrays a profound ignorance of how America works. If an American president could prevent newspaper cartoonists from insulting, reviling, abusing, affronting and ``dissing`` politicians, he would not exercise this power in behalf of anyone but himself. Newspaper cartoonists have been insulting, reviling, abusing, affronting and ``dissing`` presidents for more than a century, and all that presidents can do about it is grin, bear it and ask for the originals, for framing and display on desk or wall.

For his part, Mr. Garner, who admires Pakistan and, we might as well say it, loves old hounds, meant no offense or injury. Indeed, quite the contrary: ``When I showed a dog bringing in a terrorist I did it in the spirit of goodwill and friendship that exists between the two countries. I did not mean anything disparaging.`` Nevertheless, he says he will find other metaphors next time: ``I now understand that it obviously is a very negative symbol in Pakistan. I hope they will have an understanding of what I intended, and will accept differences among religions and cultures.``

And if he knows what`s good for him, he`ll be careful about what he says about cats.



Copyright © 2005 News World Communications, Inc. All rights reserved.

I havnt seen any Americans crying like this when Pakistani papers show American Presidents as satan, chimps and all. Actually we`re quite alike, US and us. Hippocrits of the highest order.