https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/11/8/racist-vile-cartoon-in-washington-post-ignites-controversy
https://www.washingtonpost.com/people/michael-ramirez/
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/11/8/racist-vile-cartoon-in-washington-post-ignites-controversy
https://www.washingtonpost.com/people/michael-ramirez/
You know, Julius Streicher was executed for inciting violence against Jews, using racist caricatures to dehumanize them. Here, we see caricatures not too dissimilar to those found in Der Stürmer: an evil dark-skinned man with a big nose and beady-eyes. The only original thing here is how it dehumanizes his family as well, with his ugly, docile wife and children being strapped to him as a means to justify their deaths while also feign concern and empathy for them. Here is a more egregious example of something like that. It's not the only way Western media outlets have dehumanized Palestinians and rationalized the genocide taking place against them but it's sure as hell the one most on the nose in regards to Holocaust parallels.
Not bringing all this up for any particular reason
Ew, that example is somehow worse for me. Like the ugly ass boomer art is racist, no shit, but that weird corporate emoji artstyle hurts in a way that is difficult to define. It's like the racist boomer picture hurts my eyes, but that one hurts my soul.
To me, it's because that style is almost exclusively used by corporations to blanket the fact that they're forcing a (usually pro-corporate) perspective to a captive audience. So the subliminal message here based on how it's widely used says "here's how we want you to think" as opposed to the ugly boomer one just "trying to make a racist point"
Yeah, the boomer art is racist. You expect to be disappointed. But the corporate style is a lot more sinister
The thing I found more than a bit comical/disturbing is that even with the faux-cutesy corporate art style, they couldn't resist being racist to the point the cartoon even harms its own message to people it may have been marketed to. The Palestinian wife depicted here is heavyset, covered in all-black from head-to-toe (which is an actual muslim dress but meant to denigrate her in the "artist's" eyes) excluding the face with bulging cheeks, eyes and lips, whereas the Israeli Jewish wife is cute, skinny and, of course, white. She's also wearing some cultural/religious clothing but it highlights her femininity and traditional charm, unlike the Palestinian woman's which is meant to paint her as docile and superstitious. The Palestinian baby is something else entirely because of course it has to be in a suicide vest and not even used as a "human shield" like the wife is.
They could easily have chosen to portray the Palestinian wife just like the Israeli one, while she clutches her baby in fear while her evil, "Jihadi" husband uses them as cover, painting the IDF soldier as the hero trying to save everyone from him. But they couldn't help but betray how they really feel about the "human shields" and "collateral damage" they try to assure you they actually care to preserve, subliminally messaging that they're ultimately obstacles rather than considerations, at best.
I'm sure entire essays could be written about the glaring contradictions and messages of Israeli propaganda but this in particular was striking to me.
i can only hope we see the same thing happen to the US and vassal leaders if we manage to survive ww3