Thursday, 19 November 2015

1000 words of lies.

You wouldn’t believe the furore raised by a simple cartoon in the Daily Mail. Had it stayed in the Mail no one would have thought any more of it, but  Kerry-Anne Mendosa the chief editor at The Canary decided to make a big deal out of it and wound up the proles for miles around. Her article starts with this headline

“The Daily Mail has sunk to an all-time low with this despicable response to the Paris attacks”.

Hardly objective. This of course sets the people who are going to read it into an emotional storm from which most will never recover. I should point out it would seem the readership are a regiment of PC Nazis! They will automatically be looking to be down on the Mail.

Mendoza follows that with another negative:-


At this point she could have shown a picture of Noddy and the PC Nazis would have spat out the anti-racist venom that appeared in the comments column. The cartoon is not a statement of what should happen, but what is happening. The Proles failed to see this!

This is the cartoon:-


The premise of Mendosa is that it is a racist piece of junk and should be banned or the cartoonist should be charged with hate crimes. Her point is that it depicts all Syrians as rats.

The way I see it there are three groups in this cartoon. There are Syrian refugees, there are suspect element (in shadow) and there are the rats. I’m not sure what the guy on the right is there for. It is my contention that the rats may represent other nationalities who are taking advantage of the Syrian situation. All three groups are being allowed IN.

Mendosa then goes on to compare the cartoon to a German cartoon from the 30s/40s. Well that was lighting the blue touch paper. The Proles went fecking ballistic.

In the German cartoon the Jews are all being kept OUT. The similarity I see is that both cartoons are graphically depicting what is/was happening and not what they want/ed to happen. You will, however, notice that all the Jews have been represented as rats unlike the other photo where rats do not appear to look like any ‘race’ in particular.

This is the German cartoon:-


What is most sad is that during my attempt to put across my point of view I was called a leftie, a rightie, a liberal, a fascist, a wanker, a pedo, (I dont get that one) a fifth columnist. While I was quite ready to try to see their point of view, which I couldn’t because there was no real objectivity just lots of missed placed emotion, not one was prepared to even consider what I said. Now I might be wrong I don’t know but I feel  sure that Mx Mendoza wrote this piece with the intention of raising Cain and she succeeded. To me she appears to be no better than the SUN or the mail. Certainly not a credible journo.

I would email Mendoza,  but couldn’t find and email addy on the site.

Come on tell me I am wrong!


John said...

Hi Maffi,

Whilst reading your piece and seeing the original cartoon my first thought was that the use of rats was the same as that used by Fascist 'cartoonists' in the 30's to depict Jewish people in a negative context (and although I can't cite any actual examples I'm sure the Mail as a Fascist sympathising newspaper at the time did the same). My opinion is, that is why they are also being used in the original cartoon to depict refugees in a negative light (symbolic of a plague, being swamped etc). I'm sure you are correct that the 'shadow' people are meant to portray the actual terrorists or as you call them suspect elements, but why are they in a majority in the cartoon? is the cartoon saying that the majority of refugees are suspect? The cartoon shows 13 people, 10 of whom (77%) are in shadow. Other than to stir up hatred against refugees why would anyone want to portray 77% of them as being suspect? It's this misrepresentation and the use of the rat analogy, both for a very specific political purpose, that I would object to.

I'm not a supporter of the Canary (in fact until I read your article I'd never even heard of it), but the author does make one very telling point - the Syrian refugees are fleeing the very terror that was inflicted on Paris on Friday. As such they deserve our sympathy and help not the hate and vitriol heaped on them by the Mail and its tame house cartoonist.


Maffi said...

This is an email sent by Martin Sims

Hi Maffi...

Please forgive my emailing you rather than commenting directly to your boat blog.

I'm a bit of a newbie when it comes to the world of blogs - and I'm not really sure of the 'ettiquette'...

But I suspect that weblinks are probably a no-no - hence this email.

I came across your blog whilst researching my holiday plans for next year. I used to be the youngest in a family of regular hirers 25/30 years ago - must've cruised about 8 months total between birth and 20yrs at a guess. Have badgered my next generation family for a while for us to give it a go and they have relented! So, I am to take my family out in 2016 to see if they have inherited my canal gene.

This is why is I started looking online - and I was pleasantly surprised to find all the journals of the community of long term cruisers. Gave me a real tingle of excitement to recognise photos, feelings of relaxation, and anger where canal etiquette seems to have gone out the window from time to time.

As I expanded this foray of bloggers records - I came across your site...


Sometimes boaty, sometimes witty, sometimes thought-provoking, ALWAYS WORTH READING!!!

I like your unrestricted style - I don't necessarily agree with all your views... but, I do value your opinions and you have swayed me in mine from time to time.

I wasn't aware of the story relating to the daily mail cartoon you mentioned in post '1000 words of lies' - but I was shocked to read the reactions to it! Other than the fact that both images contain rats - they are telling two completely different stories... even the rats represent two completely different entites who are being handled in completely different ways...

This is nothing but confusing to those who come unaware of the story - and in fact muddies the waters to a point that... if anyone were to try and analyse the differences to the simplest level, the message she is trying to impose means nothing.

Anyway - you mentioned that you couldn't see a contact for Mendoza?

Thanks for your input into the blogsphere - and for keeping my thoughts from stagnating!

Best regards, Martin