Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Denzil_DC

(9,103 posts)
66. Here's some explanations of the context of some of the cartoons.
Sun Jan 11, 2015, 10:23 AM
Jan 2015

I posted part of this post on another thread in response to another DUer, but for those who are genuinely curious, here it is again:

I did find this Quora discussion which may be food for thought:

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

Here's one person there's explanation of that particular cartoon (the link has some background on others, too):

This cover is mixing two unrelated elements which made the news at about the same time:
- Boko Haram victims likely to end up sex slaves in Nigeria
- Decrease of French welfare allocations

In France, as in probably every country who has welfare allocations, some people criticize this system because some people might try to game it (e.g., "welfare queens" idea). Note that if we didn't had it there would probably be much more people complaining because the ones who really need it would end up in extreme poverty.

Charlie Hebdo is known for being left-wing attached and very controversial, and I think they wanted to parody people who criticize "welfare queens" by taking this point-of-view to the absurd, to show that immigrant women in France are more likely to be victims of patriarchy than evil manipulative profiteers.

And of course if we only stay on the first-degree approach, it's a terrible racist and absurd cover.


Similarly, the "monkey" cartoon is explained like this:

The first clue that all is not what it seems is that the cartoon was drawn by Charb - the editor himself. He was a Communist, and his girlfriend's parents were North African. A funny kind of racist. Next you have to note that the text next to that cartoon says "Rassemblement Bleu Raciste". This is a play on "Rassemblement Bleu Marine", the slogan of Marine Le Pen's national front, and the tricolor flame next to it is the party logo.

So, what you then need to know is that the cartoon was published after a National Front politician Facebooked a photoshop of the woman in the cartoon as a monkey, and then said on French TV that she should be "in a tree swinging from the branches rather than in government".


I've seen other French people elsewhere discussing this who evidently didn't get these references, or if they did, didn't think they were worthwhile, and have a different take on Charlie Hebdo's politics, feeling that they went for shock value in order to boost sales.

My problem with people outside France simply reproducing these particular cartoons as part of "Je suis Charlie Hebdo" - which they're obviously free to do - is that they're removed from their context, which makes them ambiguous - to non-French audiences, probably not even ambiguous, but incomprehensible, if not downright offensive to some, and cheeringly offensive in a non-liberal way to others (like those who love to circulate cartoons of Obama as a monkey, for instance). Again, they're obviously entirely free to do so, but how many understand what they're circulating, and how many who see them understand what they portray?

On the other hand, I don't think there's similar ambiguity about a number of the other cartoons about religious figures or French politicians. They're often scatological or sexually explicit. There's a long tradition of that in satire, not just in France (the British 19th-century cartoonist Rowlandson, among others, is definitely NSFW at times). I also find some of the depictions of Jews and Muslims very stereotyped - which may be part of the joke, but is a bit sophisticated for something that's going to sit on a newsstand and be visible to people who aren't necessarily going to take the time to parse it.

I'm not sure which cover cartoons are being most widely circulated now outside France. It might be interesting to know. It was apparently the ones of Mohammed that the murderers used as their "justification."*


* Since the original post, I've since heard reported on the BBC that another "justification" was the attacks on ISIS.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

I don't care how offensive and unfunny they might have been. The Velveteen Ocelot Jan 2015 #1
No one doubts that. Archae Jan 2015 #5
That's to be expected, but it's entirely beside the point. The Velveteen Ocelot Jan 2015 #8
Hear, hear. Moondog Jan 2015 #26
++ fadedrose Jan 2015 #69
Okay. Brickbat Jan 2015 #2
Not sure of your point here. zappaman Jan 2015 #3
A few news outlets are puffing up the magazine, making it seem more noble than it actually is. Archae Jan 2015 #7
So should the headlines be: The Velveteen Ocelot Jan 2015 #14
. Brickbat Jan 2015 #17
It can really depend on why the material is put out in the first place. Archae Jan 2015 #18
That seems to be an opinion? Lobo27 Jan 2015 #42
Everyone on DU agrees: they did not deserve death. arcane1 Jan 2015 #48
Not everyone. nt Dreamer Tatum Jan 2015 #57
Evidently Paris is a very "tough room" Fumesucker Jan 2015 #4
It can't be that tough; they think Jerry Lewis is funny. The Velveteen Ocelot Jan 2015 #6
Even "Which Way To The Front?" Archae Jan 2015 #9
Funny, I was going to mention Jerry Lewis being popular there Fumesucker Jan 2015 #12
I was attacked for saying that it was cheap vulgar humor, but that it might have made a profit. NYC_SKP Jan 2015 #10
You've said it all. Archae Jan 2015 #13
Yup. I believe that even Snooki would be hailed as a Hepburn incarnate. NYC_SKP Jan 2015 #15
Those were the days. It's all binary reaction now. arcane1 Jan 2015 #20
Let the extremists silence the Charlie Hebdos and they'll come for the more moderate critics next Fumesucker Jan 2015 #16
+ swilton Jan 2015 #21
"Attacked for freely expressing a very harmless minority opinion..." There's no irony in that. cherokeeprogressive Jan 2015 #23
You were attacked for victim blaming LostOne4Ever Jan 2015 #28
I was attacked for "perceived" victim blaming, people offended by "three innocent victims". NYC_SKP Jan 2015 #31
Blaming the victims. Bluenorthwest Jan 2015 #36
No, not blaming the victims. They assumed risk, but they did not deserve to die. NYC_SKP Jan 2015 #37
You call me intellectually lazy accuse me of playing safe then say you won't use insults. Bluenorthwest Jan 2015 #40
Let me post links to your comments: LostOne4Ever Jan 2015 #38
Whatever. NYC_SKP Jan 2015 #39
Elapsam Semel Occasionem Non Ipse Potest Iuppiter Reprehendere LostOne4Ever Jan 2015 #41
So it was the Charlie people who forced the terrorist to pull the trigger? Lobo27 Jan 2015 #43
Yes Lobo27, they went right up to those terrists and forced them to kill twelve peoples! NYC_SKP Jan 2015 #44
What else could they do? Lobo27 Jan 2015 #46
I don't think they did that. NYC_SKP Jan 2015 #47
You may be right, but you also may be wrong. Lobo27 Jan 2015 #50
Whatever: battle cry of the defeated nt Dreamer Tatum Jan 2015 #52
Yes, the natterers have exhausted me, I am spent, defeated, how could I have been so wrong? NYC_SKP Jan 2015 #53
Here's how you can be so wrong: Dreamer Tatum Jan 2015 #54
Three of the victims were 100% innocent, that is true. NYC_SKP Jan 2015 #55
How much did Dr Tiller have to own? Dreamer Tatum Jan 2015 #56
Vastly different situations, it's pointless to compare them for these reasons: NYC_SKP Jan 2015 #58
False. Tiller was performing under the law, as were the French artists. Dreamer Tatum Jan 2015 #59
Did I say that anyone was performing outside the law? No. NYC_SKP Jan 2015 #60
I'm insulting Tiller, but you're not insulting 9 innocent people? Dreamer Tatum Jan 2015 #62
++ fadedrose Jan 2015 #70
You were attacked? leftynyc Jan 2015 #65
NYC_SKP is now playing the victim card, having successfully made the massacre all about him. Warren Stupidity Jan 2015 #68
Thanks for the heads up leftynyc Jan 2015 #71
No you were attacked for blaming the victims of the attack, for stating that they shared some of the Warren Stupidity Jan 2015 #67
Careful! Thinking the cartoons are unfunny can make you a terrorist sympathizer around here. arcane1 Jan 2015 #11
Let's start a club. NYC_SKP Jan 2015 #45
It's not just cartoons... MattSh Jan 2015 #64
This was certainly the argument being made swilton Jan 2015 #19
If they were looking for notoriety, Blue_In_AK Jan 2015 #22
circulation numbers i've seen were 30,000-45,000. for a paris magazine, it's very small time. NewDeal_Dem Jan 2015 #24
Extremist Christians in Paris firebombed a Martin Scorsese film in 1988. The quality of the work Bluenorthwest Jan 2015 #25
So anytime something bad happens. Lobo27 Jan 2015 #27
they plan to print onemillion of the next issue Liberal_in_LA Jan 2015 #29
These are just my relative's observations. Archae Jan 2015 #30
I'm glad you shared, most of us haven't a clue. NYC_SKP Jan 2015 #32
Is your cousin Bill Donohue of the Catholic League? Bluenorthwest Jan 2015 #33
Ummmm, OK. That shouldn't change anyone's views of the murders in the slightest. Nye Bevan Jan 2015 #34
That particular news cwydro Jan 2015 #35
You're right there. Archae Jan 2015 #49
"The Last Temptation of Christ" was actually a very good movie The Velveteen Ocelot Jan 2015 #51
I don't understand this post ... seems like you are playing into their hands Wgles Jan 2015 #61
It's just an observation. That's all. Archae Jan 2015 #63
Link Wgles Jan 2015 #72
Here's some explanations of the context of some of the cartoons. Denzil_DC Jan 2015 #66
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»I was just talking to a r...»Reply #66