Given how crudely offensive it was, the reaction to the Zapiro “dick” cartoon has been surprisingly muted. No doubt, this is in part due to everyone being “penised-out” in the wake of the Brett Murray affair. After all, what more is there to say on the subject? Another reason, perhaps, is that at least Murray’s work, mediocre though it was, represented a bona fide attempt at political commentary through an artistic medium and as such created a genuine intellectual space in which serious discussion could take place. With his latest offering, by contrast, Mr Shapiro merely came across as a spiteful, attention-seeking schoolboy who finally went too far, and even his many supporters seem disinclined to come to his defence.
It all reminds me a bit about the bread-throwing incident in Herman Charles Bosman’s semi-fictional prison memoir Cold Stone Jug. In summary, this begins as a spontaneous mass protest against bad prison food, with inmates hurling their bread through the grille into the hall below. Thereafter, there is much heated debate among the prisoners as to which of them was the first to throw his piece of bread and thereby instigate the memorable demonstration. It is generally agreed that either Alec the Ponce or Bluecoat Verdamp should get the credit. While this controversy rages, a third convict named Winslow, anxious to boost his own standing, tries to spark off a second such demonstration by throwing his bread into the hall a second time. On this occasion, however, no-one follows his example, making him look exceedingly foolish (and also resulting in his being severely disciplined). Zapiro’s dick-too-far cartoon, given how everyone is by now heartily sick of debates around the president’s dangly bits, was similarly ill-timed.
One of the more interesting comments elicited by this affair appeared in a Numsa statement condemning the cartoon and read as follows: “We can come to no other conclusion, but to accept that some White progressives of yesteryear have become racist and colonialist in their outlook since the advent of our new democratic dispensation”. The reference obviously includes Zapiro himself, who gained his “Struggle” credentials during the 1980s.
It is indeed quite striking how bitterly many former progressives — and contrary to what Numsa says, they are by no means all white — have turned against what was once regarded as the party of liberation par excellence. Underpinning this to a large extent is simple disillusionment, given how more difficult it is to deal with disappointed hopes than if one’s expectations had been more realistic.
When the ANC Centenary Flame roadshow came to Johannesburg last month, the theme for one of the days was “celebrating the contribution of white democrats”. The day culminated in a short ceremony at the Great Park Synagogue, hosted by the SA Jewish Board of Deputies. The board’s national director accepted the symbolic hand-over of the Flame on behalf of the Jewish community and Rabbi Dovid Hazdan paid tribute to the ANC for the central role it had played in bringing non-racial democracy to South Africa.
Agreeing to host the event was not a straight-forward decision for the SAJBD. As a strictly apolitical body, it could not be seen to be endorsing any particular party, let alone one that today carries with it so much negative baggage (not least of which is a foreign policy that is clearly inimical to Jewish interests). At least a degree of fall-out from the general Jewish community was expected, although this never happened in the end.
I was in attendance at the ceremony, and was unexpectedly moved by it all. From the solemn march of the military escort into the synagogue, through to the short dignified speeches and the actual passing over of the Flame, I was conscious throughout of what the ANC had achieved in its first hundred years. It was to this proud record that we were paying tribute, and we were remembering, too, the many great people of yesteryear whose heroism had made it all possible. For all his shortcomings Jacob Zuma, who spent 10 years on Robben Island and another 15 years in exile, was one of them.
Then was then and now is now. The ANC cannot count indefinitely on retaining the loyalty of its supporters because of its past achievements, and its present-day failings are seriously undermining that legacy. That being said, criticism, even when necessarily robust, should remain within the bounds of basic decency.
A carefully reasoned argument.
Some people can admit their may have been wrong about the ANC’s high moral road-propaganda – like Zapiro and Max du Preez. Moreover, cartoonists are not tasked to “be in good taste” – and Zapiro is not just attention-seeking, he is outraged and with good reason. Whatever his reasons, the amount of coverage the Dicktator-debacle is generating proves the point of being outrageous to create awareness. No-one deserve respect by being elected by a populist coup, like Zuma, and he does not worry about being a father, a family man, a president (for God’s sake) when he fornicates with yet another body buddy/ buddy’s daughter. No, he deserves what he gets, as does the ANC or any regime undermining the wellbeing of millions by hiding behind the past. Good freedom fighters do not make good rulers – this has been proven many times – so wake up and smell the open toilets, before you bemoan the poor (siestog, give him a koek-sister) Dicktator!
Shapiro has a personal axe to grind. He finds that drawing insulting cartoons makes his hatred appealing in general. In fact, the only people who defends this type of behaviour are those who jump up n down about, rights, rights, rights. They make all sorts of laughable intellectual non-sense about democracy and freedoms. And yet, these are the very people who think that insulting is normal and ignores the right to dignity of those whom they poke fun at. These are the very people who displays these types of cartoons as if it is a norm in our society. These are the very people who think that they are the defenders of rights that we died for. Question- who are the ones who is really eroding the values and norms in our society? We as Africans find the drawing of private parts insulting and disgusting. Not even our art, past or present will misuse a human being’s private part, depict it in the most disgusting manner and say that this is good for our society. So I think, those who think they have the moral high ground to argue for their things to be acceptable, should consider that we too have morals and values that is constantly being raped so that you can find it funny.
In doing some other reading, I came across this about the US evangelical gang: “…the mainstream evangelical church in the U.S. often fails to encompass the complete range of human experience. It produces almost no art, nothing culturally noteworthy in any fashion. It recoils from anything that could be deemed too gray or too dicey or too dark. Instead it creates its own subcultures that often (though not always) prize the neat, tidy and redemptive over the realities of life.”
It seems to me that the sanctimonious ‘revulsion’ caused by Zapiro’s cartoon (and its predecessors) is of similar origin.
@Tofolux:
Zuma has a personal spear to grind. He finds that waving his spear around makes his spear appealing in general. In fact, the only people who defends this type of behaviour are those who jump up n down about, rights, rights, rights. They make all sorts of laughable intellectual non-sense about democracy and freedoms. And yet, these are the very people who think that philandering and ineptitude is normal and ignores the right to dignity of those whom they preach at. These are the very people who displays this type of behaviour as if it is a norm in our society. These are the very people who think that they are the defenders of rights that we died for. Question- who are the ones who is really eroding the values and norms in our society? We as Africans find philandering, corruption and incompetence insulting and disgusting.
Tofolux, so you’re the expert on African culture now? Africans are a homogenous bunch right? And African culture never evolves?
Shapiro is perfectly entitled to grind his personal axe. And so are you. And I.
Seems strange that you have the right to say that Zuma is a dick, prick, cock, but not draw him as one. It’s also a personal choice to let yourself feel offended. Speaking of morals and values, how do you rate Zuma?
David Saks
If the cartoon is so “old hat” – why are you bothering to write about it?
I thought it was a remarkably silly cartoon and a notably inferior poem. After all, while Zuma’s sexism and personal life are despicable, they are hardly the most important failures of his government. But then, I also thought that Brett Murray’s painting, and indeed the whole exhibition, comprised a silly and childish response to a real crisis — the kind of thing one would expect from people wholly cushioned from the realities of South African life.
In fairness, every now and then Shapiro does draw a fairly good anti-Zionist cartoon. He still has the skill he had in the 1980s — he just chooses not to use it.
If we are all to understand each other, I think it is worth repeating what I said on another site on the same subject:
We have no natural ‘right’ of free speech anymore than we have a ‘right’ to go round killing people we don’t like. The rights we enjoy are laid down in the laws and customs of the society we live in. That goes for everyone everywhere.
Zapiro’s cartoons are not against the law in SA, though sometimes they are against what many people think custom calls for – which includes standards we all know as ‘decency’. We all know, too, that some people don’t give a fig for standards.
I repeat the really important question this raises for all of us: if it is ‘wrong’ that Mr Zapiro is doing this, who is to stop him?
Who do you want to have the power to stop him? Or, put another way, what kind of society do you wish to live in?
Different example, but same subject: http://paulwhelanwriting.blogspot.com/2012/05/look-behind-cartoon-of-muhammad.html
Tofolux, presidents who do not treat their office with dignity should not expect to be treated with dignity by their ‘subjects’. While I share in the penis fatigue, the cartoonist is entitled to his view. Satire is an integral part of political commentary in western culture, and western culture is part of SA culture. There are many aspects of African culture that may appear ‘disgusting and insulting’ to others – parading naked teenage girls in front of a ‘king’, virginity testing, manhood initiations, polygamy, kangaroo courts, necklacing. Where is the mass outrage against these indignities? .
What is SA? Short on news? If it isn’t still this old issue, it’s Zille’s old issue. How about some more than before on health, education and land distribution?
I think the Shapiro cartoon is brilliant. I laughed heartily at the little ditty, so true, so true, I thought of those words.
Its a pity we have to resort to such gross satire to bring to the attention of the nation what a big dick its leader is, but in desperate times, desperate measures are needed.
Tofolux. Make a decision, an educated and informed one. Which world do you want to live in? The modern one, or the old time African one?
Samuel Huntington made the excellent point that while Far Eastern emerging nations like Korea kept conservative cultural practices but embraced the work ethic demanded of adapting to the modern world over consuming the trappings primarily, Africa has failed to do so. To put it into simplistic Tofolux-wording for you: Africans want the bling, but don’t really want to set an alarm clock for it, or change their cultural ways to allow for progress.
Having 4 wives, behaving like a rutting, dancing fool while believing you’re an example to be followed by your starving, desperate nation is hardly conducive to modern adaptation of any sort.
South Africa has some severe cultural issues, and it’s not nob-art!
Despite anyone’s opinion about president Zuma’s performance and moral values, no one deserve to be called, let alone drawn like a d**k in a ‘family’ newspaper! D**k is an offensive word.
President Zuma has low moral values according to who? Last time I checked polygamy was legal in this country. President Zuma never held a gun against anyone’s head and forced them to marry him.
Everybody has a right to dignity for a mere fact that they are human according to our constitution.
When Julius Malema called Helen Zille names, he was forced to apologize which I think was a good thing to do, now president Zuma is the one who is facing insults suddenly people remember there’s freedom of speech, double standards! Talking about Zille, she’s so relatively quite about this saga, this was her chance to show her maturity and nonracialism by condemning this cartoon in strongest possible terms, and then come next election she wonders why majority of black people don’t vote for DA. If things like this continue happening and DA and many white people continue support them then I can safely say DA will never run this country!
The weakest aspect of calling Mr Zuma a dick is that as well as being unsubtle, it is not a very accurate commentary on his political strengths and weaknesses. ‘Dick’ implies an unlikeable person who is abrasive and has very strong opinions – if you call a driver a ‘dick’, it means someone aggressive and inconsiderate but strong minded. It implies agency. Mr Zuma’s key weaknesses are different. A better cartoon would be a ‘hollow man’ – someone who is generally likeable and affable, but who has no values or integrity. Someone whose values are limited to the giving and receiving of favours, and who has no realy strong beliefs or values on any topic, no view at all on what is right and what is wrong, and not much interest in anything beyond these favours and the personal benefits that accrue from them. The ‘dick’ cartoon was just off the mark, as well as inaccurate, and had no merit at all.
About rights: It comes to mind that the privilege to air opinions on a public platform like this blog, and being insulting like Tofolux, whole accusing others of the same thing is a RIGHT(right or wrong). To deprive Zapiro of it, also means … get it?
To be clear(er): to take away Zapiro’s rights, while proclaiming him to be wrong, would be righting a wrong – if you are right – with a wrong (if the Constitution is right) … um … ag never mind; in a country where people were excluded from jobs on racial grounds, it is considered to be right to do it again, even if it means – in most instances – the eroding of service delivery, etc. … well then, I understand your point Tofolux: in reality right and rights have nothing to do with your rantings. You are just a hatemongering troll.
@Franz:
Precisely. We don’t have to like what Zapiro says or how he says it. I disagree entirely that social commentary should concern itself with decency. What decency? Surely indecency is relative to a particular cultural mindset. If we don’t step on any toes, we won’t be doing any dancing.
The point continues to escape us: there is no unqualified ‘right’ to free speech: not ever, not anywhere. There are legal and conventional limits to free speech. We are not arguing about free speech. The argument in SA society is about the limits to it.
@ franz & Garg Unzola
In relation to “rights”, etc. The irony is that this very newspaper “moderates” comments on Thought Leader due to a moderation policy (as many newspapers do) – that means your comments may not always see the light of day. Whether they are insulting or not. To be honest, I’m sure what the moderation policy is on Thought Leader – not sure where to find the rules – maybe somebody can point me in the right direction?
@ Guinnessholic
Demographically and democratically the African culture is in the majority in this country (by far). Whether or not you think it is “outdated” is irrelevant. Minorities many some regions sometimes suffer from what is called a siege mentality ( and so do white South Africans). Essentially it is a (deep) form of insecurity – a fear of the majority (or “competing”) culture.
So what we can see is that many white SA’ns are born in Africa, but have no feeling of affiliation (or specific respect)t for the African culture and insist in the superiority of their own – yup, that’s siege mentality for you, alright.
I meant to say: “I’m NOT sure what the moderation policy is…
Jack
I guess, from my experience, that the moderation policy on Thoughtleader is to delete any comment which might get them and you sued for defamation!
@ Lyndall Beddy
Thanks. That explains a lot – and is food for thought too.
Zapiro has created a new precedent.
After Brett’s painting was destroyed and City Press backed down, a precedent had been set by the ANC.
The ANC can shout, scream, threaten, intimidate and artists/media/society will back down.
Zapiro (with belated support from the Mail & Guardian) challenged this precedent with a deliberately low brow cartoon that was less defensible than Brett’s painting – and more offensive.
The fact that the ANC did not challenge it, is because Zapiro would not have backed down and they would have been exposed as have “Nazi tendencies” in their clamp down (Lekota in Parliament).
The next time something like this happens the ANC will have to answer – “Why didn’t you make a big deal about Zapiro’s “dick” cartoon – this “choose your in the future commentary” is not as provocative/insulting/blah blah as the “dick cartoon”
My opinion only.