Politcal Cartoons

When you look at a newspaper or any editorial the first thing that catches your attention is the editorial cartoons. We share them with friends and post them on refrigerators and office doors. Political cartoons are arguably the simplest and most powerful form of communication that symbolizes a topic of interest, and most often that topic is one of great controversy. Because political cartoons are a combination of verbal and visual satire, it comes as no surprise that many political cartoons are often extremely offensive. A political cartoon published in the South African Sunday times is a prime example of just how offensive these cartoons can get. South African cartoonist Jonathan Shapiro’s derogatory drawing was offensive to me, and was the source of world wide controversy. Shapiro drew a vicious, downright disturbing image of the ANC (the South African ruling party) leader Jacob Zuma unbuckling his belt, looking down on a woman labeled “Justice System,” blindfolded and held down by leering men. The cartoon shows Zuma preparing to rape the justice system, portrayed as a blindfolded woman pinned down by Zuma’s political allies including the ANC, the Communist Party, unions and the ANC Youth League holding the woman or the “justice system” down and rooting Zuma to “go for it”. In other words Zuma was preparing to rape the justice system. It is important to remember that Zuma’s leadership has been characterized by corruption and he has even been accused of rape. In the second part of the political cartoon, president Zuma, standing with his pants unbuckled warns that he “respects” the justice system that he is about to rape. I must admit, that I understand and agree with the point that Shapiro was trying to make with his cartoon, and that is that Zuma is taking pure advantage of the South African justice system. Zuma is in fact a corrupted leader, but this cartoon is still offensive due to its graphic nature. In the picture, we do not get to see that Zuma is raping the justice system, we only see him and his allies’ gang rapping a woman, and we can all agree that seeing images of a woman about to get gang raped is in no way appropriate to be printed in a nationwide news source. And furthermore comparing the leaders corruption to the lewd act of rape is also something that needs to be reconsidered. I must say that even though I find this cartoon highly offensive, and I do think that Shapiro could have expressed his views in another way, I feel that Shapiro has the right to draw and publish whatever he wants.

Free Speach V. Abusive Language

In no way do I take the privilege of having my first amendment right to free speech for granted but I do feel that we as a society are too hypersensitive and need to wake up and stop letting what others say about us have such huge effects on us. Nevertheless, I am very considerate to the needs of others around me and do feel that outward use of abusive language toward another individual is wrong and is not something that I would take part in. So when asked if I would sign an agreement to refrain from using such language to gain acceptance into my school, then I would sign, but I would do so reluctantly. In my opinion there is nothing wrong with agreeing to not using offensive language. Actually, in my opinion, an agreement should not be necessary and its existence shows the true character of people in our society. Are we that rude and inconsiderate? I cannot understand what motivates people to be so disrespectful, and it is disappointing that so many people are. The way I was raised you never use this type of language and offend people, even if you do not agree with the person, and I do not know how a person can be heartless enough to fix their lips to hurt another person.
Even still, upon signing the agreement I would be very suspicious of my right to free speech being oppressed. My right to say what I want to when and where I want to is ultimately compromised by signing this agreement, and if it were not for positive means, I under normal situations I would never sign such a thing that takes away my right to free speech, but since this promotes social ‘behavior adjustment’ I would in fact sign.

Reading Lolita

A memoir, a social history, and a literary criticism all wrapped in one, Reading Lolita in Tehran is an outstanding novel that opens the door to many complex subjects to the government and cultural issues in Iran and the world. Being New York’s Times number one best seller, the significance of this memoir is of no doubt.

In the true story set in a time of everything but peacefulness, highlights the experiences, the trials, and the tribulations held by English literature professor and her students, we learn that freedom is something not to be held lightly. Due to the oppressive nature on women in Iran, Professor Nafisi was forced to resign from her teaching career at the Iranian university. Soon after, she gathered seven of her best students, all female, and together they attended secret weekly studies of western literature from the confines of her own home. The books they read were banned by the Iranian government, and they often had to share photocopied pages of the illegal texts. For years the met with each other to share and to talk and to "shed their mandatory veils and robes and burst into color." The meetings provided liberation for them under strict Islamic rule.

Threaded into the memoir are incisive discussions of the literary works of F. Scott Fitzgerald, Jane Austen, George Orwell, and other great western authors who provided the women with examples of those who successfully defeated obsession despite the challenges they faced. It in turn encouraged them to revolt against the blatant authoritarianism and repression in both large and small ways.

After reading this novel, I would recommend that everyone reads also reads it, and I think it would be especially appreciated by any one with even the tiniest interest in literature and foreign social or cultural issues. Reading Lolita in Tehran is enlightening and reminds us to take every advantage of all the freedom we are blessed with and to not to take them for granted. We must remember that some are not blessed with the right to read, watch, or even think about certain subject matters, and even the smallest liberating topics such as the freedom to dress how one pleases is not always guaranteed. All in all, Reading Lolita in Tehran is an outstanding read that emphasizes the relationship between life, literature, and liberty, and should be on the bookshelves of every home.

Lets not be Politically Correct:

We too often stray from using our words and replace them with others because we are worried to offend and stress on being politically correct. In fact, we have become so focused on being politically correct that we stray further and further from the message we are trying to communicate. Political correctness can better be defined as conforming language, ideas, policies, or behavior in order not to be offensive. The idea of conforming is not a looked upon platform of our society, so why should we conform our language, the tool we use to express ourselves? Furthermore, conversation and speech is a natural and necessary human process, and if we conform in our communication and language by being politically correct, then we ultimately reduce the human status. We need to be a little less sensitive and get beyond the point of political correctness, and just say what we need to say. Our overbearing consciousness of being political correct has had a great effect on how we use language, and ultimately our language is suffering from it. Rather than being straight forward and effectively communicating, our focus on being political correct has lead to cliché, vague, terms that are confusing and open to misinterpretation. Nowadays we can barely even describe a person without seeming sexist, racist, or close-minded. For example, political correctness placed on gender roles has been blown out of proportion. I see no harm in using words such as congressMAN or policeMAN. I mean are we all not huMAN? And why should us women stress about being called a waitress or a hostess? I like the fact that my womanhood is acknowledged. We also stress way too much on being politically correct in regards to race and ethnicity. One trip of the tongue and a person can be labeled racist for ever. Recently I had a conversation with one of my teachers and she asked if I preferred to be addressed as black or African-American. I told her black is fine, my descendants could have came from Africa over 400 years ago. I am just as American as her, why stress the point? When I travel abroad, I am first viewed as American who is black. Not African-American. All in all, both words can be used interchangeably with no harm done. Nevertheless, my teacher said the school stressed that African-American was the politically correct term, and the only one that should be used in the classroom. The point here is why do we narrow our language and over exaggerate situations to make others feel comfortable. Instead of saying what is on our minds, we have to check and rephrase ourselves, and too often our original message does not get conveyed appropriately. Not only do we tailor our language in racist and sexist situations, however we use it in regards to a persons mental status. We are scolded for using the word retarded, but is mentally challenged really a better choice? We are careful not to offend people in their relationship choices— not gay, rather alternative lifestyle. Alternative lifestyle can describe many situations, why must we confuse ourselves? We use political corrective-ness to describe anything of negative or awkward connotation. Are we really that fearful of being uncomfortable and does every situation need to be one of bliss? Overall, political language which is supposed to shed light on a situation is dimming our language.