Thread: The function and importance of satire Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.


To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=028853
Posted by Dark Knight (# 9415) on :
 
In the wake of the Charlie Hebdo tragedy, a friend on FB has had a lively thread running discussing the merits of what this magazine was hoping to achieve. While it has at times seemed (at least to me, and I'm probably not seeing clearly right now because this is such an emotive issue) to be a case of blaming the victims, a much more interesting question (again to me) relates to the function of satire in society.
Someone on the thread compared the satire published in Charlie Hebdo to the experience of someone being racially taunted or abused. I see this as a category error, as racist taunting is little more than hate-speech, whereas satire has a much more nuanced function. In short, as I understand it, satire plays the vital role of helping us to question what we think of as "sacred" and inviolable, precisely by making fun of those things. I suppose satirists go over the line into poor taste at times - perhaps quite a lot of the time - but it is hardly surprising if, in challenging where the line is drawn, one transgresses it from time to time.

In short, our modern satirists, such as Charlie Hebdo of blessed memory ( [Votive] ), Stephen Colbert, the Chasers here in Australia, and any others you might care to mention, perform a similar function to the medieval carnival, or perhaps the fool in many Shakespearean plays - challenging those more powerful about what they hold to be important. Plus, of course, they make us laugh.

Someone challenged me on the thread, suggesting that some satire can be racist ("bigoted" might be a better descriptor in this case). My response is that satire ceases to be satire when it becomes racism (because the latter simply panders to prejudice, and challenges nothing), but perhaps this is an artificial boundary.

I thought this may be a conversation that would interest others.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
I posted a link to this article yesterday, which I think is directly pertinent to this line of conversation.

I think the key proposition in the article is that satire ought to be about provoking debate, not about shutting it down by dismissing one side of a debate as worthless.
 
Posted by Dark Knight (# 9415) on :
 
Thanks, orfeo, a superb piece which says a lot of things I was considering better than I could.
Indeed, there is a line where satire stops being that. I think in our part of the world, the Chasers have crossed it (most notoriously here). Doubtless there should be consequences to crossing that line - not criminal ones, but public censure and disgust at the very least, and perhaps other civil censures.

[ 09. January 2015, 02:27: Message edited by: Dark Knight ]
 
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :
 
I find the division of satire into tasteful satire and bad satire artificial. If a satire uses racist comment in un-ironic fashion then it may be racist satire. Satire may be clumsy, bad, mean, offemsive or racist without losing the property of being satire.
Is Jonathan Swift's "a modest proposal" not attire because it mocks Irish and Formosans?
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
I find the division of satire into tasteful satire and bad satire artificial. If a satire uses racist comment in un-ironic fashion then it may be racist satire. Satire may be clumsy, bad, mean, offemsive or racist without losing the property of being satire.
Is Jonathan Swift's "a modest proposal" not attire because it mocks Irish and Formosans?
No, but that does make it distasteful. How come it can be clumsy, bad, mean, offensive, or racist, but not distasteful? Why draw the line at that one adjective?
 
Posted by molopata (# 9933) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Knight:

Indeed, there is a line where satire stops being that. I think in our part of the world, the Chasers have crossed it (most notoriously here). Doubtless there should be consequences to crossing that line - not criminal ones, but public censure and disgust at the very least, and perhaps other civil censures.
They did cross the line, not by attacking the sometimes pathetic or bogus charities which advertise for themselves (fair game and the actual and in itself genuinely satirical element in the sketch) but by carrying their provocation out on the backs of terminally-illed children who are wholly innocent victims from the start and have no active part in the creation of the setting.
In the same way it is possible to make satirical fun of say IS, because of their actions and because they are actors, but difficult or unacceptable to produce satire of their victims. Most satire goes wrong because they neglect this kind of difference. There will of course be a small minority of sick sadists who think terminally-ill children are fair game, and The Chasers who have also produced some really good stuff should have had someone to help them exercise better judgement.

But are Allah and Mohammed fair game? Well, they are actors and they aren't per se victims, so at some level yes. However, they are also sacred, at least to Muslims, and this puts them off limits in this particular religious paradigm. In fact, make no mistake that in many Islamic jurisdictions the net result (albeit probably delivered with more jurisprudential style) would have been the same for the likes of Charlie Hebdo's contributors. In their eyes the Western cultural paradigm which permits greater freedom to satirise religion is the anomaly and not the gold standard we think it to be. Muslims of course have every protected right in the West to take offence at the publication of Charlie Hebdo's cartoons, and the overwhelming majority would do so peacefully. The question is from the perspective of a religion which establishes certain absolute claims on the whole of humanity, whether the West actually can lay any limit on the validity of these claims.
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I posted a link to this article yesterday, which I think is directly pertinent to this line of conversation.
A good article, but I think the jury is still out on whether the killers have been successful or not. We are all out in protest now, but alas, when the fuss has died down and B.D. satirists again walk the streets alone, many of them will no doubt question whether they really need to publish that funny Mohammed cartoon at the back of their mind which is itching to be drawn. I surmise that a large part of our press is already practising considerable self-censorship on Islamic issues, and I don't quite see this blood-bath reversing that.

Meanwhile the killers who have now attempted to prevent Islamist satire being propagated have unwittingly removed the satirical element from C.H.'s work: They have rendered much of it an astute observation.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
I find the division of satire into tasteful satire and bad satire artificial. If a satire uses racist comment in un-ironic fashion then it may be racist satire. Satire may be clumsy, bad, mean, offemsive or racist without losing the property of being satire.
Is Jonathan Swift's "a modest proposal" not attire because it mocks Irish and Formosans?
Whatever you think its merit, Swift's Proposal does not mock the Irish. More the English.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
A couple of thoughts (this still isn't settled in my mind):

It seems to me that while some of Charlie Hebdo's cartoons were incisive social and religious commentary, others were just provocative for their own sake. The cartoon last week of an IS fighter saying "well, there've been no attacks during the traditional new years' greetings period, you've still got until the end of January", is one.

I think another boundary some satire crosses is to forget the reality that however barbaric, the objects of the satire are human beings too. Satirist and object of satire are made of the same stuff.

While there's certainly room for the role of the fool (after all, what are we doing on this website), objectifying your target and indulging in provocation for its own sake - whilst perhaps imbued with the heady notion that doing so is somehow upholding the core value or even purpose of liberty - does not seem right to me.
 
Posted by Cottontail (# 12234) on :
 
Istm that the purpose of satire to attack the powerful and deflate the pompous. It is a way of getting at the otherwise untouchable. But if you turn the attack on weaker groups, then it ceases to be satire and becomes mere bullying.

I was living in the US when Obama was elected. My outsider's observation was that the newspapers were suddenly really confused. The President, as a powerful man, is a legitimate target for satire. But the African-American community in general, as an historically less powerful group, is not. So suddenly no one knew how to satirise the President, and some bad mistakes were made as they tried to work this out.

I'd be interested to know if this fits with American shipmates' perspective, or if I have missed the point entirely.
 
Posted by Dark Knight (# 9415) on :
 
An important question then is - did the satire of Charlie Hebdo cross the line? To be clear, whether they did or not has no bearing on the fact that they were murdered. On the aforementioned thread, I've grown quite irritated with some posters who are not only uncritically comparing satire with racism, but in my opinion are engaged in victim-blaming - arguing that because the actions of these murderers were foreseeable, the magazine should not have published the cartoons. That is nonsense - the fact that my act may provoke another into a retaliatory immoral act does not mean that it is my responsibility not to engage in the first act. We rightly condemn such twisted and abusuve logic when applied to rape-victims ("She was asking for it!" "The way he was dressed - what did he think was going to happen!"), and it is unworthily applied here.
I think in western societies, it is straightforward to argue that Muslims are a minority, and therefore perhaps ought not to be the objects of satire. IS certainly does not fall into the category of "weaker than" in the same straightforward way, and are fair satirical game - although clearly one lampoons them at one's own risk.

[ 09. January 2015, 10:26: Message edited by: Dark Knight ]
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
I honestly haven't seen much of the magazine's cartoons, and as they're in French I'd have a lot of trouble understanding them anyway. For that reason it's really only possible to go by second-hand reports, a significant number of which seem to suggest that some of their stuff was nothing more than cheap shots.

I keep thinking back, Dark Knight, to you mentioning The Chaser. I seem to have a relationship with them where I think every 2nd series they do is interesting and insightful, and the series in between are puerile and stupid. I really, really enjoyed The Hamster Wheel, which focused on satirising the media while also taking lots of potshots at politicians and other public figures.

But that's just my personal opinion, and I think really it's always going to be a matter of opinion whether satirists are cleverly hitting the mark or just behaving like a bunch of overgrown schoolboys. I don't think there's an objective measure of whether the satire is achieving the noble aims of the form.

But I think it's part and parcel of public life or public prominence that you have to accept people are going to try.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Knight:
An important question then is - did the satire of Charlie Hebdo cross the line?
Firstly, a change of view on my part.

The cartoon I've referred to twice now can be seen here, drawn by Charb and published last week I think. The text says:

"no terrorist attacks in France..." "Wait!", says the jihadist, "tradition says you have until the end of January to say happy new year"

This is perhaps less of a provocation than I thought, merely an illustration of the occasional perspicacity of satire.

I think "crossing the line" is ultimately a question of motivation. Some people seem to delight in abusing the privilege of free speech purely for disruptive purposes. It's hard to discern the editorial motivations of Charlie Hebdo.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I honestly haven't seen much of the magazine's cartoons, and as they're in French I'd have a lot of trouble understanding them anyway. For that reason it's really only possible to go by second-hand reports, a significant number of which seem to suggest that some of their stuff was nothing more than cheap shots.
I think the "nothing more than cheap shots" is a symptom of a magazine, needing to get an edition ready on a regular timescale. Sometimes they'll get something really good, most of the time it'll be good or mediocre, sometimes it'll miss the mark entirely. Cheap shots are an easy way to fill column space.

Looking back at something like Spitting Image you can see the same dynamic. If you need to fill out the programme put in a couple of minutes of John Major eating peas ...
 
Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :
 
The question of who's doing the satire, what their intentions are, and what's being attacked, versus who is drawing the lines that get crossed, plays a role here.

Swift was Anglo-Irish -- that is, in various ways he'd a foot in each culture, and was well-placed to see the utter failures of English oversight of Ireland. He could speak legitimately from both sides, and for both sides. What was his intention? To help his readers understand how insane the policies were, and to motivate a demand for change. In politics, change is the nature of the beast; it's what politics are for.

When religion gets attacked, believers react differently. Change is not a salient characteristic of most religious following (which is why most adherents are followers, perhaps). Religions tend to resist change, and when they're held up to ridicule, what's being challenged is some sort of divine / eternal / unshakeable Truth (for its adherents). These things aren't seen as human constructs in the way government policies are.

Interestingly, I think the demand from these terrorists that they be "allowed" to die as martyrs shows their actions up for what they are: a concerted effort to make this conflict about Islam vs. the West. As long as Westerners continue to insist that the conflict is about culture and human rights (or oil and economic opportunity), while the opposition continues to insist it's about religious truth, we'll get exactly nowhere.
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
Swift was Anglo-Irish -- that is, in various ways he'd a foot in each culture, and was well-placed to see the utter failures of English oversight of Ireland.
It wasn't just an English camp and an Irish camp - Swift's intended readership was the Protestant urban Irish. His aim in the Modest Proposal was to inspire them to more patriotic policies (there is a list in the Modest Proposal of policies Swift thinks should be tried).
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Cottontail:
Istm that the purpose of satire to attack the powerful and deflate the pompous. It is a way of getting at the otherwise untouchable. But if you turn the attack on weaker groups, then it ceases to be satire and becomes mere bullying.
..
But the African-American community in general, as an historically less powerful group, is not. So suddenly no one knew how to satirise the President, and some bad mistakes were made as they tried to work this out.
and ISTM that the following cartoons would fall into that category:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B6zAolgIUAA5mbY.jpg
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B6ypEObCIAEx5Gv.jpg

I can't see the Private Eye (as an example) putting something similar on their cover, and I suspect any American magazine putting something similar on their front cover would trigger mass outrage.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
ISTM that the following cartoons would fall into that category:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B6zAolgIUAA5mbY.jpg
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B6ypEObCIAEx5Gv.jpg

Actually the more I think about this (and as this drama unfolds here) the more I find myself questioning my own position in this respect.

I think the first pair of cartoons are basically just absurd (a favourite French philosophical theme). Having some idea of where CH are coming from, they are hardly in favour of sexual slaves, nor against gay parenthood. I think they are pointing up the contradictions in our society. In a very French way, they could stimulate debate - they certainly are doing now.

The second cartoon is actually a stab at the xeonophobic Front National and depicts our current justice minister (who is from French Guiana), who was described as a monkey by a Front National MP.

Clearly for the latter one, and more subtly for the first two, you need a lot of cultural insight to "get" the cartoons, and even now I'm sure I'm missing bits.

I don't underestimate the capability of the magazine to shock and I'm still not sure about the ethics of its editorial standpoint, but I'm beginning to see the value of the freedom to say the unsayable and be iconoclastic.

I'm sure the attackers of CH were goaded into it by the magazine's blasphemous depictions of the prophet, but I'm equally sure that the real political motivation was to attack the freedom of speech the publication represented and stifle debate. There is no debate to be had in their ideology.

I also wonder whether the ability to mock isn't part of the character of God.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:

Having some idea of where CH are coming from, they are hardly in favour of sexual slaves, nor against gay parenthood. I think they are pointing up the contradictions in our society. In a very French way, they could stimulate debate - they certainly are doing now.

The second cartoon is actually a stab at the xeonophobic Front National and depicts our current justice minister (who is from French Guiana), who was described as a monkey by a Front National MP.
Yes, I knew about the context of the second cartoon - trouble is, it would seem to normalize before it satirizes (even before you consider a context that is more racist than the UK/US)

The issue with first cartoon is that it trivializes the rape victims
 
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
I find the division of satire into tasteful satire and bad satire artificial. If a satire uses racist comment in un-ironic fashion then it may be racist satire. Satire may be clumsy, bad, mean, offemsive or racist without losing the property of being satire.
Is Jonathan Swift's "a modest proposal" not attire because it mocks Irish and Formosans?
No, but that does make it distasteful. How come it can be clumsy, bad, mean, offensive, or racist, but not distasteful? Why draw the line at that one adjective?
Happy to oblige.
Satire may be distasteful,clumsy, bad, mean, offensive or racist without losing the property of being satire.

I'd add it's extremely hard to do purposeful satire without it being distasteful to the object of the satire. It's rarely "here have an epiphany". It's more usually intended to ridicule the subject of the satire.

[ 09. January 2015, 20:57: Message edited by: Palimpsest ]
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
you need a lot of cultural insight to "get" the cartoons, and even now I'm sure I'm missing bits.
Satire is closely related to humour in being rooted in a particular culture, and rarely working the same way elsewhere.
 
Posted by JoannaP (# 4493) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
When religion gets attacked, believers react differently. Change is not a salient characteristic of most religious following (which is why most adherents are followers, perhaps). Religions tend to resist change, and when they're held up to ridicule, what's being challenged is some sort of divine / eternal / unshakeable Truth (for its adherents). These things aren't seen as human constructs in the way government policies are.
I think it is worth pointing out that Charlie Hebdo is an equal opportunities satirical magazine. It also carries cartoons which mock Christians and Christianity but these do not provoke violent reactions and so are not reported.

I can understand the decision taken by the Danish newspaper but I also regret it. At least they have the honesty to admit:
quote:
"We are also aware that we therefore bow to violence and intimidation."

 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
The question of who's doing the satire, what their intentions are, and what's being attacked, versus who is drawing the lines that get crossed, plays a role here.

Swift was Anglo-Irish -- that is, in various ways he'd a foot in each culture, and was well-placed to see the utter failures of English oversight of Ireland. He could speak legitimately from both sides, and for both sides. What was his intention? To help his readers understand how insane the policies were, and to motivate a demand for change. In politics, change is the nature of the beast; it's what politics are for.

When religion gets attacked, believers react differently. Change is not a salient characteristic of most religious following (which is why most adherents are followers, perhaps). Religions tend to resist change, and when they're held up to ridicule, what's being challenged is some sort of divine / eternal / unshakeable Truth (for its adherents). These things aren't seen as human constructs in the way government policies are.

Interestingly, I think the demand from these terrorists that they be "allowed" to die as martyrs shows their actions up for what they are: a concerted effort to make this conflict about Islam vs. the West. As long as Westerners continue to insist that the conflict is about culture and human rights (or oil and economic opportunity), while the opposition continues to insist it's about religious truth, we'll get exactly nowhere.
Lots of good points, there, Porridge. I especially appreciate your comments about change, because even within religions we see this different dynamic. The whole idea of 'fundamentalism' is that there are unchangeable things, things that must not be changed.

Your comments have joined in my mind with what I was reading last night in the wikipedia article about Salafism, which emphasises that things are NOT up for debate and which looks back to the first 3 generations of Muslims as the perfect example. Any form of innovation is frowned upon.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
If satire shows love to our enemies and mocks us for our hypocrisy, it is mandatory.

[ 09. January 2015, 23:18: Message edited by: Martin60 ]
 
Posted by Russ (# 120) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Knight:

I think in western societies, it is straightforward to argue that Muslims are a minority, and therefore perhaps ought not to be the objects of satire.
I think it's more complex than that.

At its best, satire exposes lies and wrongdoing, by putting them in a context where their falseness and wrongness are apparent.

For example, I vaguely recall a sketch about a meeting of the Trade Union Congress where the decision as to whether coffee or tea would be served was taken using the block vote system. There was a real underlying point about representative democracy, a (mildly humorous) counter to the delusion that elected representatives are prone to that their every utterance represents the will of the people.

And minority groups are not necessarily immune to subtle lies, delusions, wrongdoing, and a high opinion of themselves.

Then there's a lower grade of humour which does no more than subvert conventional ideas of status by showing types of people who are thought of as powerful, dignified, respectable, as being weak and foolish. A Dave Allen sketch about priests and confessional boxes comes to mind here. This sort of thing isn't satire if the class of people being sent up are a low-status group.

Best wishes,

Russ
 
Posted by Dark Knight (# 9415) on :
 
I appreciate your insights on this, Eutychus, particularly as you are engaging with the issues personally and are quite close to the action.
Good points, Russ.
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:

The issue with first cartoon is that it trivializes the rape victims
Does it? As a consequence of viewing that cartoon, do you feel more or less outrage about sexual slavery? Are you more or less inclined to take their suffering seriously?
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
I'm still not sure what that one means, but I get the feeling it's supposed to point up the dissonance between being outraged about Nigerian kidnap victims when they are in Nigeria and being outraged about foreign benefit spongers if they are in France.

[ 10. January 2015, 08:40: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
Alternatively, it could be seen as a dig against extremists attacking civilization in Nigeria whilst simultaneously demanding the benefits of civilization (entitlement to welfare benefits) in the West.

And looking more closely at the gay parenthood one, yes it's a pregnant, female slave, so it's a swipe at the possible side-effects of gay adoption.

Oh dear. CH is indeed an equal-opportunity satirist as JoannaP says, but if their cartoons take that much scrutiny to decipher, I can see why their circulation was so low (although a print run of 1 million is planned for the "survivors' edition" next week).

[ 10. January 2015, 08:50: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
When I lived in France I lodged with a family who subscribed to Charlie Hebdo.

I understand the style to be Pythonesque, in the sense of putting together two disparate situations and seeing what happens if you run them and extend the logic of the confrontation to an absurd degree. Except that they are more engagé* than the Pythons.

In other words, I don't think there is necessarily a 'point' to them (in the sense of a coded meaning that can be decrypted), so much as a 'let's see what happens when we do this'. And in the process of looking, we might learn something about our society.


* Eutychus may correct me, but I don't think there is really an English translation for this. The sense is that whatever liberal arts project you do - be it a deconstruction of post-structuralist ethics, or a film of whimsical character studies - should have a social dimension.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
I'd say that's a pretty good summary and a pretty good gloss on engagé.

It brings me back to an earlier point in my thinking, which is the danger of the satirists - and perhaps French intellectual satirists in particular - taking themselves too seriously.

In France, declaring oneself to be engagé often seems like an excuse to simply be repulsive or obscene (abstract paintings using the artist's own menstrual blood, which I ran across in a translation project recently, spring to mind) with any related "message" looking more like an ex-post justification than a prime motivation.

Indulging in playground humour is one thing, dressing it up as a noble defence of liberty is another, and offers potential for self-deception. Imposing that brand of humour as the norm seems about as monolithic as the ideology that attacked it (and indeed that's my cricitism of one brand of French socialism). It's that element of groupthink that makes me hesitant to say "je suis Charlie".

A verse of Scripture that's been on my mind in all this is Galatians 5:13: "do not use your freedom to indulge the flesh". I know that neither the target audience nor the freedom in question are the same, but I wonder if this isn't apposite here somehow (note that a few verses earlier, Paul has urged the circumcision party to go the whole way and emasculate themselves, showing that he is perhaps not above a bit of satire himself).

It's a lot to think about [Confused]

[ 10. January 2015, 10:10: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:

I understand the style to be Pythonesque, in the sense of putting together two disparate situations and seeing what happens if you run them and extend the logic of the confrontation to an absurd degree. Except that they are more engagé* than the Pythons.
Except this is a somewhat lame excuse which denies that symbols have meaning - *especially* if you take deconstructionist view.
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
How does it deny that symbols have meaning? The whole point is in the clash of symbols!

I don't deny that CH is offensive. It is easy to demonstrate that people are offended by it, therefore by definition it is offensive. But I am not convinced that it trivialises rape because I see no evidence that people treat rape in a trivial manner as a consequence of the cartoons.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
How does it deny that symbols have meaning? The whole point is in the clash of symbols!
.. because it is a bit of studied hypocrisy. It attempts to treat things as if they don't have meaning while ignoring the elephant in the room that the whole point of the exercise is to exploit the meaning ascribed to symbols by other people.

As I said over on the other thread. We now have cartoonists celebrating progress by printing the Islamic equivalent of the Judensau-trope, whilst actually printing something like this, would be seen as a retrograde step (and rightly so).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Judensau_Blockbuch.jpg

quote:

I see no evidence that people treat rape in a trivial manner as a consequence of the cartoons.
Have you looked for any? Where would you look? I would content it trivialises this particular set of *rape victims*.
 
Posted by Mili (# 3254) on :
 
I haven't had a chance to read the whole thread, but this cartoon by Joe Sacco in the Guardian sums up a lot of my feelings:

On Satire
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mili:
I haven't had a chance to read the whole thread, but this cartoon by Joe Sacco in the Guardian sums up a lot of my feelings:

On Satire
Wow.
[Overused]

I've never been an absolutist about free speech or censorship. Just because you *can* do something doesn't mean that you *should*. So, for me, it's complicated.

Thanks for this, Mili.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Also from The Guardian, "Al-Jazeera leak reveals staff split over response to Charlie Hebdo killings".
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mili:
I haven't had a chance to read the whole thread, but this cartoon by Joe Sacco in the Guardian sums up a lot of my feelings:

On Satire
Joe Sacco really knows what he is talking about.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Also from The Guardian, "Al-Jazeera leak reveals staff split over response to Charlie Hebdo killings".
Of course both are possible -- Charlie Hebdo is demonstrably racist (and sexist) and yet one can still "champion" their right to publish what they want without fear of being slaughtered.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Also from The Guardian, "Al-Jazeera leak reveals staff split over response to Charlie Hebdo killings".
Of course both are possible -- Charlie Hebdo is demonstrably racist (and sexist) and yet one can still "champion" their right to publish what they want without fear of being slaughtered.
It is a difficult test of character, I can tell you. I defend your right to hate me, is a very hard thing to say and believe.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Of course both are possible -- Charlie Hebdo is demonstrably racist (and sexist) and yet one can still "champion" their right to publish what they want without fear of being slaughtered.
I don't think anyone is debating this.
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
It attempts to treat things as if they don't have meaning
In what respect does it do this?
quote:
quote:

I see no evidence that people treat rape in a trivial manner as a consequence of the cartoons.
Have you looked for any? Where would you look?
But I am not the one making a fairly serious accusation.

I am not aware of any evidence that CH readers, as a demographic, are particularly associated with misogyny. (Unlike say some genres of rap music, where you do sometimes see studies claiming they encourage young men to objectify women - I don't know about the worth of these studies but at least they exist.) Admittedly my personal acquaintanceship with CH readers is limited to a sample size of two.

Voting preferences for CH readers seems to be left or far-left - of course this in itself doesn't prove anything but if the cartoons were genuinely as racist and misogynistic as people are saying then I would expect them all to be voting Front National.
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
(On reflection that last paragraph wasn't very well expressed - I am trying to say that the readership may be nasty but one of the obvious smoking guns that would prove their nastiness isn't present.)
 
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :
 
Racists and misogynists can be found across the whole political spectrum. And I say this as someone whose political views are somewhere to the left of the Dalai Lama(according to the Political Compass website, anyway).

In any case, this is France we're talking about; the French left wing may have some things in common with the British left wing, but they are not identical.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
Ricardus, I don't understand your apparent claim that only right-wingers are racist. I'd ask what rock you are hiding under but I'm too nice a guy.

quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Of course both are possible -- Charlie Hebdo is demonstrably racist (and sexist) and yet one can still "champion" their right to publish what they want without fear of being slaughtered.
I don't think anyone is debating this.
Not here, anyway, yes.
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
I remember one really great political cartoon from when People vs. Larry Flint had ended. The artist wrote a lengthy, beautifully scripted sidebar, an open letter to Flint, explaining how sometimes people fighting for freedom of speech wound up with unsavory bedfellows, and the artist hoped Flint would take that day's cartoon in the spirit of the victory he'd just won. He then drew a picture of what looked to be a six hundred pound, slobbering, anthropomorphic wild boar in a wheelchair.

I have always been a fan of political cartoons, and when I saw that, I think I really "got it" -- both in terms of getting the idea of free speech, and in terms of appreciating the function of political cartoons.
 
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :
 
Kelly Alves wrote:

quote:
I remember one really great political cartoon from when People vs. Larry Flint had ended. The artist wrote a lengthy, beautifully scripted sidebar, an open letter to Flint, explaining how sometimes people fighting for freedom of speech wound up with unsavory bedfellows, and the artist hoped Flint would take that day's cartoon in the spirit of the victory he'd just won. He then drew a picture of what looked to be a six hundred pound, slobbering, anthropomorphic wild boar in a wheelchair.

I'm pretty sure Flynt would have taken that in the spirit the artist intended, since via both his public antics and his magazine's content(which is a lot more shocking than what is shown in the film), he pretty much cultivates an image as The Most Hated Man Alive.

On another note, I quite liked that film, though I think it worked more as a typical Milos Forman hymn to socially-maladjusted eccentricity, than as a ringing defense of free speech. It was more a courtroom farce than a civics lesson.

[ 11. January 2015, 16:08: Message edited by: Stetson ]
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
I have read the publication, and -- yeah. I can't imagine anything in Charles Hebro could compare. And my point wasn't how Flynt ( thank you for the correction) may or may not have reacted; his reaction, to quote Tommy Lee Jones, means precisely dick. Unless he decided to plant a bomb somewhere.

The artist was saying what a variety of artists and journalists are saying now-- we don't have to ignore how vile some speech is to uphold someone's right to express it.

And that's the art of free speech-- it's like a snowball fight. Someone think they might be pounding you, but they are actually sending you a stockpile. You hate what someone says, you underline that in what they say that you find hateful.

The pencil cartoon referenced on the other thread is really apt. The act of bombing a magazine office did nothing to win over hearts and minds-- but that pencil cartoon is fortifying multitudes. The fat pig cartoon probably only gave Flynt a chuckle, but it helped those who had problems with him realize that they have just as much of a voice as he does.
 
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :
 
Robert Crumb weighs in.

Crumb has a little too much of the "embittered expat talking about how better everything is in Europe" about him for my tastes. But it's always interesting to get a perspective from someone not normally known for political commentary.

He apparently did a cartoon about the massacre, which you can link to, for the Communist paper Liberation(possibly NSFW, but pretty tame by Crumb's standards).

I found it amusing that he used the cartoon as an opportunity to take a shot at Ralph Bakshi, of all people.
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
That is pretty funny.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
Communist paper Liberation
It's hardly communist - that would be L'Humanité. Very left-leaning, sure, and produces the worst puns in headlines on a regular basis.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:

In what respect does it do this?

That is the entire conceit of declaring oneself to be engagé. Of course, in reality their allegedly no-holds barred style has limits:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sin%C3%A9#Controversy

quote:


But I am not the one making a fairly serious accusation.

I am not aware of any evidence that CH readers, as a demographic, are particularly associated with misogyny.
So, as long as I only tell racist jokes to my non-racist friends, they aren't actually racist? [Roll Eyes]

And besides what I said was that it trivializes these particular rape victims - I'm not sure how you'd sift the readership for evidence of that.
 
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
Communist paper Liberation
It's hardly communist - that would be L'Humanité. Very left-leaning, sure, and produces the worst puns in headlines on a regular basis.
Thanls for the correction. Wikipedia says it was founded by Sartre, so maybe that's how my wires got crossed somewhere in the transmission.
 
Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on :
 
I've had a few conversation with French friends who are on the #JeSuisCharlie wagon (which I have declined to join.)

I get their point that the magazine is pro-immigrant, anti-religion (of all types) and anti-right wing. I appreciate that they are in opposition to the National Front. All good in my opinion.

But I think Max Fisher has it right in What everyone gets wrong about Charlie Hebdo and racism. Invoking racist and stereotypical images even to achieve inclusive ends, still perpetuates those racist and stereotypical images.

It reminds me of a conversation I had to have with my teenage nephew. He used an expression many young North Americans use when they encounter something that is stupid, or uncoordinated, or feeble or (as my generation called it - lame). The expression is "That's so gay". When I asked him if he believed that gay people are stupid or lame, he said "Of course not." I said why call it gay then? Using that term, even if it directed toward some asshat right-wing preacher still equates being gay with being stupid.

To quote from the article:

quote:
This is a regular pattern in Charlie Hebdo's cartoons, even if you see the two-layer satire they often play at. People of color are routinely portrayed with stereotypical features — Arabs given big noses, Africans given big lips — that are widely and correctly considered racist. These features are not necessary for the jokes to work, or for the characters to be recognizable. And yet Charlie Hebdo has routinely included them, driving home a not-unreasonable sense that the magazine's cartoons indulged racism. Further, the portrayal of people of color, as well as Muslims of all races, has been consistently and overwhelming negative in Charlie Hebdo cartoons.
I don't believe this is satire, but oppressive. It may be subconscious but the effect is the same.

The "equal opportunity offender" slant doesn't work because invoking mocking images of the Catholic Church which is the nominal religion of the French mainstream, is different than invoking mocking images of an already stigmatized group of people who are identified by their religion.

Obviously the response should never be violence, but I'll stick to opposing the violence while not celebrating the content.

[ 14. January 2015, 04:44: Message edited by: ToujoursDan ]
 
Posted by Russ (# 120) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
I've had a few conversation with French friends who are on the #JeSuisCharlie wagon (which I have declined to join.)...
There's been huge popular support for the magazine in response to the killings. But you're an independent-minded person who won't let your criticisms be set aside just out of sympathy. The fact that these people are martyrs doesn't make them saints. The fact that they're victims of a horrible crime doesn't put them above criticism. That's what your action says.

But the content of your criticism says the opposite. Your point seems to be that victim groups within society - low-status ethnic or religious minorities, the "stigmatized" - aren't fair game, shouldn't be satirised/mocked/criticised, should be treated with sympathy because of what they've suffered. That the posturing-as-independent-minded journalists should respect the left-wing conventions.

Ironic, isn't it ?

quote:
The expression is "That's so gay". When I asked him if he believed that gay people are stupid or lame, he said "Of course not." I said why call it gay then?
When I learnt English, "gay" meant something like "cheerful" or "vivacious". A gay pub might be one brightly coloured with a merry atmosphere. The Cole Porter musical "Gay Divorce" didn't envisage same-sex marriage...

Regardless of whether you see the late-twentieth-century usage of "gay" to mean "homosexual" as a spontaneous evolution of language or a deliberate manipulation of language, there's something ironic about people now complaining about a new usage detracting from the existing usage. Like the poetic justice of hearing a thief cursing because his stuff has been stolen. Or someone who lives by the sword objecting to dying by it.

But then I guess satire and irony aren't very far apart...

Best wishes,

Russ
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
Russ,

The use of gay for homosexual was not begun in the late 20th C. Early to mid-20thC. but there is no hard and fast evidence. It appears to be a deliberate shifting, but it would be because code was deemed necessary as homosexuality was not accepted. It has been used as a pejorative for almost as long as it has been used as an accepted term amongst the gay community. The newer meaning is still about labeling a group as other, as less than. So, perhaps not so ironic.

As far as satire, irreverence is often part, but racism and other forms of hate need not be. Charlie Hebdo definitely crossed over lines completely unnecessary to make their points. It is decidedly unironic to criticise them for doing so without wishing to curtail their right to create satire.
 
Posted by Leaf (# 14169) on :
 
1938 movie "Bringing Up Baby": when Cary Grant is questioned as to why he's wearing a flowery robe, he replies, "Because I just went gay all of a sudden!"

Russ, what do you think was meant by the word "gay" in this context?
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
But the content of your criticism says the opposite. Your point seems to be that victim groups within society - low-status ethnic or religious minorities, the "stigmatized" - aren't fair game, shouldn't be satirised/mocked/criticised, should be treated with sympathy because of what they've suffered. That the posturing-as-independent-minded journalists should respect the left-wing conventions.

Ironic, isn't it ?
I fail to see the irony (or in fact the opposite). It would be ironic if he also had also said that he was in favour of completely free speech as a principle, but he didn't.

In fact, as my earlier link pointed out - there were already certain groups whom Charlie Hebdo felt were off limits - so they didn't have free speech as some kind of absolute principle either.

The French state similarly bans certain forms of self expression, when it doesn't serve their particular vision of how the state should be constituted.

[Similarly in the UK the loudest calls in favour of re-printing the cartoons came from papers who were in favour of criminalising the act of burning the poppy, and who pushed for Frankie Boyle to be prosecuted for making jokes about the Queen].

[fixed code & attribution]

[ 15. January 2015, 05:05: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
 
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :
 
Toujours wrote:

quote:
I've had a few conversation with French friends who are on the #JeSuisCharlie wagon (which I have declined to join.)

I've declined as well. Mostly because I don't like bandwagon-jumping, especially when it's a spontaneous, decentralized thing like this, and you don't really know what form it's gonna eventually take.

quote:
But I think Max Fisher has it right in What everyone gets wrong about Charlie Hebdo and racism. Invoking racist and stereotypical images even to achieve inclusive ends, still perpetuates those racist and stereotypical images.

I once saw an old copy of National Lampoon, dedicated to spoofing racist and right-wing attitudes in the American south. One of the pieces was called "Favorite Jokes Of The Southland", consisting of blatantly unfunny cartoons featuring degrading stereotypes of black people.

The ostensible point of course was: "Look how stupid these racist whites are. They think THIS kind of stuff is funny!" But a friend of mine who U showed the issue to opined that the cartoonists themselves were getting a kick out of drawing the stuff. I had to admit, he had a point.

On the other hand, I do find Ron Glass' enactment of opposing stereotypes on that classic episode of All In The Family to be quite brilliant. (It's the same story told fist from the viewpoint of a patronizing white liberal, then by an outright racist.) Even though the stereotypes, in and of themselves, are pretty offensive.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
On the other hand, I do find Ron Glass' enactment of opposing stereotypes on that classic episode of All In The Family to be quite brilliant. (It's the same story told fist from the viewpoint of a patronizing white liberal, then by an outright racist.) Even though the stereotypes, in and of themselves, are pretty offensive.
Video blocked due to copyright restrictions "in [my] country."
 
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
On the other hand, I do find Ron Glass' enactment of opposing stereotypes on that classic episode of All In The Family to be quite brilliant. (It's the same story told fist from the viewpoint of a patronizing white liberal, then by an outright racist.) Even though the stereotypes, in and of themselves, are pretty offensive.
Video blocked due to copyright restrictions "in [my] country."
Ah, sorry about that. It's not blocked over here.

Basically, when the liberal Mike tells the story, the black guy is a shuffling Uncle Tom(and hence presumbaly in need of protection from well-meaning liberals). When the racist Archie tells the story, he's a knife-wielding, hate-spewing militant with an oversices Afro.

For some reason Edith, depsite otherwise being an absolute twit, manages to get the story right, with the black guy being just an average repairman.

[ 15. January 2015, 03:12: Message edited by: Stetson ]
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
Managed to track it down and we watched it. First IMDb credit for Ron Glass. Very funny.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:

For some reason Edith, depsite otherwise being an absolute twit, manages to get the story right, with the black guy being just an average repairman.
I've only seen bits of All In The Family, but she was, IME, the heart and soul of the show. And the one with the least preconception. It makes sense that she would see what was truly there.
Show on the telly, yeah, but that is a lesson that should be heeded more often.
 
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :
 
Lil Buddha wrote:

quote:
I've only seen bits of All In The Family, but she was, IME, the heart and soul of the show. And the one with the least preconception. It makes sense that she would see what was truly there.
Show on the telly, yeah, but that is a lesson that should be heeded more often.

Yeah, I know. She really does embody the Holy Fool archetype, a venerable tradition in art and literature.

My acerbic remarks could probably be applied to the whole tradition of the Holy Fool, which is one that I've never been particularly fond of. Probably because it doesn't seem to resemble(as an archetype should) anyone I've ever encountered in real life. In my experience, most fools are just fools, full stop.

On a side note, from the bits of TDDUP that I've seen on You Tube, Jean Stapleton would seem to have closely copied Edith's mannerims from the woman who played Mrs. Garnett.

[ 15. January 2015, 08:51: Message edited by: Stetson ]
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
When I learnt English, "gay" meant something like "cheerful" or "vivacious". A gay pub might be one brightly coloured with a merry atmosphere. The Cole Porter musical "Gay Divorce" didn't envisage same-sex marriage...
I don't know what Cole had in mind. But he was gay, and did use innuendo and double-entendre.


quote:
Regardless of whether you see the late-twentieth-century usage of "gay" to mean "homosexual" as a spontaneous evolution of language or a deliberate manipulation of language, there's something ironic about people now complaining about a new usage detracting from the existing usage.
...except the current usage of "that's so gay" is specifically an insult. That's different from using "gay" as a code word or self-chosen label.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
My acerbic remarks could probably be applied to the whole tradition of the Holy Fool, which is one that I've never been particularly fond of. Probably because it doesn't seem to resemble(as an archetype should) anyone I've ever encountered in real life. In my experience, most fools are just fools, full stop.
It's rather interesting that you would express such opinions here, on the Ship of Fools with St Simeon the Holy Fool as our patron saint.
 
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
My acerbic remarks could probably be applied to the whole tradition of the Holy Fool, which is one that I've never been particularly fond of. Probably because it doesn't seem to resemble(as an archetype should) anyone I've ever encountered in real life. In my experience, most fools are just fools, full stop.
It's rather interesting that you would express such opinions here, on the Ship of Fools with St Simeon the Holy Fool as our patron saint.
Heh. Yeah, I thought of that after I posted.

In my defense, I will point out that the name of this forum, at least in its origins, somewhat contradicts the theme of St. Simeon, since the fools on the ship in Plato's allegory were a dedidedly unilluminated bunch.
 


© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0