Faux Outrage

A comparison of two cartoons was made in the Independent. One from Nazi era Germany and the other a recent one from the Daily Mail:

I don't have to tell you which is which. However, the knee-jerkers were out in force calling for the condemnation of the Daily Mail. Much as I detest the Daily Mail, I see no problem with their cartoon - the differences between the two are stark. The only similarity is the theme of migrants and the use of rats, but the rats are being used for entirely different purposes.

Rather than seeing what's actually present in the DM cartoon, those condemning it are seeing only what they want to see so they can huff and puff with self-righteous indignation.  Their brains are firmly tuned in one direction only; to see racism in everything.

In the Nazi cartoon the borders are closed; in the DM cartoon the border is open. In the Nazi cartoon the migrants (Jews) are rats; in the DM cartoon the migrants are infiltrated by rats - the reference obviously being to terrorists, and after the Paris attack no-one can now deny that the terrorists are using the migrant/refugee path to gain re-entry. The only things missing from the DM cartoon are the suicide vests and Kalashnikovs, which the rats should be carrying. I'll grant one of the migrants is carrying what appears to be a Kalashnikov, but look at his headgear - he's an Afghan, and virtually all tribal men in Afghanistan own a rifle (did you know that in a effort to stem gun culture, the Afghan government has banned toy guns?). One is even a plutocrat, by the looks of it.

In these days of Tweets and sound bites we appear to have lost the ability to critically analyse anything in a focused manner and have the attention span of a gnat. The knee-jerk rules!

Regardless of the intent of the cartoon, is it any less offensive than the Charlie Hebdo cartoons?