More nasty sh*t from Charlie Hebdo

64 posts / 0 new
Last post
6079_Smith_W

But again, the cartoon isn't about Aylan any more than that other cartoon is about furniture. It is about our short attention span.

Regarding van Gogh, I wouldn't say far-right, as I reserve that for those who support burning people out of their houses. And no, I certainly don't agree with his polarized anti-immigrant position either, but I'd temper that with the fact that what got him killed was his collaboration with Ayaan Hirsi Ali, who is Somali, and a woman.So it isn't quite so black and white.

I mention him not just because he was killed, but because I think it is important to consider those difficult opinions if they are coming from a position of good faith. And I do think his position, bad as it was, was not just a case of blind discrimination, but because he saw something he thought was a threat. Even if he misinterpreted it.

I think I posted this in the Trump thread. It is worth reading in relation to this, too:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jan/13/i-went-to-donald-tr...

I am having a conversation elsewhere about Meaghan Murphy's recent article about a curfew for men. Of course there are twitchy guys weighing in about what they consider her discrimination. Me, I don't agree with her on most things, and I don't care whether she means it as satire or whether she honestly believes it. The point is that the real message is that women ARE under a curfew because of this, and it is more important to see that than to get distracted by whether the messenger says it tactfully or not.

This punch-up punch-down thing? I get it, and it works as a general rule (and honestly, I think CH is being faithful to that). But it is not a dogma; for an illustration of that you have only to look at Hannah Arendt's experience when she spoke her honest feelings about the Eichmann trial.

 

 

 

6079_Smith_W

@ Unionist

It is certainly different (in my opinion, if not Greenwald's) than the way pictures in Stormfront get people talking.

(and in fact people don't usually talk about those pictures because they dumb)

I think your last sentence is sage advice. Those of us defending CH aren't the ones who started this thread. I would have let the anniversary pass without mention. Personally I'd prefer that if someone doesn't get the satire they just leave it to those who do.

 

 

lagatta

I'm fairly sure that Meghan Murphy's piece was a take on Swiftian satire, and above all a reminder that as girls and women, we ARE under curfew. Quite a lot has been written by feminists in Germany and other European countries; these observations are worth a read.

voice of the damned

6079_Smith_W wrote:
This punch-up punch-down thing? I get it, and it works as a general rule (and honestly, I think CH is being faithful to that). But it is not a dogma; for an illustration of that you have only to look at Hannah Arendt's experience when she spoke her honest feelings about the Eichmann trial.

 

 

 

I've read that book. In what way do you think the issue of punching up/punching down came into it?

From what I recall, the most plausibly controversial part of her reportage was when she discussed the role played by cetain elements of European Jewish communities in facilitating the holocaust. But the odd thing was, this was stuff that was already being openly discussed at the trial itself, so it was kind of odd to think it would become controversial, though perhaps the readers of The New Yorker had been sheltered from that particular topic.

6079_Smith_W

Yup. But there are some offensive things she has written which are her honest opinion. My point is that it doesn't matter. Neither when it comes to paying attention to those things which are important, nor in respecting freedom of expression.

voice of the damned

lagatta wrote:

I'm fairly sure that Meghan Murphy's piece was a take on Swiftian satire, and above all a reminder that as girls and women, we ARE under curfew. Quite a lot has been written by feminists in Germany and other European countries; these observations are worth a read.

There is a story, perhaps apocryphal, that when male members of Golda Meir's cabinet recommended imposing a curfew on women to protect them from assault, Golda replied that, no, since it was men who were causing the problem, it should be men who are subject to a curfew, thus ending the debate. Maybe Meghan had that story in mind.

6079_Smith_W

@ VOTD

She is the one who took the heat for it. Also an illustration of the fact people can say all kinds of difficult things; it is when someone notices it and takes offense that it becomes a problem.

 

swallow swallow's picture

Unionist wrote:

Why are we actually talking about this irrelevant Paris scandal sheet? We have plenty of our own.

We're having it because NDPP keeps posting the same point, made by different people, and some others take issue with the interpretation that's offered by the sub-set of the US left that they are channeling, and offer a perspective drawn in part from a perspective within the French left. That's my take, anyway. 

We're also disagreeing about who the target of CH cartoons is - some seeing them literally as punching down, some seeing them in their context as punching up, to borrow Maysie's language, albeit not very effectively at times. 

And this being a conversation on babble, we're all talking past each other. 

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

I think a large part of the discussion's undercurrent is literalism and a refusal to admit there could be anything to a non-literal, superficial interpretation of satire.

NDPP

Charlie Hebdo May Now Be Criticized Because They Mocked White Texans Rather Than Muslims    -     by Glenn Greenwald

https://theintercept.com/2017/09/01/charlie-hebdo-may-now-be-criticized-...

"In the wake of the Hebdo killings...it was a moral imperative to embrace and celebrate the ideas under attack and to glorify those who were expressing them, even to declare ourselves to be them (JeSuisCharlie)."

voice of the damned

I suppose that's a stinging rebuke to James Wood and anyone else who had said that making fun of Muslims was okay but going after Texans was crossing the line. Personally, I had never said, or even thought, anything like that, and I never got the impression that that was the thrust of Je Suis Charlie. Maybe, I dunno. 

 

NDPP
voice of the damned

And most of the hypocrisy cited by Greenwald is from right-wingers who, personally, I never really expected a lot of integrity from anyway. The closest he comes to citing a "centrist" is Piers Morgan, but in that case, the variation in attitude is understandable: Morgan praised the "TOUT EST PARDONNE" cartoon, and condemned the DIEU EXISTE cartoon. I don't think you have to be a rabid racist to think that making fun of recently-dead drowning victims is actually more offensive than implying that Muhammed would be a supporter of Charlie Hebdo. 

Not that that means I think the Texas cartoon was beyond the pale. There has been black humour about tragedy for as long as I can remember, and I doubt there are too many of us who haven't laughed at some of it. 

Pages