Victor S. Navasky, "Why Are Political Cartoons Incendiary?," New York Times, 11/12/11, (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/13/opinion/sunday/why-are-political-cartoons-incendiary.html?_r=1&ref=islam)

Why Are Political Cartoons Incendiary?

This article focuses on the problem that society, but mainly cultures, have against political cartoons. Navasky talks about many examples in which a political cartoon ended with an assault on the cartoonist. In one example, in 1987, Palestinian Naji al-Ali was assassinated outside of the newspaper's building for which he drew political cartoons for. Navasky makes a point that cartoons are "silly," "trivial," and "irrelevant." He states that Muslims are a special case because of their strong opposition of people depicting Muhammad as something he's not. Neuroscientists and Freudians believe that Muslims, as other religions and cultures, become so upset over these political cartoons because there is no equal retaliation. A cartoon is something out there for everyone to see, for everyone to interpret. Of course, you can email the newspaper and complain, but it's not like making a statement with a rude drawing. I find this article very interesting because we see political cartoons all over the news, the internet, and in newspapers but we never really think about the effects they have on other people, or at least I don't. The writer of this article didn't center the piece around Muslims but rather was trying to make a point that the way they view Muhammad is very sacred to them therefore being a reason as to why they would be upset if someone interpreted him differently than what he actually was.