Priti Patel Cartoon

[Everanewbie]

Whatever you think of her politics, AIBU to feel that the Guardian, and left wing commentators display disgusting hypocracy in their treatment of politicians in the centre-right, especially when female or of colour, in thius case Home Secretary Priti Patel?

Diane Abbott has been targetted by the most foul abuse, which is rightly highlighted and condemned, however claims of abuse are fired back when her views, consistency, politics and competance are questioned. But if the person in question is more of a centre-right pursuasion, they seem to be fair game.

Just looked at this cartoon without first reading the thread.

My initial reading of the cartoon was that it depicts PP as Boris' "sacred cow" ie above reproach, which is what recent political commentary about her has largely been about. Only after reading the thread did I realise that readers might think it was a clumsily executed cartoon about bullying. (not least because the concept of bullying doesn't have anything to do bulls or their behaviour and just making a play on the sound-a-like would be a bit inane).

I think my initial interpretation of the cartoon was right. I can't see how the reference to race/ Hinduism is anything but deliberate (and inappropriate).

I haven't noticed Ireland panicking about food supplies - the report was nonsense then?

It was a UK Government report - it would be a bit worrying if the Brexit reports it's producing are nonsense?

Ireland isn't panicking because it's actually done some proper Brexit planning, backed up by the rest of the EU of course.

Seriously? She can be a totally vile human being but nobody’s allowed to satirise her?

Who said no one was allowed to satirise her? It's the racist terms in which the satire is executed that is the problem. Or do you think that there is a sliding scale of acceptability, in which it is acceptable to be racist about people if they don't fit our criteria for being a moral person? Who gets who judge who deserves racism?

The Guardian enjoys telling brown people and working-class people what to do.
That Guardian article made me feel sick. My grandfather was one of those Indians who went to East Africa to work in the civil service. My dad was born there and spent his youth in the UK fighting in the Labour Party against racism. It makes me so angry. Like when Ckive Lewis said that James Ckeverly and the other BAME members of the cabinet had sacrificed their principles for their career. Why? Do black and Asian people not have a right to form our own opinion? I think Priti Patel is vile and incompetent. But she has every right to form her own political views. Just because she and Rishi Sunak and James Cleverly are brown and Tory doesnt mean they are stupid and brainwashed it means they are adult humans capable of making their own decisions. Just like everyone else. I'm not a Tory but Labour and their supporters are the ones that are driving a wedge between people by infantalising Black and Asian people, and the white working class for that matter. In fact everyone who isn't a middle class white Guardian reader must be shown the right and proper views to have.

I completely agree, Noodle. My father is Indian from East Africa, and I "sick" is what I also felt reading that article. It was thoroughly dehumanising. No doubt they justified it to themselves as it was written by someone of South Asian descent. But the right kind, of course.

That Guardian article slagging off Indian's from East Africa was pretty vile. I found that racist.

The cartoon? I don't think it is. She's depicted as a bull because of her personality. She's said to be a bully. It's got nothing to do with Hinduism. Which is why it's a bull and not a cow.

We see cartoons parodying Boris et al all the time, and we think nothing of it. But as soon as it's a not-white-European person in the cartoon, people's racism-radar starts going off. I must admit, that was my first reaction - "ooh, is that okay?", and you start looking for things that could be interpreted as racist. You start literally trying to seek offence. And IMO you've really got to over-reach to find offense there. And not understand the difference between a cow and a bull. (And if that's you, please never try milking a bull.)

And not understand the difference between a cow and a bull.

What if it's a bull that identifies as a cow?

It's got nothing to do with Hinduism. Which is why it's a bull and not a cow.

Bulls do have a lot to do with Hinduism, actually. The sacred bull, Nandi, is one of the most recognisable deities in Hinduism.

Wouldn't take any notice of anything in the Guardian rag anyway. It's the lowest, most biased rubbish in the country.

No, that’s The Fail.

And not understand the difference between a cow and a bull. (And if that's you, please never try milking a bull.)

Swiss cows have horns don't they - or is that just a chocolate box image?

It was a UK Government report - it would be a bit worrying if the Brexit reports it's producing are nonsense?

I assumed it was one of those leaked reports - one of the scaremongering ones that the Irish government is ignoring as well.

Ireland isn't panicking because it's actually done some proper Brexit planning, backed up by the rest of the EU of course.

Tunnel under the Irish Sea?

@GCAcademic - I agree it’s distasteful article. But if you think that the Tory Party do not make such judgments as whether certain ethic groups are “our people” then you will be disappointed. They don’t tend to print them in newspapers, however.

Newspapers often make coded remarks about race of politicians; I was surprised by how explicit the Guardian was. But to say that the Mail and the Telegraph do not do something similar would miss that subtle hectoring which is in Westminster and is often reflected in the coverage of events.

This I think it a lot worse than Bell’s cartoon; there is a sort of drip, drip level of commentary instead. It always goes to competence apparently

We expect the Guardian to behave better than the Tories.

Who's "we"?

Surely we expect the government to behave better than a shitty rag (and I mean all of them)

Of course the right wing press make subtle comments about the race of politicians. The Guardian however, openly published a racist article because they felt it was acceptable to their readership to openly stereotype a group of people who were the refugees of the 70's. Heaven forfend if the current crop of Syrian refugees dont conform to groupthink! They may be deemed unsuitable too.

Why would you expect the Guardian to be better than the Tories? They have their own prejudices and those are shown every day. Any politician that doesn’t match their idea of liberalism is likely to get attacked. Racist? Maybe. But really the inference is obvious and pretty colonial. To some extent I think they reflect a view that is quite common but barely articulated publicly by people who claim to be open minded and liberal.

You look at how often Patel, Javid, Sunak and Cleverly are described in their friendly press. Not very friendly really. The Guardian doesn’t have to bother even with that. The perceived lack of liberalism and grossly backhanded compliments for Priti Patel from her own side are damnig enough.

‘Surely we expect the government to behave better than a shitty rag’

Er, no.

Swiss cows have horns don't they - or is that just a chocolate box image?

Lol, think you're right!

If Priti Patel were white-European-Caucasian and also happened to be a practising Hindu, would this cartoon still be considered equally offensive?

I don't think so.

I think we just have this knee-jerk reaction to try to find something to be offended about if anything mildly controversial involves an ethnic minority.
It's almost certainly a good thing - this instinct to stamp out racism. But it does give some weird results.

I think we just have this knee-jerk reaction to try to find something to be offended about if anything mildly controversial involves an ethnic minority.

So the Hindu Council UK and the Hindu Forum of Britain, who have both complained about this, are just on the lookout for offence? They are used to these racist tropes being levelled at them, but I guess you know better (despite thinking there were no bulls in Hinduism).

I never said there were no bulls in Hinduism. But I maintain that if it was a cow, you may be able to infer racism. But a bull is too much of a stretch.

Isn't it obvious? Bull - it's do with being a bully. Cow - unrelated to anything else, so must be a stereotyped Hindu thing about cows. There's some logic there.

But what's your logic? Bull - it must about that one sacred bull, Nandi, that no one has ever heard of? Is that more likely than it being about her being a bully? Has there been much in the media lately about how she's a Hindu and a big fan of Nandi the sacred bull? Or have there been a few things in the media about her being a bully?

I keep looking at it and over again trying to see it as a reference to her alleged management style, but I just can't. Even with Boris in the picture, it looks like a racist jibe about her, rather than mockery of how she behaves.

If that wasn't intended, then someone at the Guardian should have picked up on the aspect before it was published and asked the artist to rejig the image.

After 40 years as a political cartoonist, I can’t see anyone telling Steve Bell to “rejig” his work!

No, I don't expect so, either. Perhaps they foresaw the issue and thought they'd rather deal with some cross tweets to the editor.