Politics is a world of criticism, scrutiny, and dirty tactics. One tool used by people to support their personal political philosophy or agenda is political cartoons which negatively portray the target of the cartoon’s scrutiny to promote the artists personal beliefs. I was once sent a like to a cartoon through an E-mail from my very democratic and outspoken uncle. While I am not a fan of President George W. Bush, there are some things that are very inappropriate and can in fact be damaging to the advancement of our nation.
The cartoon I received came after Hurricane Katrina struck the Southern states of our country and was associated to the backlash President Bush received for how he handled the response to the hurricane’s victims. The cartoon portrays President Bush in Louisiana standing out front of an Air Force One helicopter in water about up to his knees. He has is hand on the shoulder of what is drawn to be a darker man which what seems to be his wife and baby look on. While the cartoon is meant to be comical, even the drawing of the wreckage the hurricane caused is saddening and makes the cartoon that much more distasteful. The cartoon only has one blip of speech, but this one quote is very powerful and painful. The quote coming out above president Bush reads “If you had been rich, you would have lost much more”; a mean and cold-hearted attack on the people of Louisiana who were in a great time of suffering.
The cartoon is so offensive to me because it strikes certain people in America at a very dark time. While many people feel president Bush did not respond correctly to this specific crisis, people living in the hurricane-hit areas were so deeply and traumatically affected I do not feel that this cartoon is appropriate nor comical. This cartoon specifically targeted people of America who may be less fortunate or who lives in poverty-stricken areas. These people were already struggling before the hurricane hit and were suffering even more when they lost everything to Hurricane Katrina. To then point out the fact that these people are poor and even make a joking suggestion that they were not treated as well as rich people would have been is simply putting salt in a very large open wound. It’s hard to even tell if the author is bashing President Bush, or if he is being prejudice and nasty to people in poverty.
I feel that political cartoons should be used to express personal opinions in a humorous was that does not stand to hurt innocent people. Political cartoons are a part (ugly as it may be) of the political community and have been for centuries. A politician is prepared and anticipative of being slammed by opposition, but it is very important that the target of these cartoons remain the politicians themselves who choose to involve themselves in the political world, they should not affect everyday citizens of the United States.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I agree with your post. Editorial cartoonists sometimes make offensive distasteful cartoons about political things. What is funny is I wrote my blog about the positive sides of editorial cartoons while you wrote about the negative sides. And there is two sides to every story : ) In a way, cartoons are helpful to depict what is going on in society through a comical cartoon. Yet sometimes these cartoons strike us the wrong way. I totally agree that the cartoon you found very offensive was indeed distasteful. It is difficult to decipher whether the cartoon bashed George Bush or the people living in poverty. In many ways, editorial cartoons can reflect the attitude and personality or the cartoonist. In this case, the cartoonist may be prejudice. But I enjoyed reading your opinion on editorial cartoons. It is interesting to read the other side of an opinion.
ReplyDeleteShannon, when I read your post, just by the description you gave, I got the sense that the cartoonist was making a commentary on Bush’s attitude and not toward or about the affected community. If I am right about this, I don’t think this cartoon would have had the same impact if it had only shown Bush and not the victims. Sometimes the truth hurts, and in this case I honestly believe it was necessary to show the victims suffering to highlight Bush’s lack of concern and the way he down-played their suffering, which a lot of people would agree – sucked! Yes it’s sad that the victims were poor (as is usually the case), but the cartoonist wasn’t saying” if they had been rich they would have lost more”. He was saying that this is what Bush’s was saying. I see this as a huge difference. But I don’t mean to sound as if I’m saying that I am right and you are wrong, in fact this serves as a good example of what we have been discussing previously. Some people find some things offensive, as you did (and you have every right to) but some people see it differently.
ReplyDelete