Charlie Hebdo, racist?

[Kobal2]

@Novelty_Bobble

Are you seriously suggesting that a single religious figure should have special consideration above others? If so why? If not then why use the words above?

I’m suggesting that the line between bashing Islam as part of a general assault on religion, bashing Islam specifically among all religions, and bashing Islam because (in France) it’s the religion of poor brown people that some people can’t stomach and wish to disparage, and all the better because they’re defenceless, are three different things separated by fine lines. I’m suggesting that content and context are complex beasts and that simplistic bullet-point opinions are misleading at best.

I’m also suggesting that the valiant and principled flag of and fight for Freedom of Expression that is making the headlines is being co-opted, in France and abroad, by a number of people of the latter kind, with whom I want absolutely nothing to do. Nor will I be duped by the otherwise beaut’ ideas they drape themselves in. So while in principle, obviously, of course and naturally there’s absolutely no reason to grant Muhammad, or any great Muslim figure, exemption from caricature ; and equally obviously you’re absolutely free to do so for any reason ; in practice you’d better be decent at it and have something worthwhile to say before you do it if you don’t want me to think you’re a bit of a cunt.

Or, to put it another way : there’s no reason not to draw Martin Luther King (or any other important AA figure worthy of respect) as a monkey sucking the cock of a Ku Klux Klan member, with a banana in one hand, a chicken drumstick in the other and a bone through his nose. And a smiling cop chokeholding him, why not. You can do that. And a national newspaper can publish the cartoon.
But you know… do y’all really have to go and do that ?

(general you, not *you *you, just to be clear.)

[Spoke]

From what I’ve seen of Charlie Hebdo, they were bashing everybody. And in that context, Muhammed is going to have to take his turn at the pillory.

And by the way, I hope you don’t mean to suggest that Charlie Hebdo was asking for it? From where I sit, you have every right to be offended by a cartoon, but that doesn’t give you an excuse to shoot the cartoonist. (The general you, not you specifically.)

[Ramira]

@Spoke

From what I’ve seen of Charlie Hebdo, they were bashing everybody. And in that context, Muhammed is going to have to take his turn at the pillory.

except they fire cartoonists for anti-semitism in using images not different from that of the islamic images.

no I agree with Kobal and I think his language is very clear despite the faux questions posed.

[Novelty_Bobble]

@ISiddiqui

And that’s the problem with caricature, isn’t it? Propagation of falsehoods because people in other areas “don’t make such fine distinctions”. Things like this, of course, get Sikh people targeted after Wahhabist terror attacks. And, you know, black folk as monkeys is also a form of caricature (that Charlie Hebdo has used, of course), but we recognize the inherent problems with that - even if it is to be used as satire. Likewise with the “Jewish hook-nose”. And of course, “Aryan Jesus” caricatures have caused a ridiculous amount of problems.

You are dodging the question. Do you think that Mohammed should be treated differently from other religious figures? Assume for the sake of simplicity that he would be drawn in a non-racist manner but that his views or actions or proclamations are being lampooned, derided or insulted.

That should be OK yes?

[Kobal2]

@Spoke

From what I’ve seen of Charlie Hebdo, they were bashing everybody. And in that context, Muhammed is going to have to take his turn at the pillory.

See post #15. Some everybodies were more everybody than others.

And by the way, I hope you don’t mean to suggest that Charlie Hebdo was asking for it?

As a staunch pacifist who’s been struggling for years with whether or not even self-defence is ever justified, yes of course I support abject armed violence against funnymen.

FFS, dude.

[Novelty_Bobble]

@Kobal2

So while in principle, obviously, of course and naturally there’s absolutely no reason to grant Muhammad, or any great Muslim figure, exemption from caricature ; and equally obviously you’re absolutely free to do so for any reason ; in practice you’d better be decent at it and have something worthwhile to say before you do it if you don’t want me to think you’re a bit of a cunt.

Then I don’t think we disagree at all. Lazy, stereotypical cartoons that raise not a titter nor salient point should be derided. Not laughing and not buying the media is the best weapon.

Or, to put it another way : there’s no reason not to draw Martin Luther King (or any other important AA figure worthy of respect) as a monkey sucking the cock of a Ku Klux Klan member, with a banana in one hand, a chicken drumstick in the other and a bone through his nose. And a smiling cop chokeholding him, why not. You can do that. And a national newspaper can publish the cartoon.
But you know… do y’all really have to go and do that ?

Are all the problematic depictions of mohammed of a similar nature to that though? Can’t you find yourself in deep shit by creating any image at all, no matter how inoffensive?

[ISiddiqui]

@Spoke

So, ISiddiqui, should Muhammad be exempt from caricature, when religious figures are being lampooned?

.

No, I don’t. I simply think that using incorrect characteristics and stereotypes as the basis of those caricatures cause far more problems than other forms of caricatures (which use more true characteristics of a person) - the Kobal2 of MLK being portrayed as a monkey is a good form of comparison.

[ISiddiqui]

@Novelty_Bobble

Are all the problematic depictions of mohammed of a similar nature to that though? Can’t you find yourself in deep shit by creating any image at all, no matter how inoffensive?

To be fair, while Comedy Central got all strange and the banned depictions of Muhammed after the riots of the… was it Dutch depictions of Muhammed, the creators of South Park have never really had to fear for their lives (maybe except for the random letter writer or random online thread) and they depicted Muhammed as a member of the Super Best Friends.

[Aquadementia]

@ISiddiqui

To be fair, while Comedy Central got all strange and the banned depictions of Muhammed after the riots of the… was it Dutch depictions of Muhammed, the creators of South Park have never really had to fear for their lives (maybe except for the random letter writer or random online thread) and they depicted Muhammed as a member of the Super Best Friends.

It wasn’t just a random letter writer. That guy was on his way to Somalia to join the fight and got 25 years prison.

[ISiddiqui]

As pointed out at the time (I think by Trey and Matt themselves), it was one nutter. There wasn’t much widespread rage against South Park and Trey and Matt are fine.

[Kobal2]

@Novelty_Bobble

Are all the problematic depictions of mohammed of a similar nature to that though?

Yes and no.

To give you a specific example : you remember the events surrounding Benghazi, and the suggestion back then that the root cause of the demonstrations happening across the Middle East was a profane film disparaging Muhammad ? Charlie’s response to the news was a cartoon titled “The shooting of the scandalous Muhammad biopic” depicting the actor playing the prophet (turban, big beard, big nose etc…) holding a pig’s head, asking if the director is sure Muhammad ever fucked one, with the director answering “Dude, I can’t afford a 9 year old whore”.

You tell me whether or not that’s problematic (although in that case it’s not the imagery so much as the sentiment/captions).

I mean, yeah, the cartoon mainly pokes fun at that flick and its terminally unfunny makers, it’s an amusing implicit question about what kind of movie could/would have caused such global furor in the Muslim community… but even in doing so, Charb couldn’t resist taking an even worse ignorant, gratuitous crack at Muhammad than the film itself ever did. Because sure why not. It’s all in good fun.
See what I mean ?

Can’t you find yourself in deep shit by creating any image at all, no matter how inoffensive?

I’m sure you can. What’s your point ?

[Hank_Beecher]

On not understanding “Charlie:” Why many smart people are getting it wrong -Dailykos

Many smart people are getting a flawed picture of Charlie Hebdo. They are concluding, based on simplistic and misleading analysis, that many of the magazine covers and cartoons promoted racist views. In fact, as I will show, some of the covers elaborately lampooned racist views of right wing parties, like Front National, by imitating some of their imagery, inserting snarky comments, and even posting mock party logos next to the images. Therefore, it would be clear to pretty much any French readers that they were making fun of these things. However, people unfamiliar with the details of this rather elaborate satirical humor are now pulling these images off the internet and claiming them as evidence that Charlie Hebdo promoted the very racist views that they were in fact lampooning. So, I think it is important that we set the record straight.

[Claverhouse]

@vontsira

Kobal2 – I get your drift, I was just wildly speculating: prompted to, somewhat, by my loathing nowadays of my once-beloved Private Eye, and the wish to threadjack a bit, by sharing same. Comparing with your telling of many formerly keen readers deserting Charlie Hebdo of late: I wonder whether a fair number of Private Eye readers have felt like me, and “voted with their feet”.

From the age of 17 on I purchased Private Eye virtually every fortnight; and then — when a lot of stuff happened around 2008 — I stopped and never looked at it again.

It’s not just their smug public-school attitudes, but the fact I realised also, that it obsessed with a bunch of ‘important’ mainstream figures, in Westminster, in Publishing, in the Media, etc. etc., whom I did not give a toss about and whom I would rather see dead anyway: and that they were as much a part of the establishment complex as those they mocked.

@Spoke

Jesus may not have had long hair. So does that mean a cartoonist should depict Jesus with short hair for the sake of historical accuracy, or should he instead use an image that his audience would recognize?

Many reverend American pastors agree. A persuasive essay:
Alongside the aforementioned signs is the definite sign of long hair worn by boys and men. Such a sign should not be worn by patriotic and loyal Americans who love our heritage, who embrace Christian principles, and who oppose the Communist revolution. Since long-haired youths use as an argument the fact that Jesus supposedly had long hair, it is only fair to examine the Scriptures to find if this be true.

…
*A German painter, L. Fahrenkrog, says, “Christ certainly never wore a beard, and His hair was beyond a doubt a closely cut. For this we have historical proof.” The oldest representations going back to the first Christian centuries and found chiefly in the catacombs of Rome all pictured Him without a beard. All the pictures of Christ down to the beginning of the first century and even later are of this kind. Students of the first century and of Roman history are aware of the fact that the time of Christ was characterized by short hair for men. This author has seen many coins and statues which bear the likenesses of emperors who reigned during and after the time of Christ. Such likenesses reveal that the Ceasars and other rulers and emperors had short hair, and of course, the subjects followed the example set by the emperor. *

…
Since the Nazarite could not touch the fruit of the vine or touch a dead body, and since our Lord did both, we must arrive at the definite conclusion that He was not a Nazarite.
VI. IF JESUS HAD BEEN A NAZARITE, HE STILL WOULD NOT NECESSARILY HAVE HAD LONG HAIR.
…
So it is obvious that the Nazarite was as likely to be bald-headed as he was to have long hair. Of course, this argument is needless as our Lord was not a Nazarite.
…
*Men, let us wear our short hair with pride as a symbol of our belief in the Bible and its Christ.

Parents, start your son with haircuts and short hair when he is a baby. With discipline and, if needs be, punishment, see to it that as he grows up he uses his hair as a symbol of patriotism and Christianity, thereby following the admonition of the Scripture that says in Romans 12:2, “And be not conformed (fashioned) to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.” *
Rev. Jack Hyles : JESUS HAD SHORT HAIR!

[Novelty_Bobble]

@Kobal2

To give you a specific example : you remember the events surrounding Benghazi, and the suggestion back then that the root cause of the demonstrations happening across the Middle East was a profane film disparaging Muhammad ? Charlie’s response to the news was a cartoon titled “The shooting of the scandalous Muhammad biopic” depicting the actor playing the prophet (turban, big beard, big nose etc…) holding a pig’s head, asking if the director is sure Muhammad ever fucked one, with the director answering “Dude, I can’t afford a 9 year old whore”.

That is a good example because that cartoon is a perfect example of what should be allowed and welcomed and championed because…
a) it is funny
b) it makes a point. That people were getting irate about a filmaker inventing an aspect of the prophets life when, had they chosen to film the things that were not in dispute, it would have been even worse.

You tell me whether or not that’s problematic (although in that case it’s not the imagery so much as the sentiment/captions).

So no, that isn’t problematic and would not be problematic were it the pope, moses, buddha, ganesh, thor etc. etc. etc.

I mean, yeah, the cartoon mainly pokes fun at that flick and its terminally unfunny makers, it’s an amusing implicit question about what kind of movie could/would have caused such global furor in the Muslim community

and it is clear that you see most of the point that it makes

… but even in doing so, Charb couldn’t resist taking an even worse ignorant, gratuitous crack at Muhammad than the film itself ever did. Because sure why not. It’s all in good fun.
See what I mean ?

Not really, The central point of the cartoon relies on the fact that he didn’t fuck a pigs head but that he did marry a 9 year old girl. If that part of it is a total fabrication then the cartoon fails.

I’m sure you can. What’s your point ?

That ultimately the qualities of the cartoon are secondary to the fact that any critical representation of mohammed is being made. We can’t go down that road.

[Scandic]

@Kobal2

But as I alluded to before, in recent years (and in large part due to, or immediately following 9/11) and under the influence of a new chief editor - who soon came under fire from long time fans of “old Charlie”, for a number of reasons - it let itself gain a increasingly disturbing blind spot for partisan attacks and amalgams when it comes to Islam.

The foreign press these days often alludes to the fact that they went after bigots and the religious of every stripe, to deflect accusations of islamophobia or racism ; and it’s true that they never failed to skewer ministers whenever they made the news for one reason or another. They also never spared Judaism whenever Israel/Palestine came up.
But OTOH the anti-Islam message had become a dependable, weekly thing, page after page. They even once had a special issue dedicated solely to Muslim-bashing (temporarily rebranding the newspaper “Shariah Hebdo”. Witty, neh ?). Yet as a former co-worker of theirs noted, who’d become disgusted by what he saw as edging towards nauseating far-right thought and anti-Arab racism (not just in the cartoons, but also in the editorials and articles - Charlie being also a serious and hard-hitting political opinion paper), they never had a “Talmud Hebdo” or “Leviticus Hebdo” week despite ostensibly styling themselves as standing against “religion” rather than “Islam”. They went after everybody… but not quite with the same force nor frequency.

As a result many of their erstwhile allies were becoming a bit disgusted with it which is why the paper, which had never been what you’d call financially healthy to begin with, not even “back when it was good”, had been bleeding subscriptions and circling the drain for a while.

Interesting reading, and I agree.

According to professor Philippe Marlière, they become “more anti-Islamic than anti-clerical” under Philippe Val. Val changed the style of the publication. He did not hesitate to sack staff members who opposed his views and was often described as “dictatorial”.

In 2000, journalist Mona Chollet was sacked after she had protested against a Philippe Val article which called Palestinians “non-civilized”. In 2004, following the death of Gébé, Val succeeded him as director of the publication, while still holding his position as editor. In 2008, controversy broke over a column by veteran cartoonist Siné which led to accusations of antisemitism and Siné’s sacking by Val. Siné sued the newspaper for unfair dismissal and Charlie Hebdo was sentenced to pay him €90,000 in damages.

[Kobal2]

@Novelty_Bobble

Not really, The central point of the cartoon relies on the fact that he didn’t fuck a pigs head but that he did marry a 9 year old girl. If that part of it is a total fabrication then the cartoon fails.

But that’s the thing though : do you have to dump on the prophet to lampoon the behaviour of (some) Muslims, or criticize religion and the religious ? Does that help ? Really ? I mean, that particular cartoon would have worked perfectly fine without the second speech balloon. It would have been funny, on point and on message. It wouldn’t have made *me *cringe. Not even Muslims - me, a godfree white bourgeois.

I mean, this place is pretty rife with atheists and the anti-religious, Og knows we don’t pull punches when it comes to christians and fundies… but do you often see us guys shitting on Jesus or the apostles, just to be dicks ? The worst that comes to mind is “Magic Zombie Jesus”, and that’s more affectionate than anything.

Which is also true of Charlie, BTW. They lampooned the Pope of course (who’s an intrinsically funny bloke. I mean come on, the popemobile alone ?), but I can’t recall them running… I dunno, Jesus getting fucked in his hand-holes, or being a dick to Samaritans (that parable being pretty damn racist when you think about it), or eating Mary-Magdalene’s pussy, or bombing an abortion clinic himself. When they took shots at Christianity, they ran priest or pope cartoons. When they took shots at Islam, they more often than not ran Muhammad in the most offensive ways they could think of.
The message (and sacrilege) is not quite on the same level, is it ?

[Czarcasm]

But there is a basic difference: there is no ban on showing the image of the Pope or Jesus, thus there is no counterbalancing pushback. “You say we can’t show The Prophet at all, therefore we will show him at his worst.”

[Kobal2]

True, and yet sacrilegious use of the image of Jesus still raises tempers - see Piss Christ, or The Last Temptation. That one wasn’t even a negative portrayal of the guy. And yet dumping on Jesus would be dickish to all Christians, and rightly perceived as extremely insulting. And just look at the fuss over whatsisname nicking a consecrated host.

Yes, yes, I know, “but Christians don’t go and kill people about those !”. Well, first of all yeah they kinda do (a Parisian theatre showing The Last Temptation got firebombed in 88 severely burning 14 but miraculously killing none, moviegoers were assaulted in other places…). And secondly, maybe more of them would, *if *they were an already otherwise legitimately pissed-off and ostracised minority with no public voice.

[Novelty_Bobble]

@Kobal2

But that’s the thing though : do you have to dump on the prophet to lampoon the behaviour of (some) Muslims, or criticize religion and the religious ? Does that help ? Really ? I mean, that particular cartoon would have worked perfectly fine without the second speech balloon. It would have been funny, on point and on message. It wouldn’t have made *me *cringe. Not even Muslims - me, a godfree white bourgeois.

If the religion itself comes from one specific man then pointing out the failings of the man and the words that he wrote seems pretty fair. I mean…he did marry a 9 year old girl. I can confidently say that, had any other powerful religious leader done similar then they’d get the same.

I mean, this place is pretty rife with atheists and the anti-religious, Og knows we don’t pull punches when it comes to christians and fundies… but do you often see us guys shitting on Jesus or the apostles, just to be dicks ? The worst that comes to mind is “Magic Zombie Jesus”, and that’s more affectionate than anything.

Which is also true of Charlie, BTW. They lampooned the Pope of course (who’s an intrinsically funny bloke. I mean come on, the popemobile alone ?), but I can’t recall them running… I dunno, Jesus getting fucked in his hand-holes, or being a dick to Samaritans (that parable being pretty damn racist when you think about it), or eating Mary-Magdalene’s pussy, or bombing an abortion clinic himself. When they took shots at Christianity, they ran priest or pope cartoons. When they took shots at Islam, they more often than not ran Muhammad in the most offensive ways they could think of.
The message (and sacrilege) is not quite on the same level, is it ?

It may be that Islam is lampooned more strongly than other religions by Charlie Hebdo. It is not equal at the moment but I don’t think that changes the argument at all. In the same way that satirical magazines tend to most strongly take against the current powers of the day and the forces that they see as those most deserving. Islam’s turn…tough shit.

If Catholic extremists were seeking to kill anyone that insulted the Virgin™ Mary then I have no doubt…absolutely no doubt…that Charlie Hebdo and their ilk would turn up the offensivometer on them, their beliefs, their ideology and their figureheads. The same goes for any political group you care to mention
In fact, looking at these in the linkhere(offensive French cartoon warnings) I’d suggest there is nothing extraordinarily offensive about the mohammed cartoons.

[Kobal2]

@Novelty_Bobble

If the religion itself comes from one specific man then pointing out the failings of the man and the words that he wrote seems pretty fair. I mean…he did marry a 9 year old girl. I can confidently say that, had any other powerful religious leader done similar then they’d get the same.

Well, for one thing as a (future) historian I’m always irked when historical figures are judged going by modern standards of ethics and culture - by which I mean that, had it not been commonplace in the early middle-ages for older men to marry younger, even extremely younger women then maybe that factoid about Muhammad’s journey might be worth mentionning and been a slight on his character. But it was, so it isn’t ; and it’s profoundly retarded to equate his wedding with Aïsha with pedophilia (and calling her a whore, too ? Make up your mind, Charb.).

For another, again, I don’t think the latter is true at all - when people criticize Israel, when satirits lampoon the Ultra-Orthodox, do they go “hurr durr Abraham was an old rapist” (Hagar didn’t really have a say in the matter, did she ?) or call him “Abraham the sister-fucker” ? Do they repeat it over and over and over ? No. No they don’t.

For a last one, what the fuck does Muhammad’s personal life has to do with Islam, or Islamism, or Islamic terrorism ? It’s like being assigned a book analysis on the themes of, I don’t know, Journey to the End of the Night in college and spitting out a paper with CELINE WAS AN ANTISEMITE COLLABORATIONIST written four hundred times. It’s true, but what the fuck does that have to do with anything ? And I heard you the first 399 times already !

It may be that Islam is lampooned more strongly than other religions by Charlie Hebdo. It is not equal at the moment but I don’t think that changes the argument at all. In the same way that satirical magazines tend to most strongly take against the current powers of the day and the forces that they see as those most deserving. Islam’s turn…tough shit.

It’s been their weekly turn going on 15 years now. Maybe someone should shake the machine a bit, it appears to be stuck.