Support NeoGAF

[LAM09]

When will some sense kick in.

 

[Mael]

I'll just live this here from the last time we had this song and dance.

I'd like to provide some insight regarding the cartoon because it seems to be highly confusing to non-French people.

It's going to be a bit long but I hope that it will be at least enlightening

1- France has a long tradition of satire and more importantly political satire.
At middle school, we study a 17th century play called Tartuffe which is about a priest who is actually a fraud and a sex maniac (Molière's, Tartuffe). It's considered a classic and the word "Tartuffe" is synonymous with "hypocrite" in French

2-In French, words are considered weapons.
The purpose of a good joke in French is not to please or be good natured.
It's supposed to hit the raw nerve, to elicit a reaction, to lay all pretenses bare.
Charlie Hebdo fits perfectly into this tradition.
For example: a 19th century president died while being blown by his mistress
His opponent declared in lieu of a public eulogy "He wanted to be Caesar, he was just Pompey" which is a play on the roman general "Pompey" and the word pompé "pumped" which is slang for receiving a blowjob in French

3-French language is implicit
Keep in mind when speaking to French people: the most important things are the things not said. Example : One of the most famous line in French literature is a girl saying to her lover in a classic play "Go. I don't hate you" instead of saying "I love you (Le Cid by Corneille) It's especially jarring to Americans who take everything at face value and need everything to be on the nose.

4- Back to the Charlie Hebdo cartoon.
The cartoon with the drowned kid is actually a pretty brutal condemnation of the indifference of Europe and how it values consumerism over a human life.
Note the poster with Ronald Mac Donald saying "So close: Kid meals : two for the price of one".
The message is pretty clear: You are risking life and limb and for what?
To become another consumer, another kid to be fed his happy meal.
You wanted a better life but your death is meaningless because we only value you as a consumer to sell products to.
It's actually really sympathetic to the kid and very harsh on Europe

This subtext makes the second cartoon even better.
It says that even if the child had survived., he would not fit in Europe because he would be seen as a rapist and a molester.
Because of the mental sickness of Europe, whatever the poor child does, he is doomed.
Doomed to die because of indifference or doomed to suffer from racial prejudice.
Like most of the things Charlie Hebdo publishes, it's actually a critique of Europe and its hypocrisy.

People who are outraged by this don't actually grasp that Charlie Hebdo's are actually very outraged and use these cartoons as missiles against the indifference and stupidity of French people and European Society.

All this is implicit but it's pretty clear for most French people.
However, I understand that it can be highly confusing for foreign readers especially to American ones.
So please : don't rush to be outraged by French cartoons and take some time to analyze their deeper meaning.

 

[Dryk]

Charlie Hebdo runs afoul of Poe's Law, arseholes threaten to kill them. What else is new?

 

[MegaManTrigger]

Because its satirically mocking peoples stereotypes of Muslims.

The point wasn't to answer my question, it was rhetorical. I know that the piece can be interpreted in the way you mentioned, as you and many other posters mentioned already. I'm simply showing how it can be confusing and interpreted in other ways considering recent news. Cultural differences and differences in perspectives means that this message isn't going to be perceived in the same way to other people. What a Muslim sees isn't necessarily going to be the same as what the French or even non-French people sees.

That's the joke.

Shit son satire and irony are dead.

Or maybe, just maybe, people are different and may not interpret the same things you interpret? It's not that hard to interpret things different, especially with Mael's post about how different satire is consumed in France compared to other countries.

 

[Golden_Pigeon]

Race is a construct based on look.

Ashkenazi were racialized and they look europeans. The same go for Gypsies. A lot of races are not "look based".

 

[Whom_Gods_Annoy]

The point wasn't to answer my question, it was rhetorical. I know that the piece can be interpreted in the way you mentioned, as you and many other posters mentioned already. I'm simply showing how it can be confusing and interpreted in other ways considering recent news. Cultural differences and differences in perspectives means that this message isn't going to be perceived in the same way to other people. What a Muslim sees isn't necessarily going to be the same as what the French or even non-French people sees.



Or maybe, just maybe, people are different and may not interpret the same things you interpret? It's not that hard to interpret things different, especially with Mael's post about how different satire is consumed in France compared to other countries.

To me its as confusing as the viewer wants it to be. If the viewer wants to find the real context and stance of CH and still finds the cover to be tasteless then go right ahead. If the viewer is just itching for another reason to threaten to murder a few more people there they will only perceive it in the way that supports that viewpoint. It should not be CH who should be at fault here over some miscommumication.

I will admit I was just trying to be facetious on that last comment and its mostly undeserved.

 

[Mael]

Ashkenazi were racialized and they look europeans. The same go for Gypsies. A lot of races are not "look based".

It IS based on look.

And by that I do not mean facial feature only, I mean dress code and the likes too.
I am not going to argue that it makes sense or anything, because it absolutely doesn't.
But it still is based on look.
Same goes for Roms people being confused with French migrants that have absolutely nothing to do with them.
There is a pseudo scientific view on race so it's pretty easy to see what that taxonomy is.
I mean there is ample existing biblography to see how it is usually described and defined.
And for the record, being Islamophobe is different from being racist against Arabs, it's also not worse or better.

 

[Golden_Pigeon]

It IS based on look.

And by that I do not mean facial feature only, I mean dress code and the likes too.
I am not going to argue that it makes sense or anything, because it absolutely doesn't.
But it still is based on look.
Same goes for Roms people being confused with French migrants that have absolutely nothing to do with them.
There is a pseudo scientific view on race so it's pretty easy to see what that taxonomy is.
I mean there is ample existing biblography to see how it is usually described and defined.
And for the record, being Islamophobe is different from being racist against Arabs, it's also not worse or better.

So what is the difference with islamophobia AKA racism against muslims since it's based on look as well ?

I can argue that many jews don't look like the picture you've put there and most of jews don't wear different garments and where still victim of antisemitism.

 

[Mael]

So what is the difference with islamophobia AKA racism against muslims since it's based on look as well ?

I can argue that many jews don't look like the picture you've put there and most of jews don't wear different garments and where still victim of antisemitism.

Islamophobia is just not racism.
It's a type of bigotry that has nothing to do with race.
It's also not what people are accusing CH of doing.
Unless I'm mistaken people are arguing that CH is prejudicied against the muslim population of France that is largely of arabic descent : that they are racist against arabs.
Islamophobia is the more intellectual version of what Dawkins peddle.
If you're accusing CH of making derrogatory comments based on the look of the people that is racism against arabs.

Islam has nothing to do with that.
I would argue that Islamophobia, Christianophobia (or whatever the hell you wanna call it) is not a free pass to shit on people but that's for another topic.

To understand the issue with antisemitism, you have to see it throught the lens of race.
This is where the major criticism of judaism comes from. They could all look like Martian Manhunter or Superman it would change absolutely nothing.
The major component of antisemitism is based on race. Just read some antisemitic rhetoric and you'll see what I mean.
And I'm not giving example or even links to antisemitic rhetoric, I don't want that shit in my search history.

e: and btw the articles that the ex Charlie Hebdo have issues with are from someone who is Arab too, which in my view doesn't change much but we're not here for discussing my views anyway.

 

[Golden_Pigeon]

I know well about antisemitism rhetoric and you can make a lot of cross-referencing with current islamophobia.

The islamophobia in the West have nothing to do with Christianophobia in the West. It have to do with Christianophobia in the muslim world. It's the fact that a minority start to being perceived as a fifth column ("eurabia theory") which is looking to islamize and dominate the countries their living in. You can't see the paralel with the theory of "judaization of Europe", so popular in the 19th/20th in the West in general ?

A lot of scholar, like the israeli Shlomo Sand, are doing the relation between those two conspiration theory. And there are not a fringe theory.

And the essentialization of the Muslims, the creation of a metaphysical muslim, go far further than simple faith differentiation. When they make a relation about the muslims and drugs trade or rape there is something more than only a critic of a faith.

 

[Mael]

The issue with CH talking about Islam is that they're talking about it as a tool of oppression from religious autocracies among others.
Which isn't something I would put against them.
Although if you only look at CH's drawing and not the articles going with them...
And I mean if we're talking about the general tone of CH rather than just the topic's subject.

 

[Golden_Pigeon]

The issue with CH talking about Islam is that they're talking about it as a tool of oppression from religious autocracies among others.
Which isn't something I would put against them.
Although if you only look at CH's drawing and not the articles going with them...
And I mean if we're talking about the general tone of CH rather than just the topic's subject.

I read some pretty islamophobic articles in CH and they don't speak only about regimes but about muslims in France in general.

We could speak also about what about Siné when he made a bad comment about judaism he was fired after +30 years of collaboration.

 

[Mael]

I read some pretty islamophobic articles in CH and they don't speak only about regimes but about muslims in France in general.

We could speak also about what about Siné when he made a bad comment about judaism he was fired after +30 years of collaboration.

1rst : Fuck Phillipe Val, that little shit did more harm to CH than anyone but actual terrorists.

CH can skirt over the line fairly often, they don't always speak about regimes but they should be able to criticize anyone.
Siné should never have been fired for that.
The shitty thing about antisemitism is that you can't say anything about a certain specific part of the population without being branded one.
Kinda like for Islamophobia.

 

[Golden_Pigeon]

1rst : Fuck Phillipe Val, that little shit did more harm to CH than anyone but actual terrorists.

CH can skirt over the line fairly often, they don't always speak about regimes but they should be able to criticize anyone.
Siné should never have been fired for that.
The shitty thing about antisemitism is that you can't say anything about a certain specific part of the population without being branded one.
Kinda like for Islamophobia.

I never said that they shouldn't have the right to be racist or islamophobic but we can also consider them to be racist and islamophobic this without being accused of justifying terrorism or censorship.

Anyway, the team of Charlie Hebdo didn't say anything to oppose Val decision against Siné if i remember.

 

[Mael]

I never said that they shouldn't have the right to be racist or islamophobic but we can also consider them to be racist and islamophobic this without being accused of justifying terrorism or censorship.

Anyway, the team of Charlie Hebdo didn't say anything to oppose Val decision against Siné if i remember.

I don't think they are here (and I don't think I have seen them be racist, then again I'm a very casual CH reader).
I don't think they deny that they are islamophobic (in the same way that a Dawkins would not refute the charge).
You can be critical of their point of view, however using a topic about death threats and the specter of another terrorist attack to claim that they should stop unless they wish to suffer the consequences is something else too.
You can argue that they have to stop treating muslims that way but it really should never be linked to the terrorrist attacks that they suffered.
If they didn't suffer this tragedy, your argument should have no more/less weight than the fact that they were bombed and assaulted.
To be clear, they can be criticized but not just because it might hurt the sensibilities of backward idiots half a world away.

The Siné situation is something else, I won't argue that CH wasn't on the level here but I would largely blame Val for that.
If you want to put someone on the cross for CH's misgivings, he's certainly the worthier target.
I could write a book about how that guy should be fired from his day job and live in a box near his friend Sarkozy.

 

[Golden_Pigeon]

I don't think they are here (and I don't think I have seen them be racist, then again I'm a very casual CH reader).
I don't think they deny that they are islamophobic (in the same way that a Dawkins would not refute the charge).
You can be critical of their point of view, however using a topic about death threats and the specter of another terrorist attack to claim that they should stop unless they wish to suffer the consequences is something else too.
You can argue that they have to stop treating muslims that way but it really should never be linked to the terrorrist attacks that they suffered.
If they didn't suffer this tragedy, your argument should have no more/less weight than the fact that they were bombed and assaulted.
To be clear, they can be criticized but not just because it might hurt the sensibilities of backward idiots half a world away.

The Siné situation is something else, I won't argue that CH wasn't on the level here but I would largely blame Val for that.
If you want to put someone on the cross for CH's misgivings, he's certainly the worthier target.
I could write a book about how that guy should be fired from his day job and live in a box near his friend Sarkozy.

I am a muslim and i was deeply offended by their drawings, and i know christians who were really offended too. I won't start developing why but just imagine you see yours parents or your child insulted publicly like this and you'll get an idea. You can find outrageous that someone cherish a religious figure as dear as one parent, but it's the case.

Most people were disturbed and offended because you have to see them displayed in big ads in the street because they went out with these "special issue on Islam" every time they needed a little cash (since nobody was buying the thing).

So it's not only about "those backward half a world away" it's common french people, muslim or christian alike. Just look about what the Pope said about the issue.

Now i never said that they had it coming, or they deserved it, i just started commenting the discussion when the usual discussion about whether they are racist (or islamophobic) or not.
And i don't think they will claim their islamophobia, very few people do.

 

[Mael]

e:I'll add that having just finished Olivier's and Zineb's articles I prefer the form of Olivier's letter but I largely preffer the content of Zineb's reply.
Olivier is just making the same argument we see here, that somehow CH has become a racist rag that bash muslims because fuck muslims since 9/11.
When Zineb goes deeper on the analysis and explain why bashing some tenant of Islam doesn't mean it's bashing people following the faith.
Zineb's argument is also much better articulated.

I am a muslim and i was deeply offended by their drawings, and i know christians who were really offended too. I won't start developing why but just imagine you see yours parents or your child insulted publicly like this and you'll get an idea. You can find outrageous that someone cherish a religious figure as dear as one parent, but it's the case.

Christians were deeply offended about derision of their faith that they could do nothing against.
I could talk about the whole later part of the XIXth century or the difficult battle of finally getting rid of preachers in schools. Or even more recently about some artists that get death threats for some art piece that are "critical" (to be euphemistic) of the Christian faith.
You can find that outrageous and ask them to stop.
That still doesn't make them racist and they have to deal with the consequences which should never dead people.

Most people were disturbed and ofender because you have to see them displayed in big ads in the street because they went out with these "special issue on Islam" everytime they needed a little cash (since nobody was buying the thing).

Meh.
No one gives a shit when the Express, Le Point or whatever makes a special issue on Freemasons or the Jewish conspiracy to get more sales.
If what they did wasn't illegal, it's their prerogative and their business partners' too.

So it's not only about "those backward half a world away" it's common french people, muslim or christian alike. Just look about what the Pope said about the issue.

People having an issue with CH are not backward people half a world away. People sending death threat however might as well be.
And I could care less what the Pope said.
We kicked his influence out of the country as best as we could more than a century ago, it's not to get rants about our behavior everytime we do something he doesn't like.
I imagine he had issues with this too.

Spoiler

Now i never said that they had it coming, or they deserve it, i just started commenting the discussion when the usual discussion about whether they are racist (or islamophobic) or not. And i don't think they will claim their islamophobia, very few people do.

I may have been unclear in my argumentation.
I'm not saying you said that (that's mostly directed at that other poster really).
Looking at Zineb's arguments, they are claiming that they have an issue with Islam.
They're embracing their Islamophobia (like Dawkins) they just don't like the word because it's been tainted as racism against arabs by the French political circus and the extremes (left and right really).

 

[Oriel]

"Islamophobia" has become a lazy snarl word applied to those who take a perfectly rational and skeptical attitude towards Islam the religion. Just as an Atheist can maintain a hostile stance towards Christianity but have nothing against individual Christians so too can one be critical of Islam but be perfectly fine with Muslims. To reiterate criticism of Islam shouldn't be seen as racism or abuse towards Muslim people.

 

[gutter_trash]

"Islamophobia" has become a lazy snarl word applied to those who take a perfectly rational and skeptical attitude towards Islam the religion. Just as an Atheist can maintain a hostile stance towards Christianity but have nothing against individual Christians so too can one be critical of Islam but be perfectly fine with Muslims. To reiterate criticism of Islam shouldn't be seen as racism or abuse towards Muslim people.

nicely said

as a secular non-religious Liberal myself, I salute you

 

[CyclopsRock]

And that something was promotion of extremism and racism; don't get fired up before reading my whole post.

I did read your whole post, that's why I got fired up. You didn't say "Charlie Hebdo", or "This magazine" or even "Magazines". You said ...

If you have the power to stop something, but you don't, you are responsible for the rise of that something.

Now you're trying to say that you're just specifically talking about this magazine when you say "you"? I don't mean to sound pedantic, but it's this weasel-word shittery that allows exactly the kind of people that were being discussed in this thread to continue talking from their holier-than-thou perch about how open minded they are before running and hiding at the first sign of aggression. The rights we have - free speech, free association, and religious choice, amongst others - were hard fought, and I don't understand why people think we never have to fight for them again, or to maintain them. These people are trying to take those freedoms away - why else do you think they send death threats? And it seems you want to just roll over. Absolutely pathetic. The way you baulk when I swapped the scenario from a death threat to a rape and your spluttering about how you couldn't possibly think that shows how deep the cognitive dissonance goes.

These are some of the reportage from the media:

Charlie Hebdo magazine is warned of an imminent attack after latest edition mocks Muslims over the Cannes burka ban

Charlie Hebdo is receiving a new series of death threats after their latest cartoon satirized Muslims by saying they should just get naked whenever they go to the beach.

Office spokeswoman Agnes Thibault-Lecuivre said the investigation for “written death threats” follows about a dozen postings in July and August on the paper’s Facebook page, which carried a cover cartoon mocking Muslims at the beach.

Even media is reporting this as a satire/mockery of Muslims, and you say it is not promoting racism? They don't say it is a satire of Muslim fundamentalists, or hardliner's policies, but just simply Muslims.

Some of them dont't even mention it is related to the Burkini ban:
http://metro.co.uk/2016/08/15/charl...t-of-imminent-attack-after-new-cover-6069569/

Umm, do you know what they all have in common. None of them are in French publications. Or even French speaking publications. They don't get it - great, the minimum wage twerps that they have on their click-bait desk doesn't understand the French-language satire in a French magazine targeting a local French issue. Most of GAF didn't either - that doesn't mean it's bad satire. Do you know how many people misinterpreted A Modest Proposal and thought Jonathan Swift was a monster as a result? And that's one of the greatest pieces of satire ever written! Satire relies on subtly, because if it's on-the-nose, obvious-for-idiots then it's not satire. So the Metro and the Daily Mail don't understand it - that's your yardstick?

 

[zoukka]

They have the right to publish this. We must respect that right.

I fear for their lives which is incredibly sad.

 

[Jake.]

i love that CH have the balls to continue doing this, but it fucking sucks that they do it at the risk of their lives.

 

[Golden_Pigeon]

"Islamophobia" has become a lazy snarl word applied to those who take a perfectly rational and skeptical attitude towards Islam the religion. Just as an Atheist can maintain a hostile stance towards Christianity but have nothing against individual Christians so too can one be critical of Islam but be perfectly fine with Muslims. To reiterate criticism of Islam shouldn't be seen as racism or abuse towards Muslim people.

Not at all, at least by the academia is not the case.
If you don't like the Quran or the islamic religion i couldn't care less.
Viewing muslims as a threat for secularism or western civilization is islamophobia, though.
The same way you can hate the Torah but don't think that international jewry is controlling the world, you're not an antisemite.

 

[Vampire On Titus]

"Islamophobia" has become a lazy snarl word applied to those who take a perfectly rational and skeptical attitude towards Islam the religion. Just as an Atheist can maintain a hostile stance towards Christianity but have nothing against individual Christians so too can one be critical of Islam but be perfectly fine with Muslims. To reiterate criticism of Islam shouldn't be seen as racism or abuse towards Muslim people.

Well said.

I often see it thrown around inappropriately as well.