Muslims in Comic Strips
Antonio E. Gonzalez
characters; so, how many Muslim characters can anyone think of from
comic strips? This seemed to show "Hawk" from Applegeeks as at least
practicing . . .:
<http://www.applegeeks.com/index.php?comic=45>
--
- ReFlex76
- "Let's beat the terrorists with our most powerful weapon . . . hot
girl-on-girl action!"
- "The difference between young and old is the difference between
looking forward to your next birthday, and dreading it!"
Brian Huntley
Antonio E. Gonzalez wrote:
> I remember a previous thread asking the same question about Jewish
> characters; so, how many Muslim characters can anyone think of from
> comic strips? This seemed to show "Hawk" from Applegeeks as at least
> practicing . . .:
>
> <http://www.applegeeks.com/index.php?comic=45>
Good catch!
Now that you mention it, thought, I think Frazz had a student or two
observing Ramadan.
Ted Nolan <tednolan>
There were a number in Modesty Blaise, and probably any number of globe-trotting
adventure strips.
Ted
Cindy Kandolf
> I remember a previous thread asking the same question about Jewish
> characters; so, how many Muslim characters can anyone think of from
> comic strips?
One from the You Don't Know What You're Missing Department: The
Norwegian comic strip "Kollektivet" features Mounir, who is Muslim.
Or, at least, as Muslim as his fondness for Western culture,
particularly for beer and for women with Big Baloobas, allows him to
be. (The second isn't as much of a problem as it could be, since
women with Big Baloobas have never shown much fondness for *him*.)
See:
http://www.kollektivet.no/en/thecomic.html
and
http://www.kollektivet.no/en/samples.html
- Cindy Kandolf, certified language mechanic, mamma flodnak
flodmail: ci...@nethelp.no flodhome: Bærum, Norway
flodweb: http://www.flodnak.com/
ronniecat
19:29:20 -0800, Antonio E. Gonzalez <AntE...@aol.com> wrote:
> I remember a previous thread asking the same question about Jewish
>characters; so, how many Muslim characters can anyone think of from
>comic strips? This seemed to show "Hawk" from Applegeeks as at least
>practicing . . .:
>
> <http://www.applegeeks.com/index.php?comic=45>
People in Muslim dress turn up regularly in FBOFW but I don't think
there are any named Muslim characters.
Does my office count as a comic strip? A lot of these clowns are
Muslim.
ronnie
Jim Strain
> One from the You Don't Know What You're Missing Department: The
> Norwegian comic strip "Kollektivet" features Mounir, who is Muslim.
> Or, at least, as Muslim as his fondness for Western culture,
> particularly for beer and for women with Big Baloobas, allows him to
> be. (The second isn't as much of a problem as it could be, since
> women with Big Baloobas have never shown much fondness for *him*.)
> See:
>
> http://www.kollektivet.no/en/thecomic.html
> and
> http://www.kollektivet.no/en/samples.html
>
> - Cindy Kandolf, certified language mechanic, mamma flodnak
> flodmail: ci...@nethelp.no flodhome: Bærum, Norway
> flodweb: http://www.flodnak.com/
Thanks Cindy! You made me start my day with several huge laughs.
Torbjorn Lien appears to be yet another of Norway's treasures. Wish we
could get him regularly. I mean if US papers can make room for Fred
Bassett....
. . . jim strain in san diego
Michael G. Koerner
> Recklessly refusing to invoke the Fifth Amendment, on Mon, 13 Mar 2006
> 19:29:20 -0800, Antonio E. Gonzalez <AntE...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>> I remember a previous thread asking the same question about Jewish
>>characters; so, how many Muslim characters can anyone think of from
>>comic strips? This seemed to show "Hawk" from Applegeeks as at least
>>practicing . . .:
>>
>> <http://www.applegeeks.com/index.php?comic=45>
>
>
> People in Muslim dress turn up regularly in FBOFW but I don't think
> there are any named Muslim characters.
Prince Valiant has regularly shown Muslims whenever the adventures have gone
into North Africa and the Middle East.
--
___________________________________________ ____ _______________
Regards, | |\ ____
| | | | |\
Michael G. Koerner May they | | | | | | rise again!
Appleton, Wisconsin USA | | | | | |
___________________________________________ | | | | | | _______________
Nick Theodorakis
Michael G. Koerner wrote:
>
> Prince Valiant has regularly shown Muslims whenever the adventures have gone
> into North Africa and the Middle East.
>
I'm not sure how internally consistent the PV timeline is, but Muhammed
was born ca. 570, and many of the people mentioned in PV (e.g., the
emperor Justinian) predate Islam by about 100 years, give or take.
Wikipedia seems to think PV timeline is the late 5th century as well.
Nick
--
Nick Theodorakis
nick_the...@hotmail.com
contact form:
http://theodorakis.net/contact.html
Michael G. Koerner
> Michael G. Koerner wrote:
>
>
>
>>Prince Valiant has regularly shown Muslims whenever the adventures have gone
>>into North Africa and the Middle East.
>>
>
>
> I'm not sure how internally consistent the PV timeline is, but Muhammed
> was born ca. 570, and many of the people mentioned in PV (e.g., the
> emperor Justinian) predate Islam by about 100 years, give or take.
>
> Wikipedia seems to think PV timeline is the late 5th century as well.
It has jumped around from the fifth through at least the ninth centuries. Hal
Foster himself admitted that. Yes, there are many references to and
encounters with Muslims in PV. An example, there was one instance during the
early Hal Foster years where Val was shown consecrating a newly purchased
Pagan sword to Christian service in the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in
Jeruselem "amid the scowls and jeers of the Islamites" (page 225 1941-06-01).
PV has also been in Rome (the city) while the Roman Empire was still alive and
functioning, right at the time of the Great Sacking, as well as as a crumbling
ruin long afterward.
Ted Nolan <tednolan>
George Peatty <pttyg4...@copper.net> wrote:
>
>
>In article <jo-dnc300J2...@athenet.net>, Michael G. Koerner says...
>
>>It has jumped around from the fifth through at least the ninth centuries. Hal
>>Foster himself admitted that. Yes, there are many references to and
>>encounters with Muslims in PV. An example, there was one instance during the
>>early Hal Foster years where Val was shown consecrating a newly purchased
>>Pagan sword to Christian service in the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in
>>Jeruselem "amid the scowls and jeers of the Islamites" (page 225 1941-06-01).
>
>>PV has also been in Rome (the city) while the Roman Empire was still alive and
>>functioning, right at the time of the Great Sacking, as well as as a crumbling
>>ruin long afterward.
>
>
>Goliath ..
>
Technically he was a Giant serving with the Philistine army..
Ted
Peter B. Steiger
> Like Xena was around for both the siege of Troy and the death of the
> Philistine Goliath ..
That (latter) was a GREAT episode. I was pleasantly surprised at the
evenhanded way Xena's writers treated monotheism in general and the God of
Abraham in particular. Speaking of which, "Altared States" was also
tee-diddley-riffic.
I'll tie this back to the subject of comics as soon as I figure out how.
--
Peter B. Steiger
Cheyenne, WY
If you must reply by email, you can reach me by placing zeroes
where you see stars: wypbs_**3 at bornagain.com.
Ted Nolan <tednolan>
Peter B. Steiger <see...@for.email.address> wrote:
>
>
>On Tue, 14 Mar 2006 10:21:39 -0800, George Peatty sez:
>> Like Xena was around for both the siege of Troy and the death of the
>> Philistine Goliath ..
>
>That (latter) was a GREAT episode. I was pleasantly surprised at the
>evenhanded way Xena's writers treated monotheism in general and the God of
>Abraham in particular. Speaking of which, "Altared States" was also
>tee-diddley-riffic.
>
>I'll tie this back to the subject of comics as soon as I figure out how.
>
Well, she did have her own comic book. (Though it wasn't very good
compared to the series).
Ted
Antonio E. Gonzalez
wrote:
I can't think of any mainstream US newspaper that would've run
*this* one; I mean, if "sucks" is too much! :
<http://www.kollektivet.no/en/striper/e-stripe220.gif>
Antonio E. Gonzalez
<brian_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Oh yeah, from Suzie View, Suzie's friend Mel and her family . . .
Jim Strain
Antonio E. Gonzalez wrote:
> I can't think of any mainstream US newspaper that would've run
> *this* one; I mean, if "sucks" is too much! :
>
> <http://www.kollektivet.no/en/striper/e-stripe220.gif>
>
>
>
> --
> - ReFlex76
Yeah, I have a hard time imagining it in the LA Times. Over the
centuries, Europe has been ravaged by war and plague, but the US had
the Puritans, and is still putting up with Pat Robertson and his ilk.
. . . jim strain in san diego.
Ted Nolan <tednolan>
Um, what do you advocate as an alternative?
Ted
Peter Trei
> In article <1142374280....@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> Jim Strain <jasps...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Antonio E. Gonzalez wrote:
>>> I can't think of any mainstream US newspaper that would've run
>>> *this* one; I mean, if "sucks" is too much! :
>>>
>>> <http://www.kollektivet.no/en/striper/e-stripe220.gif>
>> Yeah, I have a hard time imagining it in the LA Times. Over the
>> centuries, Europe has been ravaged by war and plague, but the US had
>> the Puritans, and is still putting up with Pat Robertson and his ilk.
>> . . . jim strain in san diego.
>>
> Um, what do you advocate as an alternative?
>
> Ted
I think the persistence and popularity of religion in the US
(compared to Europe) has very little to do with the Puritans.
Rather, it is a consequence of the separation of church and
state.
Churches, like every other institution, exist in a large measure
to propagate themselves and secure sinecures for the people
running them, regardless of what their mission statement may say.
If the main source of funding is the state, the institution
molds itself to please the state. This is true of churches as
much as it is of corporations. The interests of the nominal
constituents - the rank and file church members - become of
less importance, and a 'take it or leave it' attitude develops:
'We don't have to be nice, or fun: we're The Church' (pace Lily
Tomlin). This is the case in most European countries, where
there are Established Churches, with the state as the largest
funder.
In countries where there are low barriers to starting new sects,
and the state funds none of them, churches have to tailor their
message and style to attract members, as do any group of
competitors in a market economy. To put it in market terms, they
are highly motivated to improve their product, and market it more
effectively.
The result is full churches in the US, vs empty churches in Europe.
Peter Trei
hubcap
>Churches, like every other institution, exist in a large measure
>to propagate themselves and secure sinecures for the people
>running them, regardless of what their mission statement may say.
What kind of Church do you go to? I mean, you did get this
inside information by going to Church and observing it first hand,
right?
-Mike "to say nothing of `like every other institution'"
J.D. Baldwin
In the previous article, hubcap <hub...@clemson.edu> wrote:
> >Churches, like every other institution, exist in a large measure to
> >propagate themselves and secure sinecures for the people running
> >them, regardless of what their mission statement may say.
>
> What kind of Church do you go to? I mean, you did get this
> inside information by going to Church and observing it first hand,
> right?
You don't need to go sit in a pew every Sunday to observe an
organization's behavior. I think Peter has hit on an interesting
thesis with (whether he knows it or not) a kind of sociobiological
approach to the question.
--
_+_ From the catapult of |If anyone disagrees with any statement I make, I
_|70|___:)=}- J.D. Baldwin |am quite prepared not only to retract it, but also
\ / bal...@panix.com|to deny under oath that I ever made it. -T. Lehrer
***~~~~-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Peter B. Steiger
> Churches, like every other institution, exist in a large measure to
> propagate themselves and secure sinecures for the people running them,
> regardless of what their mission statement may say.
I won't argue that many (far too many) churches operate that way, but I
think you're using an awfully broad brush. Certainly for the first couple
of centuries churches were just groups of people meeting in one another's
houses to talk to and about God. Even today, most of the church staff is
often unpaid, and I have been to a few churches that were run entirely by
volunteers, including the pastor himself. Our church library is stuffed
with biographies of people who were doing quite well with a secular job
and gave it all up to be missionaries in some remote corner where they
didn't even have the basics like pizza delivery and cable Internet access.
It would be a real stretch to insist they did that for selfish motives.
Honestly, some folks really believe this stuff and just want to give away
- not sell - fire insurance to save the world.
hubcap
>In the previous article, hubcap <hub...@clemson.edu> wrote:
>> >Churches, like every other institution, exist in a large measure to
>> >propagate themselves and secure sinecures for the people running
>> >them, regardless of what their mission statement may say.
>>
>> What kind of Church do you go to? I mean, you did get this
>> inside information by going to Church and observing it first hand,
>> right?
INVALID...@example.com.invalid (J.D. Baldwin) writes:
>You don't need to go sit in a pew every Sunday to observe an
>organization's behavior.
There might be more to Church than sitting in a pew, and anyway,
Peter's casting a wide net over *all* organizations.
>I think Peter has hit on an interesting
>thesis with (whether he knows it or not) a kind of sociobiological
>approach to the question.
That all organizations exist to provide their leaders a chance
to weasel their ways into positions that "requires or involves
little or no responsibility, labour, or active service"?
Sometimes when I'm reading this newsgroup I feel like I'm
surrounded by people who see the world like the guy in these
low morale shorts...
-Mike
J.D. Baldwin
In the previous article, hubcap <hub...@clemson.edu> wrote:
> >I think Peter has hit on an interesting
> >thesis with (whether he knows it or not) a kind of sociobiological
> >approach to the question.
>
> That all organizations exist to provide their leaders a chance
> to weasel their ways into positions that "requires or involves
> little or no responsibility, labour, or active service"?
I don't specifically endorse his use of "sinecures," necessarily --
though that phenomenon is widespread enough -- but organizations exist
to advance themselves, and the individuals within organizations tend
to try to advance themselves. Sometimes it's because they want to
weasel themselves into those positions, and sometimes it's because
they truly believe in what they are doing. The kicker is, it doesn't
much matter from the standpoint of organizational dynamics.
I can, for example, introduce you to pharmaceutical company executives
who do what they do because they really, sincerely believe their work
is of great benefit to humanity. Does that mean that pharmaceutical
companies somehow stand outside of the realities of the marketplace?
Fat chance.
To distill what I think Peter's basic idea was (no endorsement by him,
express or implied, exists): churches are organizations, and
organizations are like any other social entity in that they compete
for position and resources. The nature and effect of this competition
is highly dependent on the environment, just as they are with Darwin's
finches.
The fairly strict separation of church and state in the U.S. created
an environment in which churches competed vigorously for membership.
This was quite different from the static, safe environment in which
European churches existed through the 19th and early 20th centuries,
with the interesting result that American religious life is amazingly
diverse and lively, whereas in much of Europe it's downright moribund.
When Sir Humphrey made a comment in "Yes, Minister" that atheism is a
prerequisite for success in the Church of England, the joke wasn't
funny because it *didn't* contain a grain of truth.
The idea had never occurred to me until I read Peter's post, but the
more I think about it, the more I think he's onto something.
Peter Trei
My suggestion came from two sources; first, my own cynicism,
which brought in the bit about sinecures. I think it applies
to any organization or sect big enough to have generated its
own professional bureaucracy. It clearly applies much less
to one-man shows and all-volunteer organizations.
The second part about sucessfull churches in the US having
to work on their message and presentation in much the same way
as any other corporation must, and this leading to much
more attractive, vibrant, and active churches in the US vs
countries with state-subsidized religion was lifted from
an article a month or two ago in The Economist.
Peter Trei
Peter Trei
Peter B. Steiger
> The second part about sucessfull churches in the US having to work on
> their message and presentation in much the same way as any other
> corporation must, and this leading to much more attractive, vibrant, and
> active churches in the US vs countries with state-subsidized religion was
> lifted from an article a month or two ago in The Economist.
We Fundies call those "seeker-friendly" churches. The folks who favor
that type of church argue that the first thing is to get your foot in the
door - or in this case, the newcomer's foot in your door - by any means
necessary, and then gradually work on their beliefs to make them Real
Christians (I think you'll find that there is less jockeying for position
or compromising the message to attract new members in, say, your friendly
neighborhood synagogue).
On the other end of the spectrum are those who would rather close the
church than alter the message to please the crowd. I have a pastor friend
who has a rather extreme Calvinist philosophy, and his sermons tend to
favor the "sinners in the hands of an angry God" approach. If 90% of his
congregation walked out on him or the board threatened to fire him, he
would not change his tune. He has taken on second and third jobs to keep
preaching at churches too small to afford a full time salary.
Successful? Depends on the currency you count, I suppose. Certainly
not successful in terms of growth or prosperity, but my friend (and the
pastor at my own church) would consider the outcome of the spiritual
battle a more accurate measure of success.
Hanna-Jeane
Google but no success.
Jeane Moore
Michael G. Koerner
> Is there a website that carries Prince Valiant? I was looking via
> Google but no success.
The current/recent ones are on the 'pay' side of the KFS website, the
reeeeally old strips are in the Fantagraphics and Nostalgia Press series of
books. You'll have to search used book stores and libraries for them.
Another source, if you have the time and patience, is the newspaper microfilm
files at larger libraries. They will likely be there if the newspaper in
question ran it, but they will only be in black and white.
Peter Trei
> On Wed, 15 Mar 2006 20:01:09 +0000, Peter Trei sez:
>> The second part about sucessfull churches in the US having to work on
>> their message and presentation in much the same way as any other
>> corporation must, and this leading to much more attractive, vibrant, and
>> active churches in the US vs countries with state-subsidized religion was
>> lifted from an article a month or two ago in The Economist.
>
> We Fundies call those "seeker-friendly" churches. The folks who favor
> that type of church argue that the first thing is to get your foot in the
> door - or in this case, the newcomer's foot in your door - by any means
> necessary, and then gradually work on their beliefs to make them Real
> Christians (I think you'll find that there is less jockeying for position
> or compromising the message to attract new members in, say, your friendly
> neighborhood synagogue).
The point is that the 'seeker friendly' church arose in the US, but
not in countries with state-subsidized Established Churches. They
are part of the reason church attendance is so much higher in
the US than on most European countries.
> On the other end of the spectrum are those who would rather close the
> church than alter the message to please the crowd. I have a pastor friend
> who has a rather extreme Calvinist philosophy, and his sermons tend to
> favor the "sinners in the hands of an angry God" approach. If 90% of his
> congregation walked out on him or the board threatened to fire him, he
> would not change his tune. He has taken on second and third jobs to keep
> preaching at churches too small to afford a full time salary.
The European churches aren't losing people because of the harshness
of their teachings; they are losing them because they are *boring*
and lack fervor.
> Successful? Depends on the currency you count, I suppose. Certainly
> not successful in terms of growth or prosperity, but my friend (and the
> pastor at my own church) would consider the outcome of the spiritual
> battle a more accurate measure of success.
How about in number of souls saved?
Peter Trei
Peter B. Steiger
> The point is that the 'seeker friendly' church arose in the US, but not in
> countries with state-subsidized Established Churches. They are part of
> the reason church attendance is so much higher in the US than on most
> European countries.
Yeah, I can see that.
>> Successful? Depends on the currency you count, I suppose. Certainly
>> not successful in terms of growth or prosperity, but my friend (and the
>> pastor at my own church) would consider the outcome of the spiritual
>> battle a more accurate measure of success.
>
> How about in number of souls saved?
I don't know if you're being facetious, but some folks do see that as the
whole role of the church. Yes, that's the desired end result, but if you
ask six theologians at what point a person's soul is really saved from
eternal damnation and you'll get 666 contradictory answers.
The church exists not only to save the unsaved, but also to provide a
handy place for group therapy (Hebrews 10:25) where folks who are already
in the club can learn more about God, help each other out in times of
need, and tell God how cool we think He is. I suppose once email and
instant messaging achieve 100% penetration it will no longer be necessary
to drive to church to tell everyone "Pray for Annie Armstrong who is
suffering from malaria", but even if we have fully holographic meetings
like the Jedi Council, eye contact and a sincere hug/handshake/whatever
make the interaction more human.
Where was I going with that? I have no idea, but you got me to wondering
if it is even possible to establish objective performance metrics for a
church leader. If a church is losing money or members but the leaders
meet the qualifications of, say, 1 Timothy chapter 3 and the members who
remain are consistently encouraged to fight the good fight and do all the
stuff that's not strictly necessary for salvation but The Right Thing To
Do anyway, is the church successful?
Antonio E. Gonzalez
wrote:
Well, I guess that's *one* way to achieve a secular society . . .
Cindy Kandolf
> > See:
> >
> > http://www.kollektivet.no/en/thecomic.html
> > and
> > http://www.kollektivet.no/en/samples.html
>
> Torbjorn Lien appears to be yet another of Norway's treasures. Wish we
> could get him regularly. I mean if US papers can make room for Fred
> Bassett....
Unfortunately, I don't think any mainstream American papers will be
willing to carry a strip that is mostly concerned with 1) sex, 2)
religion, 3) culture clashes, and of course 4) why my music rocks and
yours sucks. However, it might be international enough that an
alternative paper could pick it up. "Nemi" seems to be doing pretty
well in an alternative UK paper called Metro:
http://www.metro.co.uk/nemi
There are quite a few good Norwegian strips right now, but I don't
think any of them would play in regular US papers. "Pondus" has the
title character's homophobia to deal with, and way too many soccer
jokes that wouldn't appeal to the average American. At least Jokke's
one-night stands have stopped now that he has a steady girlfriend.
Jokke is the character called "Raymond" in the English translation
here:
http://my.opera.com/community/pondus/
This translation keeps repeating selected strips from the early years,
though - before the strip really hit its stride in my opinion. But
really, even with Jokke behaving himself, there are too many other
things that would prompt the dreaded Angry Letters to the Editor.
Others? "Eon" has God as one of its main characters. (He's retired
and working on less ambitious projects.) Mads Eriksen's
semi-autobiographical "M" has little that's objectionable, but gets
quite surreal and requires knowledge of science fiction and fantasy to
follow a lot of the time. That's about it for the Norwegian strips I
read regularly, but there's a pattern here... maybe the problem with
American strips these days is on the demand end, rather than the
supply...