Via SAJAForum, an…interesting political cartoon by Ted Rall which experiments with a provocative question: what if Republican threat to everything presidential candidate Mike Huckabee were a different sort of fundamentalist?
Here are the cartoonist’s own words regarding this work, from his blog:
Today’s cartoon responds to the generally respectful tone accorded Mike Huckabee, who does not believe in evolution and is therefore, by definition, a lunatic. [vague link]
I do appreciate Rall’s overarching point– Huckabee is allowed to be as batshit crazy as he wants to be because he’s on the fundamentalist fringe of my religion instead of any other one– since I’m no fan of the preacher man. It’s a very valid concern.However, I also cringed slightly at how Rall made his point. I cynically wonder whether people will get mired in “Hinduism is strange” instead of questioning why we aren’t more worried about the rise of this candidate. After all, if Rall’s conception of Hindu fundamentalism (cobras? chanting? SATI??) confuses slightly-familiar-with-Hinduism-me, what will those with even less exposure to the religion think?
And if you are Hindu (as I think a majority of our readers are), are you offended by this cartoon?
I think some readers (if this cartoon gets exposure outside SAJA) wont get his point.. but instead conclude quite sensibly that fundamentalist hindus (by the way, I havent come across anyone who literally believes in earth being held up by turtles or cobras)are a lot worse than Huckabee and his ilk. They wont know that literal beliefs are peripheral to hinduism, unlike most readers here. Given the extreme caricature used here, this isnt offensive to me. More disturbing about the Huckster is his total innocence on foreign affairs (stating that pakistani illegal immigrants were a threat!).. Believing that the world started in 4004 BC is fine, comparitively.
I ll take the chap from Arkansas over any smooth talking Senator with a MidWest connection. At least he is honest about his ‘crazy’ beliefs. I d say USA and the world needs a ‘battler’ President – especially who ate squirrels.
Come on, it’s not fair to call him a lunatic just because he doesn’t believe that humans and apes descended from a common ancestor. The poor man has never seen himself in a mirror.
Of course it’s offensive. Reason being, the American public knows very little about Hinduism other than it’s mythologolical underpinnings, and ancillary things like the practice of “sati.”
I see the cartoonist is attempting to impugn Huckabee’s “crazy” nature, by casting it as “fundamentalist” Hindu, but most of America is unaware of non-fundamentalist Hinduism (for examples, schools of logic: nyaya, schools of philosophy such as sankya and mimansa, etc..)
It insults Hinduism as much as it insults Hucakabee. (the latter of course, is worthy of insult)
If the person is familiar with Hinduism more than what they learned from Indiana Jones & The Temple of Doom, and they’re not religiously sensitive, nope, it’s not offensive. If it’s intended for wide distribution to people who learned all they know about India from Indiana Jones & The Temple of Doom (hereinafter referred to as “idiots”), I
thinkhope the qualifiers “fundamentalist Hindu” and “2008 BC” are reasonable protection against desis being asked “Do you eat monkey brains?”.1) i don’t think someone who rejects evolution is a ‘lunatic.’ as someone who is obsessed with evolutionary science it isn’t a trivial concern of mine, but we need to keep these things in perspective.
2) as noted above, rall is presenting a confused caricature of what hindu fundamentalism is (if it even is). hinduism, or what he thinks it is, is just a means to his ends to get to the overall point that christian fundamentalism is less nutty or terrifying simply because it is familiar.
3) though this is not an invalid point, reality is much more complex than this. to be short about, fundamentalism is a very precise term which denotes the reaction against modernism in protestantism during the late 19th century. fundamentalism is also a very general term which is associated with retrograde/reactionary tendencies and appeals to scriptural literalism and religious authority. obviously rall is getting to the second of these issues, a big catchall term.
4) religions do have natural distributions. i think american fundamentalism in its dominionist incarnation can be quite strange and threatening. but most of the world’s ‘moderate’ muslims arguably have huckabee’s opinions, or even more conservative ones. if you are going to say that those who are creationists are lunatics, the majority of the world’s muslims are probably lunatics (no objection here). i don’t think though that most people want to go there, right? to some extent christianity is a castrated religion from where i stand (at least in the developed west). since the enlightenment we secularists have done a good job in beating it into the private realm, or defanging its exclusivist tendencies. most american evangelicals (this is what rall really means) are conservative, and they certainly do concern liberals concerned with issues such as gender equity and abortion rights. but,
5) most american evangelicals are not nearly as extreme as most muslim, and perhaps hindu, fundamentalists,** because their conservatism is normalized to the central tendency of the society. to give you an example, huckabee was happy about jamie lynn spears’ decision to keep her baby. translate the social context to the muslim world, how do you think a muslim fundamentalist politician would react to an out of wedlock pregnancy of a prominent actress (assuming that he thinks actresses are not a totally haram profession?)?
5) the point is that we, who are secularists, are right to be concerned about the fundamentalists near us. but we should not transpose terminologies so promiscuously from society to society. one society’s ‘liberals’ would seem ‘conservative’ to another, and, even in our own society the social liberals of the past would seem quite conservative and old fashioned today (which is why some social conservative activists like to cite people like elizabeth cady stanton to defend their viewpoints!).
6) the cautiousness of transposing terms is why i switched the focus from hindu to muslim fundamentalism, i think the way in which rall is imagining fundamentalism is more appropriate, in the generality, to abrahamic religions. my reading of the literature does suggest that a group of ‘fundamentalist’ hindus who are strongly influenced by dayananda saraswati exhibit the same tendencies as abrahamic religionists, but i don’t think it is an equivalent phenomenon within hinduism.
** the conservatism of hindu or muslim or christian fundamentalists is, i think, normalized to their societies, not derivable in essence from their religions. so if hindus fundamentalists have extreme attitudes toward female chastity in line with muslims as opposed to looser attitudes (that is, no honor killing) among christians, that isn’t because hinduism and islam are fundamentally similar, rather, the societies where the religions are expressed are similar. this makes sense when you note that honor killings occur among jordanian christians.
There was a very funny comment by a reader on Globeandmail.com’s article discussing Huckabee’s win. I paraphrase, “I find it somewhat disturbing that the american people are electing a president based on their perception of whether he is someone they would sit down with for a drink. I mean, it’s all very good if you can play the banjo and shoot ducks, but how does that qualify you for the american presidency”.
on another note, “Oh my god! Oh my god! Dont shoot. This is traumatizing”.
Reg the use of hindu symbols and mythology, i dont consider it offensive. if rall is pissing on some of the practices like untouchability and sati, so what? i’m sure he’ll follow it up with a piece on, “what if huckabee became president? 1. we will go back to trading slaves on new year’s day because jesus is white and blue-eyed and all others are lower beings 2. women were carved out of adam’s rib, so they are worth less and should stay at home and spew babies. 3. we should reward those who do school shootings because they’re defending our constitutional right ot bear arms etc.” all in a day’s work.
This caricature would fit nicely with the notion that people in India come to work on elephants.
He can now go to work on an elephant 🙂
“I find it somewhat disturbing that the american people are electing a president based on their perception of whether he is someone they would sit down with for a drink….
bill clinton?
My objection to this cartoon is that the comparisons used by Rall in the ad are completely ridiculous and do not make sense even in the realm of caricature. The most orthodox Hindus I know do not hold the turtle theory as central to their world view, nor is casteism a central tenet of fundamentalist Hinduism – at least to the extent that I am aware.
I wonder (NOT!) why Rall didn’t make the more obvious analogy to another religion of the book.
Especially ironic when the guy they elected is an ex alcoholic who is forbidden to touch the stuff. And, the reality doesn’t live up to the fantasy, in any case.
I’m glad someone said it.
Hindu fundamentalism is a fringe concept with few followers. There is however large numbers of Hindu fascists and they promote the Hindutva social order that threatens to destabilize India. The origin of their hate has more in common with the racialist pseudoscience of twentieth century European fascists than the literalism of Muslim and Christian fundamentalists. It’s about blood and culture, not metaphysics/theology. The Left likes to refer to it as Hindu fundamentalism to maintain some symmetry that does not exist and spare the feelings of people who practice other religions. This cartoon was stupid and way of mark. Saffron types don’t have a conflict with scientific “Big Questions”, their problem is a lack of humanity and belief in collective guilt. Fascism vs. Fundamentalism is a distinction with a difference, well meaning progressives will continue to be irrelevant in the fight for justice in India as long as they continue to push this bogus comparison.
I don’t think not believing in evolution is analogous to practices like untouchability and sati, especially as the former is still a dilemma today. I think the problem is that ‘Hinduism’ encapsulates a lot of different customs, especially when it comes to sati, which I believe was practiced mostly in the northwestern part of the subcontinent. I can understand the point that the cartoon is making, but as a Hindu, it stings a little because it’s another reminder of what popular perceptions of Hinduism, which were originally (and still is) looked at through a very Western lens, are.
40-50% of Americans do not believe in evolution. The figure is even higher among self-identifying Christians. Up to a quarter of American’s believe in the imminence of the Rapture. All this despite universal literacy and a mandatory primary education in the sciences. If Huckabee is a lunatic, then America is a lunatic asylum!
No offense taken by this hindu. I get what he’s trying to say, but wish he got his hindu fundies right. Culturally this is as on point as Tom Wolfe’s raps.
I would object to that portrayal being in, say, a mandatory textbook for little kids, but seems like fair game for political cartooning. The last frame made me laugh!
I would be more respectful of faith. the two can co-exist but faith trumps logic any day. faith and fable help us get through the day, participate in society, rear kids. logic just helps us make money and keep us out of jail. i prefer faith any day. so do many americans i am sure – but if asked if they believe their god was borne of ancestry that’s known to , they would balk.
I would be more respectful of faith. the two can co-exist but faith trumps logic any day. faith and fable help us get through the day, participate in society, rear kids. logic just helps us make money and keep us out of jail. i prefer faith any day. so do many americans i am sure – but if asked if they believe their god, or a messenger thereof, was of ancestry that’s known to eat feces they would balk, as do I.
So what does Hindu fundamentalism (as opposed to Hindu fascism = Hindutva) entail?
exactly what louiecypher said re: fascism & fundamentalism. though do note that some of the salafi theories, such as sayyid qutb, come very close making islam and arab chauvinism toward the malwali coterminous.
ANNA’s post: “However, I also cringed slightly at how Rall made his point.”
Yup! The satire in the strip was completely lost on me as I struggled with Rall’s overall exotification of Hinduism. I didn’t see much difference between this and commercials in the past showing a woman with eight or ten arms peddling some product while sitar music plays in the background.
Nobody can fault Rall for his politically correct dalit and sati jokes, but the references to cobra and elephant, though obviously distorted for comic purposes, do make light of Hindu mythology in general. The green “Om” only shows Mr. Rall’s lack of general knowledge. He is confusing it with the Islamic green crescent because, of course, all of us look alike.
The guy should be shot, figuratively speaking.
6 Razib: “so if hindus fundamentalists have extreme attitudes toward female chastity in line with muslims as opposed to looser attitudes (that is, no honor killing) among christians, that isn’t because hinduism and islam are fundamentally similar, rather, the societies where the religions are expressed are similar.”
It takes a sharp mind to state the obvious. No, I am not being facetious, Razib. You are absolutely right in comment #6 about religious beliefs as being highly contextual and “normalized to the central tendency of the society.” The West needs to apply this formula to its understanding of Islam in particular. (Hey Razib, I didn’t forget about sending you my Dad’s book for your critique. He is only halfway through.)
And Rahul, it is never a good idea to trust a politician who doesn’t drink.
I feel that to take offense at Rail’s attempt at satire is being overly sensitive – which is something we, as South Asians, are prone to doing. The same sort of distortions occur with regard to other religions, especially Islam and Christianity. To view this as an attack on Hinduism seems an over-reaction.
Ultimately, for people of faith – no matter what religion they follow – one does have to part with some aspects of rationality, which I guess is why it involves “faith”
in any case, if you are a devout hindu most people assume you believe all this, this just reinforces that notion. “thank god i am not religious” :). but i prefer to not see hinduism/indian culture mentioned in any context in america.
but it is so weird—sati, literal belief in creationism with elephants, cobras, etc (3 of 4 panes) is not in the books of any fundamentalist hindu organization i know of. kicking out muslims, yes. literal belief in ramayana, mahabharata, yes. untouchability, depends.
this cartoon would be about as funny as a cartoon in india saying americans believe in aliens—if there is no grain of truth in your joke, it is usually not funny. i think ted rall is just trying too hard.
I feel that to take offense at Rail’s attempt at satire is being overly sensitive – which is something we, as South Asians, are prone to doing. The same sort of distortions occur with regard to other religions, especially Islam and Christianity. To view this as an attack on Hinduism seems an over-reaction.
i’m an atheist who has little sympathy for “offense” taken when people mock the non-existent (though some issues, like suttee and caste prejudice are serious and i think the conflation with a religion might not be so good because it muddles the serious issue), but let’s be real, hindus have mythology and christians & muslims have beliefs. i think the double-standard will go on for a long time because hindus in the west don’t have demographic and social pull. some primitive superstitions are privileged over others in public discourse and that’s purely a function of numbers and familiarity (e.g., the substantively exotic nature of hindu beliefs vis-a-vis christianity as opposed to islam also makes it easy to mock since tropes about paganism are already handy).
i actually think that more offending religion would probably be good in the USA, so long as people are accurate in how they characterize said beliefs (not that there should be a law demanding accuracy). but as it is the sociological constraints mean there’s going to be more blow-back for mocking christianity than hinduism or some other minority faith. if cartoonists like rall were really in it to make an impact they’d stir the real shit and take more direct aim at christianity as such, as opposed to the caricature of snake-handling bible-thumpers.
Maybe a few people here are taking offense at his comments about Hinduism, but as an atheist and somebody who enjoys a good joke, I am taking offense at his weak attempt at humor.
A caricature is usually funny if it has a basis in reality. You know, sort of like Chris Rock. Except he just says facts in a high pitched voice, something to the effect of “The police shot me because I’m a black man!”. Some people find that edgy too, I guess. And maybe it was when he first started doing his routines.
Yes and no. I guess the statement is true if you broaden the definition of “society” appropriately. Razib himself has made several comments in the past about the “ummah” nature of Islam which leads people to a very different conception of their idea and morality.
Floridian, you and Kasper Gutman, both. Although there’s many other reasons to distrust a man too. Gutman: We begin well, sir. I distrust a man who says ‘when’. If he’s got to be careful not to drink too much, it’s because he’s not to be trusted when he does. Well, sir, here’s to plain speaking and clear understanding. [They drink.] You’re a close-mouthed man. Spade: No, I like to talk. Gutman: Better and better. I distrust a close-mouthed man. He generally picks the wrong time to talk and says the wrong things. Talking’s something you can’t do judiciously unless you keep in practice. Now, sir, we’ll talk if you like. I’ll tell you right out – I’m a man who likes talking to a man who likes to talk. Spade: Swell. Will we talk about the black bird? Gutman’: [chuckling] You’re the man for me, sir. No beating about the bush, right to the point. Let’s talk about the black bird, by all means. But first, answer me a question. Are you here as Miss O’Shaughnessy’s representative? Spade: Well, there’s nothing certain either way. It depends. Gutman: It depends on? Maybe it depends on Joel Cairo. Spade: Maybe. Gutman: The question is, then, which you represent. It’ll be one or the other. Spade: I didn’t say so. Gutman: Who else is there? Spade: There’s me. Gutman: Ah. That’s wonderful sir, wonderful. I do like a man who tells you right out he’s looking out for himself. Don’t we all? I don’t trust a man who says he’s not.
razib, it is interesting that you see Christianity as being less prone to attack and being mocked than other faiths. Ask any evangelical Christian and they would tell you that their faith is under constant attack.
Although I am a Christian by birth, I don’t have the same sensitivity to these perceived “attacks” because ultimately I feel that if one’s faith is well-grounded it should not matter what others think. But then my view and beliefs in the context of Christianity falls outside of the mainstream beliefs of most Christians and so I don’t represent the norm in this regard.
Yes and no. I guess the statement is true if you broaden the definition of “society” appropriately. Razib himself has made several comments in the past about the “ummah” nature of Islam which leads people to a very different conception of their idea and morality.
right. i think one of the main issues at work with muslims in the west is that there are two tendencies, 1) to normalize to their societies of residence (some american muslims basically could be mainline protestants if you wrote a perl script do a search and replace on the terminology they use), 2) to normalize to the ummah as a whole, which is focused on the money coming out of the gulf countries to fund religious charities. my reading on say the chinese muslim community (the hui) suggests that modern travel and information technology is having the affect of pulling them further toward a set of beliefs and norms which are consonant across the middle east and into south asia, as opposed to their own indigenous tradition which justified their religious peculiarity within a specific chinese framework and set of values.
razib, it is interesting that you see Christianity as being less prone to attack and being mocked than other faiths. Ask any evangelical Christian and they would tell you that their faith is under constant attack.
it’s perception. also, in any case, it isn’t to the extent of ‘piss christ,’ it is usually attacking evangelical christians as primitive rubes, which mainline christians also engage in to triangulate. and christianity might be attacked more vociferously in the united states because it sends a message, ‘piss christ’ gets more of a rise than ‘piss krishna’ out of americans. but, i don’t think you’d see pictures of jesus christ on toilets, which is what happened with some hindu god a few years ago according to manish. it wasn’t an attack on hinduism, it was simply treating hinduism as an object rather than the faith of hundreds of millions. finally, you need to standardize for the fact that there are many more christians and christian thoughts and ideas floating around in the USA, so in raw numbers you’ll see a lot more of that. i’m talking about insults or slights standardized for numbers, and i think hinduism is a good religion to commercialize and trivialize because there aren’t many hindus in the USA and they won’t pose any danger. christianity is not a good religion to trivialize, though it is a good religion to commercialize (though some christians would argue that the latter entails the former).
No argument from me on the lack of humor when it comes to Rail’s attempt at satire. I found it quite “unfunny” if there is such a word – but then I don’t find Chris Rock funny either and a lot of people do. I guess humor, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.
16 · risible said
It’s actually higher. See this ABC news poll, and put down that hot cup of tea before you do: http://tinyurl.com/2b8ov.
6 · razib said
Razib: I’m genuinely curious, would you say a presidential candidate who rejects gravity is a lunatic; if so how would you parse the difference? Etymology?
Razib and Louie Cypher —
Reactions to a related piece by Ayaan Hirasn Ali in the NYT?
24 notsoyoungdesi “I feel that to take offense at Rail’s attempt at satire is being overly sensitive – which is something we, as South Asians, are prone to doing.”
Certainly one should have a sense of humor about things, even one’s own religion, but my problem with South Asians is that we are the LEAST prone to being overly sensitive. If we want to give our children a fair shake in this society, we need to be a little more vigilant, without becoming vigilantes, of course.
In this media-dominated, perceptions-formed-by-sound-bytes world, everything IS reduced to a brand, and perception IS reality. And brands need to be “managed,” or you will get what you deserve.
There was a debate here a few months ago over the characterization of Apu in The Simpsons, and one of the founders of SM stated on national TV that the unflattering image of this Indian convenience store owner and, by extension, all South Asians, was probably racist and detrimental to all of us. As much as I personally enjoy The Simpsons, I agreed totally with our South Asian Brand Ambassador because there should be a separation between the personal and public when it comes to taking a stance for the greater good of the brand. We may personally enjoy the humor but we must publicly denounce it. The fact that Apu the store owner is not above cheating his customers and has been known literally to sell merchandise off the floor is not as innocuous as Jewish mom jokes, which we have heard enough on television. Cheating people is not funny, and Indians shown as cheating people shouldn’t be funny.
In a similar vein, to accept all the references to Hindu mythology in this cartoon strip as just good, old-fashioned humor is not very prudent, in my humble opinion.
I guess I am a lunatic, not because I necessarily disbelieve that men descended from apes (though scipedant that I am, I’d point out that apes and men both descended from something else), but because I do think it’s perfectly reasonable for another person to believe in creation. It’s not an irrational belief. It’s as rational as any other rational thought process, which is to say it’s your typical black box with inputs and outputs, and garbage in, garbage out.
I am not sneering at creationism at garbage in, either. Just now I read a thread at Overcoming Bias blog where fresh off a tone-deaf and schoolyard-taunting post on Christmas day mocking the Immaculate Conception, the blogger states his belief in Transhumanism and the Singularity.
The ego of man knows no bounds, and neither does his faith. Reason is just a tool applied in service of both.
I tend towards increasing skepticism of “rational thinking” as any kind of intrinsically superior in terms of relative “Truth” (capital T). Overcoming bias? Such righteousness! Such hubris!
Now, however, what is superior is method, not process. This is why the true fruit of the Enlightenment was the scientific method, not secularism and the conceit that any human thought can ever be truly objective.
At any rate, sneering at Hinduism for being “strange” is not much different from sneering at Huckabee for being devout, and you can’t take offense at one an dnot the other. Well, you can, but in doing so you are not exactly… reasonable.
27 Rahul” Floridian, you and Kasper Gutman, both. Although there’s many other reasons to distrust a man too.”
Eliot, and now Bogart! Is there no end to your refined tastes, Rahul? If you ever deign to descend on a plebeian place such as South Florida, do drop in for an evening of Prufrock and The Maltese Falcon. They go marvelously with fine cognac and canapes.
Floridian, I have been reading your postings for a while – well before my first post on this forum. As always, your comments are insightful and well articulated.
With the benefit of hindsight, I wish I had stated as part of the posting that you cited, the view that I indicated in a subsequent posting that Rail’s attempt at satire is not funny. I do differ with you as to the sensitivity of South Asians when it comes to perceived insults. I think where we are in agreement is that we often do not take any type of follow-through action when it comes to offensive behavior that we should be rightly find offensive – and this has ramifications for our children and the community as a whole.
Before coming to the US, I went to school in England during the sixties and I know how perceptions and stereotypes have a profound impact on how a community is viewed. It is not something to be ignored but it is helpful to maintain perspective as we consider the images that are conveyed about our community. Historically other immigrant groups in years gone by have been subjected to the same sort of stereotypes that we occasionally face today. Some of the very same accusations we face today as “money-grubbing cheaters” was something that the Jews faced in years gone by. As these other groups have integrated into the mainstream, these stereotypes have gradually faded. I see the same thing happening with the South Asian community down the line.
I am presently in Kerala – spending the winter away from the cold of Northern Virginia – and what I find interesting is that these very same stereotypes are so very much in vogue when it comes to the perception of other communities within India – whether it be the unscrupulous business practices of certain communities, the lack of cleanliness of others or the marginal intelligence of certain segments of the Indian population!
I don’t think the cartoon is offensive but I do believe it is dangerous. If there is any offensiveness it seems to be more a by-product than the intention. The point of the cartoon doesn’t seem to be an attack on Hinduism but rather a reflection of just how ridiculous it is for people (especially the mainstream media) to tiptoe around his stances on the grounds of respect for his faith. I think he misses the mark and highlights his own ignorance and it’s kind of clumsy, but I don’t get the sense of intentional attack on Hinduism as opposed to other beliefs. So, while it may be misinformed for the various reasons people have pointed out, and dangerous because that misinformation can be swallowed by people who don’t have much exposure to the religion, I’m not so sure I would say it is offensive.
How to counteract the danger? I guess to be ready, willing and able to explain the various ideas people have expressed here: there is nothing in the religion that demands that all adherents subscribe to a particular form of belief whether it is ceiling cat or a tortoise who is in charge of the world, sati was practiced in many areas but was by no means universal (and have a good set of other eye-brow raising practices from other religions–witch burnings being a good one), the analogy fails etc. It’s important to be able to counteract the “chilled monkey brains” with correct information and also with information that suggests the other side may not have the best cuisine on the planet either either. I think we’re fortunate that times HAVE changed significantly from the Indiana Jones days, in that there is now a sizeable group of people who are familiar with the mores and history of the U.S. to be able to make such points and also in that the “mainstream” seems to be more willing to listen.
On the other hand, sati was practiced for a long time, even if it was geographically limited and casteism was (and arguably remains) a huge part of the religion in most if not all areas. So, while I find “chilled monkey brains” offensive precisely because it is intended to denigrate and is patently false, I can’t really take umbrage at picking on some of the more notable and discomforting aspects of Hinduism in order to make a point–if we wouldn’t give Huckabee a pass for acting on these horrific principles, why do we let him get away with acting on equally horrific principles just because he couches them in the flak-jacket of evangelical Christian faith?
It’s probably been agreed with and disagreed with, but I stopped reading the comments after the evolution flame war started.
I think the cartoon was fucking hilarious.
Makes sense to me, and people who don’t get it might not find it funny anyway.
I’m not offended by this cartoon in the least. If one person, albeit a divine one, can die and erase all sins throughout time, then anything is possible! Even four elephants holding up the earth!
I think that reasonable people understand that when it comes to religion or culture, you can’t believe everything you read. You also can’t count on people to keep cultural practices and religious beliefs/mythology straight.
The last frame made me laugh, too. It’s to be taken with a grain of salt.
I am willing to bet that 80% of Rall’s non-Desi readers will not have the faintest clue what religion he is using for a foil. The other twenty percent will be split between those who get his point and those that will want to argue with you that it should be suttee because that is how Kipling spelled it…
CT
AFAIK, no real Hindu fundamentalist believes in the earth theory, sati or untouchability. The cartoon would’ve made more sense if it depicted the real perceptions of a Hindu fundamentalist to show how people would tiptoe around them.
Hindus don’t have any book that tells them “this is how it is” but various texts that theorize and attempt to explain the world’s reality. So although the problems in these cartoons may be problems in Hindu society at various points in time, Hinduism is a dynamic enough religion as to lose these ideas as new ones trump them. This is the root of the Western misunderstanding about this religion, coming as they do from a Divine Book perspective.
I guess I’m not offended. I’m disappointed that more misconceptions are being created about the religion and its fundamentalists.
Rall attempts to cover himself by claiming its a fundamentalist in 2008 BC, but that is likely to be lost on readers who will come away with the idea that this is what today’s Hindu fundamentalists believe. Sigh. Oh well. No cure for ignorance or those who propagate it.
I was amused by thei ignorance and not offended a wee bit.
i agree with the comment that this was not intentionally offensive, but i disagree on the “ignorance” piece.
i disagree on this as well.
am not sure how familiar the readers here are with ted rall’s work. he’s been provocateur-at-large for quite a while and i’ve seen him get really outrageous after 9-11-2001, given the sensitivties around the WTC bombing. he’s gone on record to call rice a “house ni***”. he’s dissed veterans by calling them idiots and has mused that the guys who died in iraq are a matter of darwinian extermination. it’s his biz to be a pissy sonuvabitch. but,… i wouldnt call him ill-informed.
he’s one of the few journalists who’s been on a field trip through pakistan+afghanistan since the war’s onset and he has published a travelog on it. i havent seen any previous display of his knowledge on hinduism, but i know his research is pretty spot-on (though has strong biases). hence i wouldnt consider him ignorant. also, rall makes his living via left-wing forums and magazines. i am not well-aligned with the american demographic distribution, but the audience is urban, politically aware and is very likely to be aware of indian social issues.
i cant say i’ve enjoyed rall’s cartoons. i dont even agree with a lot of his commentary. but i’ve seen a lot of it to realize that this is not anything he’s singling hindus out for. yet, it’s a fair question [Rahul] on why he chose hinduism, when he could have his pick from Christianity, Islam or Judaism. they were each fair game. I would tend to believe (via Razib) a. it’s because hindus have the weakest lobby of all, or b. because the mythology offers the largest comic target for drawing parallels with huckabees creationist beliefs
let me qualify this. i used to read the yahoo columnists till 2004-2005. the columnists were, from left to right, rall, reeves, dowd, buckley and coulter. this was yahoo’s way 🙂 of having a fair and balanced representation of all viewpoints.
btw – i can understand if folks were offended by this. but i would like to flip it and say that rall is aware of how offensive he is, but believes that hindus in america are too well-balanced and too grounded to be disturbed or affected by this.
My question where I asked what constitutes a Hindu fundamentalist (as opposed to a Hindu fascist = Hindutvadi) was, what religious practices or beliefs does it entail? My understanding is that what makes Christian/Muslim/Jewish fundamentalists ‘fundamentalists’ is a more literal interpretation of their holy books, but what is analogous to that in Hinduism?
I think any one offended by this comic strip, is forgetting the fact, that the cartoonist is mocking fundamentalism and not Hinduism, per se.
P.S Anna, whatever happened to “Sepia Mutiny does not endorse or disapprove of any political candidates”?
No, not offended. But I’m only a practising Hindu with an atheist heart (long story).
I keep thinking the real problem with the cartoon is that it’s a bit off the mark: — He should’ve picked a religion that people are wary of criticising either because of their political correctness or some guilt factor. Hinduism is simply too exotic for this. — Also, if it was to be Hinduism, there are much funnier (and more real) targets to use. Reincarnation and astrology, for example, and stuff like the “Ganesha drinking milk” episode.
SG, Very ture..Hindus themselves can do a better job of making fun of their religion and offending their religion loving brethren than what Rall tried (?) to do with his cartoon.
Absolutely not offended by it. Buddy, two comments above, said it best – Rall is mocking Huckabee’s beliefs and fundamentalism. His portrayal of Hinduism is clearly his notion of what a fundamentalist Hindu must believe. I don’t think his portrayal is very accurate, I haven’t met a single person who believes all of those things. But the point gets across. Besides, who cares about the random “average american” who will form his opinion of Hinduism based on this cartoon??