A Man Apartheid

April 22, 2007 7:15 PM

Carlos Latuffis a political cartoonist from Brazil whose work can be described as pro-Palestine , anti-America and uh, anti-McDonalds?. He has given his side of the story, but his latest images on DeviantArt take a different direction in his anti-American artwork.
posted by Mr.Encyclopedia (54 comments total)

What if Cho had joined the marines, and all his victims were iraqis?
posted by growabrain at 7:25 PM on April 22, 2007

christ what an asshole
posted by aspo at 7:41 PM on April 22, 2007

You forgot the one featuring the Israeli Klansman.
posted by foxy_hedgehog at 7:43 PM on April 22, 2007

What if Cho had joined the marines, and all his victims were iraqis?

What if Cho had joined the Sunni's in Iraq and all his victims had been US Marines?

In short, it's not a very deep comment and its biases makes a blind man's eyes hurt.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 7:43 PM on April 22, 2007

Classy.
posted by basicchannel at 7:47 PM on April 22, 2007

OR. What if Cho when have been a space captain of the the Star Cruiser Gamalon and all his victims were deadly asteroids?

Not a very good artist either.
posted by tkchrist at 7:50 PM on April 22, 2007

I am against US militarism and adventurism in Iraq. I am also a supporter of the creation of a Palestinian state. And I think McDonald's is crap food and is ultimately unsustainable from an environmental standpoint. So I reckon I agree, on a basic level, with this guy's political agenda.

But his work? Adolescent. Ham-handed. Simplistic. Absurdly biased, embarrassingly one sided. Ill-thought. Dumb.
posted by flapjax at midnite at 7:57 PM on April 22, 2007 [3 favorites has favorites]

like someone from brazil has room to talk
posted by pyramid termite at 8:02 PM on April 22, 2007

For once, I feel justified in linking to Encyclopedia Dramatica. Latuff deserves the worst ridicule the Internet can deliver.
posted by clockworkjoe at 8:03 PM on April 22, 2007

I had seen this before, but decided against posting it. There's something so viscerally revolting about his attitude, that I can feel myself becoming more conservative as I view his work. I don't think has yet addressed the fact that as a leftist foreign infidel, he'd as unwelcome as a US soldier among many of the Islamists he lionizes.
posted by StrikeTheViol at 8:03 PM on April 22, 2007

Thankfully I don't have the class or taste to decide against posting it.
posted by Mr.Encyclopedia at 8:05 PM on April 22, 2007

feel myself becoming more conservative

Let's not overreact.
posted by lathrop at 8:07 PM on April 22, 2007

It's like a less intelligent version of Gasoline Alley.
posted by roll truck roll at 8:15 PM on April 22, 2007

America is increasingly becoming the archetypal "target" bad guy.

We've got German special forces training to shoot black New York City muggers, Brazilians savoring the VT killings - instead of Castle Wolfenstein, its Pentagon Wolfowitz, with hordes of US Marines instead of Nazi guards, played on computers around the world.
posted by stbalbach at 8:18 PM on April 22, 2007

Wow, it takes a lot of balls to be anti-fast food and anti-US nowadays. Its such a novel and rare viewpoint! I'm so glad these few brave voices are finally speaking out.
posted by damn dirty ape at 8:20 PM on April 22, 2007

Is "bias" some new American slang for having an opinion these days? I'm trying to work out what it means from the context of these comments, but it seems to be some kind of derogatory term? And applied only to those opinions with which people disagree or have trouble identifying with?

Anyway, that's cool that you guys have a new word.

Do you still use that word? "Cool"?

It used to mean the opposite of warm. It's hard to keep up. You guys change language pretty goddam fast, in my humble bias.
posted by Wataki at 8:24 PM on April 22, 2007 [2 favorites has favorites]

Chick tracks for radical leftists YAY!
posted by The Straightener at 8:28 PM on April 22, 2007

Wataki writes: Is "bias" some new American slang for having an opinion these days?

Nope! Means what it's always meant. I took the liberty of consulting a dictionary (try 'em, they're great!), for your enlightenment and edification. Happy reading!

"a partiality that prevents objective consideration of an issue or situation"

"A preference or an inclination, especially one that inhibits impartial judgment"
posted by flapjax at midnite at 8:35 PM on April 22, 2007

All that and he won the Iranian Holocaust denial cartoon contest. Lovely.
posted by blahblahblah at 8:38 PM on April 22, 2007

gah!
posted by bicyclefish at 8:45 PM on April 22, 2007

Now, now, be fair. Latuff only came in second in the Holocaust denial cartoon contest. Surely not as bad.
posted by Justinian at 8:45 PM on April 22, 2007

That's great, Flapjacks. So people's partiality is preventing them from objectively considering this issue and realising that the artist's point of view is both rational and compassionate?

And blahblahblah, there was no "Holocaust denial cartoon contest". It was a contest for cartoons about the Nazi Holocaust, not denying it.
posted by Wataki at 8:45 PM on April 22, 2007

That makes it sound so much better, Wataki.
posted by Justinian at 8:49 PM on April 22, 2007

It makes it sound a little more accurate, Justinian. To suggest that the newspaper's competition was to promote Holocaust denial is either to deceive or betray ignorance of the facts. The great majority of the submissions (all the ones I saw, anyway) were not about denying the Holocaust, but rather about claiming there are similarities between Nazi oppression and Israeli oppression, or claiming that the sanctity of the Holocaust is used to prevent meaningful discussion of the treatment of the Palestinians.

I find both of those points compelling, and I don't consider myself a radical nut or whatever it is LGF would call me. "Idiotarian", I think it was. I don't find Holocaust denial compelling.
posted by Wataki at 8:56 PM on April 22, 2007

I'm curious. Why the strong reactions to this cartoonist? What about his work is so offensive? We've seen some awfully strong stuff here that didn't get half as strong a response.
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 9:00 PM on April 22, 2007

Somebody wake me when this becomes something OTHER than a hamfisted sketcher trying to develop alterna-cred.
posted by aramaic at 9:03 PM on April 22, 2007

This is terrible. It seems I can no longer go straight to the daily political cartoons for my balanced & objective take on current events, but will be forced to read the hellishly wordy articles instead.
posted by UbuRoivas at 9:08 PM on April 22, 2007

MAN CREATES OFFENSIVE CARTOONS
Internet rent asunder
posted by fleetmouse at 9:08 PM on April 22, 2007 [4 favorites has favorites]

Obviously I don't agree with his message, but I don't get all the criticism. You can't expect a foreigner to have a nuanced view of the country, and why should they?

American commentators spew all kinds of BS about other countries. Iran, Cuba, Venezuela, etc. All of these places have some pretty dark black marks against them, but so does the United States. People focus only on the negative aspects of the country, why should people outside the United States treat this country any differently then we treat countries we don't like?

I just find it rather hypocritical when people criticize a foreigner for hyperbolic criticism of the US, while acting like the same thing from Americans to other countries is inoffensive even if incorrect.
posted by delmoi at 9:08 PM on April 22, 2007 [2 favorites has favorites]

I spoke too soon. Hellishly wordy articles can be avoided as long as Ted Rall is onhand to sketch the objective truth.
posted by UbuRoivas at 9:15 PM on April 22, 2007

delmoi: American commentators spew all kinds of BS about other countries. Iran, Cuba, Venezuela, etc.

Yeah, and I regard it as stupid, self-defeating chauvinism in those cases as well. I'm thinking of Jonah Goldberg's line about the French being "cheese-eating surrender monkeys."

You can't expect a foreigner to have a nuanced view of the country--

One example: Owen Harries, Understanding America.
posted by russilwvong at 9:17 PM on April 22, 2007

You can't expect a foreigner to have a nuanced view of the country,

What? Of course you can! Why not? Furthermore, many citizens within any given country often have far from nuanced views about their own nation. Whether you're in a country or not is no hard determiner of how you'll perceive, describe, or imagine that country to be.

and why should they?

Well, if they're livelihood/life's work is based on making commentary about other people in other countries, then they should. Of course, they often don't, but they should.

while acting like the same thing from Americans to other countries is inoffensive even if incorrect.

I'd never suggest that that's inoffensive. Is there someone here who's suggesting that?
posted by flapjax at midnite at 9:19 PM on April 22, 2007 [1 favorite has favorites]

I loaded up the "images" link, saw an illustration of a young man shooting a girl in the face in a classroom, and closed it immediately in revulsion.

Way, way too soon, and that's only if there's ever a long enough.
posted by JHarris at 9:30 PM on April 22, 2007

Maybe this answers psmealeys question in the economic hitman thread:

When all the innocent and plaintive cries of "why do they hate us?" echoed in the aftermath of 9/11, I had a different thought. The people of Central and South America should hate "us" even more than people from the Mid-East, why haven't they participated in similar activities against us?

posted by Dataphage at 10:07 PM on April 22, 2007

And I also find myself agreeing with Delmoi.

Damn, maybe this IS important.
posted by Dataphage at 10:09 PM on April 22, 2007

Have there been attacks on US embassies and the like in Latin American countries that have been fucked over by US-installed thugs? Does anyone know?
posted by Wataki at 10:11 PM on April 22, 2007

Nixon's motorcade was attacked by a mob while he was visiting Venezuela in 1958. (Nixon was Eisenhower's Vice President at the time.)

Note that the level of anti-Americanism is not necessarily proportional to the severity of one's grievances. It's human nature to feel keenly any grievances and humiliations inflicted on oneself by others, while disregarding those you inflict on other people. Relations between the US and Canada are generally pretty good, but anti-American sentiment has been running high in Canada since Bush took over, because the Bush administration's diplomacy is so incredibly bad.

Wataki: US-installed thugs?

A country with US-installed thugs (e.g. Chile under Pinochet) isn't likely to tolerate much dissent. You're more likely to see displays of angry anti-Americanism where a US-backed government has been thrown out, as in Iran.
posted by russilwvong at 10:38 PM on April 22, 2007

While plenty of people in plenty of Latin American countries might have justifiable reasons for hating the US, I think it's a pretty superficial sort of framing that asks "why the Arabs, and not the Latinos?".

For a start, anything coming from Latin America would be a retrospective act: revenge for Pinochet or the United Fruit Company, or the like. I think people who have been through brutal times end up being motivated more by optimism for a brighter future than by revenge for past hardships, and as far as I know, the US's hardcore meddling in Central & South America was largely a cold war strategy.

Second, the religious aspect is probably very important. Remember that many people can be broadly unsympathetic towards your country, but in the end, most prefer a life of peace & relative prosperity for themselves & their families, as opposed to the rather more radical approach of manifesting that hate by flying airliners into buildings. To take the latter approach requires a particularly motivated - fanatical, if you like - subset of the haters, and to reach this level of motivation probably requires Big Goals, like a huge Islamic Republic spanning the entire Middle East, or 64 Celestial Virgins.

In contrast to (some of) the Arabs, I would imagine that the goals of Latin America are largely consistent with those of the US, not the least reason being a common European, christian, democratic cultural background, so it makes little sense for Central & South America to want to overthrow the US, no matter how much they might dislike or resent her.
posted by UbuRoivas at 10:39 PM on April 22, 2007

This guy obviously ran out of the color Subtlety.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 10:50 PM on April 22, 2007 [1 favorite has favorites]

Man, Americans still can't take the joke. The stick's been up there a good two hundred years and it just ain't ever coming out. This is the problem with all empires though. An over investment in signs always leads to a puritan prohibition against all humor and other corrosive chemicals. The good news is that maybe, just maybe, the rise of the internet will pierce the cocoon of feel good wash that's been constructed around the populace. Subjected to criticism you might see something approaching a kind of intellectual global citizenship.

Nah. The problem with the net is that you have to go looking for the stuff. It lacks that smooth, effortless, tune in and tune out delivery of television and radio. But it's a nice thought.

I do wonder if mathowie will be along soon to delete this thread. There's been a clear precedent for deleting "disturbing" content (critical to the US) in the past but it's genuinely unclear if such logic could be applied to cartoons.
posted by nixerman at 11:00 PM on April 22, 2007

Man, Americans still can't take the joke.

No, see: he's in America...and in America, they like...um...guns. So, with a gun, he's shooting this girl in the chest...um...and there's blood spurting out...






Get it?
posted by felix betachat at 11:44 PM on April 22, 2007

(SECOND UPDATE - April 18)

More accurate depiction based on photos taken by the own gunman.

the gunman took photos during the incident? Anyone got a link?
posted by spacediver at 12:14 AM on April 23, 2007

Nixerman, sometimes a joke is just bad. In this case, it's just plain stupid. Some random internet guy making a bad analogy and using the same hackeneyed "one man's murderer is another man's martyr". I mean I occasionally like stupid comedy but it has to have a redeeming quality, this just has the absurdity factor I guess but I don't seem to get your point.
posted by vodkadin at 12:21 AM on April 23, 2007

This guy needs to get some empathy. And he has to learn that satire isn't something you apply with a bucket.
posted by humblepigeon at 12:57 AM on April 23, 2007

This guy is a terrible cartoonist and appropriates tragedy for his own ends. What a piece of shit.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 1:37 AM on April 23, 2007

You can't expect a foreigner to have a nuanced view of the country, and why should they?

I most certainly can. A critic who doesn't understand the nuances of a country's politics, belief system, etc. isn't much of a critic.

I just find it rather hypocritical when people criticize a foreigner for hyperbolic criticism of the US, while acting like the same thing from Americans to other countries is inoffensive even if incorrect.

Like flapjax has already said, no one in this discussion has said that hyperbolic commentary about other countries is somehow "inoffensive". While the U.S. government in recent years has moved towards a more hostile relationship with almost every country (even former good friends such as Canada), you can find many citizens critical of that approach. Many people consider the antics of representatives such as John Bolton offensive, not "inoffensive".

I find Latuff's cartoons mediocre and uninspired. The "if Cho had been a soldier he'd be a hero!" argument is one I first heard in my early teens, from other early teens who were just starting to pay attention to the world around them. I think that's why there's such contempt for Latuff's work - it's juvenile and easily dismissed.
posted by smashingstars at 2:01 AM on April 23, 2007

For some reason this guy's work reminds me of Jack T. Chick.
posted by deadcowdan at 4:21 AM on April 23, 2007 [2 favorites has favorites]

I' m boycotting Brazillian coffee as of this morning.
posted by Postroad at 4:41 AM on April 23, 2007

The major logical failing here is that Cho was clearly mentally disturbed; whereas the soldiers in Iraq, as much as we might not like what they are doing, are people doing their jobs. The soldiers might be in the army for a variety of reasons, and its not impossible to think that some of them might also be psychologically unstable, but I think the army does take steps to weed mentally unfit people from its ranks. They don't like unstable soldiers running around with weapons. Some soldiers have done the unthinkable in Iraq, and where it has made the press or been uncovered, the reception has generally been one of great disapproval. Cho would never have made it in the military given his well-publicized semi-autistic and clearly dangerous personality.
posted by PigAlien at 6:15 AM on April 23, 2007

the answer obviously is "sell more guns"
posted by matteo at 7:53 AM on April 23, 2007

In Latuff's mind, the Great Socialist Struggle is still going on. I can't find it at the moment, but he drew one cartoon of Che wearing a gutra, as if some unbroken line existed between Latin American Communism and the Iraqi insurgency. I think his work is part of an attempt to recapture what never quite was: an organic, worldwide revolution under a red banner. What do he and his comrades have left? Venezuela, Cuba, a handful of the most extreme communist tendencies in the developed world? He solves his problem of marginalization by expanding his definition of revolution outward till it hits on current events.
posted by StrikeTheViol at 7:59 AM on April 23, 2007 [2 favorites has favorites]

"Anti-Americanism" isn`t normally based on dialogue, but emotion. I`ve spent a year on the receiving end of this type of nonsense; it`s really nothing new.
posted by iamck at 9:42 AM on April 23, 2007

Well said, StrikeTheViol.

To people who don't get all the hating on this guy, well, look at his friggin' cartoons.
posted by roll truck roll at 9:58 AM on April 23, 2007

If I didn't know the political context, I would have thought he was just a wanna-be "graphic novelist."
posted by jonp72 at 10:32 AM on April 23, 2007