DeathKnight said:
That's stupid. I still think it was intentional. I still remember seeing an American cartoon in which the term DOG was used as an abuse. Even in english language the expressions with dog in them always have negative meanings. And after all this he was thinking that personifying Pakistan as a dog would not hurt anyone's feelings?
And if he really was complimenting Pakistan (slim chance) then it was obviously not a very good way to do it.
Yes, there are many expressions in English that use the word 'dog' negatively, but there are others that are not negative (e.g. 'hot dog' (not meaning the food), 'top dog', 'underdog'). But actually the linguistic uses of the word 'dog' are not a good guide as to how Westerners perceive dogs. For Americans and Europeans, dogs most often symbolize loyalty, companionship, intelligence, courage. But there are, of course, other, less positive, cultural meanings – there is no easy summary. (I'm tempted to try to compare Westerners perception of dogs to the perception of horses by Pashtun and similar peoples, but I don't think I really know enough about them to know how accurate it would be.)
However, I certainly agree that the imagery is insulting to Pakistanis. First, there is ignorance that dogs are not pereceived the same way in Asia and the Middle East as they are in the West. On the part of the cartoonist, this is hardly surprising – I don't think most Americans are aware of this. However, if the Washington Times editorial staff were competent, this is the sort of thing they should be aware of or at least have some procedure for checking. Living in a city full of foreign diplomats, one would think that checking up on cultural perceptions before publishing something like this would be automatic. This is why it made more sense to me that the cartoon was published in the Times, it would be far more surprising if the Post were that incompetent. (And there's certainly nothing to apologize for about mixing up the Post and the Times. I would be surprised if many people outside the U.S. knew about the
Times.)
The second problem is the arrogance of the image. While Bystander is correct about the level of respect felt for military dogs by the soldiers who work with them, I suspect that's not what most people seeing the image are going to think of. It seems much more likely that they will think of (as you said) a pet – a patronizing image at best. This is the arrogance of many in the U.S. right now: other countries can be treated as subordinates rather than equals, no viewpoint really matters but their own. It's an attitude similar to that of the British imperialists of a century ago, and is not restricted to those who hold power here, or to those on the political right (i.e. those who are most likely to be sympathetic to the Times).
This attitude is carried over into
their pseudo-apology that you quoted.
Other Pakistani politicians have demanded an apology from no less than the president of the United States. The suggestion that any American newspaper speaks for the government or a president betrays a profound ignorance of how America works. ... Newspaper cartoonists have been insulting, reviling, abusing, affronting and "dissing" presidents for more than a century, ...
While it is quite true that American political cartoonists mock our leaders quite mercilessly, and that the editors of the Times are not accountable to the President, the Times' editors don't seem to be able to tell the difference between making fun of individual politicians and insulting an entire other country or culture, and that the responsible use of free speech includes apologizing when a mistake of this magnitude is made.
My guess would be that the insult to Pakistan was not intentional. I think it's just ignorance and arrogant stupidity – both that the Times allowed the cartoon to be published in the first place, and that they're too thick to understand that they've created a real problem that might require a real apology.
