You care about nuance now? Just three posts ago, you were arguing for ignoring such because you couldn’t be bothered. Get back on topic.
What exactly do you mean here? Are you talking about religion, the government, or the people? There wasn’t a lot of terrorism in Iraq 15 years ago Were they less Islamic then? What about Kurdistan? Iran pre-1979 was quite a bit different than it is today, but most of the difference is because of the leadership and not the people or popular Islam there. Heck, there’s a lot more anti-Arab sentiment in Iran than anti-Western sentiment.
3 Likes
I’m not an expert of this period but I’m sure you’re friend is absolutely correct.
I should have made clear I was talking about these last years. At one point Charlie even found legal ground for a dissolution of the Front National party and started a national petition to promote it, sadly without effects.
I completely agree with your last sentence but I don’t think I deserve to hear that. I’ve tried to be very careful with the words I used and started by saying that I respected his point of view. But it’s very difficult for me to argue properly in english (I’m french as you no doubt realized). And it is especialy hard to clearly express my feelings about that panel (I was talking about that specific black man panel).
I think, to put it bluntly, that it’s just dumb. It’s not a comment on anything. It’s not making any point. It’s not trying to be anything but offensive… so of course it’s offensive. That’s not what satire is.
I think Charlie’s Christine Taubira cartoon I was explaining above is a good example of what I’m trying to say : you can draw even the most terrible thing if it’s purpose is to mock and condemn some evil event.
(Of course I’m not defending here every satire cartoon published in Charlie or anywhere else)
So I consider that panel a poor argument in an otherwise valid and respectable point of view.
Again it’s hard for me to properly argue in english… I hope I’m not making my remark even more confusing !
1 Like
did you even read my post?
That was exactly Sacco’s point.
As I mentioned somewhere upthread, though, I’m not familiar with Charlie Hebdo so I have no idea if that’s a fair accusation to make WRT the cartoons they have published - from what you say it sounds like there’s a lot of content beyond the cartoons that those of us not in France are not seeing…certainly what you’ve mentioned sounds more like what I’d expect of a satirical magazine.
1 Like
yes, I got that.
But that’s not what Charb and Cabu and all they guys in Charlie were doing.
Even here in France some people have never read Charlie and are making similar comments to what I read here. As you probably heard, there were huge rallys everywhere in the country today. In my hometown, a guy came in with is whole Charlie collection - more than 1000 issues- and gave them all away to the crowd. What a beautiful and generous idea. People will like it or hate it but at least they’ll know what it’s really about.
I wish I could translate a whole issue for you to read, but it’s commenting french news so you wouldn’t get it and it wouldn’t help.
1 Like
I just think Crumb understand satire much better : http://observer.com/2015/01/legendary-cartoonist-robert-crumb-on-the-massacre-in-paris/
4 Likes
Great interview. Crumb has been living in France for 23 years. He has an unique perspective on Charlie.
1 Like
Where on earth are you getting that from?
I’ll be honest, the first post of yours that I replied to only conveyed your condescension, only making any sense if you were maybe reading “shall” instead of “can” or otherwise not gathering what I was trying to say.
All very different, all very much tied up in various geo-political events. They do not exist in a vacuum, historically. We back the Saudis, no matter how many people they whip, we broke Iraq, we broke Iran, the Soviets and then us broke Afghanistan.
I’d suggest trying to understand your own bias… but whatever.
My whole point is that there are factors other than Islam that drive people - geo-politics, other cultural factors, personal anger, economics - they all play a role. I’m arguing, and the list of books by scholars argue, that there are other driving factors historically in people’s lives. I’m also arguing that how people interpret their faith varies from person to person. You are completely glossing over the problem of power relations and that many of these Islamist groups (both those that embrace this definition of Jihad and those that don’t, the vast MINORITY, actually) are working within a particular historical framework that really only emerges in the modern era. Not too long ago, in regards to religious tolerance, the shoe was on the other foot.
What, precisely, should people whose children are being killed in such an impersonal way do. Just shrug and accept what’s happening in their countries because of something some asshole that they dont’ even know, who is not even from their country did?
[edited to add] What precisely is the “right” books? Bernard Lewis? Books that agree with your views on Islam? What claims are you making to expertise on the religion and the billion people who follow it? Why is your reading of Islam right and mine wrong? What is the basis for the truth claims you’re making?
3 Likes
No worries! I think I’m getting your meaning! And I agree with what @daneel said - that’s the point Sacco is making about the cartoons in Charlie Hebdo. I’ve read lots of Sacco’s stuff, and he tends to be really thoughtful and smart writer. I’d highly recommend his work.
George Bush said that God told him to invade Iraq.
But, that, and water boarding, and electric wires to the testicles, and hummus in the anus (not to mention a toilet plunger), and remote killings by drones, and missiles are not iron age barbarisms, so are not of the same critique, only barbaric Islam is? I read your post. But you have not responded. You keep insisting that terrorism as practiced by radical Muslims is, even though it is very clearly the same civilian targeted terror methods developed by Russia and the United States, somehow unique to their religion.
4 Likes
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I’m very much of the impression that French intellectuals exert significant control over public discourse in France, and that they are very much a privileged white class. This, in combination with France’s largely homogenous and monocultural history, would make it unsurprising that conventional wisdom in France says that certain cartoons are inoffensive (or at least are not that offensive in comparison to the deep messages they carry, like the prophet appearing in a porno), even though marginalized minority groups may have a different interpretation of just how offensive these “satires” are.
In contrast, more multicultural societies may have a greater awareness of, and consideration to, how minorities may perceive these satires. The criticized American tendency towards “political correctness” and pulling of punches may simply be increased empathy.
This also explains why I don’t think that the “Charlie Hebdo also criticizes the Catholic Church” excuse is not a great one. The Catholic Church is a powerful institution, and journalism is about things like speaking truth to power—afflicting the comfortable and comforting the afflicted. In the American context, I think we would have a different idea of Colbert, for example, if he satirized the LGBT movement the same was he satirizes the GOP.
2 Likes
[Colbert savages Facebook over addition of 50+ new genders][1]
[1]: http://americablog.com/2014/02/colbert-savages-facebook-addition-50-new-genders.html
George Bush said that God told him to invade Iraq.
Oh please, if that’s the best you can do to try and paint the Iraq war as some kind of religious war you’ll need to try better. Maybe if Dick Cheney had thought the same you might have a point.
But, that, and water boarding, and electric wires to the testicles, and hummus in the anus (not to mention a toilet plunger), and remote killings by drones, and missiles are not iron age barbarisms, so are not of the same critique, only barbaric Islam is?
Yes, that’s all pretty awful stuff, but not in the same class of awfulness as what I was talking about. The torture examples are not examples of indiscriminate terrorism against innocents (though even if one were to allow for torture against genuine criminals, which of course I wouldn’t, they were probably nowhere near selective enough, so I’m sure there were at least some innocents involved). Drone attacks and missiles are obviously not even vaguely iron-age, and are attacks against legitimate targets - though the levels of collateral damage highlight that the Americans have scant regard for the value of the lives of the local populace (which, awful as it is, is a different issue).
Of course none of this is related to religion in any way, if it were they would have had no qualms about being open about it, rather than ashamed (first attempting to hide it, then attempting to pretend it wasn’t even torture, then finally admitting it was terrible, but let’s not talk about it anymore because we’re done with it, pretend it never happened), ISIS would have owned that shit from day one and made recruitment videos about it, that’s what divine conviction allows for.
I read your post. But you have not responded.
I didn’t respond because your questions were already answered in my post, so it really didn’t look like you did read it. What did you think I was referring to when I mentioned the Japanese if not Kamikaze bombers? I also mentioned the Chinese, they used suicide bombing against the Japanese before the Vietnamese did against the French, so both of your apparent counter points I had already addressed. As I pointed out though, these examples are not relevant to our discussion as they are not examples of terrorism (they were all used in entirely military contexts, not used to target civilians). These examples are also from another era, so are not really applicable for that reason also - Japanese and Chinese culture as it exists today would no longer allow for such acts.
You keep insisting that terrorism as practiced by radical Muslims is, even though it is very clearly the same civilian targeted terror methods developed by Russia and the United States, somehow unique to their religion.
No, I have never claimed that civilian targeted terror is somehow unique to Islam. I have claimed that the most radical interpretations of Islam today allow for more barbaric forms of terrorism than any other current source of terrorism, and that there are direct links between their actions and their doctrinal interpretations. I don’t think there’s something fundamental to Islam that means this was always the case, or will continue to be the case into the future, but that’s where we are right now.
Also, it’s laughably inaccurate to try and claim that Russia and the United States developed civilian targeted terrorism. They may have covertly (and sometimes not so covertly) lent a helping hand to various groups at various times (with their sights set on military, not civilian targets), but you’re giving them far too much credit. Irish republicans largely got the ball rolling in the modern era, most leftist groups and early Islamists stole from their play-book if they weren’t being directly trained by them. They were still primarily focused on military targets though, it was the Islamists that really changed the focus onto civilian terror though, and not just terror, but outright annihilation (justified by the supposed heresies of their targets, be they the wrong brand of Islam or the infidels).
When a Western leader says that he had divine guidance it doesn’t count because: drones. But when a random Muslim follower of a disowned-by -the-majority movement says they had divine guidance it does count because… can’t afford drones, therefore Barbarian!
You’ve never heard of the “Red Terror” as a part of the Russian revolution? You’re not aware of the CIA development and training allies in suicide bombing, kidnappings, killing techniques, etc.?
Your knowledge of history is selective, and your goalposts have been moved so many times the playing field looks like Verdun in 1916 (again, not barbaric, because: mustard gas is not iron age).
2 Likes
When a Western leader says that he had divine guidance it doesn’t count because: drones.
What?!? You’re not making sense at all. I never even mentioned drones, you did! Bush’s alleged divine inspiration is irrelevant because he had very little to do with instigating the war in Iraq. And even if he had, being given the ok by the big man wouldn’t have been his reasons behind having to make the decision in the first place, whereas fundamentalist Islamic terrorism has a direct relationship between doctrine and action.
You’ve never heard of the “Red Terror” as a part of the Russian revolution?
You seem to be using a pretty loose definition of the word terrorism, and you can’t even seem to agree with yourself on which definition to use! I thought we were talking about the instigation of terror amongst a civilian population by a small force of people? The Red Terror happened after they seized power, and was implemented by the full force of the army and the state. If you want me to concede that Marxist-Leninism is a similarly morally bankrupt ideology to fundamentalist Islam, then you won’t find much argument from me, that’s got little to do with what we’ve been talking about though.
You’re not aware of the CIA development and training allies in suicide bombing, kidnappings, killing techniques, etc.?
I’m not aware of the CIA training allies in suicide bombing because that never happened. Next you’ll be telling me 9/11 was a false flag operation.
It’s hilarious that you accuse me of moving the goalposts, when it’s you who’s constantly introducing stuff that’s completely irrelevant to the points I’ve been making.
How convenient. A mainstream western Christian leader specifically ascribes religion as a motivating force, but you exclude it because: hand waving. A random extreme Muslim ascribes religion as a motivating force, and the entire religious underpinning is to blame.
…
I cannot find any thing to support my assertion that the CIA trained allies in assymetrical techniques like suicide bombing, so I will retract that.
Ha, saying ‘because: hand waving’ is an example of hand waving, it’s not an argument. Refute my argument if you can. I’ve also drawn a clear distinction between the two situations, if you can point out any flaws in this distinction, please do. You’re wrong here on two counts. Of course I’ve realised there’s a good chance you’re just trolling here, maybe you don’t actually belive what you’re saying?
You’re also straw-manning me, at no point have I attempted to blame anything on ‘the entire religious underpinning’ (and not only have I not done this, but have repeatedly been at pains to do the opposite).
In the USA when you see racial caricatures it’s not unlikely that you’re seeing the work of morally offensive racists. It’s best not to encourage those people in any way. We have considerable social baggage left over from 200+ years of institutionalized anti-semitism and color-line bigotry that is (hopefully) unique to our culture and this is one of the places that baggage appears.
But French cartoons of people pretty much always include exaggerated physical characteristics that have historically been associated with the race of the person portrayed. For example in the “Asterisk” comics Judeans and Bedouins have big hooked noses. Nubians have large lips, explosions of kinky hair, and wide noses. In the USA, with our sad heritage of blackface minstrelsy and racist pamphleteering, many would call such images insensitive and racist; in France they are simply caricatures. French cartoonists will portray themselves in the same manner - if they have entirely Gallic ethnicity, they’ll caricature themselves with giant noses, foreheads and chins etc., and if they are of African background they will draw themselves like the Nubians in Asterisk. Heroes are racially caricatured.
America’s brutal history of institutionalized white supremacism gives us conflicting and difficult messages regarding ethnic caricatures. We applaud Aaron McGruder (well, at least I do) and Ray Billingsley, but Aunt Jemima makes us vaguely uncomfortable and collections of Darkie Toothpaste signs are only acceptable in the home if displayed by upper-caste African-Americans. We say “Black is Beautiful” but we treat features commonplace among non-Europeans as too ugly for art, too shameful for caricature - I am black, yet beautiful, says the Song of Songs. We just don’t have any shared way to acceptably deal with all this heritage yet, we’re in a transition period culturally.
But when in Rome, shoot off roman candles. When in France, don’t assume foreign values are the best guide for evaluating the work of French cartoonists. Great African-American artists like Josephine Baker and Jimi Hendrix have spoken highly of the racial attitudes of the French, who were more accepting of their art and of their persons than America was.
4 Likes
