The Big Picture: Je Suis Charlie
- Thread starter MovieBob
- Start date
Recommended Videos
well, givin that Charlie didnt put Muhammad on the front cover since last october, it's sure it's something plan for a very long time. BFMTV in France have spoken with one of the Kouachi brother and Coulibaly. The Kouachi brothers said that they were send by al-quaida in Yemen and that they didnt killed civilian, women or children, that they only kill targets. That we, the west, are the ones who kill civilians, women and children in Syria and Irak. Coulibashi on the other end say that he's from ISIS, and that he coordonate his action with the brothers, that he was doing that to defend islam from the West.geizr said:
It is Sharia Law, but the concept is adapted from Jewish law. Jews were the ones who established the rule of "no idols, ever", which in the old Jewish tradition is still taken seriously, along with Islam. The rule never shows up in the Koran. It's supposed to be the law in Christianity as well, but they just use the loophole of "so long as you're not worshiping the actual statues it's not idolatry", but that's not really what the Bible says or means.JMac85 said:
Jewish law also demands the killing of rebellious teenage sons, not to mention gays and all sorts of others, including the execution of those that make idols. There's no conditions or ambiguity to these laws, and they are not outright refuted in the New Testament, meaning that it's still the law in Christianity, as well. One of the executions listed is pouring molten lead down someone's throat. Much if not most of Sharia is taken from old Jewish law, not from anything said explicitly in the Koran that is different from the Bible. Many Christians in the middle east, although they are persecuted in their own ways, tend to support some of the more fundamentalist/traditional ideas being pushed in these countries, because they are not exclusively Islamic.
Really what you see is the contrast between what strict adherence to religion REALLY looks like, and what religion looks like when people ignore 90% of it and focus on the few romantic aspects, which is what happens in the west. That is the only way these religions are palatable to modern sensibilities, if you just strip out all the ugly stuff to get to the stuff you can teach in Sunday School.
The X factor, the factor that makes Palestinian Christians hate Israelis as much as the Muslims, is poverty and socio-political factors, which is a long history and can't be properly summed up here. The one underlying factor in all these cases is that extremism is bred in politically unstable, impoverished countries. 80 innocent tea farmers were gunned down in India just a few weeks ago because of something that had nothing to do with religion, and yet that never scratched the news because it didn't involve Muslims on either side.
Good episode, Bob. It's nice to see somebody taking the time to calmly analyze the situation and the fine lines.
I used to read the Hebdo, as well as Fluide Glaciale and similar mags when I was a teenager. The comparison to Mad Magazine is incorrect. It's more like if they made South Park into a magazine and then dialed it up to 11. Sometimes their satire hit the mark with remarkable accuracy, and the cartoon was necessary because it was saying something other news or comedy outlets could not say due to, well, good ol' sense and sensibility.
That was the Hebdo's JOB, if you want. We (French teens and young adults, probably their greatest readers at the time) knew what politics they stood for - libertarian and so far left some of them were card carrying members of the French Communist Party. So anything that might be taken for racism, or whatever -ism you want, was seen as short-hand, a necessary shortcut in a one-box or one-strip cartoon that did not have a lot of space to establish its subject matter. You ignored that part and focused on the critique, and because of that, they could get away with critisizing things that others had a hard time to. Because they did not CARE if they were punching up, down or sideways - don't get me wrong, those guys were always aiming high, but if the blows fell low, I imagine they just saw that as part of the risk of their kind of expression and didn't lose any sleep over it.
BUUUUUT there's also a downside to that approach. First off, using short-hand is wrong, IMO. 'Hook nose, beard, headscarf'=The Muslim Man=A Terrorist is, well, really wrong. The Hebdo crew would say that it's the WORLD that is wrong to make those connections, from their drawings or from the real life news, and maybe they're right. But the short hand is still reductionist and I did not like it.
And of course there were all those cartoons they made that really seemed to be there to just see how far they could push the limits of free speech. And taste. And basic human decency. I mean, is there ANY time in history where it will be okay to make a Holocaust joke? They made an entire MAGAZINE about it back in the early '80s. Could have been a side-issue to another magazine, but the same guys, particularly Wolinksi, were involved IIRC - and there's some debate on whether you can tell Holocaust jokes if you're jewish and/or had family members involved. I know which side of the debate I'm on. The special edition was just about as tasteless as you can imagine, or more so. And it upset a lot of people, as well it should. And it started a lot of dialogue on subjects that were previously taboo and were slowly being forgotten and/or discreeltly gnawed away by revisionists. That's how their advocates defended them back then, and maybe they're right, but at that point the Hebdo types of satirists and I parted ways.
I no longer read the Hebdo or Fluide or even the Canard Enchainé - I try to get impartial news when I can, without having to chip away through two centimeters of bias, hardened cynisism and overtaxed vocabulary. But yeah, needless to say, I would and will always defend their right to publish (and then get sued or insulted or petitioned by whichever group they've pissed off this week, because that, too, is part of democracy).
(Incidentally, I and other French readers know these guys pretty well. They courted debate, and they would be HORRIFIED if you tried to sanctify them or their work. Turning them into monuments that you cannot mock is the exact opposite of what they and their 'there is nothing sacred' philosophy stood far.)
I used to read the Hebdo, as well as Fluide Glaciale and similar mags when I was a teenager. The comparison to Mad Magazine is incorrect. It's more like if they made South Park into a magazine and then dialed it up to 11. Sometimes their satire hit the mark with remarkable accuracy, and the cartoon was necessary because it was saying something other news or comedy outlets could not say due to, well, good ol' sense and sensibility.
That was the Hebdo's JOB, if you want. We (French teens and young adults, probably their greatest readers at the time) knew what politics they stood for - libertarian and so far left some of them were card carrying members of the French Communist Party. So anything that might be taken for racism, or whatever -ism you want, was seen as short-hand, a necessary shortcut in a one-box or one-strip cartoon that did not have a lot of space to establish its subject matter. You ignored that part and focused on the critique, and because of that, they could get away with critisizing things that others had a hard time to. Because they did not CARE if they were punching up, down or sideways - don't get me wrong, those guys were always aiming high, but if the blows fell low, I imagine they just saw that as part of the risk of their kind of expression and didn't lose any sleep over it.
BUUUUUT there's also a downside to that approach. First off, using short-hand is wrong, IMO. 'Hook nose, beard, headscarf'=The Muslim Man=A Terrorist is, well, really wrong. The Hebdo crew would say that it's the WORLD that is wrong to make those connections, from their drawings or from the real life news, and maybe they're right. But the short hand is still reductionist and I did not like it.
And of course there were all those cartoons they made that really seemed to be there to just see how far they could push the limits of free speech. And taste. And basic human decency. I mean, is there ANY time in history where it will be okay to make a Holocaust joke? They made an entire MAGAZINE about it back in the early '80s. Could have been a side-issue to another magazine, but the same guys, particularly Wolinksi, were involved IIRC - and there's some debate on whether you can tell Holocaust jokes if you're jewish and/or had family members involved. I know which side of the debate I'm on. The special edition was just about as tasteless as you can imagine, or more so. And it upset a lot of people, as well it should. And it started a lot of dialogue on subjects that were previously taboo and were slowly being forgotten and/or discreeltly gnawed away by revisionists. That's how their advocates defended them back then, and maybe they're right, but at that point the Hebdo types of satirists and I parted ways.
I no longer read the Hebdo or Fluide or even the Canard Enchainé - I try to get impartial news when I can, without having to chip away through two centimeters of bias, hardened cynisism and overtaxed vocabulary. But yeah, needless to say, I would and will always defend their right to publish (and then get sued or insulted or petitioned by whichever group they've pissed off this week, because that, too, is part of democracy).
(Incidentally, I and other French readers know these guys pretty well. They courted debate, and they would be HORRIFIED if you tried to sanctify them or their work. Turning them into monuments that you cannot mock is the exact opposite of what they and their 'there is nothing sacred' philosophy stood far.)
Great episode Bob.
I don't normally post around here, but as someone from Europe who watched in horror at the events that unfolded in our own back yard last week, I just wanted to add my two cents to this.
The purpose of a Terroroist? is to terrorise (i.e. to put people into a state of fear). While these cowards certainly managed that in the heat of the moment, the immediate response following the tragedy was the people of Europe standing up and saying "we are not afraid". The massacre happened on Wednesday, Friday they were brought to justice (but not without causing more death and destruction), and on Sunday there were over 2 *MILLION* people marching through the centre of Paris, and hundreds of thousands more doing the same in other EU capitals including my own London. We all stood up with one voice, and sent our message loud and clear. To use the words of the late Stephane Charbonnier:
Then today, the Charlie Hebdo team made their latest publication. It features the prophet Mohamed, holding a "Je Suis Charlie" sign and a tear coming from his eye. The headline is "Tout Est Pardonne", which translates to:
In summary, the attacks in Paris last week destroyed some of my faith in humanity, but the nature of the response (at least here in Europe) has restored it. As it turns out, the pen really is mightier than the sword.
Je Suis Charlie.
Je Suis Flic.
Je Suis Juif.
Je Suis Humaine.
Liberte, Egalite, Fraternite
I don't normally post around here, but as someone from Europe who watched in horror at the events that unfolded in our own back yard last week, I just wanted to add my two cents to this.
The purpose of a Terroroist? is to terrorise (i.e. to put people into a state of fear). While these cowards certainly managed that in the heat of the moment, the immediate response following the tragedy was the people of Europe standing up and saying "we are not afraid". The massacre happened on Wednesday, Friday they were brought to justice (but not without causing more death and destruction), and on Sunday there were over 2 *MILLION* people marching through the centre of Paris, and hundreds of thousands more doing the same in other EU capitals including my own London. We all stood up with one voice, and sent our message loud and clear. To use the words of the late Stephane Charbonnier:
What was seen during the rallies wasn't hostility, it was defiance. Even more importantly, it was a show of unity - Christians, Jews, Sikh, Buddhists, and yes - even Muslims - all turned out in support. It was particularly touching seeing so many Muslims holding banners with statements like "Not in our name", clearly demonstrating that this is not what Islam stands for. We also saw many interviews with Jewish people who recounted great acts of kindness by Muslims towards them on the day too. One jewish man and his daughter stood there holding white roses that had been given to them by a Muslim man who hugged and kissed them, and couldn't stop apologising for what had happened and the Kosher supermarket. This was far from the only story of unity between Muslim and Jewish people to come out of the day.
Then today, the Charlie Hebdo team made their latest publication. It features the prophet Mohamed, holding a "Je Suis Charlie" sign and a tear coming from his eye. The headline is "Tout Est Pardonne", which translates to:
Honestly? I can't think of a better response. Love and forgiveness beats hatred and prejudice, while at the same time they're showing that they are not scared.
In summary, the attacks in Paris last week destroyed some of my faith in humanity, but the nature of the response (at least here in Europe) has restored it. As it turns out, the pen really is mightier than the sword.
Je Suis Charlie.
Je Suis Flic.
Je Suis Juif.
Je Suis Humaine.
Liberte, Egalite, Fraternite
I never watch Bob any more and decided to give this episode a watch. It pretty much sums up my personal feelings and shows that I am not the only one who is not overly enthusiastic about the "Je Suis Charlie" stuff everywhere. Solidarity is at it's core a tribalist practice.
You have my attention again Bob.
You have my attention again Bob.
JennAnge said:
this morning Laurent Leger was adsked in an interview on a french candian radio, what Cabu, Charb, Tignou and the other would think of the big manifestations, holland and all the other politician shouting freedom of speach and things like that. he said they would had been deeply amused by that, and that they would have make a cartton about that in the next edition.
Regarding the "Punching Up/Punching Down" argument:
When you make a claim of superiority over others, either implied of explicit, you are a valid target for satire.
When you attempt to impose your beliefs on others, you are claiming superiority over others.
When self-described Muslim spokesmen made the claim that images of Muhammad were forbidden by their religion and, therefore, other people could not produce or show those images, they made a claim of superiority over non-Muslims. At that point, they, and their claim, became fair game. By contrast, it's much more rare for Muslims to be mocked for not drinking alcohol. If they tried to shut down bars and liquor stores, however, they'd be widely ridiculed.
(Unfortunately, by claiming to be spokesmen for Islam as a whole, they made it impossible to both respect the sensitivities of Muslims who object to images of Mohammad AND to not submit to the demands of supremacists; life isn't always fair)
Likewise, nobody seems to consider it "punching down" to mock members of the Klu Klux Klan, even though its members tend to be on the lower socioeconomic rungs of American society. This is because they make a claim of superiority over others (non-whites, Jews, Catholics, homosexuals, etc).
When you demand that other people cater to your beliefs, you are claiming superiority over those people, and have no right to complain when somebody mocks you for it.
I think this is why people dubbed "SJW"s encounter so much vitriol: Very often, their delivery comes across as them lecturing others about how morally superior the so-called SJW is. For example, people interpreted Anita Sarkeesian's work as her lecturing others about how superior she was to game devs and gamers in general. I'd prefer to leave any discussion about whether that was TRUE or not to another thread, so as to not risk derailing this one.
When you make a claim of superiority over others, either implied of explicit, you are a valid target for satire.
When you attempt to impose your beliefs on others, you are claiming superiority over others.
When self-described Muslim spokesmen made the claim that images of Muhammad were forbidden by their religion and, therefore, other people could not produce or show those images, they made a claim of superiority over non-Muslims. At that point, they, and their claim, became fair game. By contrast, it's much more rare for Muslims to be mocked for not drinking alcohol. If they tried to shut down bars and liquor stores, however, they'd be widely ridiculed.
(Unfortunately, by claiming to be spokesmen for Islam as a whole, they made it impossible to both respect the sensitivities of Muslims who object to images of Mohammad AND to not submit to the demands of supremacists; life isn't always fair)
Likewise, nobody seems to consider it "punching down" to mock members of the Klu Klux Klan, even though its members tend to be on the lower socioeconomic rungs of American society. This is because they make a claim of superiority over others (non-whites, Jews, Catholics, homosexuals, etc).
When you demand that other people cater to your beliefs, you are claiming superiority over those people, and have no right to complain when somebody mocks you for it.
I think this is why people dubbed "SJW"s encounter so much vitriol: Very often, their delivery comes across as them lecturing others about how morally superior the so-called SJW is. For example, people interpreted Anita Sarkeesian's work as her lecturing others about how superior she was to game devs and gamers in general. I'd prefer to leave any discussion about whether that was TRUE or not to another thread, so as to not risk derailing this one.
Obviously you're allowed to punch down, it's just that you'll look like an asshole for doing it, and people will probably treat you like an asshole. Criticizing an already marginalized group is just picking on the little guy, kicking someone while their down. Your criticism may be legitimate, but that doesn't automatically justify making it if it's just going to exacerbate someone's pain.JMac85 said:
It's like... you know someone's having a really bad day, so you decide not to tell them what you really think about their new haircut. Maybe not the greatest analogy but whatever. It's called having sensitivity. You don't have to exhibit it, but don't act like the people who do advise it are just the PC police trying to stop people from breaking the 10 commandments of Tumblr.
You mentioned a single aspect of Obamacare as if that is all there is to it. You are omitting details by design to backup a point that can't be enforced. I'm sure there are a minority of people out there who are literally saying, "fuck the poor", but that is at best a tiny percentage of Americans, where most of us would love to see everyone able to get reasonable healthcare. Also, people having existing health issues is not explicitly an attack on the poor, only those with pre-existing conditions.uanime5er said:
The US has a policy that allows them deport anyone who is not a citizen (which is accepted as a matter of business in any of the US treaties with other countries). You can just send them back to their country of origin, there is a whole department in the federal government that does that. It happens all the time. TotalBiscuit has a whole video about those hard times for him. He flew to this country, was stopped at the airport, detained, and then put on a plain back to the UK. There are exceptions to this such as refugee status, but for most people, the US government sends them back to their country of origin unless they at least have a temporary pass to be here.
I never represented that I supported the action. You should quote my whole statement. In the line before I said this:
I never said they had the moral high ground or that the published pieces were immoral by their nature. I never stated I supported what the gunmen did, nor did I represent their actions as being proportional to the published material.
As a German I threw up in my mouth a little when I first heard the Charlie Hepdo editors stylised as martyrs for free speech because looking at their "carricatures" reminded me a lot of history class... Their cartoons wouldn't have been all that conspicuous in the 1930s' German propaganda paper "Der Stürmer"...
Of course they had the right to be assholes and not be murdered for it. An asshole who gets murdered by another asshole for being an asshole isn't automatically a martyr for free speech though.
Elsewhere I've seen Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh being resurrected as a martyr for free speech. Theo van Gogh was also killed in the open street my a Muslim extremist. His "contribution" to free speech was calling Dutch Muslims "goat fuckers" and in 1984 being sentenced under Dutch hate speech laws for his carricature "two yellow stars in the gas chamber" (though he won his appeal against the verdict).
Couple this with the "patriotic Europeans against the islamisation of the occident" currently marching through cities in my country I'm really getting tired of this shit. It feels more and more like the early 90s when every night in Germany a refugee shelter or the house of a family of Germans with migrant roots burned while ordinary citizens (the kind now marching with PEGIDA) stood around and applauded.
Of course they had the right to be assholes and not be murdered for it. An asshole who gets murdered by another asshole for being an asshole isn't automatically a martyr for free speech though.
Elsewhere I've seen Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh being resurrected as a martyr for free speech. Theo van Gogh was also killed in the open street my a Muslim extremist. His "contribution" to free speech was calling Dutch Muslims "goat fuckers" and in 1984 being sentenced under Dutch hate speech laws for his carricature "two yellow stars in the gas chamber" (though he won his appeal against the verdict).
Couple this with the "patriotic Europeans against the islamisation of the occident" currently marching through cities in my country I'm really getting tired of this shit. It feels more and more like the early 90s when every night in Germany a refugee shelter or the house of a family of Germans with migrant roots burned while ordinary citizens (the kind now marching with PEGIDA) stood around and applauded.
Your argument ignores a number of factors when deciding what is and isn't good satire. One of those is the source of the satire, the group of people it's aiming at, and surrounding zeitgeist. Take any example of satire away from it's cultural context and it seems fine, but when given the proper examination in full context it contributes to marginalization.Toilet said:
You seem to think the world exists in a state where individuals are uniquely responsible for their actions, and that things like actual racism doesn't exist. Looking at the bigger picture you start to see this kind of thing, it's not about the individual, it's about the group message.
It is a form of bullying after a fact. It's kicking a minority group when they are already down. Which is why it isn't ok, and shouldn't be.
Except this isn't about making fun of someone's haircut, this is about calling people out for revering the sacred image of some long-dead twat more than human life. And I'm not just talking about those who go out and murder people, either. Muslims consider Muhammad to be more important than life itself, and to insult or criticize him is the worst possible crime.Olas said:
That's fucking insane. I refuse to respect this. No one is beyond reproach, which is funny because that's pretty much what the side giving people a hard time for drawing Muhammad are saying.
This goes for everything. Marginalized or not, bad behavior needs to be called out. If that makes me a racist, misogynist, classist, homophobe, or whatever self-righteous assholes wish to call me, so be it.
The point is that these issues have little to do with religion, and everything to do with wealth and socio-political stability. The muslims looking for sharia law in other countries are almost always immigrants from these countries that haven't had a stable government and where religious leaders have taken the opportunity to gain power and influence. It's much easier to hate western decadence and wealth when your local imam is telling you that it is unholy.Nods Respectfully Towards You said:
Before the creation of Israel, there were Jewish terrorists attacking innocents because they were inhabiting land that God had promised the Hebrews 3000+ years ago. Once they got the land and set up a functioning and stable government, the extremist elements started to get eroded. People will take any opportunity to use religion to back up whatever socio-political purpose they want. Despite the fact that the Bible says nothing about abortion (and in fact infanticide was probably quite common in Jesus' time), some Christians are willing to murder abortion doctors. The socio-political problems in the middle east are simply larger and affect more people than abortion does in the US.
You're joking, right? The entire history of civilisation is one of Christians trying to force people to live by their rules.uanime5er said:
Today in the USA, look at the same sex marriage debate, creationism, abortion, prayer in schools.... do I really need to go on?
Jews less so, because they aren't the dominant religion anywhere except Israel.
Your opinion.JMac85 said:
In my opinion it really should matter. The world would be a boring place if we all agreed, and I disagree with you. But that makes life interesting, doesn't it?
Where we get our accepted cultural norms tends to fall someplace close to where the majority lands, and that target is ever-shifting. It moves by fractions of a millimeter every time someone voices an opinion or consumes an expressed point of view, and it's the role of anyone particularly interested to make a compelling case for why they think what they do.
While any suggestion that certain forms of speech should be prohibited is of course beyond the pale, I think a right to speak is often confused with a right to be listened to, which is nowhere near the case. If you're sick of hearing from all angles about how there is no honor in punching down, I'd be interested in knowing why you think the underprivileged are qualified targets of ridicule by the privileged. But don't forget: you're "allowed" to make any joke you like. I'm also "allowed" to retain whatever opinion I have for you based on your joke. Accepting this is part of growing up and participating in a civilized society.
The cartoon would feature Hollande with his dick hanging out his pants (as the Hebdo illustrated him a few months ago)and other politicos in innapropriate poses, all thinking "Bon dieu, la presse est de notre coté! Pourvus qu'ça dure!" Or something.cathou said: