As many people have posted about Ali Farzat, I wanted to further look into the impact of his political cartoons. I see that Sam has mentioned the story of Ali Farzat getting essentially jumped by “thug” security forces of the Syrian President, Bashar al-Assad’s regime. In this beating, the security men focused mainly on Ali’s hands, which highlighted the fact that he was beaten for his satirical drawings against Syrian leadership.
What strikes me as extremely significant, is the fact that simply by creating cartoons, Farzat creates such a buzz and threat to the status quo that the government is trying to maintain, that Al-Assad sent men to use force physical against this man. If these cartoons did not generate thought or questions amongst the people, al-Assad would pay no mind to them.
My third and final point is to touch on the relentlesness that Farzat has. Instead of being intimidated and bullied into backing off, Farzat used this moment to create an extremely suggestive cartoon that is pretty clear and about the way he feels about the government and what they did to him. Farzat created this cartoon just days after his beating, and it is based on the way he looked in the hospital. Unfortunately for al-Assad, his bully tactic backfired on him, and actually gave the revolution more fuel for the fire as this act created anger and hysteria among those who were already not fond of their nation’s leadership, and others as well. Below is a link of the bold, and suggestive response Farzat had for his attackers.
www.foreignpolicy.com/files/fp_uploaded_images/110826_farzat1.JPG
I also found this cartoon of Farzat after his beating: http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-QFOL9S1DM8A/T2odCpEs1RI/AAAAAAAACr4/4WX1Rm9OeG4/s1600/Ali-Ferzat3.jpg
A member of the regime is pictured drawing a smile on Farzat’s bandaged face, suggesting that he was expected to be complacent about the whole ordeal.
It’s really interesting to see Farzat’s cartoons about the event; I think they depict the general feeling that people are no longer afraid to voice their opinions and object to governments across the Middle East, especially in Syria (despite the consequences). While many of Farzat’s earlier cartoons illustrate complacency with the regime, the one you posted is very clear in stating that such complacency is ending and people will no longer be silent. I’d be curious to see where else that cartoon was published– part of what allows for such a bold, anti-government statement to be spread is certainly the fact that newspapers are no longer the primary place for cartoons to appear.
This discussion of the effect of Ali Farzat’s cartoons on the people and government is really interesting because it reminds me of the discussion about the Danish cartoons. The discussion surrounding those cartoons in class and in the readings talked about how a cartoon is just a cartoon and that there should be no threat from a cartoon. The Danish argument was that this was an issue of freedom of speech. The actions of the Egyptian government supports their idea that cartoons are not just words. This is an example that might explain why they were so upset about the Danish cartoons. They recognize the effect that cartoons can have on the people and therefore didn’t want their people exposed to cartoons that express what they consider to be corrupting ideas. There seems to be a lot to this discussion and I like your point about how they focused on his hands.
This is a very fascinating cartoon. Definitely what Farzat did was quite admirable. In a way, he depends on cartoons. Similar to the way we all cling to the way in which we can best express ourselves, he is clinging to cartoons. More importantly though, Farzat is doing something very profound by making a cartoon of himself. Many people have died and been injured in Syria and their stories are likely remembered by few. Their deaths represent something greater and less personal than the deaths of individuals. Farzat seems to fear this sort of disappearance into the pile of the dead and has created this image so that he could remain alive through an image no matter what would happen. Indeed, by creating this image, he ensured that people would not overlook what happened to him and that he would not be forgotten.
This is reminiscent of the image of Neda in Iran’s Green Protests. Neda was a student who was killed in the protests even though she was not even participating, according to her parents. Someone managed to take a picture of her beaten to death corpse and it became a huge rallying point for the protestors and the international movement. I don’t think it’s too much of a stretch to think that Farzat saw the power an image could hold when he drew this self-portrait.
It was really interesting for me to see Farzat’s response to his beating. It really showed his determination to criticize the regime and his lack of fear. It was also an interesting contrast to his past work which was very anonymous (even though he got more specific with time including faces and captions etc) because of his use of a self portrait. He did not depict an anonymous beaten man but an image that was obviously of himself. It gives the cartoon more meaning and points out to the regime that this is the result of their power and that even physical violence won’t stop him. Also the fact that they focused on his hands in the beating and that he then made his hand a very central part of the cartoon is a strong characteristic of the cartoon. They damaged his hands as a way to punish him for what he does and in response he continues to make cartoons with his hands and even makes a cartoon in which his hands play the star role.