So I finally got around to looking at the offending Charlie Hebdo cartoons . . .

[markpkessinger]

So, I finally got around to looking at the Charlie Hebdo cartoons. I am pretty absolute in my support for freedom of speech and freedom of the press, including, and especially, when what is said or published is offensive. So yes, I support Charlie Hebdo's right, as a matter of law, to publish what it published, and it goes without saying that no one deserves to be murdered for it.

But having said that, I gotta say that much of the Charlie Hebdo material is really vile, racist, bigoted stuff. Calling it 'satire' is a bit of a stretch, for me at least. When I think of satire, I think of something that may indeed offend some who see it, but at least makes a point while doing so. Many of the Charlie Hebdo cartoons have no larger point to make. They seem to have been calculated to offend for the sake of offending -- truly lowest common denominator stuff. So the spectacle of a million people marching through the streets of Paris under the banner of "Je suis Charlie" strikes me as being akin to a million people marching on the National Mall in Washington, D.C. in support of a company that produces minstrel shows.

It just seems a shame to me that a country like France, which has long taken such pride in the high level of intellect and sophistication of its public discourse, could not find a more constructive way to respond to the attacks. And it seems sad that in a conversation has been all about the belligerent assertion of rights, there seems to be no room for any discussion of the responsible exercise of those rights.

[uppityperson]

1. I found this link elsewhere on DU, explaining some of them, please read it as we in USA are unaware

of their context and context matters.

http://www.vox.com/2015/1/7/7507883/charlie-hebdo-explained-covers

I think France's response has been great. What "more constructive way" would you have preferred?

[markpkessinger]

4. A start would be to eschew the clash-of-civilizations narrative n/t

[uppityperson]

12. OK. Did you read the link I gave explaining the context of some of the awful caricatures?

[SidDithers]

97. In the 4 minutes between your post and his reply?...

Doubtful.

Sid

[uppityperson]

107. maybe in the past?

[uppityperson]

58. Hello, in case you missed what I asked in the previous post you are replying to, did you look at

that link to better understand the context?

[Fred Sanders]

23. Excellent article. Some cartoons are good, some are bad, but Charlie clearly detested double

standards most of all.

And the context of each at the time they were published means a lot.

[uppityperson]

28. I have changed my mind over the last week, after reading the context of them.

Taken by themselves, they are truly awful. In context, they are more understandable.

[flamingdem]

82. It's critically important to read the explanations!!!! Thanks

There's no point in discussing the cartoons without knowing the context, oui!?

[uppityperson]

83. oui et merci. I changed my mind over the last week after acknowledging I had no idea of

the context. It is important and I still do not get them all, but it is important.

[ND-Dem]

85. no 'jokes' directed at judaism in that article though and no context for any. it also gets

facts wrong; it says Charlie resumed publishing in 1992 after a 3 year hiatus. in fact, it quit publishing in 1981 in its first iteration, so it was more like a 10+ year hiatus.

why should I trust the opinion of this article when it gets basic facts wrong?

[hifiguy]

133. Tnx for that great link.

That article provides a great background on Charlie Hebdo and invaluable context.

[Liberal_in_LA]

134. thanks for the link.

[hrmjustin]

2. I support the right to print it and I also find it offensive. n/t.

[PeaceNikki]

3. Oooo, more 'buts'. I contend you likely did not understand the context of what you were seeing.

[markpkessinger]

7. Most issues are better understood when one considers the "buts" involved . . .

Whatever the context, it is hard to understand how anyone could think that the cartoons have contributed to constructive dialogue with France's Muslim community.

[PeaceNikki]

13. ok, BUT did you look into the context of the drawings that you found racist or not?

[markpkessinger]

14. That context does not render the cartoons a constructive contribution . . .

. . . to the dialogue with the Muslim minority in France.

[PeaceNikki]

15. Muslim is not a race. So, no, you did not.

Got it.

Way to educate yourself on the matter.

[markpkessinger]

19. Okay, they're not a race . . .

. . . and while we're mentioning it, there is no such thing as 'race' in any case. Doesn't make it any less bigoted, though.

[PeaceNikki]

21. So you didn't look into context.

Way to educate yourself on the matter before voicing your opinion.

[markpkessinger]

27. You know, I have been very civil in these discussions . . .

. . . and you, in response, have been consistently rude and insulting. You disagree -- I get that, and I respect that. It's a shame you can't seem to extend the same in return.

[PeaceNikki]

45. That's your perception. I find it lazy and dishonest to refuse to look into context in a matter like

this.

France is a culture which differs from ours. I think your casting the label of 'racist' on the group of people who were brutally attacked is uncivil. Especially when you proudly declare that you won't look into the context of what you are interpreting as racist. They are a left wing publication and are not racist. You may not agree with what they do. You may find it juvenile, unfunny and offensive, but it's not racist.

[jberryhill]

22. It is how many people self-identify

Do you understand the context of this cartoon:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6094224

Do you understand:

1. What is the cartoon trying to say?

2. Why others than the cartoon's "target" would find it offensive.

I gather the principle of not discriminating on the basis of race, religion, sexual orientation, gender, and so on, is "one item too long" for some.

But we used to keep "religion" in that roster.

So, hey, let's see how many people we can alienate.

[KittyWampus]

46. Let's be clear- Moderate Muslims found it offensive and said so.

So why you and other DU'ers feel so compelled to keep trying to say it isn't is puzzling.

Cause I learned a lesson here on DU a while back- unless you are a Muslim YOU don't get to say what is considered by them racist. You can have your opinion but it's not particularly relevant.

And if you think I'm wrong, please go right ahead and start telling the African American DU'ers on this board what they should or should not find offensive/racist.

[PeaceNikki]

47. Charlie Hebdo is not racist.

They are a left wing publication and are not racist. You may not agree with what they do. You may find it juvenile, unfunny and offensive, but it's not racist.

[KittyWampus]

49. And Moderate Muslims found it so. SO YOU ARE WRONG.

[PeaceNikki]

50. Muslims are not a race.

[KittyWampus]

53. Oh, that's right. You think it's okay to offend Muslims but not blacks cause blacks are a race

and they can't change the color of their skin but someone can change their religion.

That is pretty much an exact quote from you.

#1. Race is a social construct to begin with.
#2. Race goes far beyond the color of someone's skin

You want to play stupid semantic games then fine- many of the cartoons depicting Muslims were BIGOTED.

Furthermore, the Inquisition agreed with you about religion being something easily changed. Jews after all just had to convert to escape torture/death. Jews may not have to change their skin color but men do have a tell-tale sign… and I'm not talking about their noses.

You have a lot of learning to do when it comes to race, ethnicity and bigotry.

I am no expert but have learned quite a bit over this lifetime and am willing to learn more.

[PeaceNikki]

54. Words mean things. It's still not racist.

[KittyWampus]

56. You have a lot to learn.

[PeaceNikki]

57. You need to learn what "racist" means, it seems.

[kcr]

59. Do all their cartoons only target one group?

I seem to remember others. Particularly the ones that look like something straight out of the 1920s. I'm sorry, but no cartoonist in 2015 should be drawing anyone like that. There's no context that excuses that.

[PeaceNikki]

60. Still not racist.

[kcr]

62. Is too! Nyah nyah!

Black face caricatures are great! Hilarious, even! So there! Really, what a level of discourse.

[belzabubba333]

86. because it mocks religion it's acceptable bigotry is what theyre saying

like I said if hebdo was making the tea party signs there wouldn't be all this cheerleading of their 1st amendment rights

[Spazito]

65. Wow, well said!

I completely agree with everything you state in your post.

[jberryhill]

72. I am a white male

I do not get to decide what is offensive to women or to minorities.

Are you Muslim?

[PeaceNikki]

75. being racist and offensive are different things.

Reread my replies.

All racism is offensive. Not everything offensive is racist.

[Bluenorthwest]

93. I'm a gay white male and I have had several straight people try to tell me those cartoons are

homophobic. Guess what? Thinking they are homophobic, THAT'S homophobic. But they sure do not hesitate to tell gay people what we should think as part of defending religions that attack us for any criticism of any kind.

And when LGBT people in this Party were greatly offended by a string of anti gay preachers in the Obama campaign culminating with Rick 'they are all pedophiles' Warren at the Inuagural, our being offended was far from valid to DU, Obama or this Party. We were told to take it. 'Poutrage' and 'you people just want your pony'. Obama went on and on about how hateful preachers were always going to be 'at his table' and if we wanted to join we'd have to endure their venom.

So this 'they say they are offended so it is offensive' thinking only seems to apply to some selected groups that have the actual respect of this Party. Gay people need not apply for such empathy, that is reserved for mass murderers upset at cartoons.

[bravenak]

102. But Arabs are. And they mostly picked on Muslim ARABS.

White Atheists and Christians spending their time devoted to 'making fun' of Muslim Arabs, who are a minority population, is racist. There are over a billion muslims in the world and plenty are NOT Arab.
And that picture of those girls with their hands out for welfare checks was racist to me. Period. Full fucking stop. When your nation has a history of Slavery and colonization, it's not actually cool to be spending your time making them feel even more despised. France owned slaves until Haiti kicked them out. Then we have the colonizing of portions of Africa and the abuses there... Now we praise the white majority for spending their time making fun of 'religion'. Bull. They are fucking with the despised Arab minority population and we're giving them a pass because 'french humor'.
Russia has jokes. They joke about gays. That's bigoted. You would never say, it's not homophobia cause we don't get Russian humor. Maybe, just maybe, people find it easy as hell to beat up on minorities and get plenty of support. They do it here all the time. They pretend that their jokes are not racist too, we just don't get it, they say. Bull.

I'm an atheist who has no time for constantly fucking with the same group of people over and over and expect them to laugh. I have been followed around called names over and over by laughing white christians until I snapped. They told me that wasn't racist too. The took a vote. They won. They had the numbers to decide how much crap I had to take from them on a daily. I wanted to strangle the entire crew. I heard ever nigger joke in the world starting at 8 years old. Every day for two years. Same shit right there. They even did mexican jokes when they ran out of black jokes sometimes. My name, you know, I get called wetbacks too. Fun. Free speech.


People have the right to free speech. And free speech ain't free. Not for me. I get the speech directed at me all the time. For 33 years. I always think , maybe I'll snap on somebody again.

[Bluenorthwest]

108. Most of the Muslims in France are not Arabs, they are Berbers from North Africa

Their word for their own people is i-Mazigh-en, which means 'Free People' which they were until invaded by Arabs who imposed their culture and the Arabic language onto the people, just as the French would later do to them again.
In my personal experience, Muslims and others who are not Arabs do not always care to be called such, and do really like to be named as they name themselves.
Additionally, actual Arabs own and operate several very wealthy nations that indulge in lavish developments and massive international incomes. The treatment of non Arab Muslims in Arab nations is not always admirable. Arab nations employ thousands under conditions most of us call slave or forced labor. Dubai, sparking city of towers, built by such labor. There are many Arabs that are in need of great criticism, wealthy, powerful and dripping in human rights abuses against other Muslims, Arab and otherwise.

[bravenak]

109. They sure ain't white, though. I mentioned africa. They pick on Africans too.

I notice they mostly pick on BROWN people. Is that better for you? Members of the white majority picking on brown people, supported by other white people. Yay!!
I am not talking about problems between Arabs. That is the BLACK ON BLACK or in their case BROWN ON BROWN crime defense tactic used by the right wing to deflect from the apparent racism of the white majority picking on and ridiculing the despised minority. Hello!! I have eyes!

Gotta remember that europeans colonized everybody elses land and brought their culture to many places and used the same tactics against the indiginous populations in Africa, Americas, Australia....
Then they destroyed the cultures of the oppressed and when the oppressed move to Europe, Europeans oppress them there. It's obvious.

After the welfare check picture. I cannot unsee that. Making fun of brown people- a european past time since the crusades.

[kcr]

48. Wish I could rec this

[treestar]

105. I agree, it's amazing the anti-intellectualism it takes

to use this "but" argument to make us shut down discussion of the cartoons themselves. The underlying premise they won't say is that the attack means we cannot criticize the cartoons. It's that old saw that people become brave actors because they became victims. No wonder people always seek the victim role in an argument. It makes you critique-proof.

[PeaceNikki]

5. As long as you're catching up, here's some additional reading.

http://flyingfrenchy.kinja.com/charlie-hebdo-and-why-its-always-been-an-anti-racist-ne-1678770097/1678993766/+maxread

http://www.quora.com/What-was-the-context-of-Charlie-Hebdos-cartoon-depicting-Boko-Haram-sex-slaves-as-welfare-queens

[kcr]

29. I might have missed it

Because there was a lot there. But I didn't see the context that makes them not racist.

[PeaceNikki]

31. Hint: it's in the one titled "Charlie Hebdo Isn’t Racist—It’s the Exact Opposite"

http://flyingfrenchy.kinja.com/charlie-hebdo-and-why-its-always-been-an-anti-racist-ne-1678770097/1678993766/+maxread

[kcr]

34. Yes. And I'm sorry, but I didn't see anything that made them not racist.

None of the explanations made them not racist.

[PeaceNikki]

37. Which cartoons did you think were racist and I will spoonfeed it to you?

[kcr]

38. No thanks

It's obvious you're just spoiling for a fight.

[PeaceNikki]

40. Or you are by attributing qualities that do not exist. It's not racist.

[kcr]

41. I thought I was being civil

Calling something racist is spoiling for a fight? Okay.

[Desert805]

112. yeah, kinda. It's a strong statement. Can you back it up or not?

[kcr]

113. Wondering if I took a wrong turn and ended up at The Discussionist

I've never figured out how to post pictures on DU. But plenty of people here have. I'm sure it won't be hard to find.

[Desert805]

114. You called something racist, were presented with contradicting facts, doubled down,

and then you were asked to present your case & your reply was "am I on Discussionist?"

Maybe you should be!

[kcr]

115. What contradicting facts would those be?

No, I think it's those who argue that something isn't racist, claiming it's because of context, meanwhile refusing to consider the context that leads many others see it as racist, are the ones who may find Discussionist more to their liking.

[Desert805]

119. CONTEXT IS EVERYTHING.

/all caps

[kcr]

120. Indeed it is

Is the context that leads people to view things as racist not meaningful or allowable?

[Desert805]

128. You were asked to provide such context

Because it doesn't jibe with the facts (the magazine is not a racist publication). Unless you can present a case otherwise...

[kcr]

132. Getting more Discussiony with each exchange

Because one would think it would be obvious. Look, I know some people think that good people can't be racist. Progressives can't be racist. Liberals can't be racist. If one didn't MEAN to be racist, well, then, they aren't. But that's not true. I can give the benefit of the doubt and assume that's the case at least some of the time in the defense of these cartoons. But then I'm not so sure if you're honestly asking me to explain why anyone would find those cartoons racist.

[brush]

130. Just curious . . .

are you a person of color?

You keep saying "it's not racist", so to know that unequivocally you'd kinda have to be a POC.

[nomorenomore08]

66. Thanks for those links. They provide some context that I was missing.

"Tasteless"/off-color humor can be, and often is, used in the service of good (anti-racism etc.).

Also, it's important to distinguish between dislike of Islam (or Christianity) as a religion, and dislike of Muslims (or Christians) as people. The former is perfectly legitimate, the latter is simple bigotry.

[PeaceNikki]

68. Exactly. With context, you may still disagree with them, but I think educating yourself on it

is important before hurling around loaded accusations like "racism".

I find it lazy and dishonest to refuse to look into context in a matter like this. Especially when it's given to you.

France is a culture which differs from ours. I think casting the label of 'racist' on the group of people who were just brutally attacked is uncivil and uncalled for. Especially if you proudly declare that you won't look into the context of what you are interpreting as racist. They are a left wing publication and are not racist. You may not agree with what they do. You may find it juvenile, unfunny and offensive, but it's not racist.

[msongs]

6. right here on DU people enjoyed pics of W as a chimpanzee, etc. nt

[markpkessinger]

16. Wasn't around for that . . .

. . . but I would have regarded that to be juvenile and in poor taste as well.

[abelenkpe]

8. Freedom of speech

http://news.artnet.com/art-world/paul-mccarthy-beaten-up-over-butt-plug-sculpture-136129


But not for this artist.

[oberliner]

10. What has Paul McCartney come to?

Oh wait, never mind.

[nomorenomore08]

36. "He was apparently additionally upset by the fact that McCarthy is not French."

How predictable...

[cilla4progress]

9. Hear, hear.

Just because you can, doesn't mean you should.

[oberliner]

11. Should we be careful about how we make fun of Republicans here?

We need to keep it from being offensive. Right?

[cilla4progress]

17. There's a line, and there's context.

It's not that difficult.

If, as has been reported, there were cartoons of the Prophet Muhammed fellating, I think that crosses the line.

Does it illuminate? Is it provocative for any reasons other than getting eyeballs? Does it contribute to the dialogue? Is it culturally offensive and ethnocentric? Does it add to the discussion, or only incite violence.

You be the judge.

Yeah free speech. And yelling fire in a crowded theater is fine, too.

[oberliner]

25. I think that the CH cartoons had that context

There are several posts that help to provide that context and explain what individual cartoons were going for.

Have you seen the particular cartoon in question?

[jberryhill]

26. Um, yeah...

Or weren't you around for the characterization of "Mann Coulter" as being offensive to transgendered people?

Or calling Sarah Palin a "bitch"?

Or twittering about Lindsey Graham's mannerisms?

Or "Chris Christie is fat" jokes.

Yeah, you can criticize Republicans AND be offensive at the same time.

[oberliner]

43. But none of those are problematic because they offend Republicans, are they?

It seems like they are problematic for other reasons.

Are there any that have been of concern due to how they might be perceived by the Republicans being satirized?

[jberryhill]

70. Kinda the point though

The characterizations in the cartoons are offensive to people other than the ones targeted. You've seen the way Jews are portrayed in them, yes?

[oberliner]

117. But no one worries about offending the targeted group, in this case Republicans

Because we feel the ideology is deserving of mockery and scorn.

[kcr]

121. That's key. We aren't worried about offending them, so we don't care.

Add me into that group, btw. But at least some of us do care about some other groups. We don't care about offending the Repubs, but that doesn't change the fact that some at least are offended. I wouldn't tell the targeted Repubs that the material isn't offensive. I'd just continue to not care they were offended. It's one thing to not care if a material offends, but quite another to tell an offended party that material offensive to them isn't.

[oberliner]

122. Why don't we worry about that?

Many of them are good people. Many of them are poor and downtrodden. I would argue that we don't care because we think the ideology they espouse in its most extreme form is dangerous and harmful. Could that not apply to religions?

[kcr]

123. I can only tell you why I don't worry about that

Republicans aren't as a group disadvantaged. They do set policies that hurt those who are. There are few if any redeeming qualities about them as a group. My point is not and has never been it's never okay to mock and one should never do it. My point definitely is not one should never criticize. Criticism is vital.

[cilla4progress]

80. Again,

Context. Republicans -for good or for ill - have not been oppressed, had war waged against them and been discriminated against by Westerners, etc., as Muslims are. No moral equivalence

[oberliner]

116. Islam is one of the most powerful ideologies in the world

Muslims in Niger are not discriminated against. They make up over 99 percent of the population.

Yet some have been burning churches in protest over a cartoon in France.

[cilla4progress]

124. I think that's a different point.

Muslims in Europe are.

[KittyWampus]

51. Here's a simple concept for you- it's called punching up or down. Republicans control media

and have billions of dollars behind them. That is called punching UP.

See? This isn't hard to understand.

[oberliner]

52. Islam and Christianity are the two largest religions in the world

They are responsible for epic amounts of violence and oppression not only globally but even within individual families.

You can't punch any higher up than that.

[jberryhill]

71. Muslims tend to get blown to bits more often

[oberliner]

118. Generally speaking by other Muslims

In any case, I think secularists around the world should not feel that they have to exhibit caution in mocking Islam any more or less than another religion.

[Bluenorthwest]

103. I offer first Rick Warren punching down at LGBT people a month before the Inaugural and YOUR words

and a link to the thread under your OP of advice to those who were objecting to the horrific and very crystal clear denigration by Rick Warren of LGBT people.

Rick Warren Compares Gay Marriage to Incest, Pedophilia
http://www.pensitoreview.com/2008/12/18/rick-warren-compares-gay-marriage-to-incest-pedophila/



Kitty Wampus on Rick Warren:
Some On DU Think Bigots Should Be Shunned Or Treated In Kind-
"Social Justice is a goal most of us on DU really want to work towards. But that work isn't easy and involves dealing with other Americans who are simply NOT as intellectually and emotionally evolved as we are.
That means putting up with, constantly reaching out to and ultimately working with people are whose ignorance causes them to make ALL our lives miserable.
Simply repressing anger can lead to problems but to keep spurring it on is corrosive.
The ideal for those who want to engage constructively changing society for the better is to transform anger into determination and desire for change.
There is ALWAYS Common Ground, no matter how small a piece of real estate it may be, and that is the starting point for working with those who are misguided and recalcitrant.
“The strong man is not the one who can wrestle another to the ground; the strong man is the one who can control himself when he is angry.”
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x7999325

Not a fucking word about 'punching down' or about how denigrating speech about a powerless minority is a offense that requires response. No pondering the ethics of violent responses to very serious and terrible words. Instead what we got was lots of parsing and hairsplitting and rhetoric designed to quite any criticism of an open, actual bigot so that the bigot could be calmly honored by the new Democratic President while the entire Straight Party bowed heads and said amen brother to a hate mongering bigot.

I find the contrast to be remarkable, telling and dripping with rhetorical opportunism.
Edited to add a second link to a thread about Rick Warren punching down at LGBT people with vigor in which you make some comments that make further context for our current discussions. It's unreal.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8033672

[treestar]

104. Republicans are never offended

They are shameless. It's almost impossible to offend them. If they claim they are, it is posturing.

[nomorenomore08]

32. And just because you "shouldn't" doesn't mean you can't... Works both ways...

[nomorenomore08]

18. I thought of rec'ing this OP, but I'm honestly torn.

I agree that some of the cartoons in question are needlessly inflammatory, and even bigoted, but I'm also concerned that focusing on that aspect may serve to diminish the awfulness of the horrifically disproportionate response, carried out by religious fanatics whose beliefs are fundamentally incompatible with modernity and democracy.

Yes, rights do (or should) come with a measure of responsibility - see gun ownership for a concrete, real-world example. But said responsibilities should not include having to fear murderous retribution in response to a freaking political cartoon.

[3catwoman3]

20. You said it well.

"...no larger point to make. They seem to have been calculated to offend for the sake of offending -- truly lowest common denominator stuff."

I had similar thoughts over the Rogan-Franco movie. Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should. To offend merely for the sake of giving offense seems very self-serving and immature.

[Ms. Toad]

24. There are a handful of us saying the same or similar things

since the "Je suis Charlie" meme started.

Lots of attempts to shame us into silence - some subtle, some rude enough to be hidden.

But there is a significant difference between defending CH's right to speak as obnoxiously as it wants - and insisting that emulating it (and shaming those who won't) is the only progressive response to the murders.

[markpkessinger]

30. Thank you . . .

. . . the level of incivility in these threads has been dismaying.

[Texasgal]

33. I listened to NPR soon after the tragedy.

It appears that the "cartoonists" and things like Charlie Hebdo is a big part of French culture. I certainly do not agree with the content but France is very different from how America reacts to anything.

[ananda]

35. Agree. Not satire.

The Hebdo creations are grotesque lampoons in the worst sense.

But like you, I also defend freedom of speech.

[oberliner]

39. Would this one be OK?

[uppityperson]

55. THAT is a great comparison, thank you.

Context matters

[kcr]

64. Dick Cheney, a very powerful white American male is a great comparison?

Hmmm

[uppityperson]

67. No, the satiric cartoon. Is it like Charlie Hebdo's "grotesque lampoons in the worst sense"?

Maybe you missed the start of this subthread, read it for context. Or are you, as you put it upthread, "just spoiling for a fight"?

[kcr]

69. No. This punches up, like satire is supposed to.

"Satire" that doesn't is usually just racism and/or bigotry claiming to be satire and anyone who doesn't agree just doesn't understand. The oldest trick in the book.

[uppityperson]

74. Since CH was a small local Parisian paper, I doubt you or I knew all the contexts. Read this

linked article for more info.
http://www.vox.com/2015/1/7/7507883/charlie-hebdo-explained-covers

Someone not knowing the context of the Cheney in drag cartoon would find it bigoted. I do not know the context of every satire, neither do you, exceptional as you may be and context matters.

Read the article I gave the link for, it is educational.

[kcr]

111. True, but so far no one has shown a context that makes them not racist, bigoted or offensive

[Augustus]

42. This OP is meaningless nonsense without you expanding further

Simply stating "much of the Charlie Hebdo material is really vile, racist, bigoted stuff" without linking to, showing, or even describing any specific examples makes any discussion in this OP a waste of time.

Tell us exactly which ones offended you and why. Then watch as you get proven wrong, over and over again.

[MellowDem]

44. Context is something you don't seem to care for...

Judging by your posts. If a foreigner saw some of our satirists without context, they'd think them racist too.

[Beringia]

61. Society needs Heyokas

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heyoka


Heyókȟa are thought of as being backwards-forwards, upside-down, or contrary in nature. It was manifest by doing things backwards or unconventionally — riding a horse backwards, wearing clothes inside-out, or speaking in a backwards language. For example, if food were scarce, a heyókȟa would sit around and complain about how full he was; during a baking hot heat wave a heyókȟa would shiver with cold and put on gloves and cover himself with a thick blanket. Similarly, when it is freezing he will wander around naked complaining that it is too hot. A unique example is the famous heyókȟa sacred clown called "the Straighten-Outer":

He was always running around with a hammer trying to flatten round and curvy things (soup bowls, eggs, wagon wheels, etc.), thus making them straight.
— John Fire Lame Deer

[jtuck004]

63. I agree. We, the country that tortures people for pleasure, should be the ones who decry

their abandonment of "high level of intellect and sophistication".

[valerief]

73. And we got vile racist terrorist Rush Limbaugh. That's free speech for ya! nt

[iandhr]

76. They made fun of everyone and

Last edited Sat Jan 17, 2015, 02:49 AM - Edit history (1)

and everything. Jon Stewart used the term team civilization. People who shoot people because of drawings and take people hostage in a grocery store are barbaric monsters.

[jberryhill]

78. So does the KKK

I don't understand that point.

The KKK dislikes Jews, Muslims, Africans, Asians, and a whole roster of folks.

So?

[iandhr]

84. I am Jewish

When the KKK or anti Semitic group draws and an anti semitic/racist cartoons or flyers they don't get massacred by a group of masked gunman.

Charlie mocked ALL religion including Christianity and Judaism. Only radical Muslim extremists saw massacring the producers as the answer.

[bhikkhu]

77. A million people marching for liberty sure beats "Shock and Awe" in Yemen

or other possible responses that might have passed for "constructive", had the killings occurred here.

[McKim]

79. Birmingham Civil Rights Museum/Center Has a Wall of Racist Cartoons

I agree with the original poster. The Charlie Hebdo cartoons are vile and racist. We deplore these kinds of racist cartoons in the U.S. when we see images of Blacks in racist cartoons. It brings to mind my visit to The Birmingham Alabama Civil Rights Center and Museum recognizes these images as racist. There cartoons are displayed so that they are can be deplored and they serve to show how bad things were before the Civil Rights Era. We recognize how disgusting they are. But the Charlie Hebdo cartoons are called "free speech". This is a contradiction. I agree with the Pope on this one.

[truebrit71]

81. So you agree there should be limits on "free speech"...

... very progressive...

Context is everything, and the cartoons are not racist IN CONTEXT. You are applying American standards to a French cartoon. That is taking it out of context.

I really don't understand why it is so difficult for some to wrap their heads around this?

[cilla4progress]

106. Do you support the right

of Nazis to march in our streets?

[truebrit71]

125. Yes. I don't have to like what they have to say....

.... but they have an absolute right to say it...

[cilla4progress]

127. Even though they advocate for slaughtering

millions based on their religion, race, sexual orientation?

Ok, well, that helps me understand better.

What if they were advocating for sexual molestation of children?

In other words: is the right to free speech entirely unfettered? Or should commonsense prevail?

[brush]

131. I can't understand why . . .

Last edited Mon Jan 19, 2015, 08:54 AM - Edit history (1)

so many can't wrap their heads around what French Muslims feel.

Not important if they feel some of the cartoons are racist I guess.

And by saying that I am in no way condoning the attacks.

[Bluenorthwest]

101. When you agree with the Pope, remember you are agreeing with a man who regularly insults

millions of people and their mothers who says that if someone insults you or your mother he should expect to be punched in the nose. It's pretty hypocritical and contradictory.
Also bear in mind that this man who says you are permitted to punch someone if they offend you claims to be the Vicar of Christ who said that if someone offends you you should rejoice and that if they punch you you should invite them to punch you a second time.
Hypocrisy and contradiction and even heretical teachings. I'm not sure Francis has all of his marbles.

[Laughing Mirror]

87. They wrapped themselves in the pages of CharlieHebdo

the way others wrapped themselves in Old Glory, after 9-11.

Mass hysteria. George Bush told them to go shopping, and this time around they bought 3 or 5 million copies of a rag they couldn't even get 30,000 people to read before. Largely, I wonder if it wasn't party due to the fact that that particular "journal irresponsable" as CharlieHebdo trumpets on its cover, just happens to have jumped onto George Bush's crusade against terror following 9-11, and has pushed that neo-conservative war machine ever since. President Chirac did not jump on the bandwagon, and concerning CharlieHebdo's printing the Danish cartoons, said in 2006: "I condemn all manifest provocations susceptible of dangerously stoking passions" (word for word translation).

Of course, nobody knows any of the background of leftist CharlieHebdo magazine's editorial swerve to the George Bush war machine of the right-wing some 13 years ago. I didn't know about this either, the new path CharlieHebdo, the new war path, was on until I read a long article, written a year ago, from a cartoonist who left CharlieHebdo right after 9-11, just exactly because of that new bent the magazine had taken. He saw how it had turned, among other things, into a place with a newfound fanaticism constantly targeting anything Arab, African, Black, people who represented a significant unrepresented minority in this country, France. Now it all made sense. Don't attack the powers that be, attack the people who have no power. The height or irresponsibility. But that's the magazine's credo. How funny is that?

Watching the fallout from my perch in Paris, only three blocks from that mass assembly at Place de la Répubiguqe, is quite interesting. The repressive measures have already begun.

Hallelujah JeSuisCharlie. Voilà the fallout of your avowed irresponsibility, Charlie.

[ucrdem]

90. Here's the link to the article you mention by the former CH editor:

http://www.counterfire.org/articles/opinion/17616-former-charlie-hebdo-employee-lambasts-its-racist-trajectory

[Laughing Mirror]

96. Thank you, ucrdem

I saw that in French, and did not know there was an English version.

Guy Bedos, French humorist from same 1968 (soixante-huitard) generation as the Charlie Hebdo crowd, is among others who have made similar reflections about the magazine and what happened to it and its inflammatory editorial bent, brought about by its ideological shift intent on drumming up hate (because it makes them laugh) where there may have not been much hate before.

[ucrdem]

110. De rien, de même, and thanks to all DUers in France

pour vos histoires fascinantes ... they are very much appreciated!

[carolinayellowdog]

99. Majority-minority relations is a context you bring to this discussion

Your contributions have been excellent, and I wish more people here could remember that once upon a time DU was a haven from Islamophobic groupthink that had turned most Americans into zombies.

[Laughing Mirror]

100. That's what the crux of all this is for me

Beating up on an oppressed minority, people of color, notably, black and brown, Central African and North African, none of whom have any real political power (no elected representatives on the national stage) in France, just various and disparate voices, many desperate voices, not all of them saying what other people (the white European majority) may want to hear. Because it requires looking in the mirror and recognizing that none of them experience the world, their world in France, the same way.

[ucrdem]

88. The covers are appalling, and the cartoons inside are even worse.

I would not expect any DU jury to give me a pass on the more vile ones, so I'm not going to post them, but they are easily accessible using a google search, though one would need to remove any content restrictions as they are definitely NSFW.

[Pooka Fey]

89. Well, maybe it's a good thing that an ISIL related terror cell in France killed them

[ucrdem]

91. No. And Benghazi wasn't a good thing either. nt

[Pooka Fey]

92. "No" This I understand. "And Benghazi blah blah blah" Perhaps off-topic, please clarify

On the evening of September 11, 2012, Islamic militants attacked the American diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya, killing U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and U.S. Foreign Service Information Management Officer Sean Smith.[6] Stevens was the first U.S. Ambassador killed on duty since 1979.[7]

Several hours later, a second assault targeted a different compound about one mile away, killing two CIA contractors, Tyrone S. Woods and Glen Doherty.[8][9] Ten others were also injured in the attacks.

Many Libyans condemned the attacks and praised the late ambassador. They staged public demonstrations condemning the militias (formed during the civil war to oppose leader Colonel Muammar Gaddafi),[10][11][12] which were suspected of the attacks.

The United States immediately increased security worldwide at diplomatic and military facilities and began investigating the Benghazi attack.[13][14] In the aftermath of the attack, State Department officials were criticized for denying requests for additional security at the consulate prior to the attack. As Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton subsequently took responsibility for the security lapses.[15]

On August 6, 2013, it was reported that the U.S. had filed criminal charges against several individuals, including militia leader Ahmed Abu Khattala, for alleged involvement in the attacks.[16] Khattala has been described by Libyan and U.S. officials as the Benghazi leader of Ansar al-Sharia, which was listed in January 2014 by the U.S. Department of State as a terror organization.[17][18][19] On the weekend of June 14, 2014, U.S. special forces, in coordination with the FBI, captured Khattala in Libya.[20]

Initially, it was reported by the media the Benghazi attack was a spontaneous protest triggered by an anti-Muslim video, Innocence of Muslims.[21] Subsequent investigations determined that there was no such protest and that the attacks were premeditated;[22] captured suspect Ahmed Abu Khattala stated that the assault was in retaliation for the video.[23][24]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Benghazi_attack

[ucrdem]

95. Paragraph 6.

Beyond that I have no further knowledge. I will say however that I strongly deplore all 20 of the assassinations and grieve for the families of the victims and their communities.

[Warren Stupidity]

94. Ah another "sure massacres are wrong but"

Salmon Rushdie, Burlington Vermont:

SALMAN RUSHDIE: Charlie Hebdo attacked everything: Muslims, the Pope, Israel, Rabbis, black people and white people, gay people and straight people. It has attacked every kind of human being, because what? It was making fun. It's strategy was to make fun of people. And it was seen as that: it was very loved, these cartoonists were beloved in France.

And now, the moment somebody says, "yes I believe in free speech, BUT," I stop listening.

You know: "I believe in free speech, but people should behave themselves." "I believe in free speech, but we shouldn't upset anybody." "I believe in free speech but let us not go too far."

The point about it is the moment you limit free speech, it is not free speech. The point is that is was free. You can dislike Charlie Hebdo, not all their drawings are funny, but the fact that you dislike them has nothing to do with their right to speak. The fact that you don't like them in no way excuses their murder.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/01/15/salman_rushdie_the_moment_you_limit_free_speech_it_is_not_free_speech.html

[Bluenorthwest]

98. I wonder if people here can manage to do a thought experiment using a US cartoon? Do you dare?

I'm going to post a link to a cartoon posted on DU. It is an American cartoon which we understand instantly because we know who the characters are and what point of view is being expressed. However, the basic, surface elements of the cartoon say the opposite of the actual satirical message of the cartoon.

It's an image of a crazed looking, furious Christian bellowing from a TV screen while a man dressed to indicate he is Muslim shouts 'All Christians must be accountable for this guy'.
It seems to be a cartoon of a Muslim blaming all Christians for a rotten Christian, the drawing even makes the Muslim seem very human and the Christian very distorted.
But because we are able to instantly identify 'Pat' and know who he is, because we know the current events and dynamics around faith groups, we instantly know that this cartoon 'means' the very opposite of what it actually shows and says.
It is a cartoon which mocks the idea that all Muslims must account for actions of bad Muslims. But on the surface, without the set, the setting and the context, it is a drawing of a Muslim blaming all Christians for the words of a demonic looking lunatic.

If a person did not know Pat, or world events, did not speak English and did not know America, their 'critique' of that cartoon might be that it is blaming Christians, who are portrayed as less human than the Muslim in a way that might seem unfair.
But because we do know Pat and the events and the language and the culture, we know it is a cartoon that is actually about hypocrisy. It is about equity, not blame, about double standards against Muslims. But in a bad translation of words and cultural elements, it very easily could be described as the very opposite of what it really is. That is the nature of satirical comics.
So take a look and try to wear the imagination cap and see this comic as you might see it if you were from Mars. If you can.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026085918

[merrily]

126. If freedom of speech does not include things that are offensive, it's not freedom of speech.

And it seems sad that in a conversation has been all about the belligerent assertion of rights, there seems to be no room for any discussion of the responsible exercise of those rights.

Timing matters, too. Think of the stand up comic's standby line, "Too soon?" You don't show up at a crime scene with "Let's be honest: those cartoon's were offensive and probably not even really all that funny." Neither of those things are reasons for anyone to die.

[markpkessinger]

135. Of course it's no reason to die , , ,

. . . and I said as much in my OP. And I agree with you that if freedom of speech doesn't protect offensive speech, then its a sham, and there really is no freedom of speech. As I said, I defend Charlie Hebdo's right, as a matter of kaw, to publish the material they publish.

What I am talking about, though, is how an organization such as Charlie Hebdo goes about doing what it does in a responsible way in a multicultural society, making a constructive contribution to the public discourse, rather than creating material it surely knew would give grave offense. And yes, before anybody says it, I'm aware that Charlie Hebdo is, as some put it, an equal opportunity offender. But I submit that deliberately insulting a minority community that already believes itself to be (and certainly is in many respects), marginalized within a society, is really rather different from the same kinds of offenses when they are directed at groups who are not so marginalized. And hiding behind the fact that they offend other groups as well strikes me as being woefully obtuse -- not unlike white people in this country who refuse to acknowledge or admit that there is such a thing as "white privilege." but the longer the focus stays on the question of "freedom of speech", and the longer the narrative continues to be one of the West versus Islam, the less likely it is that French society as a whole will begin to address that problem.

[merrily]

136. Nazis marching in Skokie were deliberately offensive to a minority that had escaped the Holocaust.

And to many Americans who had recently come through World War II, some without limbs, some buried in Europe. Yet, the rationale was that we had to prtect that march or lose our own rights.

In theory, if you don't like speech, you refute it. You don't kill the speaker or even seek to silence him.

"the longer the narrative continues to be one of the West versus Islam"


Respectfully, your comments are contributing to that narrative by suggesting there was some special reason why it may have been okay for Charlie to mock every religion EXCEPT Islam. Why? Yes, Christians are a majority in France, but Jews are not.

Who decides when speech is offensive? The Smothers Brothers fought for the right of Pete Seeger to sing The Big Muddy on their show. Different because attacking a war and a President? Sure, but "offensive" to many who were fighting that war at the time or had kids fighting that war at the time, of had lost kids in that war.

And, as I have mentioned before, timing is an issue as well.

[JonLP24]

129. I agree with you

I don't know anything about their content or the satirical message behind their latest cover (I don't understand French) but early editions such as the "100 lashes if you don't (or do?) die of laughter" was a caricature on par on offensiveness as the Cleveland Indians.

I don't think depictions itself are a problem, this has been done in Muslim majority countries but dominant minority brutal cults are offended by any images or depictions even things as harmless "Mohammed Cat" from Bangladesh's leading dailies, if they are offensive then I can see them being reasonable offensive by civilians and organizations like Anti-Defamation League, NCAI who opposes race based high school to pro team names & mascots.

You also don't want to adopt an 'us vs team' approach or use a double standard. This helps ISIS & similar groups who rely heavily on propaganda & violence as apart of their idealogy, those that view it as confirming all a long what Charlie Hedbo has been saying (the more people make it about Islam, the more it confirms what their cults preach which includes ISIS whose leader proclaims himself to be leader of all Muslims).

France has always had a well documented & well known Islamaphobia problem so they always struck me as nation that simply reacts rather than understands the situation.