Satire Does Not Always Involve Humor. The Most Powerful Satire Never Does.
A number of people are saying that the image on Charlie Hebdo's cover wasn't funny. It wasn't, and it wasn't intended to be funny. Satire is sometimes funny, but not always. Satire can be biting. Satire can be mocking. Satire can cut like a knife. Satire is a means of pointing a sharp finger at things that need to be recognized.
Charlie Hebdo satirizes religion frequently. All religion. Similar images have appeared on its cover, mocking every major religion. Apparently the publisher dislikes religion, and is not particularly delicate in expressing that dislike. No humor is intended. Instead, what is intended is that people notice the hypocrisy and illogic of religion. It's not funny, and it's not meant to be funny.
Satire is supposed to make people think, not to make them laugh. Sometimes, laughter is part of satire, but more often it is not.
Blaming Charlie Hebdo for the violence that took the lives of employees of that publication and others is not logical. Blaming victims of crimes for the crimes committed against them is not logical. It's a very weak response to a horrible incident. Satirists are essential to society, because satire makes people think.
I am surprised to find so many people on DU who blame the victim in this case. As an occasional satirist, myself, I know that if satire doesn't piss off some people, it is not successful. Satire is supposed to piss off the people it targets. If it didn't, it wouldn't be effective.
No victim blaming on DU, please. Thanks.
= new reply since forum marked as read
can be taken a number of ways. Saying "I wouldn't advise it" is not "victim blaming." That's simply a personal opinion.
I will reiterate--assessing RISK is not the same as victim blaming. There was risk. Great risk--and now is as good a time to talk about it as any. Anyone who pretends that discussing risk is somehow "unseemly" is whistling in the dark. The dead are past caring and they understood the risk better than people on DU seem to. Even the publisher--who was gunned down--not just understood it, but articulated it. I find it odd that people are denying what is so painfully obvious.
The publisher's very last cartoon before he was gunned down "poked the hornet's nest." It noted there hadn't been any terrorists with machine guns attacking in France yet, and predicted that there'd be an attack before the end of January.
The guy was right--he might not have sensed that the attack would be against his offices, but he was right about there being an attack using AK-47s in January.
http://www.businessinsider.com/the-editor-of-charlie-hebdos-last-cartoon-is-tragically-prescient-2015-1
"Still no terrorist attacks in France," the top of the cartoon drawn for the satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo reads.
The subject of the cartoon, a befuddled man with loopy eyes and what appears to be an AK-47 on his back, butts in: "Wait! We have until the end of January to present our wishes."
AK-47s were used on the attack targeting Charlie Hebdo's offices in eastern Paris. The three gunmen killed 12 people, including two police officers, and injured five before fleeing the scene.
In 2012, Charbonnier, also known as "Charb," told Le Monde he was "not afraid of retaliation. I have no kids, no wife, no car, no mortgage. It may come off as a bit arrogant but I'd rather die on my feet than live on my knees."
Now, then--is it "victim blaming" when the victim, himself, notes the absence of an attack in France, indicates the possibility of one in this very month, through a cartoon of a terrorist with a machine gun? This is a victim who indicated that he didn't fear retaliation--not that he didn't anticipate it, find it possible, or rule it out-- but he didn't fear it. He had done a risk assessment, and he was willing to shoulder the risk--but he didn't deny there was risk.
I haven't seen any "victim vilifying" either--not a single post "vilifying" any of the dead. I've seen plenty that have a lot to say about the perpetrators, though, with some advocating return of the death penalty to France. Is that "perpetrator vilifying" to convict the gunmen ahead of a trial, or is it just applying common sense opinion to a tragedy?
These guys in that office DIED because they refused to modulate their viewpoints. I think it's funny as hell, frankly, that people here are accusing people discussing this tragedy of "victim blaming" and trying to silence them for expressing their views about the tragedy, the cartoons, the judgment in publishing them. It's a bit convoluted, really. "No one is allowed to opine about the advisability or inadvisability of censorship of viewpoints....you are being CENSORED from conversations of that nature!!" I don't think those guys died so people on DU can say "Stop saying that!"
You've done nothing but defend him and deflect the issue into 'risk assessment' territory, when NYC SKP wasn't talking about that at all.
He victim-blamed, over the content, not the physical security. You're spinning it every which way, and it's not working.
Edit:
I've agreed to disagree--you're the one who's getting shirty. Have a nice day.
Was he victim blaming?
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/07/charlie-hebdo-satire-intimidation-analysis
I notice the Guardian did not publish it--were they cowardly, or what?
Here it is from another source:
:large
http://www.businessinsider.com/the-editor-of-charlie-hebdos-last-cartoon-is-tragically-prescient-2015-1
I seriously expected better than "just one religion" from you. Tiny minorities of many religions are busy killing others.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_terrorism
According to terrorism expert David C. Rapoport, a "religious wave", or cycle, of terrorism dates from approximately 1979 to the present.[20]
Anti-Muslim violence in Central Africa[edit]
Further information: Central African Republic conflict under the Djotodia administration
After the predominantly Muslim Seleka militia took control of the Central African Republic under President Michel Djotodia in 2013, a period of lawlessness and sectarian violence continued. Following warnings of "genocide" by the UN and a controversial intervention force by MISCA, Djotodia resigned. Despite neutral Catherine Samba-Panza being made president, the Anti-balaka Christian militants continued sectarian violence, including reported targeted killings, against Muslim civilians.[21]
Anti-Hindu violence in Northeast India[edit]
Christian violence arose in various contiguous states in North-East India.[22] In 2000, John Joseph, a member of India's National Minority Commission, described Christian militancy as rampant in the northeastern states.[22]
Tripura[edit]
Further information: Tripura rebellion
The National Liberation Front of Tripura (NLFT), is a rebel group that seeks the secession of Tripura, North-East India, and is a proscribed terrorist organization in India. Group activities have been described as Christian terrorists engaging in terrorist violence motivated by their Christian beliefs.[23][24] The NLFT includes in its aims the forced conversion of all tribespeople in Tripura to Christianity.[25] The NLFT says that it is fighting not only for the removal of Bengali immigrants from the tribal areas, "but also for the tribal areas of the state to become overtly Christian", and "has warned members of the tribal community that they may be attacked if they do not accept its Christian agenda".[26] The NLFT is listed as a terrorist organization in the Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002.[27] The state government contends that the Baptist Church of Tripura supplies arms and gives financial support to the NLFT.[28][29][30] Reports from the state government and Indian media describe activities such as the acquisition by the NLFT of explosives through the Noapara Baptist Church in Tripura,[30] and threats of killing Hindus celebrating religious festivals.[31] Over 20 Hindus in Tripura were reported to have been killed by the NLFT from 1999 to 2001 for resisting forced conversion to Christianity.[32] According to Hindus in the area, there have also been forced conversions of tribal villagers to Christianity by armed NLFT militants.[32] These forcible conversions, sometimes including the use of "rape as a means of intimidation", have also been noted by academics outside of India.[33] In 2000, the NLFT broke into a temple and gunned down a popular Hindu preacher popularly known as Shanti Kali.[25]
Odisha[edit]
See also: Religious violence in Odisha
In 2007 a tribal spiritual Hindu monk, Swami Lakshmanananda Saraswati, accused Radhakant Nayak, chief of a local chapter of World Vision, and a former Rajya Sabha member from Odisha in the Indian National Congress party, of plotting to assassinate him.[34] The Swami also said that World Vision was covertly pumping money into India for religious conversion during the 2004 Indian Ocean Tsunami, and criticized the activities of Christian missionaries as going against tribal beliefs.[35] In 2008, he was gunned down along with four disciples on the Hindu festive day of Krishna Janmashtami by a group of 30–40 armed men.[36] Later, the Maoist terrorist leader Sabyasachi Panda admitted responsibility for the assassination, saying that the Maoists had intervened in the religious dispute on behalf of Christians and Dalits.[37][38] The non-governmental organization Justice on Trial disputed that there had been Maoist involvement, and quoted the Swami as claiming that Christian missionaries had earlier attacked him eight times.[39][40]
Nagaland[edit]
Main article: National Socialist Council of Nagaland
Nagaland is a Christian majority state in India. Many terrorist incidents have been documented there as a result of an insurgency against the government. This insurgency was originally led by the National Socialist Council of Nagaland (NSCN), who has indulged in terrorist activities varying from kidnapping, illegal drug trafficking, extortion, etc.[41] The group has committed religious violence, as a part of NSCN's described mission of forcibly converting the animist Naga to Christianity, which has been described by B. B. Kumar as Christian terrorism.[24] Other goals include the formation of a greater Nagaland. There are occasional reports of the NSCN using force to convert locals of neighboring states to Christianity.[42]
Manipur[edit]
The National Socialist Council of Nagaland, Issac-Muivah faction (slogan: "Nagaland for Christ"
, is accused of carrying out the 1992–1993 ethnic cleansing of Kuki tribes in Manipur, said to have leave over 900 people dead. During that NSCN-IM operation, 350 Kuki villages were driven out and about 100,000 Kukis were turned into refugees.[43]
Sabra and Shatila massacre[edit]
Maronite Christian militias perpetrated the Karantina and Tel al-Zaatar massacres of Palestinians and Lebanese Muslims during Lebanon's 1975–1990 civil war. The 1982 Sabra and Shatila massacre, which targeted unarmed Palestinian refugees for rape and murder, was considered to be genocide by the United Nations General Assembly.[44] A British photographer present during the incident said that "People who committed the acts of murder that I saw that day were wearing [crucifixes] and were calling themselves Christians."[45] After the end of the civil war, Christian militias refused to disband, concentrating in the Israeli-occupied south of the country, where they terrorized Muslim and Druze villages and forcefully recruited men and boys from those communities into their groups.[46]
Northern Irish and Irish paramilitary groups[edit]
Terrorist acts, with various motives, were committed by loyalists and republicans during the Troubles in Northern Ireland. Although most loyalists were Protestant and most republicans were Catholic, it is widely seen as an ethno-nationalist conflict that was not religious in nature.[47][48][49][50][51][52][53][54][55][56][57][58][59][60] Experts who subscribe to this view, including Philip Purpura, Richard Jenkins, and John Hickey, note the importance of religious motivations in what Purpura calls an "overlap" between religious terrorism and national or ethnic terrorism.[61][62][63] However, professor Mark Juergensmeyer argues that some terrorist acts were religious terrorism or justified by religion.[64]:19–20 Professors Jonathan Matusitz, a critic of religions, and Ayla Hammond Schbley, an expert on counterterrorism, have written about the Provisional IRA as being Christian terrorists,[65][66] a characterization that is at odds with multiple other analysts.[48][49][56][57][67][68][69]
Sociology professor Steve Bruce has written that most loyalist paramilitaries and politicians are fundamentally different from Islamic organizations such as Hezbollah, in that they regard religion and politics as separate spheres and do not advocate killing on the basis of perceived heresy. He did, however, characterize three small loyalist splinter groups – the Orange Volunteers, the Loyalist Volunteer Force, and the Red Hand Defenders – as terrorist groups that were motivated by what he called "Christian imagery" preached by Protestant evangelicals.[70] The leader of the Orange Volunteers, pastor Clifford Peeples, defended their attacks on Catholic churches on the basis that they were "bastions of the Antichrist".[71][72]
Utøya Island killings[edit]
Main article: 2011 Norway attacks
In July 2011, Anders Behring Breivik was arrested and charged with terrorism after a car bombing in Oslo and a mass shooting on Utøya island that killed 77 people. Hours prior to the events, Breivik released a 1,500-page manifesto detailing his beliefs that immigrants were undermining Norway's traditional Christian values, and identifying himself as a "Christian crusader" while describing himself as not very religious.[73][74] Although initial news reports described him as a Christian fundamentalist,[75][76] subsequent analyses of his motivations have noted that he did not only display Christian terrorist inclinations, but also had non-religious, right-wing beliefs.[77][78] Mark Juergensmeyer and John Mark Reynolds have stated that the events were Christian terrorism,[79][80] whereas Brad Hirschfield has rejected the Christian terrorist label.[81]
Lord's Resistance Army[edit]
The Lord's Resistance Army, a cult and guerrilla army, was engaged in an armed rebellion against the Ugandan government in 2005. It has been accused of using child soldiers and of committing numerous crimes against humanity; including massacres, abductions, mutilation, torture, rape, and using forced child labourers as soldiers, porters, and sex slaves.[82] A quasi-religious movement that mixes some aspects of Christian beliefs with its own brand of spiritualism,[83][84] it is led by Joseph Kony, who proclaims himself the spokesperson of God and a spirit medium, primarily of the "Holy Spirit" which the Acholi believe can represent itself in many manifestations.[85][85][86][87] LRA fighters wear rosary beads and recite passages from the Bible before battle.[83][88][89][90][91][92]
Christian Identity and anti-abortion killings[edit]
See also: Anti-abortion violence in the United States and Christian terrorism in the United States
After 1981, members of groups such as the Army of God began attacking abortion clinics and doctors across the United States.[93][94][95] A number of terrorist attacks were attributed by Bruce Hoffman to individuals and groups with ties to the Christian Identity and Christian Patriot movements, including the Lambs of Christ.[96] A group called Concerned Christians was deported from Israel on suspicion of planning to attack holy sites in Jerusalem at the end of 1999; they believed that their deaths would "lead them to heaven".[97][98]
The motive for anti-abortionist Scott Roeder murdering Wichita doctor George Tiller on 31 May 2009 was the belief that abortion is not only immoral, but also a form of murder under "God's law", irrespective of "man's law" in any country, and that this belief went "hand in hand" with his religious beliefs.[99][100] The group supporting Roeder proclaimed that any force is "legitimate to protect the life of an unborn child", and called on all Christians to "rise up" and "take action" against threats to Christianity and to unborn life.[101] Eric Robert Rudolph carried out the Centennial Olympic Park bombing in 1996, as well as subsequent attacks on an abortion clinic and on a lesbian nightclub. Michael Barkun, a professor at Syracuse University, considers Rudolph to likely fit the definition of a Christian terrorist. James A. Aho, a professor at Idaho State University, argues that religious considerations inspired Rudolph only in part.[102]
Terrorism scholar Aref M. Al-Khattar has listed The Covenant, The Sword, and the Arm of the Lord, Defensive Action, The Freemen Community, and some "Christian militia" as groups that "can be placed under the category of far-right-wing terrorism" that "has a religious (Christian) component".[103]
http://www.alternet.org/tea-party-and-right/10-worst-terror-attacks-extreme-christians-and-far-right-white-men
Wisconsin Sikh Temple massacre, Aug. 5, 2012. The virulent, neocon-fueled Islamophobia that has plagued post-9/11 America has not only posed a threat to Muslims, it has had deadly consequences for people of other faiths, including Sikhs. Sikhs are not Muslims; the traditional Sikh attire, including their turbans, is different from traditional Sunni, Shiite or Sufi attire. But to a racist, a bearded Sikh looks like a Muslim. Only four days after 9/11, Balbir Singh Sodhi, a Sikh immigrant from India who owned a gas station in Mesa, Arizona, was murdered by Frank Silva Roque, a racist who obviously mistook him for a Muslim.
But Sodhi’s murder was not the last example of anti-Sikh violence in post-9/11 America. On Aug. 5, 2012, white supremacist Wade Michael Page used a semiautomatic weapon to murder six people during an attack on a Sikh temple in Oak Creek, Wisconsin. Page’s connection to the white supremacist movement was well-documented: he had been a member of the neo-Nazi rock bands End Empathy and Definite Hate. Attorney General Eric Holder described the attack as “an act of terrorism, an act of hatred.” It was good to see the nation’s top cop acknowledge that terrorist acts can, in fact, involve white males murdering people of color.
2. The murder of Dr. George Tiller, May 31, 2009. Imagine that a physician had been the victim of an attempted assassination by an Islamic jihadist in 1993, and received numerous death threats from al-Qaeda after that, before being murdered by an al-Qaeda member. Neocons, Fox News and the Christian Right would have had a field day. A physician was the victim of a terrorist killing that day, but neither the terrorist nor the people who inflamed the terrorist were Muslims. Dr. George Tiller, who was shot and killed by anti-abortion terrorist Scott Roeder on May 31, 2009, was a victim of Christian Right terrorism, not al-Qaeda....(MUCH more at link)
Anyone who wants to understand the situation in France needs to look at it in its entirety.
Muslims are an unpopular minority and are frequent targets of violence, particularly single veiled women on the street. It's not like violence is a one sided thing, or just started yesterday.
Charlie Hebdo is the bleeding edge expression of this animosity. It's true that they are critical of all kinds of things, including capitalism and other religions aside from Islam. However, Islam is a favorite target, and the anti Islam cartoons are frequently racist and deeply offensive to anyone with a basic sense of decency and respect for different kinds of people.
For instance, in early July 2013 the elected Islamist leader of Egypt was removed by a military coup. After this there were widespread protests resulting in deaths and injuries of thousands of people at the hands of the army.
Here's the cover of Charlie Hebdo from that time:
The words that go with the image say "Massacre in Egypt", "The Koran is shit", and (the arrow pointing to the Koran) "It can't stop bullets".
Since you acknowledge that their cartoons are not necessarily funny, I'll skip making that point.
It's not that hard to imagine this same cartoon in a different context. For example, let's say there had just been a large number of Israeli civilians killed and injured, and a few days later the same cartoon runs on the cover of Charlie Hebdo, except with a Torah instead of a Koran, and a stereotypical Jew not unlike the one on the left in this cartoon -
is pictured instead of the Muslim.
Would it still feel like satire ? Or might there be a whiff of something else ?
Violence is wrong. Both sides use it. Those artists and writers should not have been murdered. They also should not have been purposely offending a minority group on a regular basis on the most offensive religious and sexual basis they could think of.
To declare them categorically blameless is absurd. That's denying the context, which is denying reality and substituting a convenient fairy tale. Some (not all) of them did everything they could to push the envelope; there is no denying their role in creating this situation. If you poke a bear long enough, it's going to take a swipe at you. Only an idiot would be surprised when that happens. This is true no matter where on the world you may be or what religion or lack thereof you subscribe to. Only the most advanced Buddhist would accept the thesis that no amount provocation should ever lead to violent reprisal no matter what, and there are plenty of Buddhist anecdotes that contradict that (whether or not they are intended to be taken at face value).
We do not have to give up basic decency and associate ourselves with racist, xenophobic elements in "solidarity" in order to have freedom of speech. We can have both. Don't let dualistic thinkers tell you otherwise, whatever side or self interest they represent.
Its the facts however much you feel its "specious".
France is also notorious for NOT integrating its Muslim population. They have done little to nothing to try to help Muslims feel welcome. They feel very strongly about their culture and disdain those who don't assimilate. It doesn't matter what you would do unless you are French but since France is not multi-cultural, their reactions are going to be different than ours. They have no real history of it.
And anyone who attacks anyone else is a criminal. They may also be a bigot. I'm guessing you similarly don't know about the French laws governing headscarves and niqab/burqa. I refuse to debate that here on this thread. Those threads typically run many hundreds of posts and have been done to death here on DU.
Your last comment is confusing me. You wrote in post #120 "The victim in the cartoon represents an actual person that died, just like the hypothetical of Charbo does." I interpreted your comment to mean that the actual CH cartoon depicted a real person, just like your hypothetical of Charbo.
Your statement appears pretty straightforward. Perhaps you meant something else?
As for your incomprehensible post, I'll try to answer again....
France has a history of many centuries of secularism. They beheaded the priests who allied with the aristocracy during their revolution and have similarly "beheaded" any movement to change their culture.
The Muslim immigrants have run smack into French secularism combined with a disdain for any group that won't assimilate. France is not multicultural and is pretty proud of that actually. I don't like it. I believe it smacks of bigotry but you'd be hard-pressed to argue that the French haven't held fast to their secular principles for centuries - against ALL religions including and especially the RC church. In fact, for example, the French bans on all religious symbols enjoys enormous support - including French Muslims who see it as a bulwark against extremism.
I have no idea what you meant then with your comment at the end of post #120. I'd hoped you'd clarify but obviously not.
I'm off for the night. Feel free to have the last word.
the weak using satire against the mighty is brave and deserving of respect. (And I get that allpeople tend to see their causes as the underdog and their foes as unfairly large and advantaged.)
A large, powerful, entirely government controlling majority "satirizing" an unpopular minority group - one that is, again, the target of frequent violence, as well as these kinds of cartoons, and popular laws such as the bans on religious clothing that are only applicable to Muslims - feels like something else again.
Apologies in advance, but this is an example from a different context:
"This cartoon was published five months after Hitler took power. The title is “Revenge.” The Nazi who shoves the Jew over the cliff says: “Go where you wanted me to go, you evil spirit.”"
It's weirdly on topic because of the person doing the killing describing it as "revenge" for a supposedly perceived sense of what the person he is killing wanted to do to him. It's one of those pro active reactions...
from here - http://research.calvin.edu/german-propaganda-archive/sturmer.htm
I found it here (good resource for these sorts of images):
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/sturmercar.html
The cartoon nose bears no resemblance to the shape and curvature of Zuckerman's nose, which isn't a turned up snub, certainly, but the cartoon one is absurdly long and is styled in classic anti-Semitic "dog whistle" fashion. You don't have to be a weatherman to see which way the wind is blowing with that cartoon.
If they didn't see a problem with it, they wouldn't have backed off and swapped it out.
Last edited Thu Jan 8, 2015, 10:54 PM - Edit history (2)
and it was very humorous. Especially this collection of masterpieces:
all you need to do is make sure dinner is ready. How hard is that?
so here is the dictionary definition of satire-
Definition of satire in English:
noun
1- The use of humor, irony, exaggeration, or ridicule to expose and criticize people’s stupidity or vices, particularly in the context of contemporary politics and other topical issues.
In case people don't know.......... and we know there are some here who don't.
