4 ms·

Yesterday the Guardian published the best opinion I've read so far about satire, Charlie Hebdo, the terrorist attacks and our reaction to them. And it's a short

by Udik 12y ago

Yesterday the Guardian published the best opinion I've read so far about satire, Charlie Hebdo, the terrorist attacks and our reaction to them. And it's a short comic strip by the cartoonist Joe Sacco: http://www.theguardian.com/world/ng-interactive/2015/jan/09/joe-sacco-on-satire-a-response-to-the-attacks http://www.theguardian.com/world/ng-interactive/2015/jan/09/...

mxfh 12y ago
While I respect Secco and his work as well it's also wrong and out of context in some regards. Ruben Bolling: http://gocomics.typepad.com/tomthedancingbugblog/2015/01/in-non-satirical-defense-of-charlie-hebdo.html http://gocomics.typepad.com/tomthedancingbugblog/2015/01/in-...
- jholman 12y ago
  I'd never heard of CH a week ago, and Bolling's interpretation of CH's cartooning may be more accurate than Secco's, and it was an interesting perspective. But I think that Bolling's conclusions are wrong, except perhaps when he rebuts Secco's use of the word "vapid". Bolling says that the only reasonable reaction to the murders is to defend free speech. No. Defending free speech is necessary, but it's not at all clear that it's sufficient. Freedom of the press isn't the only issue here. There are also issues of what to do about violence/security, what to do about racism, what to do about freedom of religion, etc. Those issues aren't any more important post-murder, but they were important before and they still are, and this is an opportunity to put some eyes on them. I don't interpret Sacco's piece as saying "CH is unworthy of our defense". I interpret it as saying "Let's defend CH, but also notice that they were missing the point, here's the point". Bolling argues that CH wasn't missing the point. But Sacco's proposal for where our greatest attention should lie is still a good proposal.
  - jules 12y ago
    What exactly do you see as Sacco's proposal? Maybe it's over my head, but as far as I can see his comic basically says that in response to the murders we should focus on not offending muslims.
    - jholman 12y ago
      I don't see anything in Sacco that says "we should not offend". I think Sacco's piece as a whole says three things, and I think that Bolling agrees with the first, rebuts the second, and ignores the third. From the tone of your question, I infer that you're asking me about that "third", but I'll just get the first two out of the way first. First: Of course we should defend free speech! (Okay, good, glad we got that out of the way. We all agree, yay.) Second: CH is "tweaking the nose of muslims", and that's "vapid". (Bolling says that's not what CH is doing. I have no idea if Bolling is correct, but it seems plausible. So let's assume Bolling has rebutted Sacco on this.) Third: Thinking critically about geopolitics would be more interesting and constructive than "tweaking .. noses". There might be geopolitical and sociological reasons why there exist so many more Muslim-affiliated suicide bombers than there are first-world/modern/white/Christian/etc suicide bombers. Maybe the issue isn't that Islam teaches violence. I mean, there are plenty of exhortations to violence in Christian history, in Western history, in "modernity". And my understanding is that much of the Quran and the Hadith is calls to peace and non-violence. So what's the deal? Maybe the issue is that there's a lot of inequality in the world (and the inequality is actively pursued by the empowered, not just an accident), and this breeds resentment, and breeds tribal thinking, and Muslims as a group have relatively little overlap with the empowered class (House of Saud notwithstanding). Maybe that sort of us-vs-the-West tribal thinking is the only source of empowerment that certain people can find in their lives, and some tiny fraction of them are borderline-insane young men who jump over the cliff into insanity and strap on vests. And if that's all true, sure it's easy and correct to say "no matter what their excuse, suicide bombing is evil". Fine, I agree. So what? Given the choice between labelling a past murderer as "evil", or preventing a future murder, which is more important to you? If we agree that violence and terrorism are a problem to which we'd like a solution, what forms of solution can you imagine? Can we realistically eradicate a religion? Alternately, can we realistically eradicate the spectrum of extremism within a religion? How about can we build a police state that will actually prevent this kind of thing, and if we can should we? Or can we just wall off all the crazies and not let them into our countries, and if we can, should we (with the collateral effect of maybe walling some innocents in with the crazies)? Personally I think the answer to all four of those is a very obvious "No". So do we have an alternative? I don't know if an alternative exists, but I suggest that if it does exist, then reducing inequality seems likely to be a prerequisite. The last two paragraphs of mine are an attempt to spell out the last two panels of Sacco's strip. "We can try to think about why the world is the way it is, and what it is about Muslims in this time and place that makes them unable to laugh off a mere image. And if we answer 'because something is deeply wrong with them' - certainly something was deeply wrong with the killers - then let us drive them from their homes and into the sea. For that is going to be far easier than sorting out how we fit in each other's world". So, in summary, Sacco's third point as I see it: Yeah yeah we all agree in free speech, but maybe if we stop foaming at the mouth about how evil a group is, and cultivate some empathy, we can find a solution that doesn't amount to genocide. On a personal note, I find it very hard to have empathy with religious people of any stripe. But I am well aware that my position on religion makes me a very very tiny minority.
- Luc 12y ago
  This Ruben Bolling article, and the links therein (such as http://junkee.com/the-problem-with-jesuischarlie/48456 http://junkee.com/the-problem-with-jesuischarlie/48456 ) are by far the best explanation of the cartoons I've read in English.
jules 12y ago
I don't see what's so good about this. It's merely an uninsightful and flawed analogy with a deeply wrong conclusion. He completely misjudges Charlie Hebdo and the cultural context.
- unclebucknasty 12y ago
  >It's merely an uninsightful and flawed analogy with a deeply wrong conclusion. How so?
  - jules 12y ago
    Lets count some ways: - Religion is different than race, because race is something that a person is born with and cannot possibly change. - He tries to make deliberately offensive panels that are supposed to provoke the same reaction in people as Charlie Hebdo's comics supposedly provoke in muslims, but he falls short by a long shot. The reaction to his deliberately offensive panels is "meh", not outrage, which completely undermines his point. - He depicts Charlie Hebdo as a magazine that makes fun of certain groups by maximally offending them without any satirical value. This is incorrect. When you place them in their cultural context you see that their comics are actually very left wing and sure they are against religion (any form), but also against racism, islamophobia, classism, xenophobia, etc. When you are outside the culture you may misinterpret the comics if you take them at face value. This isn't a 'lets make fun of muslims' magazine. - Even if it were true that Charlie Hebdo was just trying to offend people, his implication that it's then not worthy and we should rather appease the offended groups is still wrong. Free speech as long as you like what is said is not free speech. - His comic is patronising ordinary muslims, as if the average muslim can't handle satire and needs to be protected from it, while people from other religions can handle it. I could go on...
    - unclebucknasty 12y ago
      >Religion is different than race, because race is something that a person is born with and cannot possibly change. You assume that change is a desired outcome. Mr. Sacco does not. >He tries to make deliberately offensive panels that are supposed to provoke the same reaction I don't think Mr. Sacco believed it would invoke the same outrage as much as illustrate his point using imagery that everyone would recognize as offensive, even if they understood that he was making a point and were not actually offended. >He depicts Charlie Hebdo as a magazine that makes fun of certain groups by maximally offending them without any satirical value. I don't know the complete history of Charlie Hebdo, but Mr. Sacco provided at least one example of what he perceived as a double-standard. And, he calls into question the low-brow maligning of Muslims from both an artistic perspective, and a cultural one. As has been often pointed out, no other group seems to respond to satire as does a particular subset of Islamists. Mr. Sacco is simply suggesting that perhaps we should be asking why this is the case. This is why he singles out the magazine's attack on Muslims. >his implication that it's then not worthy and we should rather appease the offended groups is still wrong I don't think he was saying this. Rather, he's calling for introspection and earnest exploration of whether there is even the possibility that other dynamics are at play here. There is, perhaps, a thin line between satire and hatefulness, bigotry, or even the simple promulgation of cultural superiority. At a minimum, he's asking us to be aware of that line. >Free speech as long as you like what is said is not free speech. He's specifically not condemning free speech (in fact, he "affirms" it in panel eight). He's calling for understanding, purposefulness, introspection, and responsibility in employing free speech. He's also speaking to his fellow artists and, tacitly, asking them to consider their standards. >His comic is patronising ordinary muslims Actually, I think your comment patronizes "ordinary muslims" more so than does Mr. Sacco's comic. And, I think you're making the assumption, not him. But, perhaps he could have been clearer in saying "some Muslims" for those who might take him literally. I think you completely misinterpreted/misunderstood the message here.
unclebucknasty 12y ago
Poignant and thought-provoking. Thanks for posting. The bit about Sinet reminded me of something that I just learned yesterday: that France has a law against denying the Holocaust. The sentiment behind the law is understandable, but it is difficult not to see a double-standard at work. And, if Hebdo itself really is guilty of invoking that double-standard, then one does have to question the purpose of the "satire". IMO a policy of good satire encourages the skewering of all ridiculousness, else, it risks becoming nothing more than hateful bigotry directed at a group, and (paraphrasing Sacco) there's really nothing clever or insightful about that. I don't personally know whether this is true of Hebdo, but Sacco seems to be making a thought-worthy point.
jholman 12y ago
Hmn, I agree (about "best I've read so far"). Thank you for the link. In a related but distinct vein, two thoughts: Primus. I do not doubt that these murders are a crime and we should grieve and be angry. But why are these murders worth of all this attention, relative to the inattention paid to countless other atrocities? What of children in schools in Palestine (hundreds dead in 2014), or Boko Haram victims in Nigeria (c.f. http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/30777607 http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/30777607 ), or whatever-whatever-I-don't-know-what-because-I'm-part-of-the-problem. And so far this is all trite and obvious, so here's my point: I think there are two reasons. One, innocent if depressing, is that I know for sure I'm not a Palestinian or Nigerian child, but I can imagine myself a French iconoclast loudmouth. And the second, more sinister, is that nobody powerful benefits from focusing our attention on Boko Haram, whereas my list of beneficiaries of the Charlie Hebdo attack can effortlessly start listing European politicans (e.g. Cameron [re crypto] and Hollande). Secundus. I read much talk of whether or not Islam is a "more violent" religion than "modern" Christianity. Pshaw. The violence doesn't come from religion, the violence comes from poverty and desperation and ego issues and little-to-lose and tribalism. Very few "Christians" (by which I include the non-religious great-great-grandchildren of Christians) lack for potable water or enough to eat, and most have pretty good security of person and property. It's cheap(er) to buy into civilization when civilization buys into you. As that Sacco cartoon says, "we can think about ... what it is about Muslims that makes them unable to laugh off a mere image".
filoeleven 12y ago
The Intercept also posted a similar piece, in article form: https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/01/09/solidarity-charlie-hebdo-cartoons/ https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/01/09/solidarity-cha... An excerpt: But this week’s defense of free speech rights was so spirited that it gave rise to a brand new principle: to defend free speech, one not only defends the right to disseminate the speech, but embraces the content of the speech itself. Numerous writers thus demanded: to show “solidarity” with the murdered cartoonists, one should not merely condemn the attacks and defend the right of the cartoonists to publish, but should publish and even celebrate those cartoons. “The best response to Charlie Hebdo attack,” announced Slate’s editor Jacob Weisberg, “is to escalate blasphemous satire.”

by Udik 12y ago

mxfh 12y ago

While I respect Secco and his work as well it's also wrong and out of context in some regards. Ruben Bolling: http://gocomics.typepad.com/tomthedancingbugblog/2015/01/in-non-satirical-defense-of-charlie-hebdo.html http://gocomics.typepad.com/tomthedancingbugblog/2015/01/in-...

jholman 12y ago
I'd never heard of CH a week ago, and Bolling's interpretation of CH's cartooning may be more accurate than Secco's, and it was an interesting perspective. But I think that Bolling's conclusions are wrong, except perhaps when he rebuts Secco's use of the word "vapid". Bolling says that the only reasonable reaction to the murders is to defend free speech. No. Defending free speech is necessary, but it's not at all clear that it's sufficient. Freedom of the press isn't the only issue here. There are also issues of what to do about violence/security, what to do about racism, what to do about freedom of religion, etc. Those issues aren't any more important post-murder, but they were important before and they still are, and this is an opportunity to put some eyes on them. I don't interpret Sacco's piece as saying "CH is unworthy of our defense". I interpret it as saying "Let's defend CH, but also notice that they were missing the point, here's the point". Bolling argues that CH wasn't missing the point. But Sacco's proposal for where our greatest attention should lie is still a good proposal.
- jules 12y ago
  What exactly do you see as Sacco's proposal? Maybe it's over my head, but as far as I can see his comic basically says that in response to the murders we should focus on not offending muslims.
  - jholman 12y ago
    I don't see anything in Sacco that says "we should not offend". I think Sacco's piece as a whole says three things, and I think that Bolling agrees with the first, rebuts the second, and ignores the third. From the tone of your question, I infer that you're asking me about that "third", but I'll just get the first two out of the way first. First: Of course we should defend free speech! (Okay, good, glad we got that out of the way. We all agree, yay.) Second: CH is "tweaking the nose of muslims", and that's "vapid". (Bolling says that's not what CH is doing. I have no idea if Bolling is correct, but it seems plausible. So let's assume Bolling has rebutted Sacco on this.) Third: Thinking critically about geopolitics would be more interesting and constructive than "tweaking .. noses". There might be geopolitical and sociological reasons why there exist so many more Muslim-affiliated suicide bombers than there are first-world/modern/white/Christian/etc suicide bombers. Maybe the issue isn't that Islam teaches violence. I mean, there are plenty of exhortations to violence in Christian history, in Western history, in "modernity". And my understanding is that much of the Quran and the Hadith is calls to peace and non-violence. So what's the deal? Maybe the issue is that there's a lot of inequality in the world (and the inequality is actively pursued by the empowered, not just an accident), and this breeds resentment, and breeds tribal thinking, and Muslims as a group have relatively little overlap with the empowered class (House of Saud notwithstanding). Maybe that sort of us-vs-the-West tribal thinking is the only source of empowerment that certain people can find in their lives, and some tiny fraction of them are borderline-insane young men who jump over the cliff into insanity and strap on vests. And if that's all true, sure it's easy and correct to say "no matter what their excuse, suicide bombing is evil". Fine, I agree. So what? Given the choice between labelling a past murderer as "evil", or preventing a future murder, which is more important to you? If we agree that violence and terrorism are a problem to which we'd like a solution, what forms of solution can you imagine? Can we realistically eradicate a religion? Alternately, can we realistically eradicate the spectrum of extremism within a religion? How about can we build a police state that will actually prevent this kind of thing, and if we can should we? Or can we just wall off all the crazies and not let them into our countries, and if we can, should we (with the collateral effect of maybe walling some innocents in with the crazies)? Personally I think the answer to all four of those is a very obvious "No". So do we have an alternative? I don't know if an alternative exists, but I suggest that if it does exist, then reducing inequality seems likely to be a prerequisite. The last two paragraphs of mine are an attempt to spell out the last two panels of Sacco's strip. "We can try to think about why the world is the way it is, and what it is about Muslims in this time and place that makes them unable to laugh off a mere image. And if we answer 'because something is deeply wrong with them' - certainly something was deeply wrong with the killers - then let us drive them from their homes and into the sea. For that is going to be far easier than sorting out how we fit in each other's world". So, in summary, Sacco's third point as I see it: Yeah yeah we all agree in free speech, but maybe if we stop foaming at the mouth about how evil a group is, and cultivate some empathy, we can find a solution that doesn't amount to genocide. On a personal note, I find it very hard to have empathy with religious people of any stripe. But I am well aware that my position on religion makes me a very very tiny minority.
Luc 12y ago
This Ruben Bolling article, and the links therein (such as http://junkee.com/the-problem-with-jesuischarlie/48456 http://junkee.com/the-problem-with-jesuischarlie/48456 ) are by far the best explanation of the cartoons I've read in English.

jules 12y ago

I don't see what's so good about this. It's merely an uninsightful and flawed analogy with a deeply wrong conclusion. He completely misjudges Charlie Hebdo and the cultural context.

unclebucknasty 12y ago
>It's merely an uninsightful and flawed analogy with a deeply wrong conclusion. How so?
- jules 12y ago
  Lets count some ways: - Religion is different than race, because race is something that a person is born with and cannot possibly change. - He tries to make deliberately offensive panels that are supposed to provoke the same reaction in people as Charlie Hebdo's comics supposedly provoke in muslims, but he falls short by a long shot. The reaction to his deliberately offensive panels is "meh", not outrage, which completely undermines his point. - He depicts Charlie Hebdo as a magazine that makes fun of certain groups by maximally offending them without any satirical value. This is incorrect. When you place them in their cultural context you see that their comics are actually very left wing and sure they are against religion (any form), but also against racism, islamophobia, classism, xenophobia, etc. When you are outside the culture you may misinterpret the comics if you take them at face value. This isn't a 'lets make fun of muslims' magazine. - Even if it were true that Charlie Hebdo was just trying to offend people, his implication that it's then not worthy and we should rather appease the offended groups is still wrong. Free speech as long as you like what is said is not free speech. - His comic is patronising ordinary muslims, as if the average muslim can't handle satire and needs to be protected from it, while people from other religions can handle it. I could go on...
  - unclebucknasty 12y ago
    >Religion is different than race, because race is something that a person is born with and cannot possibly change. You assume that change is a desired outcome. Mr. Sacco does not. >He tries to make deliberately offensive panels that are supposed to provoke the same reaction I don't think Mr. Sacco believed it would invoke the same outrage as much as illustrate his point using imagery that everyone would recognize as offensive, even if they understood that he was making a point and were not actually offended. >He depicts Charlie Hebdo as a magazine that makes fun of certain groups by maximally offending them without any satirical value. I don't know the complete history of Charlie Hebdo, but Mr. Sacco provided at least one example of what he perceived as a double-standard. And, he calls into question the low-brow maligning of Muslims from both an artistic perspective, and a cultural one. As has been often pointed out, no other group seems to respond to satire as does a particular subset of Islamists. Mr. Sacco is simply suggesting that perhaps we should be asking why this is the case. This is why he singles out the magazine's attack on Muslims. >his implication that it's then not worthy and we should rather appease the offended groups is still wrong I don't think he was saying this. Rather, he's calling for introspection and earnest exploration of whether there is even the possibility that other dynamics are at play here. There is, perhaps, a thin line between satire and hatefulness, bigotry, or even the simple promulgation of cultural superiority. At a minimum, he's asking us to be aware of that line. >Free speech as long as you like what is said is not free speech. He's specifically not condemning free speech (in fact, he "affirms" it in panel eight). He's calling for understanding, purposefulness, introspection, and responsibility in employing free speech. He's also speaking to his fellow artists and, tacitly, asking them to consider their standards. >His comic is patronising ordinary muslims Actually, I think your comment patronizes "ordinary muslims" more so than does Mr. Sacco's comic. And, I think you're making the assumption, not him. But, perhaps he could have been clearer in saying "some Muslims" for those who might take him literally. I think you completely misinterpreted/misunderstood the message here.

unclebucknasty 12y ago

Poignant and thought-provoking. Thanks for posting. The bit about Sinet reminded me of something that I just learned yesterday: that France has a law against denying the Holocaust. The sentiment behind the law is understandable, but it is difficult not to see a double-standard at work. And, if Hebdo itself really is guilty of invoking that double-standard, then one does have to question the purpose of the "satire". IMO a policy of good satire encourages the skewering of all ridiculousness, else, it risks becoming nothing more than hateful bigotry directed at a group, and (paraphrasing Sacco) there's really nothing clever or insightful about that. I don't personally know whether this is true of Hebdo, but Sacco seems to be making a thought-worthy point.

jholman 12y ago

Hmn, I agree (about "best I've read so far"). Thank you for the link. In a related but distinct vein, two thoughts: Primus. I do not doubt that these murders are a crime and we should grieve and be angry. But why are these murders worth of all this attention, relative to the inattention paid to countless other atrocities? What of children in schools in Palestine (hundreds dead in 2014), or Boko Haram victims in Nigeria (c.f. http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/30777607 http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/30777607 ), or whatever-whatever-I-don't-know-what-because-I'm-part-of-the-problem. And so far this is all trite and obvious, so here's my point: I think there are two reasons. One, innocent if depressing, is that I know for sure I'm not a Palestinian or Nigerian child, but I can imagine myself a French iconoclast loudmouth. And the second, more sinister, is that nobody powerful benefits from focusing our attention on Boko Haram, whereas my list of beneficiaries of the Charlie Hebdo attack can effortlessly start listing European politicans (e.g. Cameron [re crypto] and Hollande). Secundus. I read much talk of whether or not Islam is a "more violent" religion than "modern" Christianity. Pshaw. The violence doesn't come from religion, the violence comes from poverty and desperation and ego issues and little-to-lose and tribalism. Very few "Christians" (by which I include the non-religious great-great-grandchildren of Christians) lack for potable water or enough to eat, and most have pretty good security of person and property. It's cheap(er) to buy into civilization when civilization buys into you. As that Sacco cartoon says, "we can think about ... what it is about Muslims that makes them unable to laugh off a mere image".

filoeleven 12y ago

The Intercept also posted a similar piece, in article form: https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/01/09/solidarity-charlie-hebdo-cartoons/ https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/01/09/solidarity-cha... An excerpt: But this week’s defense of free speech rights was so spirited that it gave rise to a brand new principle: to defend free speech, one not only defends the right to disseminate the speech, but embraces the content of the speech itself. Numerous writers thus demanded: to show “solidarity” with the murdered cartoonists, one should not merely condemn the attacks and defend the right of the cartoonists to publish, but should publish and even celebrate those cartoons. “The best response to Charlie Hebdo attack,” announced Slate’s editor Jacob Weisberg, “is to escalate blasphemous satire.”