Some readers have pointed out that today’s cartoon could be read as transphobic, especially because Hitler presided over the mass murder of trans people. This being the Internet, there is unfortunately no way to take back or edit a cartoon — it’s out there. In this case, if I could, I would do one or the other.
By way of explanation, the cartoon is a “what if?” analogy about Hillary Rodham Clinton.
Many liberal women plan to support HRC for president because she’s a woman, and are willing to overlook her record as a pro-NSA corporatist warmonger free-trader — a right-wing political record — because they’re so (understandably) excited at the prospect of seeing the first woman elected President. But…haven’t we just seen identity politics fail with Obama? America would surely have been better off with a boring old white Protestant male who was progressive than Obama, who started several wars, expanded others, and let the banks off the hook.
Anyway, I thought: what if Hitler were a woman? Some women would vote for her anyway! Then I thought: how could he become a woman? Obviously, that would make her a trans woman. Then the cartoon wrote itself.
Nobody knows for sure, of course, whether trans people would really support a terrible candidate with bad politics simply because he or she was trans. That hasn’t happened yet. But we’ve seen it with blacks and Obama and now we’re seeing it with Clinton. There are other examples. People are tribal. They vote for people simply because they’re like them. So yeah, I bet that’s exactly what would happen.
But that’s not the point. The analogy wasn’t clear to everybody. As the cartoonist, it’s my job to make things clear, and this one doesn’t work that way. So if I could make some changes, or just do a different cartoon, I would.
17 Comments.
i think it’s interesting how quick you were to apologize for this as opposed to how hard you fought the accusations of racism for your depiction of obama. i, for one, don’t see a problem here. of course, any time hitler’s involved there’s gonna be complaints. it’s almost as if, in our attempt to demonize him out of existence, that we’ve only served to deify him. he’s kind of like muhammad. you can’t even mention him without someone freaking out. not that muhammad was a vicious psychopath. 🙂
mind you, some radical trans activists called rupaul a transphobe too so you’re in good company. 🙂
The two incidents are near identical. And indeed Hitler makes everyone over sensitive.
The objections to your cartoon in just another demonstration of the idiocy and simple mindedness of most Americans.
Say good morning to some of these assholes and expect them to ask, “What do you mean by THAT?”
I understand what your point was/is and know you don’t owe any apology to anyone except, “I’m Sorry you are so stupid.”
So I’ll say it so you don’t have to.
I thought it was one of his best so far this year. If somebody thinks Ted hates transpeople, he doesn’t know Ted. And if Ted doesn’t intend harm in that way, what is the complaint?
More to the point, I’m still trying to wrap my head around the apparent fact that some people can be “hurt” by a cartoon. I worry for their mental health.
Totally agree.
This is a much better example of free speech than Charlie Hebdo.
There’s a certain kind of symmetry to how you ran your clarification on the same day that six holier-than-thous explained how they support freedom of speech but won’t be at the PEN awards due to Charlie Hebdo being honored.
Pretty much ALL humor “offends” some group. When I watch “Family Guy,” I laugh at many of the jokes. Until they get to my groups–the groups I identify with–and then I sometimes catch myself going, “Hmmpf. I didn’t think that was very funny.” Clearly, there’s a point at which humor transitions (sorry) into cruelty. The Three Stooges did a patently racist short during WWII about the Japanese. In his autobiography, if I recall it correctly, Moe pretty much says that even though it was during the war, it was wrong and terribly insensitive to have done the story and that he regretted it now (the 1970s).
Ted, the path you’re going down leads to everyone apologizing for everything all the time. Clearly, in this instance, you were being farcical: the notion of Hitler as a trans woman simply is ludicrous. That’s what creates the humor.
I’ve heard that humor is considered the highest form of intelligence. I wonder what it says about our society that we’re losing the ability to find unalloyed humor in anything. If “Family Guy” runs a joke about vegans, and some vegans laugh and others don’t, well then, who’s right? The small group that takes offense? If you can give me a practical and rational way to run a society with that as a guideline, so be it. I just don’t think anyone can.
The Democratic Party operatives in Amnesty International tried to co-opt the Occupy Chicago movement near their space at 500 W. Cermak.
Their pamphlet reeked of Madeleine “500,000-dead-children-were-worth-it” Albright.
So, unable to co-opt it, Dems shut Occupy Chicago down.
I think Ted knows he is edgy, which is a good part of what makes him so good, and that means regularly offending even people he doesn’t intend to, and then sometimes flat out going to far.
If Charlie Hebdo didn’t cave in to government laws prohibiting cartoons that are possibly anti-Semitic, I would consider them to be acting courageously.
But France has been promoting attacks on the Muslim world. And CH attacks
And France prohibits well deserved attacks on Israel as anti-Semitic. And CH shows restraint.
So I consider Charlie to be a most unremarkable example of “going with the flow.”
Yeah, CB was bullied into being a real gatekeeper for the Zionland crowd, but they still tried (however mildly) to be “anti-Semitic.” THAT requires punishment, and the dogs of false-flag were let loose.
DanD
Er, CH, not CB.
D
Hunh. Apparently I’m in the minority here, so it seemed worth throwing in my two cents.
While I was never worried that you are actually transphobic, the cartoon struck me as insensitive, in the literal sense of the word. That is, it seemed like you hadn’t really thought through how it would make trans people feel. And I agree with you precisely that it’s the responsibility of the content creator to make things clear, not of the consumer to magically infer your intentions. Your explanation seems both honest and intelligent, which is a rare combination in the world of Internet apologies.
I must be missing the part about why it wouldn’t make women feel equally bad.
Well I should say I’m neither trans nor a woman, so this is all just speculation based on how I think my friends would react. Looking back at the comic, it’s probably just because the word “trans” (or one of its derivatives) appears 8 times in the 4-panel comic. So someone who didn’t quite get it might think it was a joke about trans people.
I totally got it right away, and appreciated it for what it was, which is razor sharp, cutting edge, and dead on.
“This content only appropriate for Level 70 and above Deep Thinkers.”
We already know apologizing won’t satisfy our critics, it will just demoralize our friends.
And we learned that … from Ted Rall!
wweek.com/portland/article-7648-ted_rall.html
“I should have just been like, ‘Fuck you, I was right.’ “
Hi Ted, I just wanted to say I thought your cartoon was perfect. The message is exactly clear enough. It’s an important moment when a fictitious minority representative is portrayed as a bad guy for the first time. It’s supposed to be a mark of real acceptance; the moment we acknowledge they’re just like everyone else: capable of being horrible people.
Congratulations on being (possibly) the first having an Evil Trans, and send my commiserations to anyone who sees them as too special to be be mean.