tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-417475152705096483.post5434226150557600431..comments2023-06-04T03:08:10.609-04:00Comments on Salty Current: Indecent: my position on (the response to) Charlie HebdoSChttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01328512370690763252noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-417475152705096483.post-39576085769353568902015-06-11T21:50:57.629-04:002015-06-11T21:50:57.629-04:00And by the way, there was a response to that artic...And by the way, there was a response to that article you've brought up by Olivier Cyran:<br /><br />http://toohotforjacobin.blogspot.co.uk/2015/01/if-charlie-is-racist-then-i-am-by-zineb.html<br /><br />I'm pretty sure it was posted on threads where you were commenting back in January, so I'm not sure why you continue to ignore it.SChttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01328512370690763252noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-417475152705096483.post-68429317508395038972015-06-11T11:06:17.824-04:002015-06-11T11:06:17.824-04:00and represented by grossly racist and misogynist i...<i>and represented by grossly racist and misogynist images on the Charlie Hebdo cover</i><br /><br />This is a real problem. Even if you're going to persist, perversely, in trying to reduce the matter to something that can be answered with "intent isn't magic," can you, at the very least, acknowledge that their intent was not racist and misogynistic, and that CH is an anti-racist publication that has supported the rights of immigrants and minorities for decades? Even if you think that they went about creating that image irresponsibly or in the wrong way, can you at least acknowledge that their target was the French Right?<br /><br />A discussion about political commentary and satire in complex contexts is one worth having, but it's not helped by conflating concerns about the potential reception or misinterpretation of images with their intent. And to continue to do that in this case, when people have been murdered and can't defend themselves against smears, is indecent. SChttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01328512370690763252noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-417475152705096483.post-15216320599965195522015-06-11T10:37:57.668-04:002015-06-11T10:37:57.668-04:00What would I say to those girls and their families...What would I say to those girls and their families? It would depend on what information or misinformation they’d been given. If the context and intent had been described to them, I don’t think I would need to say anything - I would just listen to their views. If the image had been presented to them in a misleading way, through a lack of information or through misinformation, I would explain its context and intent. (As I’ve said before, the racist/misogynistic misreading doesn’t even make sense. Why would those girls be saying that?) I would assume they’re less manipulable and have a better capacity to appreciate satire <br /><br />http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jun/05/nigeria-satirist-adeola-fayehun-robert-mugabe-ambush<br /><br />than, for example, you. <br /><br />In either case, I would know that their possibilities for immigration to safer countries like France, for receiving help and benefits once there, and for taking on Islamists and foreign governments and corporations in their own country have been defended with the work, courage, and blood of the people at Charlie Hebdo.<br />SChttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01328512370690763252noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-417475152705096483.post-78480104181358843702015-06-11T10:36:45.543-04:002015-06-11T10:36:45.543-04:00Amazing. It’s like you’re not willing to engage wi...Amazing. It’s like you’re not willing to engage with (or even read?) the actual content of the post you’re commenting on.<br /><br />Charlie Hebdo is (or was, at the relevant moment) a French publication with a circulation in the tens of thousands. It commented on French politics, and it was widely recognized to be leftwing and anti-racist, satirizing above all (though not exclusively) the French far Right. People who create satirical works about local or national politics for a local audience can’t reasonably be expected to make those works absolutely immune to misreading or misrepresentation for a global audience with no knowledge of context or intent. That would be ridiculous. I certainly doubt that within France there were "millions" of people who would be seeing the cover and know nothing of the French political context, much less be at the same time affected by seeing the image and yet so incurious as to refuse to investigate at all. (And, to the extent that there are people who proceed in that manner, it's a <i>problem</i> that needs to be <i>addressed</i>, as I mention below.) <br /><br />(This isn’t to say that artists shouldn’t be concerned about possible misuses of their work, especially when they have reason to believe it might be widely seen beyond the usual audience or that there are people with an interest in misrepresenting it for their own purposes, and guard against that to the extent possible. As Cabu did when he drew the “It’s hard to be loved by jerks [assholes]” cover: he made sure he bled the text of the word “intégristes” into the image of Mohammed so that it could less easily be cut out so as to make people think “jerks/assholes” referred to Muslims and not Islamists. Some people still altered the image to serve their propaganda purposes, as some people cut out the FN symbol and the large words “RASSEMBLEMENT BLEU RACIST” from the “Taubira” cover…or maybe people just didn’t see them?)<br /><br />What they do is very similar to what Stephen Colbert did on his show, with the differences that they’re further left than Colbert, that he didn’t occasionally adopt and exaggerate rightwing viewpoints to satirize them but embodied them full-time as a character, and that he had a much larger audience and more of an expectation that his work would be seen beyond its basic audience, in the US and abroad. Someone could easily compile and edit a series of clips he did, say, on immigration and welfare benefits (“anchor babies,” kids with “calves the size of cantaloupes,”…) that would look “grossly racist and misogynistic” to anyone unfamiliar with his show, who didn’t know that he was taking on the perspective of rightwing US politicians in order to satirize it.<br /><br />The difference is that there aren’t powerful global forces interested in doing that to Colbert, whereas there are such forces interested in provoking confusion about and hostility to <i>CH</i>. But even with that knowledge, it’s absurd to suggest that they should therefore have basically stopped doing satirical work on the French Right because someone could potentially misread or be tricked into misreading it. Not only would that spell the end of political satire, but it would interfere with the project of developing image-literacy in a globalized world. (This issue was discussed in depth at the panel discussion in New York – I don’t know if you read my summary or watched the video. I’m guessing not.) <br /> SChttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01328512370690763252noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-417475152705096483.post-84956182697433305562015-06-11T06:11:08.840-04:002015-06-11T06:11:08.840-04:00"To treat the question holistically instead o..."To treat the question holistically instead of plucking a handful of superficially questionable images out of context."<br /><br />The point is, millions more people will have seen those images on the news-stand - out of context - than will ever have read the publication. And what exactly would you say to the girls kidnapped by Boko Haram and represented by grossly racist and misogynist images on the <i>Charlie Hebdo</i> cover, and to their families? Sometimes, no context whatever can make something acceptable.Nick Gottshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12037533062720394685noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-417475152705096483.post-35281356673583562592015-06-10T15:36:06.127-04:002015-06-10T15:36:06.127-04:00I don't know if you've read this:
http://...I don't know if you've read this:<br /><br />http://www.lemonde.fr/idees/article/2013/11/20/non-charlie-hebdo-n-est-pas-raciste_3516646_3232.html<br /><br />“…Nous rions, nous critiquons, nous rêvons encore des mêmes choses. Ce n'est pas trahir un secret : l'équipe actuelle se partage entre tenants de la gauche, de l'extrême gauche, de l'anarchie et de l'écologie. Tous ne votent pas, mais tous ont sablé le champagne quand Nicolas Sarkozy a été battu en mai 2012.<br /><br />…Ouvrez donc ce journal ! Jean-Yves Camus y suit avec la rigueur qu'on lui connaît l'activité des extrêmes droites. Laurent Léger dévoile les turpitudes des réseaux si étendus de la corruption. Bernard Maris décortique l'économie et le capitalisme comme aucun autre. Patrick Pelloux raconte avec douceur les horreurs des urgences hospitalières. Gérard Biard ferraille contre le sexisme et la pub. Zineb el Rhazoui critique – oui, et de belle manière – les insupportables manifestations de certain islamisme. Fabrice Nicolino regarde le monde en écologiste radical, mais humaniste. Sigolène Vinson détaille le quotidien absurde de tant de tribunaux. Luce Lapin défend avec une opiniâtreté sans borne les animaux, ces grands absents du débat. Antonio Fischetti raconte la science, les sciences avec drôlerie et impertinence. Philippe Lançon proclame chaque semaine la victoire de la littérature sur la télé. Et puis tous les autres ! Quant aux dessinateurs, qui ne connaît leur trait ?<br /><br />De Charb à Riss, de Luz à Willem, de Riad Sattouf à Tignous, en passant par Honoré, Catherine et bien sûr Wolin et Cabu, ils font rire chaque semaine ceux qui n'ont pas renoncé à être libres.<br /><br />Où seraient cachés les supposés racistes ? Nous n'avons pas peur d'avouer que nous sommes des militants antiracistes de toujours. Sans nécessairement avoir une carte, nous avons choisi dans ce domaine notre camp, et n'en changerons évidemment jamais. Si par extraordinaire – mais cela n'arrivera pas – un mot ou un dessin racistes venaient à être publiés dans notre hebdomadaire, nous le quitterions à l'instant, et avec fracas. Encore heureux !”SChttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01328512370690763252noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-417475152705096483.post-42806724100941817842015-06-10T14:50:44.259-04:002015-06-10T14:50:44.259-04:00Honestly, David, I’m baffled that you don’t get th...Honestly, David, I’m baffled that you don’t get this. (And you don’t have to go with your impressions – I’ve provided evidence right here in this post.)<br /><br />First, <i>CH</i> is a <i>committed leftwing, anti-racist publication</i>, whose principle target is the French Right. This means that they aren’t interested in “offending” (I’ll discuss this below) everyone equally. They’re not targeting poor immigrants equally with the Front National. Their political and moral commitment is to social justice, not generalized mockery. They’re not interested in “offending” racists and their victims equally. Being a committed leftwing, anti-racist publication means that in practice they publish writing and cartoons <i>that are leftwing and anti-racist</i>. I really don’t understand how you don’t see this. Believing nothing (including themselves) should be out of bounds for mockery and that mockery can be inclusive is not the same thing as seeking to offend everyone equally.<br /><br />Second, their purpose is not to offend. Their purpose is to comment on politics in a funny way, from, again, <i>a leftwing, anti-racist, social justice perspective</i>. When they published the cartoons of Mohammed, they weren’t seeking to offend Muslims or anyone else. They were standing up to Islamist fanatics and defending free expression, and were very thoughtful about trying to go about this in ways that included Muslims in the political community, made clear that Islamists didn’t represent all Muslims, and didn’t cause undue offense to Muslims in general. (I know this because it’s the subject of the film, <i>It’s Hard to Be Loved By Jerks</i>, that I posted about back in 2011.)<br /><br />When you describe them the way you are, you erase the political commitments of the magazine. They're not personal convictions incidental to their work - they're the editorial commitments of the publication. I know you see it as a sort of defense (“They don’t just target minorities – they work to offend everyone equally!”), but it’s simply not an accurate characterization of who they are/were or what they do. Being racists and being across-the-board offenders aren’t the only two possibilities. There’s also the possibility of being a committed leftwing, anti-racist publication, which is what they are, and what we should recognize and celebrate, as Taubira and Sopo do.SChttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01328512370690763252noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-417475152705096483.post-56263422089930439762015-06-10T13:51:57.376-04:002015-06-10T13:51:57.376-04:00Oops, sorry. I should have scrolled up on the othe...Oops, sorry. I should have scrolled up on the other thread first.<br /><br />Still, I find nothing in this post that contradicts that assessment; having personal convictions (as the CH authors & editors evidently do) doesn't mean they don't think they should offend everyone equally.David Marjanovićnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-417475152705096483.post-62001196721631541202015-06-10T13:42:37.216-04:002015-06-10T13:42:37.216-04:00My impression – not original to me, but I don'...My impression – not original to me, but I don't have time to dig for the sources – is that Charlie Hebdo is like South Park or Family Guy: it goes to great lengths to make sure it offends everyone to the same amount, and believes that's inherently a good thing.David Marjanovićnoreply@blogger.com