And another French informant speaks up:
I would like to explain a few things, about charlie Hebdo and about how things work in my country. It might feel insulting, but unless you are fascinated with french culture, have especially studied it or lived some time in France, you don’t know us. You don’t know our history, our politics, even our geography. That’s fine, I myself have a pretty sketchy knowledge of all these stuffs for many countries in the world.
Not knowing is fine. Spreading false informations, or giving your opinion about things you don’t know, is not.
It’s important to try to notice when you don’t know enough. Really.
You have no idea how much the french community on tumblr is feeling betrayed.
We stood by your side many times in the recent weeks, we educated ourselves about the situation in the US, we read, we learnt. Now, our country is suffering and I read everywhere that Charlie Hebdo was a racist journal, that they had it coming.
1. It was not. NO ONE, I repeat literally NO ONE in France ever considered Charlie Hebdo as racist. We might have considered the drawings tasteless, but NOT racists. For the very simple reason that WE FUCKING KNOW OUR POLITICS. So, when you see the covers of the journal out of context and without understanding french, you’re seeing maybe 10% of what there’s to see. I’m not going to explain them one by one to you, because other posts on tumblr do that very well, but just for the sake of example:
You see a black woman’s head on a monkey body. RACISM ! Except that every french person will recognize our french justice minister, Christiane Taubira, and the blue-white-red flame on the left. This is the logo of the Front National, the far-right party in France. And every french person knows that the Front National was under attack for having compared Christiane Taubira to a monkey in this:
Look carefully. The one just above is the real thing. The one above that is mocking the real thing. There’s a difference. It’s an important difference.
And, if you still haven’t got it, the title of the comic by Charb is “Rassemblement Bleu Raciste” which literally means “Blue Racist Gathering” and is a pun on the slogan of the Front National “Rassemblement Bleu Marine” (Navy Blue Gathering, in French the name of the Front National leader is Marine Le Pen, and Marine means Navy). So, this comic is actually an attack mocking the Front National and their bullshit. Is it tasteless ? Maybe. Is it racist ? No.
Then she explains how French secularism differs from the US variety.
Secularity is a system of laws intended to prevent any religious organization to interfere with the political life of the country. It means that everyone is free to practise their religion, as long as it does not interfere with other people’s life (be they of a different faith, or atheists) and the country’s. Blasphemy is legal. Drawing the Prophet is legal.
Most people in France think that it is not only legal, but a positive thing, to be able to make fun of every religion, every authority figure (and do your google research, Charlie Hebdo made fun of everyone and the pope was not spared):
Now that’s a good cartoon. It’s not pretty to look at, but it’s a sharp point. (Ratzinger is telling the sweating child-raping bish, “Make movies, like Polanski.”)
But, as much as we do love make fun and ridicule everyone, including our very secular politicians, we do have laws, and very strict ones, against hate speech. The Front National elected representative who posted the two pictures of Taubira and a monkey was prosecuted. Charlie Hebdo wasn’t, because they were not attacking Taubira, but the racist bullshit of the FN.
See? The photo with the baby orang next to the justice minister is racism. The cartoon mocking it is not.
So if I shout a slur, then say afterwords that what I shouted is a bad word that so-and-so RWA likes to use, I’m in the clear?
Oh for fuck’s sake, Nate Carr.
Read the post again.
Nate, if you had actually read the post, you would understand that the whole point of it was to distinguish between using racist language to be racist and using racist language to satirise racism. As it is, your post reeks of the old “why can’t I call black people monkeys?”-style whining.
No, actually. I’m saying I have no fucking business calling black people monkeys, and that satire that relies on using the exact same fucking language used to oppress people is failed fucking satire.
Way to miss the point dude. By your “logic” Chris Rock shouldn’t use n****r in his routines as it’s a racist term of abuse.
This is the exact problem I have with Colbert when he would go too far. He put maintaining his persona over actual compassion for the people hurt by his words, because he has the fucking privilege to not be hurt by them.
Ophelia, I really like this post, except I’d disagree that French culture is all that different to Anglophone when it comes to satire. I’ve read Voltaire and Diderot and you can draw a line straight from them to Hitchens and Colbert. What we’re seeing here is not so much a culture chasm as an interpretation of satire based on ignorance of the specifics of the French politics being satirised.
So, Nate, how many people have been hurt by Colbert’s words?
Colbert regularly indulged in racist tropes. Case in point was when he used Asian stereotypes in response to the Redskins.
Yes, it was satire. No, it was not good satire.
Sigh.
It’s almost impossible to avoid the “CH was racist – no it wasn’t – yes it was” arguments, but I wish I could.
First, doesn’t common decency tell us that it’s way too soon to start examining the still-warm corpses for warts and blemishes?
Second, a lot of folks have been decrying CH’s cartoons with Islamic subjects as punching down on the French Muslim underclass. Maybe they have a valid point, maybe they don’t. But surely mass murder as a response to fucking cartoons is the ultimate punch-down, isn’t it? So, maybe we can let CH’s past transgressions slide in light of that? If people want to put all future issues of CH under a microscope and rip them to shreds, go right ahead. But I really think this is one instance where a blanket amnesty should be granted to the dead.
I’m tired of seeing their racist ass comics on every fucking site I visit. Their comics are being criticised because people are waving their comics about and defending them in the first place.
No they didn’t deserve to die, but that doesn’t mean their comics shouldn’t be criticised when they show up in public.
So I wanna get this clear.
If I draw a picture of Obama as a monkey, then put a little picture of Rush Limbaugh next to it, it’s totes satire, totes unproblematic, and I’m totally in the clear, right?
And Every French Person Everywhere (TM) is gonna support me?
Nate Carr, in America it would be problematic given the political and cultural history of America when it comes to depiction of non-whites. Why are you Americans so hell bent on imposing your political norms on other societies that do not have the same history or taboos? For chrissakes, are you saying that Christiane Taubira herself doesn’t understand racism towards her? Because she is a fan and supporter of Charlie Hebdo. I guess she must be a self-loathing “hipster racist” herself.
//Speaking to France Info radio, Justice Minister Christiane Taubira said that public aid for the magazine “would be justified”.
“The disappearance of Charlie Hebdo is inconceivable,” she said.//
http://www.france24.com/en/20150109-support-pours-ensure-charlie-hebdo-lives/
I guess your white American liberal self knows more about racism in France than French of African origins. Perhaps your American saviour self can teach us all how and which things we ought to be offended by and feel discriminated against.
Reminds me of the cultural crosswiring that happen at FTB occasionally. As a Brit, I’ve observed a handful of overreactions based on foreign misunderstandings.of the local culture. PZ’s crusade against British TV presenter Jonathon Ross looked bizarre, for example, to many British commentors. And that furore over the Rangers / Celtic referee business, which was somewhat excusable because one of leading misunderstanders of that dynamic was British himself, Richard Dawkins.
This shoot-from-the-hip, ‘denounce first – ask questions later’ online environment is bound to result in the odd misfire. In the desperation to get our words on the screen asap, we forget to consider that we might have got completely the wrong end of the stick.
Isn’t that the same argument that Zwarte Piet isn’t racist?
Zwarte Piet is being protested by people of African descent, actively so for well over a decade now. Charlie Hebdo isn’t.
Okay, I look at a cartoon of the black French Justice Minister showing her head on a monkey’s body but I have to accept that it’s totally non-racist because I don’t understand the French political scene. That makes perfect sense, if you’re trying to excuse an obviously and blatantly racist cartoon as not being obviously and blatantly racist.
As mentioned above, Stephen Colbert used a racist slur to denounce the Washington football team’s racist name. Just because Colbert censured one example of racism doesn’t mean he didn’t use racism himself. Similarly, the cartoon of Taubira may mock FN’s racism but that doesn’t mean the cartoon itself isn’t racist.
I understand that Charlie Hebdo is a satirical magazine. Stephen Colbert is also a satirist. And sometimes their satires are racist or otherwise bigoted.
Aside from discussion of taste and bigotry is my perplexion with regards to the creative ideas. I don’t understand the creative choice to make her part of the logo? It’s, like, really abstract association there….Usually if you were altering someone’s logo, you would make it into what the people are. So changing the logo of racist people into KKK hooded people would make more sense, you know?
Same goes for the pope one: I understand sort of why you would put a mention of Polanski in there…but why is there an instruction to “make movies”? What does the pope character expect that would accomplish? Maybe I’m missing something though.
uh, unless “make movies” is supposed to mean “make child porn movies” because the pope character wants to see :/
“Make movies’–>Then lots of people will defend you. Some Hollywood Names have defended Polanski quite publicly.
Also, @brianpansky, that is FN’s logo, not Charlie Hebdo’s. It is an explicit tying of the image to the people who called Taubira a monkey.
And I’m getting tired of people who apparently believe that minorities can’t parse satire better than this. People who think that laughing and pointing a finger at and figuratively mooning racist assholes is as bad as the assholes’ racism itself.
Satire that can’t turn awfulness back on its purveyors is toothless satire.
As a minority (queer) I can parse the difference.
I just shouldn’t fucking have to. I get enough fag jokes from bigots. The last thing I want to see from someone who supposedly “supports” me is hipster homophobia pawned off as satire. Not fucking hard for me to apply it to other minorities.
@brianpansky, on rereading I see that you understood that the logo is the FN’s.
It isn’t impenetrable to me. I read it as THIS IS HOW THE FN THINK. THIS IS WHO THEY ARE.
.
By the way, how ’bout that jerk Jonathan Swift? Can you believe he joked about eating poor people’s babies? He didn’t even have the decency to use sarcasm tags.
Jonathan Swift wasn’t calling the poor Irish he was referring to subhuman.
In fact, his Modest Proposal was targeted squarely at the richer parts of his society.
You have not supported your argument that CH’s cartoons are “hipster [bigotry] pawned off as satire,” Nate Carr, and you’ve ignored attempts to explain the cultural and political context of the cartoons. You just keep asserting that the cartoons are racist because they use racist imagery.
Salty Current has pointed out, in a couple of posts on this very blog, that Charlie Hebdo stood steadfastly against racism. Their cartoons may not have flown here, because this is a different country,with different politics, a different culture, and etc. But for dawg’s sake, those murdered people deserve better than to be dismissed by someone who isn’t interested in trying to read their work fairly and in context.
You’ve done nothing but recite the same “Lolcontext” shit that people bring up to defend problematic crap from other countries. You’re argument is identical to the people who think Zwarte Piet is totes fine. For every article like Salty Current’s, I can find one that says counter.
Wev. Maybe I’ll come back to B&W in a few months when this has died down. There are plenty of thoughtful responses to the murders of the Charlie Hebdo cartoonists that don’t require regurgitating images of black women as monkeys. There’s plenty of satire that doesn’t require a caricature of the Boko Haram victims as preggo welfare queens with missing teeth.
@Nate Carr
But don’t you see that according to your judgement, he WAS? He reflected the heartlessness of the upper classes back at them. Can you imagine how some poor Irish people might have felt if they’d read that essay, not knowing it was satire? (Because it wasn’t so great an exaggeration of British policies that it was obvious to everyone at the time that it was satire.)
I’m not being snarky now. Satire can be painful, and I understand sometimes it triggers people who are suffering because it references, and often superficially looks like, the things it opposes. I can understand someone not liking the cartoons.
But Charlie Hebdo had a reputation in France for standing AGAINST racism, anti-immigration rhetoric, homophobia, and authoritarians, and I think it’s unfair to assume They were doing unthinking hipster satire.
@ Nate Carr
Did you know that Ophelia once called a woman who had been raped, tortured and murdered a “bitch”? And called it “an illustration of how privileged women are”? No kidding, she really did! Look, it’s right here:
Now assuming you understand what sarcasm is; assuming you understand those were not actually Ophelia’s sentiments, but her expression of disgust at the attitude of the murderers — How can you not understand the exact same thing when it comes to the Charlie Hebdo “monkey” cartoon?
Lady Mondegreen (aka Stacy) @28
It is possible to satirize racism or other bigotry without using racist or bigoted cartoons. It’s too bad that Charlie Hebdo felt that to satirize racism they had to use a racist image. A black woman’s head on a monkey’s body is racist, even if the intent is to satirize someone else’s racism. No matter how much tap dancing and pointing at all the shiny things off to the side is done, that cartoon is racist.
Al Dente, yup. And that scene in Blazing Saddles, where Cleavon Little rolls his eyes and enacts a familiar racist stereotype? Racist.
That Simpson’s scene set in the Gay Ste Mill? Homophobic.
And I’m just tap dancing and pointing at shiny things, and not at all trying to make a serious and deeply felt argument about satire.
(In other words: use of bigoted imagery is not bulletproof evidence of bigotry.)
I’m not from France, but AFAIK, Front National would deny being racist if asked point blank. I see that cartoon as a way to say “Suuuure, you’re not racist. Right. Remember that time when you compared that woman to a monkey? Yeah…”
This reminds me of the show, All in the Family. Carol O’Connor’s character was an appalling bigot. If you just watched his character, you would the show was all bigotry. But if you look at all the characters together, you would see O’Connor’s character dealing with his fear of changes in the world around him by holding tightly to his bigotry. Context and culture is important in judging something like cartoons. I can’t really judge Charlie Hebdo’s cartoons without first understanding French people and their culture and politics
First of all Rush Limbaugh has to call Obama a monkey first. Then, you draw a book cover with the title The Way Things Ought to Be by Rush Limbaugh (This is Rush’s New York Times best selling book of 1992) Then on the cover you draw a picture of Obama as a monkey.
Yes, that would be satire and your meaning would be clear to everyone.
But Rush will actually have to oblige by being a racist idiot first. If he isn’t then you are unfounded and being a jerk.
Does that make it clear? I hope so because otherwise you and I have both described Obama as a monkey and by your reckoning that’s on us.
Uh, he was calling them *food*. That’s pretty fucking subhuman.
Gee, you don’t say….
(sorry for the double-post)
*boggles* FTB thought me one thing: shut up and listen. If minorities in France are telling us that CH is on their side, then I don’t see why we should be outraged at CH.
*taught
(grumbles)
First to be clear, I’m writing to support the positions Ophelia and Stacy wrote in this thread.
Using words as a medium, I could say (as a silly example), “Fox News is fair and balanced” and roll my eyes in person, or I could ad a tag online for end sarcasm, then anyone reading that would understand I was against Fox News. But I read Nate Carr saying:
Evidently because the medium is graphic instead of text, people like Nate Carr lose their shit.
I also support what karmacat said at #34, that the genius of the television producer Norman Lear was to create the characters of Archie and Edith Bunker for Americans to process in prime time television weekly:
If any American parses that weekly prime-time opening to think producer Norman Lear was pro-Herbert Hoover as a president and pro-LaSalle as an automobile, then I have no hope for you intellectually.
[meta]
oualawouzou, yeah.
(Those Frenchies, they clearly need to be told what’s what by self-righteous people, since they just don’t know any better and have got it wrong)
Nate@24:
Jonathan Swift@ A Modest Proposal:
Incidentally, us old timers will recall a vigorous discussion on the topic of “humor mocking bigotry” vs. “bigoted humor” on this very blog back in ye olden days (um, about six months ago).
If we accept the sentiment of this post and many of the comment, then it precisely illustrates the problem being discussed, e.g. over on Pharyngula. The discussion largely isn’t about whether CH are bigots, but whether some of the content is bigoted. (And one discussion is therefore whether it is problematic to simply reproduce it as a mark of solidarity.)
Clearly, if we are to understand that CH cartoons require some uniquely French insight and piles of added context to decode what are apparently bigoted cartoons, then those cartoons shouldn’t be reproduced for the benefit of a wider audience that lacks that cipher.
As soon as you do that, all you have is the racism and sexism, because your naive audience lacks the prerequisite knowledge to interpret them. And if you’re relying on an accompanying commentary to prevent bigots from co-opting those images, then you will be very disappointed as they quickly discard the explanation in favour of propagating only the image which suits their agenda.
If racist images cease to be racist upon receipt of esoteric knowledge, then they probably aren’t fit for wider dissemination, and they do risk being perceived as only racist.
(And all of that ignores the possibility of punching down, or at least of inadvertantly striking out at the powerless as you flail at targets without due precision. Both of which I think are pertinent to at least some of the content I’very seen, even with accompanying explanation.)
I’m actuallly gobsmacked that people are still going on about CH being racist. Nate’s point, above, is a bit like saying that if I published an article condemning the Westboro Baptists for waving “God hates fags” signs, and included a photo of the signs on my article, I’d be a homophobe for it.
[meta]
Bernard Bumner @41, there have been numerous posts about this recently here. I hope you’ve read at least some, and in particular SC’s guest post: Guest post: The community of the potentially mockable.
Anyway, your position is clear. No Charlie Hebdo cartoons should be shown outside France, because even with context supplied they’d be pernicious due to their apparently bigotry, racism and sexism.
(Not a position I share)
John Morales @41,
I have read all of them, and my position is not as simple as you think. I am slightly confused as to why you think you’re able to state a clear position on my behalf.
If…
I don’t really think that this marginally chauvanistic argument works – many of the commentators who are questioning some of the content are also capable of appreciating the cultural context, even if from afar. Presumably, you consider yourself able to do that, even if your conclusions are different? Otherwise, are you just unquestioningly accepting this voice as an authority?
My position is that there is clearly racist and sexist content in CH’s cartoons but that their intent to be anti-racist is also clear, and particularly so with the benefit of contextual clarity. However, that does not prevent them from causing inadvertant harm through perpetuating stereotypes or by reaching a naive audience. I have stated elsewhere that I consider this to be a limitation of single-panel cartooning; the requirement to rapidly convey a narrative leads to easy stereotyping.
Will Self’s essay sets out some useful reservations, even if I’m not in full agreement with it (as is inevitably the case when Will Self writes anything).
I am of the opinion that this is a good oportunity to condemn – without qualification – murder in response to free speech (but I’m not going to judge everyone who decides not to say anything). I am also of the opinion that CH’s output should be reproduced carefully, and with particular care to place it in context in order to avoid doubt. I believe that it is not a bad time to critique that output, simply because it is being so widely lauded and reproduced, and perhaps to learn lessons from it. I also think that there are examples which should be avoided as problematic, and should be pointed out and discussed as such.
Even if you’re punching-up, it is important not to hit bystanders as you pull back your fist.
@oualawouzou #35
“FTB thought me one thing: shut up and listen.”
That’s a terrible lesson. I hope you’ll one day realize why.
Interesting that ‘All in the Family’ comes up here. It was based on the British hit ‘Till Death Us Do Part’, created by the great Johnny Speight, and featuring the character Alf Garnett, a reactionary working-class gobshite. Speight’s politics were solidly socialist and his writing a satire on racism. However, Alf Garnett was such a vigorous character that, almost inevitably, some viewers took it seriously or even began to parrot it. Such are the dangers of satire.
Here’s Garnett in full-on racist mode:
http://youtu.be/VOhXpmozpbE
Jesper Both Pedersen, you can listen while talking? Neat trick.
I had an uncle who could pat his head and rub his belly at the same time.
I don’t think “we” are to understand that at all. On the contrary; what’s needed is context that would be apparent to the average French person. Non-Francophones don’t have that context unless they happen to closely follow French politics, but it hardly amounts special national sensibility or to “piles” of context.
@ Lady Mondegreen,
I agree, but that wasn’t what the OP suggested in the first blockquote.
I can certainly say that the first time I met American stereotypes (while reading Stranger in a Strange Land, where some of those are mocked), I lacked the necessary background to understand them. Rereading it later, I still didn’t get everything, but I got enough to realize at least some places where American concepts were referenced that I could not recognize. I’m certain I would recognize even more today.
Even long books can be full of cultural references you need to have to understand what is going on. The shorter the piece becomes, the more important they become.
Without the necessary background (which you can get from TV tropes, for example), can you understand this German joke?
The shortest Manta joke: There’s a Manta parked before the university (in German: “Steht ein Manta vor der Uni”).
#48 Bernard Bumner
It seems to me that this is exactly what he suggested.
I have no quarrel with you (I’m not100% sure I agree in every particular, because I’m still thinking about the issues raised, but I share your concerns.)
I do have a problem with people categorizing CH as racist, right-wing, anti-immigration, etc. etc., based on the fact that they’ve seen some shocking images devoid of context. I have seen a lot of that in the last few days.
I wrote:
In response to:
I don’t think that is an unfair characterisation by me.
@ Lady Mondegreen,
I have also seen that, and I don’t think it is helpful, as well as being a mischaracterisation.
Equally, many people are objecting to the discussion happening now (or at all). I think people who are complaining about the timing are being too precious about a publication which itself surely wouldn’t wait to pass comment on the news of the day.
@35:
But if we can’t be outraged, what else are we to dooooo? Waaaaah. And so on.
@Bernard Bumner, 41:
And so the race to the lowest common denominator begins. All media must cater to a hypothetical most brittle, most-easily-offended viewer/reader/listener, lest the producer be branded with the toxic label “racist” or similar by someone wilfully ignorant or dismissive of context.
Or not.
The way I see it, there are two forms of racist act. There’s a racist act that stems from bigotry or ignorance, that causes real harm and perpetuates stereotypes and oppression. If you, for instance, mix up Will Smith and Idris Elba because, hey, all “those people” look alike, that’s you. That’s a racist act. The appropriate response is unreserved apology, and a period of self-examination and self-education in which you question and address the attitudes and assumptions that led you to do this thing. Those guys have hardly anything in common beyond skin colour and similar age. Your act in confusing them likely stemmed from an attitude in yourself that you should change.
Pursue and lambast these people. Demand apologies from them. Being the kind of people they are, you probably won’t get them – they’re not on your side after all. They won’t like being called out for a racist act, because they hear “you’re a racist”. But it’s important you do call them out, because you might change their minds.
But there are also racist acts that do not stem from bigotry or ignorance. They cause some offence, sure. Whether they perpetuate stereotypes or oppression is arguable, however. If you, for instance, mix up Chris Rock and Chris Tucker, because hey, you were thinking of that fast-talking hyperactive-style black standup comedian and film star in their forties called Chris who was in that action movie with that Chinese martial arts guy, that’s you. The appropriate response is an apology. Oops, wrong Chris, sorry. Same age, same kind of delivery, I was thinking of Lethal Weapon 4 not Rush Hour. If you confuse Bill Paxton and Bill Pullman, nobody cares. Mix up those Chrises, however, that’s racist. Not “you’re a racist”, just “that’s racist”. It’s a racist act. And there is no point arguing with the people who will point this fact out. No justification or explanation is possible. Because of some specific context you may not even be aware of, what you did is racist. So obviously, the thing to do is apologise, sincerely, for any offence taken… then get on with the rest of your day.
The CH cartoons are in the latter category. Are they “racist”, by the definition that entirely ignores intent, explanation and context? Yes. A drawing of a black person as a monkey is racist. No argument. Joe Sacco has drawn a racist cartoon in response to the Charlie Hebdo attacks. http://www.theguardian.com/world/ng-interactive/2015/jan/09/joe-sacco-on-satire-a-response-to-the-attacks
Pursue and lambast people in the second category by all means. Demand apologies from them. Being the kind of people they are, you’ll very likely get them – they are on your side after all. They won’t mind being called out on a racist act, because they don’t hear “you’re a racist”.
An American branding a French magazine cartoon “racist”, and explicitly dismissing any explanation or context, is a perfect example of the kind of self-righteous cultural imperialism that makes Europeans feel safe to ignore the opinions of Americans.
Post by Yemisi:
https://proxy.freethought.online/yemmynisting/2015/01/12/the-charlie-hebdo-tragedy-the-five-crowds-that-are-getting-it-wrong/
Well done Ophelia for taking the time to try and get your head around this.
My guess is that recent controversies around the use of “slur words” in different cultures, has left you in a position where you seek to understand some of this cultural context behind some of these issues before you fire off a reaction post.
Lady Mondegreen, I admire your patience.
@sonofrojblake, #54:
No, because:
i) it isn’t purely about offence, it is also about the real harm that stereotyping can do.
ii) it is perfectly possible to label specific cartoons “racist” whilst also acknowledging the anti-racist intent of the producer.
iii) You’re presuming that the context is available to everyone, and that;
iv) there aren’t already racists reproducing these cartoons in support of their own Islamophobic agenda.
The fact that I acknowledged the importance of context should demonstrate that I can, given context, distinguish inadvertant and deliberate racism. I have clarified that my initial response, which may not have been clear, was predicated on my reading of the OP that something of this context was hard to translate, thus rendering it esoteric.
And really, if it is true that the context cannot be easily transmitted and is an absolute requirement to understanding whether some specific piece is or is not intentionally racist, then it would indeed suggest that they probably aren’t fit for wider dissemination (i.e. beyond initiates).
Some of them contain images which are just racist – hook-nosed Semites as short-hand for Muslims, for example. They are images which are commonly used as shorthand in political cartooning, so by no means just restricted to CH’s output. They are problematic, even when deployed in anti-bigotry cartoons.
Which is just a little xenophobic in itself, whether a joke or not, since there are plenty of Americans joining in to declare themselves Charlie, and plenty of Europeans who say they aren’t and giving reasons for it.
I’m European, just in case you’re wondering whether to ignore my opinion or instead to simply disagree with it.
But no-one was getting a free pass to pretend that “cunt” is simply not sexist in the UK. That wasn’t a consensus.
I’d like to give what I think is a good example of context mattering in explaining images. What do you think of this image:
http://g.cz/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/img_64791.jpeg
The caption reads: “Czechs, don’t shop with muslims!”
At first look it is full of racist stereotypes. It looks like an anti-muslim or anti-foreign racist scare. The context: the robed bekatana’d figure on the right is Czech politician Tomio Okamura, a Japanese-Czech immigrant. The kebab wraps on the bottom are a reference to his recent statements on how terrible muslim immigrants are, that they should be hounded from the Czech Republic and that citizens should defend their country by boycotting muslim shops (Turkish kebab is popular). Czech problems with islamist/middle-eastern political violence are at zero.
So what looks like an odd mash of racist tropes is actually saying “Tomio Okamura, when you say these things, this is how you look: like a crazy racist, you are a joke and no one is taking you seriously.”
Now if I created an image myself to express the same message, I like to think I’d manage to come up with better ideas without the stereotypes, but the language, intention and message are pretty clear, despite being useless without context.
Oh and the original image that this one is based on can be seen here: http://g.cz/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/img_6479.jpeg
Bernard@58. I guess you mean consensus among the people who comment at FTB, rather that the consensus of the population at large.
Anyway, lets not rake over all the details. My point was these things are often not “simple”, and that people who react as though they are, should do some more thinking. I support the approach of Ophelia on this issue.
@firsttimereader, #60
So do I, but that was a really bad example to choose to support it.
It does, however, help to illustrate exactly the problem with people co-opting bigoted language and imagery, and why that added context doesn’t necessarily nullify the offence/harm/bigotry.
They weren’t writing for everyone. If they were, they would have done so in English.
The problem here is that the material being disseminated wasn’t intended for that wide audience. Charlie Hebdo typically sells something like 30,000 copies, into a French population of over 66 million. Even within their home country, among those speaking their own language, CH is a niche player.
The appropriate response when one sees a cartoon in a foreign language from a niche publication in a foreign culture is to question whether you get it. If you don’t get it (and there’s no shame in not getting it – why would you?), that’s fine.
But to go on to condemn it regardless of any explanation you may later be informed of because it doesn’t comply with your own cultural standards really does take massive arrogance.
There’s no shame in looking at a cartoon that appears racist, and saying “Hmm… I don’t get it. Looks a bit racist.” Then, when it’s explained to you why it’s not, saying “Oh, OK.”
It’s even OK to go on being offended by it, if you must, despite the facts. Just be clear that even people on your own side are writing you off as simply wrong. If I could render a Gallic shrug in text, I’d use that to sign off.
And in this case shocking cold-heartedness as well.
@brucegorton, #62, & sonofrojblake, #63,
&
I absolutely agree. That is why I pointed out in my original contribution to this thread that, “…one discussion is therefore whether it is problematic to simply reproduce it as a mark of solidarity.”
Again, agreed. But when the cartoons are being repurposed not as a satirical attack upon their intended targets (where both the readership and the targets are cognizant of the purpose and context), but as symbols of solidarity to be transmitted across borders of understanding, there needs to be great care in selecting those images. Worse, once they are appropriated and used with other intent, no amount of recontextualisation can save them.
If you’re part of a minority against whom specific imagery has historically been deployed and continues to be used as an attack, does the original good intent completely nullify that? I don’t agree that it does, and there is plenty of evidence around the harmful effects of stereotyping that say not .
This is exactly the “cunt” argument again.
I am quite willing to say that CH is not inherently racist, and that there are plenty of people who have misread the cartoons with a degree of unwillingness to accept that being the case. But I’m a white guy, so I don’t have any authority on that issue, but I do have extensive training on ignoring subtle racism.
I am also quite willing to say that there is inadvertantly racist content which is incidental to the intent as it has been explained to me.
I subscribe to Private Eye in the UK, which is a generally progressive satirical magazine, certainly broadly aims to take on and expose abuses of power, and often manages to reproduce racist, sexist, and bigoted tropes even in the same content or page where they are railling against those very things. It seems very similar.
Then please imagine that I slightly raised an Anglo eyebrow whilst glancing away.
Bernard @ 61 – what was “a really bad example to choose to support it”? The Taubira cartoon? If so:
– but I didn’t choose that one to support it but to explain it – that is, I chose to share that part of the article to explain it. It’s worth explaining because it’s one of the cartoons people are seizing on as an example of obvious unmistakable racism.
Silentbob @ 29 – that’s a perfect illustration, and one I’d forgotten myself. (It took me a few seconds to parse your comment, which just goes to show – this stuff is tricky.)
I do that kind of thing all the time, and I rely on the regularity of regular readers to tell them it’s sarcasm, and sometimes I confuse one or more non-regular readers.
Which you could equally apply to examples of Charlie Hebdo’s output.
Cold-heartedness would be to comment on this whilst refusing to outright condemn the attacks. This discussion may be unfortunate but it is timely.
Bernard – so who is it that you’re arguing with, about the appropriateness or otherwise of posting the racist-looking cartoons in solidarity? I ask because I’m pretty sure I stopped doing that after the first hour or so of the first day, for that reason. I first used the “100 coups de fouet” one for my FB profile pic but then quickly changed it because…when I mock Mo I prefer a subtler style of drawing, for political reasons as well as aesthetic ones.
In other words if that’s your point in this debate I think you’re banging on an open door.
@ Ophelia, #61,
No, I was refering to firsttimereader invoking the discussion of cultural differences around the use of the c-word. The example they chose well-demonstrated (in my mind) why intent and/or culture doesn’t necessarily nullify effect, even when both of those are understood. It should modify the response, but it doesn’t undo all potential harms.
I know, and it was well-chosen for this discussion, and I think some people overstate the case without understanding or acknowledging the added context. However, I can also appreciate that some black/PoC commentators are telling me that stereotype reinforcement has potential to do harm, even when the intent is as clear as in that case.
I’m aware that I seem to be replying a lot in this thread, and I don’t want it to seem as though I’m not listening and just restating my point. I acknowledge that this is not a simple issue where CH should be labelled as X-ist.
@Ophelia, #69
Not really you; it was primarily a reaction to the first quote in the OP and some of the comments. It is probably also a reaction to cross-reading many different discussions on this issue, and this seeming like a good venue to say #41. Everything else is just responsive.
As I say, the frequency of my replies may make it seem as though I have more investement in this than I do, or perhaps that I’m taking up an entrenched position to defended ad nauseum.
One of my co-workers is an American from the northeast. He’s an agnostic, he speaks French fluently (BA in the language), he lived in France for over five years and is married to a French citizen. He’s adamantly pro-democrat, even slightly socialist, and considers Obama to be a right leaning corporatist conservative.
And his reaction to the shootings was, “They brought it on themselves. Charlie Hebdo is racist.”
Sometimes, you just want to give up and not talk to people when even that much education and experience don’t sink in.
Banning the burka … that was satire??
@75 Martin: It wasn’t the burka that was banned. It was wearing clothing in public places, that covers the face. This was done for security reasons.
FFS. No, you couldn’t, not least because it’s a quality of people and not output. Nor could you fucking argue that their approach was cold-hearted. It was not, and many people, including me, have provided evidence of this fact in a number of forms (films, interviews, reminiscences of people who knew them, accounts of their political involvement). So stop insinuating that, because it’s fucking false and you’re smearing people who can’t fight back because they were just murdered.
No, cold-heartedness is shown in your fucked-up epistemic approach, in which – despite having been made aware numerous times that you lack full information, don’t skip a beat in persisting to assume the worst and expect people to “defend” every cartoon so that you might deign to temper your opinion. I don’t believe that you’re not invested in a position, because I see you’re over at Pharyngula replying to a helpful post providing explanations of some of the images not with a note of appreciation but with a demand to know why, in this nonrandom sample of pictures out of thousands, Jesus is white and not Semitic-looking like they allegedly show Muslims. (Because they respect and identify with Christianity, obviously!) Did you even look at Mohammed in the “It’s hard being loved…” cover? Little button nose. From what I’ve seen, they show a cornucopia of schnozzes of various shapes and a range of skin colors.* Even if they did generally statistically show more Muslims with large, hooked noses, you wouldn’t remotely be able to tell that from a nonrandom sample of a handful of cartoons.
I haven’t seen this level of disrespect for people’s actual actions or their intent or meaning in context, this level of determination to uphold negative characterizations, since the attacks on Skepchicks and the bloggers on this network. I don’t give a fuck if it’s timely – this is the wrong way to go about it. Show these people a little fucking respect and care and stop looking for grounds to attack them.
* In the US, incidentally, big noses are a French stereotype.
But but…it’s the American Way! (TM)
…see what I did there?
Yes. And I’m not being cold-hearted by taking part in a discussion that I didn’t start, but have seen fit to continue, not least of all because the issue isn’t going away by my silence.
If you’re talking about the quality of people, then that is true dead or alive, and I’m not even questioning the motives of the people. I’ve stated it many times; I don’t think there were any racist motives from those murdered CH artists.
No. I expect people to use judgement. I expect people to take a view on how material is used. For the sake of the living people who have to deal with the consequences. And I don’t believe my opinion is without nuance.
So, you have an opinion, but mine is an invested position?
I was commenting on stereotyping. As you say, a nonrandom sample, but still one of only a few on that page. The majority of cartoons depicting Muslims that I’ve seen circulated have featured the Semitic stereotype, the Christian stereotypes I’ve seen were all white (including the non-white character, Jesus).
It was not an attempted gotcha! to claim anyone was being deliberately racist, although I can see that it might seem like that.
Pfft. If you’re comparing me to people who have dedicated years to systematically harassing people through the vilest methods available to them and with pathological intensity, then I think that certainly is an unsupportable slur.
Look, I’m not after pouring vinegar into raw wounds, or pissing even you off. I found a discussion and I participated, and I’m sorry if that has caused you unnecessary stress/anger (whatever it might be labelled to sound as though I’m being utterly condescending). In my mind, this place has a restricted reach, and I’m not out arguing this anywhere that I think it might unhelpfully dilute the message that murder as a response to free speech is simply wrong and unacceptable. Nor would I be debating these relatively minor points with people closer to the tragedy, obviously not.
I consider these blogs to be a place where even these difficult issues can be addressed, probably especially these issues. I’ve stated my case, and there is no point banging on with it, particularly if it risks further escalating the tone unnecessarily.
I missed a “not” from before “utterly condescending”. Please read it as sarcasm at my own expense.
I don’t know why people who’ve said that they read my posts and comments seem to have such difficulty understanding what I’m saying. I am not saying: you’re being cold-hearted because you’re participating in a conversation; you think they deserved to be murdered; the images should just be published everywhere without context or explanation; no one should discuss their work.
As should have been clear from the context of my original comment, and as I’ve been arguing all along, my problem is with people’s manner of proceeding in these discussions. I don’t understand why people are doing this, and it’s making me very angry and sad. I don’t understand why people would jump to conclusions on the basis of decontextualized examples, fail even to acknowledge that they’ve done so, move the goalposts after they’ve been presented with information that contradicts their assumptions, make strong statements even when they know they don’t have the evidence to support them, refuse to challenge those flinging the most vicious and baseless accusations, try to make generalizations on the basis of nonrandom and often highly selective tiny samples without the necessary knowledge of the history or cultural tradition, quickly jump from one negative suggestion to another when the first is discredited, and so on. My concern is an epistemic-moral one.
This isn’t the way people around here usually proceed. If someone posted the comments silentbob linked to above and claimed Ophelia was a misogynist hack, I don’t think this would be the approach to investigating the accusation that anyone here would recommend to those who weren’t familiar with her work. These people deserve at least that much respect, even setting aside that they’ve just been murdered and can’t defend themselves. As I said earlier, I’m horrified at the callousness of it and offended epistemically. I want people to stop doing it. It’s obscene. And more, I want people to acknowledge that it’s a problem, and to challenge the people making the nastiest assertions.
No – a quality of people. An attribute of people, not objects. Like you wouldn’t say, “I could say the same about this table.”
You very plainly are insinuating something about their motives. Output doesn’t magically appear – it’s produced by people. There’s quite simply no way you can say that some of their output is cold-hearted without suggesting that the people who produced it are or were cold-hearted. And my problem is in part with the glibness of statements like that. It is snarky and awful to fire back glib comments like that.
You haven’t been using judgment. If you looked at this fairly, you’d recognize that your comment about “why is Jesus white” was based on faulty assumptions and that it’s strange. Again, I can’t think of another time when people around here proceed in this biased-prosecutorial way (well, that’s an exaggeration – I can actually think of several, but it’s not seen as fundamentally valid). In fact, it’s the opposite of how people usually proceed.
I’m responding to your repeated suggestion that you’re just chiming in neutrally. That immediate (and silly) response to the presentation of the site explaining some of the cartoons floating around as examples does suggest to me that you think you have (or unconsciously have) some stake in showing some racist ill-will on their part. If someone arguing that Ophelia was misogynist/hipster misogynist/contributing to misogyny/etc. and did that, you would call them out.
At this point, I don’t even know how to respond to this sort of willful obtuseness, except to say that it’s disappointing and perplexing. It seems to be more about people’s own self-image as antiracists than about really learning what CH is about, its real impact, and the difficult choices they (and we) face in the context of blaspheming and challenging religion in the real world.
You have to see the problem with this. It’s impossible to me that you can’t.
Please understand, I’m not comparing you to them. I’m arguing that your manner of proceeding in this case is similarly unfair and disrespectful to the “targets” and to intellectual honesty.
I don’t know. I went into this with a little more understanding of them as people, and knowing that at least some of the claims about them in the past few days are false. I’m not saying they were or are perfect, but I’d like to see at least a bit more compassion and real interest a lot less “Intent isn’t magic” and “How do explain this?’
Nate, I apologize 100% for making my comment #37 personally abusive. I lost my shit! The joke is on me.
Ophelia, I apologize for bringing down the level of discussion.
Hmm. Did you do that, Dave? I’m afraid I don’t see anything to apologize for.
@SC,
From my point of view you’re extending my arguments well beyond what I intended, which may well indicate that I’ve done a poor job of explaining myself. I’m sure that is, in part, due to the number of responses I’ve made here.
To be as clear as I can: a cartoon which definitely isn’t racist is the Taubira one above.
Some people have objected to it without understanding the context – I have seen it happen, but I am not one of them.
Pretty much all of the – in my opinion – objectionable imagery I’ve seen is actually almost incidental to the meaning and purpose. It is simply the clumsy shorthand that is employed by possibly a majority of political cartoonists. I have probably spent too much space making that point, which may be why the relatively minor point was lost. It was explicit in my first post on this at Pharyngula – that is in my mind, but there is no reason for to be in yours.
Do I think that CH did more good than potential harm? Yes. Absolutely yes, because organisations like FN would not be affected in the same way by direct oposition from the groups they target. An established anti-authority voice which satirically mirrors FN – in status and politics – is an effective counter.
Do I think that good allies can inadvertantly do small damage? Yes. (I try to be a good ally, and I certainly screw things up because of subconscious bias and a privileged perspective.) And still be good? Yes.
I don’t have any wish to attack a legacy, or to impugn anyone’s motives. Quite the opposite – for me, this is quantifying that legacy and acknowledging the generally laudable motives. What I don’t like is to lionise individuals, and particularly when that comes from people who were equally ignorant of those people’s work until the murders. But I certainly didn’t intend an uncompassionate response.
I think that there are some people doing what you’re accusing me of, but I don’t think I am one of them.
From the OP
That’s strange, ’cause I have read a lot of criticism of the racism in CH’s cartoons coming from French people who knew their politics very well, both before and after the attacks. One of them was translated by Daphne Lawless: it’s the first one in the list. It was written in 2013 by Olivier Cyran, a former journalist at Charlie. One may disagree with him, of course, but (I hope) not on the basis that he was “giving his opinion about things he doesn’t know”. The other two translated articles were written after the attacks. They do not deal specifically with the question of CH’s racism, but they give a French perspective that I mostly share.