General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsUpdating Voltaire.
"I may not agree with what you say, but when you are murdered for saying it, I will explain that it was your own fault, while of course insisting that I condemn violence".
el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)One question is should people be murdered for expressing satirical views. The answer to that is no - nobody should be killed for expressing views on religion or on any subject.
The other question is what is the value of what Charles Hebdo was doing - was it good or bad? Was it sensible? Was it valuable critique or childish juvenalia?
The first question we all more or less agree with - I don't believe that even those who are most critical of Charles Hebdo believe they deserved what happened to them.
The second question there is a wide range of thought on - from complete support to thorough condemnation. As such that's the one that can provoke the fiery back and forth that DU loves. So that's where most of the debate is happening.
I personally think though that this is not a good time to be considering that second question - I can understand the temptation. It will provoke discussion, and that's what we like around here. But once you start considering the merits of what Charles Hebdo was doing, there's no question but it can come off as a faint endorsement of the murders that occurred.
And nobody should be murdered for expressing an opinion.
Bryant
Avalux
(35,015 posts)We don't have to like it, we may be disgusted with it, but it makes us THINK. Thinking goes out the window for those who agree with others too quickly, before forming their own opinion. Those who have a difficult time seeing the grays in between black and white.
The French have had a disdain for organized religion since the French Revolution, their experiences with the Catholic Church during that time were horrific. Freedom of expression is important to them and we should all respect their desire to be able to do so without repercussion. I personally do not 'like' Charlie Hebdo's brand of satire, but who am I to judge? No one is in a position to judge.
"And nobody should be murdered for expressing an opinion".
Live and let live.
LostOne4Ever
(9,290 posts)[font style="font-family:papyrus,'Brush Script MT','Infindel B',fantasy;" size=4 color=teal] But I wanted to say I agree with you here.[/font]
el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)and thank you for the kind words.
I don't dislike everybody or even most who participate in that room, just the ones that I do dislike drive me right over a wall.
Bryant
muriel_volestrangler
(101,349 posts)People are debating whether it's inflammatory, racist, anti-semitic, Islamophobic etc.
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Sid
KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)It doesn't draw a simplistic black/white dichotomy and its message can be quite uncomfortable.
locks
(2,012 posts)Perhaps when we really look into the mirror the enemy looks an awful lot like us. Then, perhaps, we can learn how to actually try to live the Golden Rule and see if that works better than what we have been doing throughout history.
Pooka Fey
(3,496 posts)And is he really going to describe as "moral" the question of whether or not American torture in the Iraq justifies self-censure of French cartoonists who lampoon all religions equally? The French rejected the Iraq War, and the American response was to call them "cheese-eating surrender monkeys".
This guy is off topic on all counts. No logic, all heat and no light, all "tyranny of the emotions", and it's not even funny, unlike Charlie Hebdo.
KingCharlemagne
(7,908 posts)with hooked noses resembling Nazi caricatures of Jews from the 30s or Muslim women as pregnant with Boko Haram babies and angry about losing their social welfare benefits.. Nope, no racism here, nosireee. Just move along now.
Pooka Fey
(3,496 posts)The journalists were discussing an Anti-Racism issue when they were shot in that meeting. Your head should be exploding right about now. You don't know what you're talking about, even if you can't know that. No hard feelings, eh? I won't educate you, but I will mention that I speak French fluently and have studied in French university at the Master's level.
The point of the Charlie Hebdo magazine is that they have the freedom to offend and ridicule everything and everybody, and they use it. It's an anti-politically correct magazine, that's the point.
The "racism" trump card is a "thought-stopper" here. French humor doesn't need to satisfy American tastes, the French are free.
I don't notice any difference between the Jewish and Muslim noses in this cartoon. The caption says "You must not laugh at us" (if you care)
KingCharlemagne
(7,908 posts)to defend Hebdo's anti-racist credentials and keep a straight face:
Given all your French, I don't think I need to translate the headline text for you. But for the benefit of our non-Francophone audience:
This one is the grand two-fer, racist and sexist at the same time. See, those Boko Haram sex slaves (most, if not all, teenagers) weren't mad about having been victims of sexual violence or of having been slaves. No, they were angry that they might lose their welfare payments. Ha-ha Or maybe you'd care to explain for our African American and Muslim colleagues here why this is funny.
I'm not going to argue this with you. If this cover depicted African American women in such a fashion, this board would be having a full-tilt meltdown. And it would be fully justified in so doing.
Avalux
(35,015 posts)African Americans are a race, and Muslims are a religion. They are not equitable. Do you understand that?
KingCharlemagne
(7,908 posts)lineage to North Africa.
Others have questioned the supposed relationship between Islamophobia and racism. Jocelyne Cesari writes that "academics are still debating the legitimacy of the term and questioning how it differs from other terms such as racism, anti-Islamism, anti-Muslimness, and anti-Semitism." Erdenir finds that "there is no consensus on the scope and content of the term and its relationship with concepts such as racism ... and Shryock, reviewing the use of the term across national boundaries, comes to the same conclusion. On occasion race does come into play. Diane Frost defines Islamophobia as anti-Muslim feeling and violence based on race and/or religion. Islamophobia may also target people who have Muslim names, or have a look that is associated with Muslims. According to Alan Johnson, Islamophobia sometimes can be nothing more than xenophobia or racism "wrapped in religious terms."
The European Commission against Racism and Intolerance (ECRI) defines Islamophobia as the fear of or prejudiced viewpoint towards Islam, Muslims and matters pertaining to them (ECRI 2006). Whether it takes the shape of daily forms of racism and discrimination or more violent forms, Islamophobia is a violation of human rights and a threat to social cohesion". It has also been defined as "fear of Muslims and Islam; rejection of the Muslim religion; or a form of differentialist racism" (Helbling 2011).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamophobia#Racism
Pooka Fey
(3,496 posts)with an issue of their magazine devoted to denouncing rascism. They are guilty of being accused of being innocent, I suppose.
Charlie Hebdo is anti-PC, and jokes don't translate well or even at all. Personally I don't get this joke, so I can't explain it, but I'm going to go with Voltaire on principal, and defend their right to be offend.
France sent troops to Africa to fight Boko Haram, unlike the USA. Why would a rascist culture engage militarily to save Africans from Islamic extremists? Lots of head exploding should be happening...
The job of satirists is to expose the ridiculousness of the world. Charlie Hedbo and its artists and writers are taking part in trying to change things that make life so hard for so many. Not all agree on some of their targets (organized religion, for example - holy books don't stop bullets), but others - especially in much more secular and not-awed-by-religion Europe - do.
The cartoon is disingenuous because no, "driving into the sea" all of those who share any characteristics (ethnicity, religion, etc) of the terrorists is stupid. Killing French cartoonists because of Americam actions at Abu Gharaib is also stupid ... sort of like declaring war on Iraq because the US was attacked by Saudi nationals. It's all so frustratingly stupid that all some people can do is point it out with mean drawings.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)And exactly what I would expect from that particular cartoonist.
I imagine if the victims of the attack were "Zionists" the response would be quite different.
Pooka Fey
(3,496 posts)in order to do it.
You nailed it. Bravo and thank you.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)I am glad most people still embrace the sentiment behind the actual quote and not the satirical one you've presented here. Regrettably, many seem to prefer the latter.
Pooka Fey
(3,496 posts)oberliner
(58,724 posts)Speaks volumes.
oneview
(47 posts)It's French anti-clericalism. It's gonzo journalism, which began with Jean-Paul Marat (not Hunter S. Thompson.)
But people want to throw it under the bus. As the kids say, I can't even.
There's something else Voltaire said, by the way --- ecrasez l'infame -- destroy infamy. It's a slogan properly addressed to all priestcraft and dogma, but we should remember, he used it first in reference to Islam. Oh yeah, I went there.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,349 posts)Are you sure?
http://xserve.volt.ox.ac.uk/VFcatalogue/details.php?recid=6171
KingCharlemagne
(7,908 posts)have time to chase down the relevant material about his thoughts on Jews' 'innate character,' but this LTTE in the NYTimes recapitulates the terms of the debate rather nicely (and includes some examples):
http://www.nytimes.com/1990/09/30/books/l-voltaire-and-the-jews-590990.html
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)than right after a whole bunch of people were brutally murdered by offended people over stuff they said?