Françoise Mouly, Art Spiegelman, Gerard Biard (CH editor in chief), Jean-Baptiste Thoret (CH film critic) and Salman Rushdie at the PEN awards. (photo by Jemal Countess/Getty Images)
Dear Mr. Spiegelman,
I’m addressing this to you, not as an empty rhetorical ploy, but to emphasize the fact that what I’m writing is personal. It always is. I’ve seen a lot of impassioned opinions about Charlie Hebdo offered in the guise of irrefutable pronouncements. I’m tired of reading cultural commentary from writers who act as though the objective truth fell, fully formed, from the sky and into their laps, the function of their words being to simply describe it. Their strange bloodless certainty, the pretense of personal remove, is central to comics commentary and reporting today, and at best it’s a farce.
There is no such thing as objective criticism or journalism; like comics, these forms are always, first and finally, an extension of the self. That’s perfectly natural, but it’s also limiting. What drew me to comics, and what I admire about your work, is its ability to explore and even exploit these limitations, locating truth (or something close to it, anyway) in the very process of acknowledging the obstacles we face as we try to perceive it.
I found myself thinking about subjectivity as I read Laura Miller’s piece about how you rallied comics luminaries to stand in for the six writers who dropped out of the PEN gala in protest of the organization’s plan to honor Charlie Hebdo. Which first of all, let’s face it, was sort of a dick move not unlike crossing a picket line. In one corner of Miller’s story we have you, Alison Bechdel and Neil Gaiman—the trifecta of literary comics—serving as champions of free speech and protectors of a maligned art form; in the other we have hundreds of unnamed writer types hissing like they’re something less than human at the survivor of a mass shooting. It’s a classic story of heroes versus villains. The headline, a quote from Gaiman, frames the faceless hoard’s take as pro-murder: “For fuck’s sake, they drew somebody and they shot them, and you don’t get to do that.” The implication is of course that the PEN protestors think that you should ~totally~ get to do that.
(Of course they don’t think that. Literally no one does.)
I’m not writing in an effort to change your mind about what I obviously regard as a racist publication, or to debate the validity of that PEN award, though it straight up makes me want to barf. I disagree with your opinion, but I also respect its right to exist. I have even tried to make room in my heart for the possibility that there’s some truth in what you say. While I find myself skeptical about how much expertise is required to, say, parse an image of a black person who’s been drawn as a monkey—and the tendency of experts like you to characterize other people’s “inexpert” reactions to images like that as unintelligent—I freely admit that you’re better informed than I on almost any given cultural milieu in play, including comics, satire, and the (supposedly) inscrutable kingdom of France.
Despite those vast stores of knowledge, you’re plainly no expert on race. Frankly, I’m not either, though I’m savvy enough to have recognized how ironic it was when you criticized readers for lacking sophistication even as you rallied a bunch of famous white people behind a slogan you appropriated from an oppressed minority. I don’t even know where to start with your unfortunate riff on “Black lives matter,” a movement that was spawned in protest of the George Zimmerman verdict, and reignited after the death of Michael Brown. Like “All lives matter,” the racist rejoinder to the original slogan, “Cartoonists’ lives matter” ignores one central fact: no one really thinks cartoonists’ lives are worthless except for their murderers, and they are all extremists who have been roundly denounced.
I really wish I could say the same for Eric Garner, or Tamir Rice, or Walter Scott, whose murders have been deemed, variously, as understandable and even warranted by public servants, the judicial system, people in my Facebook feed, and members of my own family. I don’t want to reduce our nation’s disregard for black lives to the deaths of those three people. It’s just that I’ve watched the indisputable evidence of their murders with my own two eyes, yet somehow still find them at the center of a bitter national debate. The “Black lives matter” slogan was borne in response to deep, appalling societal injustice, and my feeling watching you, a white man with uncommon privilege, adapt it in the name of propagating your opinion on the “bravery” of drawing Muhammad as a porn star lies somewhere far, far beyond my ability to articulate it to my satisfaction.
As a slogan, “Cartoonists’ lives matter” draws a false equivalence between one universally criticized attack and what has become a veritable institution of state-sponsored murder in our country. Where you attempt to make a comparison, it’s far more instructive to contrast. The Hebdo massacre was understood instantaneously, implicitly, to be of universal significance, and that’s because the killers represented the most hated enemy of the Western world—militant Islamism—and most of the slain were white. No one has disputed the dead’s status as innocent victims, though that position is routinely invoked as a straw man. They have been mourned all around the world for the better part of 2015.
Back in January, in an article for the New Yorker, Teju Cole asked readers to consider how the victims of Charlie Hebdo became “mournable bodies” in a global landscape where so many other atrocities are barely remarked upon, much less condemned. “We may not be able to attend to each outrage in every corner of the world,” he wrote, “but we should at least pause to consider how it is that mainstream opinion so quickly decides that certain violent deaths are more meaningful, and more worthy of commemoration, than others.” As it happens, Cole was one of the six dissenting writers who you and your friends replaced as table hosts at the PEN gala. Were you thinking of him, I wonder, when you told Laura Miller that your “cohorts and brethren in PEN are really good misreaders”? Do you really imagine that Cole, who is an art historian, doesn’t have the “sophistication to grapple with” comics? Or what about Junot Díaz, who was one of the 200-some writers who undersigned Cole’s decision? Like you, Díaz is a Pulitzer Prize-winner. His work has been illustrated by Jamie Hernandez, one of his heroes. Do you think that Junot Díaz doesn’t have the chops to read comics, Mr. Spiegelman? With respect, who do you think you are?
When you framed the Charlie Hebdo controversy as a matter of your vaunted expertise vs. what you call inexpert readers, you weren’t speaking in the abstract. You directly insulted the six writers who started the protest, as well as hundreds of their peers—individuals who wrote their names at the bottom of a letter, just as I’ll sign off at the end of mine. You also indirectly insulted countless other people in comics who object, publicly or privately, to “equal-opportunity offense” that somehow always, always manages to offend the same people no matter how many times old white men try to tell us that we’re just not reading comics right.
How is it that you failed to extend the basic courtesy of assumed literacy to those who struggle with the legacy of Charlie Hebdo? What does it mean for a white cartoonist to appropriate “Black lives matter” and then describe the argument of people who disagree with him—many of whom are people of color—as a failure of reading comprehension? Does your own mastery of the form really preclude the possibility that, say, Cole and Díaz, two of our smartest and most lyrical writers on race, might discern something in those images that you can’t (or won’t?) see? Or hey, what about Jeet Heer, who says that arguments like yours ignore the fact that aesthetics matter as much as intent? Is it just possible that you’re the one who’s not reading these comics correctly?
Look around you, man. Of course cartoonists’ lives matter. I realize that comics still has a whole thing about legitimacy, but Françoise Mouly’s assertion that the PEN protesters are literary snobs simply doesn’t track with the reality of comics culture today. Maus is more or less required reading in high school and college curricula. Neil Gaiman has more than 2 million followers on Twitter. Alison Bechdel is a MacArthur genius with a Broadway musical about her life. Tell me, did you actually hear anyone hissing at the PEN gala? It’s my understanding that Charlie Hebdo’s editor-in-chief received a standing ovation when he accepted that award.
I think of the work of you and Alison Bechdel and am flabbergasted that two people who built their careers on endlessly recursive autobiographies lack enough self-awareness to acknowledge the positions of privilege from which they speak. I don’t know what’s worse about “Cartoonists’ lives matter”—that it’s so masturbatory, that it represents such an egregious misunderstanding of the issues at hand, or that willfully misrepresents the positions of your opposition in lieu of engaging with them. You criticized the protest of the writers you glibly dubbed the “Sanctimonious Six” as “condescending and dismissive” even as you framed their argument as a fundamental failure of literacy. That’s not just hypocritical; it is demonstrably false. You leveraged your authority as the person who put comics on the map as a literary form to publicly smack down artists who are less famous than you simply because they objected to the valorization (not the existence) of Charlie Hebdo. That you chose to badmouth them in your capacity as Captain Comics (protecting a literary gala from evil, no less) is deeply embarrassing to many of us who care about this art form.
Unfortunately, it’s not just you. Your Hebdo comments follow a pattern I see all the time here on the bully beat at the Hooded Utilitarian: Comics calls for nuance when it’s in the service of understanding the transgressions of white men. But when it comes to the other side of the argument, opponents are characterized as unlearned, as uninitiated, as overreacting. Last week at TCJ Dan Nadel bemoaned how comics are still perceived as low culture by the ignorant masses. Increasingly I wonder if it’s the discourse surrounding comics that’s perceived as unsophisticated. It often caters to the sensibilities of white men who are forever foisting their racist sexist takes on comics onto the world under the noble guise of history. They actively alienate readers from other demographics, and routinely mock and celebrate that alienation. They (and you) dismiss people’s deeply felt reactions to comics’ trenchant racism and sexism as empty “political correctness,” stripping protesters of their very humanity, denying their capacity to think and feel in the genuine way that you do.
Your star shines brightly, Mr. Spiegelman, though I know you have a difficult relationship with fame. I often think about how, in a “corrective” book about Françoise Mouly’s many accomplishments, Jeet Heer chose to use your name twice (once more than Mouly’s) in the title. Heer’s shortcomings belong to him, not you, but I want to circle back on the point I began with: it’s impossible to extricate our individual experience from our work and beliefs. The things we find meaningful—what’s important to us, as well as what’s not—emanate from the place of deep personal bias on which we build a life. It’s always personal, an idea that Heer explores ably through the rest of that otherwise excellent book. But acknowledging those connections is a wholly different project than casting everything in their shadow.
The world is large, and each of us exists within it, not the other way around. It’s incumbent upon us to try to overcome our natural tendency to center everything on the self. Real criticism thrives in multiplicity. It can’t live in the certainty of a person who shoots down opposing points of view, whether it’s with bullets or rhetoric. It demands room for doubt.
Comics culture needs to face the uncomfortable truth that its faves are problematic, which is not to say they’re worthless or irredeemable. As the author of this letter, I can tell you it’s not a whole lot of fun. But I also believe that speaking honestly and openly about the flaws in the things we care about is even more important than celebrating an artist, promoting an art form, or defending a cause, however heartfelt our admiration may be.
Murderous terrorists have long been the known enemies of cartoonists everywhere. But the lack of empathy and cultural awareness you have demonstrated is a much more subtle, grave, and pervasive threat to the health of comics today. You’re in a unique position to promote meaningful conversation on a constellation of issues that matter to a lot of smart people. Take a long hard look at yourself, Mr. Spiegelman. You are failing.
Kim O’Connor
______
All HU posts on satire and Charlie Hebdo are here.
I’m not a big fan of Spiegelman’s in general, but I have to admit, the fact that he’s running around saying “cartoonists lives matter” kind of shocked me. I know he’s old and self-regarding, but seriously—there’s no one anywhere in his circle that could explain to him in words of one syllable why that’s awful?
Thank you, Kim. As always, your articles say what needs to be said.
I’m generally in agreement with Kim O’Connor here (though I’m on record defending the Charlie Hebdo comics themselves in an earlier comment section on this blog). The murdered cartoonists were appropriated by the French political establishment on January 11, and to pretend that a celebration like the PEN gala is at this point merely a matter of defending free speech is inexcusably simplistic. And of course O’Connor is entirely correct about the stupefying callous travestying of “Black lives matter.”
Of course, with a first paragraph like that, everybody’s probably guessed that I have an objection, so here it is: If somebody had told O’Connor she doesn’t understand, let’s say, Bollywood, I don’t think she would have responded with a sarcastic remark about “the (supposedly) inscrutable kingdom of India.” So I suppose the assumption here is that the French have it good enough that it’s okay for an American to write that way about them. Well, maybe they don’t.
Whoa! What the?… Is that the same Jeet Heer who wrote on this very blog: “Anyone who can’t see the satirical (indeed outlandishly satirical) element of Angelfood McSpade has no business being a comics critic. And the use of racial stereotypes on the cover to Joplin’s Cheap Thrills album makes sense: the history of American popular music is deeply permeated by blackface, minstrelsy, and whites appropriating (and parodying) African-American musical stylings (as Joplin herself did). I think it is to Crumb is willing to implicate himself in his satires on racism — that he doesn’t see racism as cultural phenomenon outside of himself that needs to be condemned but as cultural legacies that pervasively shape his own sensibility and need to be confronted internally. Crumb’s delving into racism is a mark of his greatness as an artist. Crumb’s sexism is a more complicated matter for another discussion.”?
Domingos, it is the same Jeet Heer. I don’t know if his position has moved some since then, or if he just sees CH as very different from Crumb…?
Great piece, Kim.
As for Jeet, I think his attitude shifted somewhat after the Pamela Geller incident. He was pretty hard on Trudeau’s critique before that.
I know that, Noah, it was rhetorical… I bring this up because he gave me such a hard time. Imagine my surprise when I found him on my side of the fence.
I was surprised too!
But is he really on your side of the fence? Jeet doesn’t actually make any personal comments on Crumb in the New Republic article, he simply does it through quoting Spiegelman. And Spiegelman seems to find those early Angelfood McSpades somewhat agreeable but Crumb’s returning to the same trough over the years less so.
Jeet’s article should also be read in conjunction in with his reprinted Twitter feed:
“As it happens, although they come down on slightly different sides, Francoise & Art also have the most nuanced take on Hebdo. My own take on all this is very close to Francoise’s, as articulated here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/comic-riffs/wp/2015/05/05/charlie-hebdos-pen-award-top-cartoonists-endorse-saluting-magazines-courage/”
He’s very much on Spiegelman and Mouly’s side in this whole matter it seems. And as Kim alludes to above, some of Mouly’s comments on the issue definitely stray into realm of pure idiocy. It seems like self-regard runs in the family:
“The New Yorker’s Mouly, who is co-hosting a table, emphasizes this difference, in suggesting that some writers and editors don’t fully appreciate the cartoonist’s art, and so might judge Charlie Hebdo with less perception. “Some people’s intelligence is narrow, within their own ‘language’ and mode of communication,” Mouly tells The Post. “Cartoonists are canny because they work on both fronts. They can do a mental dance. And there is a concision that cartoonists bring. They speak in symbols — that’s what they’ve trained their mind to do.”
Perhaps he’s straddling the fence…
You don’t just have the wrong answer, Uland, you have the wrong question. Brown wasn’t even the first murder victim that week. It is reaffirmed that black lives matter because an unarmed black man is murdered by police every 28 hours – let alone other genders and the lawful weapon ownership issue that raises – and the dominant social and cultural institutions of our day mostly serve to isolate, excuse and erase these atrocities. You’re wrong in both scale and substance, and the comparison remains blatantly offensive and belittling. You’re flat-out not going to be shot down just for being a cartoonist, period. That’s simply not the case for black people in this country, who are often (for example) killed after trying to get help with their car troubles or reporting a robbery.
Even assuming your moral argument were relevant, it’s dangerously nonsensical. It doesn’t apply to other killings: *”If driving Alan Turing to suicide was essentially unjust and gassing six million Jews was essentially unjust, they are morally equivalent.”
This reduces it to special pleading, but no justification is given for white cartoonists’ special right to appropriate from anti police brutality movements centered explicitly on the relationship of blackness to humanity. The history and social context of cultural appropriation – which it appears you haven’t bothered to look into before forming an opinion – seem infinitely more relevant than a case for special treatment that is apparently so vapid and/or embarrassing that no one will explain it in public.
Hey Rivka and all; I deleted Uland’s posts —I’ve asked him not to comment here before. I don’t want to go on a long discussion of comments that aren’t here anymore, so…if folks could maybe not go further down that road, I’d appreciate it.
I figured the title of Heer’s book was for marketing. A lot more general readers have heard of Spiegelman than Mouly; like you say, Maus is practically required reading. (To my shame, it took me a few reads of the title before understanding what you meant about him being in the title twice)
I suppose I was mildly prophetic to invoke the Holocaust because the deleted troll took to my twitter mentions to inform me that all those police murders are actually “agitprop fiction”. You can ignore anything if you try hard enough.
Oops. I should’ve reloaded the page before commenting. Feel free to delete!
Nah, it’s all right; we’ll just try to move on from here.
Actually, cartoonist’s lives do matter, and there are widespread oppressive forces who disagree.
Beyond Charlie Hebdo, all over the world, in Turkey, Iran, South Africa, Egypt, Russia, India, cartoonists are hounded, imprisoned, beaten, and murdered for what they draw. It is therefore entirely fitting for PEN to pay them tribute via the emblematic Charlie Hebdo.
I find it ironic that the same people who tell Spiegelman et al to check their privilege don’t check their own, as if cartoonists only practice their calling in Western democracies.
And Spiegelman is right. Most opponents to the award — as well as its proponents, to be fair– do not understand Charlie Hebdo. Having been a reader from its founding, and being French, I do.
Je suis toujours Charlie.
Graham Clark says: So I suppose the assumption here is that the French have it good enough that it’s okay for an American to write that way about them. Well, maybe they don’t. –
I don’t know for THE French, but I don’t.
I wouldn’t dare one second to give my interpretations about how racist is the US society, or how funny/offensive/whatever a humoristic US magazine is or is not, because I never lived there, I don’t have enough cultural references (yet, we, as subject of the US cultural Empire, do have some references). I could have some ideas, some thoughts, I could do some research, but I wouldn’t have any certainty, and wouldn’t dare to express any irrevocable affirmation. At the very end, seeing where the “critics” and “defense” of CH are coming from – in the US and in France – it looks, for me, like two arrogances are facing : one is imperialistic and self-confident, the other is pathetic and desperate. And reading comments about CH from the US, one can learn a lot about how deeply different the places of religion in both our countries are, and how being 20 years late in the development of political correctness can affect the perceptions of difficult, if simple, issues.
Sorry for the clumsy English.
Alex, governments everywhere (here too) will target folks who speak out. That’s not generally pointed at cartoonists in particular; it’s pointed at unpopular opinions, and especially often at marginalized groups. Reifying cartoonists as an oppressed minority is stupid and offensive. Spiegelman is not oppressed because some cartoonists elsewhere are oppressed. Pretending otherwise is incredibly presumptuous and blinkered on his part. It’s like Christians saying they’re oppressed in the U.S. because Christians are a minority group in the Middle East. It’s the opposite of being sensitive to context and privilege; it’s claiming victim status so you can enjoy both your power and the sense of being oppressed.It’s bullshit.
Thomas, there are plenty of critics of CH in France, if you look about. Some of them are Muslim. (Edit: On rereading, I think you’re acknowledging that; sorry, think I misread at first.) Further, the Anglophone world also has secularists who leverage secularism in order to marginalize Islam. CH exists in the French context, but it exists in a global context as well. And if speaking about folks in other cultures is verbotten, maybe you can explain what CH is doing when it draws “funny” pictures of Nigerian women? Like, can we only look at that in the French context? If Nigerian women (or, say, black women elsewhere) objected to being drawn that way, are they idiots who don’t understand French humor, or what? The extreme cultural relativism people are using to defend CH seems like it’s pretty opportunistic. CH can criticize Muslims with impunity because satire, but if people criticize CH, it’s, oh, none of you understand. Given the double standard, I find the whole argument difficult to take seriously.
I believe if you examine his timeline in full, Jeet Heer is not referring to Art Spiegelman as an expert, but Art Goldhammer, who Heer pairs with Mouly as experts on Charlie Hebdo that offer nuanced but different opinions. The piece he was referring to was this:
http://america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2015/5/pen-america-charlie-hebdo-and-the-virtue-of-self-restraint.html
Well, Noah, you should. Because there has been a lot of distortion of CH’s nature, some in bad faith, some in good. This site has had several examples.
“Alex, governments everywhere (here too) will target folks who speak out. That’s not generally pointed at cartoonists in particular; it’s pointed at unpopular opinions, and especially often at marginalized groups.”
I’m not sure you are aware at how the above statement turns the entire anti-award argument to mush. Yes, cartoonists are like authors and journalists who are victims of repression the world over. Which makes them perfect recipients for support by PEN, an organisation specifically dedicated to protecting freedon of expression.
The case of the Nigerian women illo exactly illustrates why an uninformed opinion is pretty nearly worthless. On HU the word balloon was mistranslated as “Don’t touch our welfare!” No. ‘Allocs’ doesn’t refer to welfare, but to child allowances, which are open to all families regardless of income. The current government wants to cancel them for all couples with revenues superior to 100 000 euros a year (130 00 dollars). Naturally this provoked a torrent of outrage from the rich.
So it isn’t an attack on immigrant so-called welfare queens. It’s an attack on wealthy, privileged and overwhelmingly white French people.
That’s something you can’t understand because you don’t speak French, you know next to nothing about French culture or politics, and these are simply not sufficient grounds to criticise.
I ask you and Kim — have you ever actually held a copy of Charlie Hebdo in your hands?
That should have read 130 000 dollars, my bad.
Alex, you’re privileging the French interpretation of that cartoon, which is about Nigerian women. Why is that okay to do? if cross-cultural understanding is impossible, then isn’t the French cartoon an appropriation and misunderstanding, and therefore condemnable as such?
I don’t think that free speech absent context is a moral good worthy of being defended. If CH had been a Nazi rag, no one would defend it. Content matters. And the assertion that you, and you alone, are capable of parsing that content—that people of color just can’t possibly understand representations of people of color—is condescending and ridiculous.
I haven’t read CH. I’ve seen lots of images and read lots of analysis, from French speakers and others. And, you know, I am in fact familiar with the American context of BlackLivesMatter. Regardless of your position on CH, Spiegelman’s appropriation of that is insensitive and gross. The fact that you don’t seem to understand that makes me very skeptical (to put it mildly) of your broader pronouncements on race and interpretation.
The French interpretation of that cartoon is, in fact, the only valid one. It was aiming at an issue that concerns French people alone, in a publication present only in France, and can only be interpreted by people knowledgeable of French realities. That’s why it’s “ok to do”, as you put it.
Cross-cultural understanding is only possible with knowledge. If that knowledge is wrong, as in the case of Canfield’s translation, then you have no basis for judgement.
” And the assertion that you, and you alone, are capable of parsing that content—that people of color just can’t possibly understand representations of people of color—is condescending and ridiculous.”
I neither said nor implied any such thing. The condescension is in fact on your part. Are you not aware that millions of French citizens are people of color? You imply that only American POC count.
Spiegelamn’s use of ‘cartoonists’ lives matter’ is neither insensitive nor gross. There is no monopoly on the phrase — lives lmatter. It’s been around for centuries. I encountered one variant in a G.K.Chesterton story. And in the context of 12 murdered employees of a cartoon-heavy mag, as well as the horrors directed at cartoonists the world over, it is damn well appropriate.
To condemn the awrd by PEN is to be an objective supporter of censorship by murder, to my mind.
“I don’t think that free speech absent context is a moral good worthy of being defended.”
That’s not quite right; I think free speech needs to be defended for practical reasons. But I think saying evil shit is not in itself especially honorable or moral. The defense of CH is based not on some abstract “we love free speech,” but on the belief that what they said was worth saying. And again, you can see that that’s the case because Art Spiegelman would not be defending them if he thought they were neo-Nazis.
“The French interpretation of that cartoon is, in fact, the only valid one. It was aiming at an issue that concerns French people alone”
There are many French interpretations of that cartoon. When I’ve pointed you to negative interpretations of CH from people of color, you’ve called them liars and fools.
And, sorry, black people who are caricatured can in fact talk about that. So can Muslims. So can anyone else, really. There’s no one interpretation, and no one interpretive community. Art is polysemic. Stop trying to shut down conversation in the name of free speech. It’s idiotic. You’re claiming that you are an especially sophisticated interpreter, and yet you seem to have utterly abandoned any vaguely nuanced interpretation of how art works in favor of strident denunciation and insular whining. It’s embarrassing, especially when I know you’re capable of better when you want to be.
You don’t understand blacklivesmatter either. All lives matter erases the specific oppression of black people. It’s a way to deny that black people face in this country specific violence. That’s what Spiegelman is doing. It’s what you’re doing too—all in the name of cultural sensitivity.
“To condemn the awrd by PEN is to be an objective supporter of censorship by murder, to my mind.”
This is such absurd bullshit. We should give awards to neo-Nazis who are shot spewing racist filth, or else condone their murder? I don’t think CH is a neo-Nazi rag, but people who think it’s racist are not supporting murder. They’re objecting to giving an award to racists. And there’s a decent argument to be made that CH is in fact crappy at negotiating issues of race (Jeet Heer makes it in TNR, for one).
I’m going to grant that the Boko Haram cartoon is something that requires highly specific knowledge of the cultural context to be properly understood. Because of the long-standing use of the racist “welfare queens” trope in U. S. political discourse, it is very easy for Americans to take the wrong way.
However, why does this cartoon and its (mis)interpretation matter so much to Charlie Hebdo and its defenders? I seriously doubt it had anything to do with the firebombing and subsequent massacre.
Now, the Porn Star Muhammad cartoon (click here) is something that strikes me as having everything to do with the violence directed at Charlie Hebdo. I look at that cartoon, and the intent I see is to antagonize Muslims and to give anti-Muslim bigots a laugh at their expense. The fact that Muslims are an oppressed minority in France, and that it’s a sexually based insult, makes that intent seem especially vicious.
Now perhaps I’m wrong. Perhaps I’m “unsophisticated” and a “misreader” who isn’t taking into account the cultural context that would make this seemingly repugnant cartoon an example of worthwhile satire.
So, Alex or Art Spiegelman or Françoise Mouly or anyone else who wants to defend the alleged merits of this cartoon, please have at it. If you’re looking to convert Charlie Hebdo detractors, a convincing defense of this is perhaps the perfect place to start. Going on about the American misunderstanding of the Boko Haram cartoon is a red herring. It distracts from the issue.
“The defense of CH is based not on some abstract “we love free speech,” but on the belief that what they said was worth saying. – See more at: https://www.hoodedutilitarian.com/2015/05/an-open-letter-to-art-spiegelman/#sthash.BCRTJCLb.dpuf”
Well, depends on who you’re talking about; Neil Gaiman was 100% clear in that he didn’t care at all about the content of CH, just that they had a right to draw whatever they wanted. Don’t assume everyone who was pro the PEN award had the same reasons for being so.
Also, I completely agree with Alex B about the context: French illustrator, French publication, French interpretation. If you are going to demand that every cartoon is acceptable in every context, you’ll end up with Garfield (except not since he does eat meat so I’m sure there are contexts where he is not OK).
Forgot: Your lines
“The implication is of course that the PEN protestors think that you should ~totally~ get to .
(Of course they don’t think that. Literally no one does.)” ?
Wrong. As proof, someone actuality did kill the CH cartoonists; Lars Vilks has been attacked by would-be murderers a couple of times, and these are only the killings in Western countries, the situation is way worse in some other countries. There are people who want to kill other people because of what those other people drew; none of use here wish it were so, but it is a fact.
“There are many French interpretations of that cartoon. When I’ve pointed you to negative interpretations of CH from people of color, you’ve called them liars and fools.”
No, I haven’t, and you know it.
” We should give awards to neo-Nazis who are shot spewing racist filth, or else condone their murder? I don’t think CH is a neo-Nazi rag, but people who think it’s racist are not supporting murder. They’re objecting to giving an award to racists.”
” Stop trying to shut down conversation in the name of free speech. It’s idiotic. You’re claiming that you are an especially sophisticated interpreter, and yet you seem to have utterly abandoned any vaguely nuanced interpretation of how art works in favor of strident denunciation and insular whining. It’s embarrassing, especially when I know you’re capable of better when you want to be.”
This is just name-calling unworthy of you. Not one word of it is true.
I am simply much, much better qualified than you to judge CH, and to judge its partisans and detractors, What I said about the Boko Haram cartoon is not interpretation. It is FACT.
” We should give awards to neo-Nazis who are shot spewing racist filth, or else condone their murder? I don’t think CH is a neo-Nazi rag, but people who think it’s racist are not supporting murder. They’re objecting to giving an award to racists.”
CH has for 34 years consistently fought the good fight against racism, against discrimination, for the protection of undocumented workers. If you knew CH you would know this.
Your tone of rage is worrying. Is HU to become a little Pravda? I’ve deliberately kept my own tone cool and factual. Intolerance of dissent bodes ill for the quality of the blog…
So, please, no more insults, Noah. You just demean yourself.
RSM: good points.
You are right, there are plenty of critics of CH in France, I’m aware of that, thank you – I have my own. Not so many saying they’re racist, by the way. Most of them are from religious organisations, and different conservative and/or racist parts of the political spectrum (and, there, I must admit that it can be a lot of people, nowadays).
And as I’d like to eventually understand French politics, I would appreciate your help, you obviously know so much better than me.
Of course, my point was not to say “you don’t have the right to speak about this subject if you’re not living here…” I’m not saying « none of you understand ». I’m saying, « how can you be so sure, where are you speaking from, what are your own context and intellectual tools when saying CH is racist ? » Where is the doubt ?
CH exists in a global context since the attack. All of sudden, the slowly-dying, atheist, leftist punk-rock satire magazine that’s intended for a domestic audience is under the world’s scrutiny.
Then, that Nigerian cover. It’s very uncomfortable. It is for me, too. It’s bad taste. It’s crude, it’s disturbing, it’s aggressive. That’s what CH is. The point is not « can we only look at that in the French context », as you said, but « can we look at it not forgetting about the local context ». If you forget it (and there, it’s time for this : http://www.understandingcharliehebdo.com/#boko-haram), you just don’t try to understand it. And no, black women who object to being drawn that way are not idiots, maybe this particular kind of French humor is idiotic. This cover is not about Nigerian woman. It’s « using » the Nigeria tragedy to address a local politic issue.
CH is not criticizing Muslims, they’re criticizing all religions. They don’t do so with impunity, you won’t believe it, but there are laws, here, too. Laws that allow to criticize religions within certain limits. They never lost any of the many cases – filed by catholics, mostly. Forgetting this is an extreme relativism with facts.
“I am simply much, much better qualified than you to judge CH, and to judge its partisans and detractors, What I said about the Boko Haram cartoon is not interpretation. It is FACT.”
Nope. It’s an interpretation. Francophone writers have disagreed with you; when they gave different translations, you called them liars.
People you cared about were killed in a horrible manner. That’s terrible. It doesn’t make you the one true interpreter of individual cartoons or of CH’s legacy. Shouting over and over again that it does doesn’t change that. And you are demonstrating pretty clearly
SW, I’m pretty sure Gaiman wouldn’t want to give CH an award if they were a neo-Nazi anti-Semitic rag. He claims he doesn’t care about content, but I think that’s an indication that he hasn’t really thought things through sufficiently.
“how can you be so sure, where are you speaking from, what are your own context and intellectual tools when saying CH is racist ?”
I’m ambivalent about CH’s racism. I think they used racist caricatures in an often thoughtless way, sometimes in the interest of attacking a marginalized group. My point isn’t that they’re evil; my point is that people who find their cartoons offensive are not idiots, and that if you do find the cartoons offensive and racist (a reasonable interpretation) you are fully justified in not wanting to honor them for making crappy cartoons.
As for doubt; I’ve published like ten articles from a range of perspectives on CH. Kim talks about trying to leave room for other interpretations in her piece too.
Using racist caricatures of Nigerian women to address a local issue is, I would argue, racist. Is the thing.
“Nope. It’s an interpretation.”
No, it isn’t. It’s a point of fact. You might argue that I have the fact wrong, but you can’t call my information an interpretation.
“Francophone writers have disagreed with you; when they gave different translations, you called them liars.”
Where and when?
And their different translations are wrong.I have spoken both English and French since the age of 3. I have taught both languages. I have translated professionally for 35 years. I have lived in America, Britain and France. I would like to know if Mr Canfield’s qualifications surpass those.
BTW is not enough to be a francophone. You have to be either French or a long-term resident of France to understand. I am both.
Alex,
I think it’s fair to ask Noah for examples of French language critiques of CH, but I also think it’s fair to ask that you offer a defense of the cartoon cited by RSM in the comment you praised.
Also, if you’re convinced that CH only makes sense in the context of France to those steeped in its linguistic and cultural traditions, on what authority does an American concern like PEN have the right to grant an award to CH? As Noah said, this seems like an awfully opportunistic form of cultural relativism to me.
Alex,
I think it’s fair to ask Noah for examples of French language critiques of CH, but I also think it’s fair to ask that you offer a defense of the cartoon cited by RSM in the comment you praised.
Also, if you’re convinced that CH only makes sense in the context of France or to those steeped in its linguistic and cultural traditions, on what authority does an American concern like PEN have the right to grant an award to CH? As Noah said, this seems like an awfully opportunistic form of cultural relativism to me.
PEN is not an American concern. It is international, and has chapters in France and in francophone countries.
Here are some French Muslims talking about PEN controversy… http://www.vice.com/read/we-spoke-to-seven-french-muslims-about-the-pencharlie-hebdo-controversy-535
The opinion is diverse, but there’s definitely some disagreement over the merits of the CH cartoons and editorial stance.
There was also that article by a former staff member, which seems to argue that editorial took an Islamaphobic turn.
http://www.article11.info/?Charlie-Hebdo-pas-raciste-Si-vous
My French is pretty bad, so my apologies if it’s arguing the opposite.
Alex–
This wasn’t an award from PEN International. It was from the PEN American Center. The latter is part of the first, but they don’t speak for each other.
No, but they speak TO each other.
Anyway, the award has nothing to do with the content, really. PEN defends freedom of expression, even abhorrent expression, much as the ACLU does.
Right; the editor’s critique circulated in French and English.
I’ve linked various critiques over the course of the back and forth on the blog. Alex saw me do so. Like I said, he tends to just dismiss them, claiming his own as the one true interpretation. I’m kind of busy, so I can’t say I’m too eager to scroll back through multiple threads to find links to articles Alex has already seen so he can say once again that he doesn’t care. We can use the editor’s article as a test case though; Alex accused him of being a liar the last time that piece came up, if I remember correctly.
Linked this one:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/they-are-not-charlie/2015/01/13/7c9d6998-9aae-11e4-86a3-1b56f64925f6_story.html
“Abdelaali, a 17-year-old high school senior who did observe the quiet minute, said he did so only because he was outraged by the killings in the name of his religion that were carried out at Charlie Hebdo — the satirical French newspaper attacked by Islamist extremists. But he also said he feels disgusted by a newspaper whose provocative cartoons had used the image of the prophet Muhammad for satire — and which continued to do so in its tragicomic first edition hitting newsstands Wednesday morning. “I know some kids who agreed with the attack,” he said. “I did not, but I also cannot say that I support what Charlie Hebdo is doing.””
But hey, I’m sure his opinion doesn’t count because cartoonists have special brains which understand symbols, and Muslims don’t understand the subtle ways in which vicious stereotypical caricatures of them are actually on their side.
And fwiw, I think an award for freedom of expression without regard to content is a bad idea, in part because it’s (self) deceptive, and in part because I think a morality without regard to content is essentially debased. Again, no one is going to give a PEN award to a neo-Nazi publication, nor should they. Content matters in aesthetics; to maintain otherwise is, in my view, philistine.
Alex,
For a guy so sure of his take you’re awfully selective about the cartoons (and interpretations thereof) with which you’ll engage.
Also…the PEN/ACLU comparison doesn’t work. The ACLU does in fact legally defend all freedom of expression — but it doesn’t give out awards of merit to KKK marches. PEN is not just defending CH’s legal write to speak; it is honoring that speech. That’s rather different. It’s convenient for those who approve of CH’s content to elide the distinction, but the distinction still exists, convenient or not.
Out of curiosity, who are the “abhorrent” recipients of PEN American Center Freedom of Expression Courage Award? I couldn’t find a full list of those honored online. The press release announcing it for Charlie Hebdo mentioned Salman Rushdie, Michael Ondaatje, Philip Roth, and Gore Vidal. That’s four establishment literary celebrities. I gather they haven’t given it to Larry Flynt, and when I think of “abhorrent” freedom-of-expression figures in the U. S., he’s the first one that comes to mind.
I didn’t write this to change anyone’s mind about Charlie Hebdo or the PEN award. If I had, this would have been an open letter to Neil Gaiman or maybe Alison Bechdel, and it would have focused on the vital point that Noah just made: *of course* it’s impossible to divorce courage from content. Noah’s right that PEN wouldn’t have given the award to a neo-Nazi pub (not that I think CH is that vile). A related point that’s been raised by writers like Teju Cole, Francine Prose, and Keith Gessen is that lionizing CH perpetuates a self-aggrandizing narrative of who Americans perceive as the most imminent threat to free speech. A worldview in which militant Islam is the Biggest Bad is itself kinda racist, though IDK that any one of those people argued that directly.
The positions of Gaiman, Bechdel, and Spiegelman are indeed different in meaningful ways, though their rhetoric, and its effect, is largely the same. I haven’t seen Gaiman use or directly comment on the “Cartoonists’ lives matter” slogan, though he speaks of cartoonists being “in the gutter” in the Salon piece. Bechdel fully endorses the slogan (if not Charlie Hebdo). Ironically, her take seems to be the opposite of Spiegelman’s; she says neither side is fully right or wrong.
Jeet Heer’s piece at TNR convincingly argues that the ‘warring’ interpretations of CH cartoons with regard to intent and aesthetics are not in fact mutually exclusive. His description of the aesthetic as failed (not necessarily racist) suggest that the worst Hebdo covers are simply bad cartooning (sort of like Ted Rall). Political cartooning is technical in that way; if your target is not clear–and particularly if you end up mocking the very people you meant to defend–you’re doing it badly. I think that’s compelling middle ground, though my own views are more extreme.
As I’ve argued elsewhere, CH supporters who try to frame this as a debate about censorship (or murder, I mean, come on) are arguing a dead moral question. The reason they continue to do so is because they are either stupid, racist, or (if you’re feeling charitable) uncomfortable talking about racism.
Kim O’Connor wrote:
> As I’ve argued elsewhere, CH supporters who try to frame this as a
> debate about censorship (or murder, I mean, come on) are arguing
> a dead moral question. The reason they continue to do so is
> because they are either stupid, racist, or (if you’re feeling
> charitable) uncomfortable talking about racism.
Yeah – but WHY exactly are they doing it? It’s a truly fascinating phenomenon, the way they proudly defends viewpoints which are shared by everyone.
I reminds me of this rather well-written piece:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/slacktivist/2008/10/08/false-witnesses-2/
“The reason they continue to do so is because they are either stupid, racist, or (if you’re feeling charitable) uncomfortable talking about racism.”
Okay, now you’re just being a dick. You’ve spent too much time here if you think the only reason somebody would disagree is stupidity or a bad character — you’re picking up Noah’s bad habits.
I don’t have a horse in this race, but what I can glean from the sidelines is that different people have different moral intuitions here, probably reflecting different moral values (or different weightings of the same values, probably). People with very strong values one way or the other tend to cast the “debate” as the Obvious Truth vs. muddled stupidity, and to mock the very idea that there could be any “debate” about that Truth — both “sides” agree on that, they just disagree about which side is the stupid one. (So you’re actually not alone in calling your opponents morons). People with less strong intuitions find it confusing exactly what they should think.
…so, yeah, I guess I’m calling for “Nuance”, which makes me as racist as Hitler, or Francis Galton at least, or whatevs. At least enough “Nuance” not to assume that those that differ are therefore stupid, racist, or stupid racists; or, on the other side, stupid, appeasers, or stupid appeasers.
“you’re picking up Noah’s bad habits.”
Jones, I’ve known you for years at this point. So it is with love and affection that I ask, could you possibly cut out this bullshit? Every so often you throw in an out of the blue ad hominem sneer at me to the effect that I’m not sufficiently civil. I don’t think I have ever, ever, in all the time I’ve known you, done anything like that to you, and yet, somehow, you’re supposed to be the kind voice of reason and I’m the bullying jerk. Maybe it’s just because I’m coming down with a cold or whatever, but it’s kind of pissing me off. If you want to take a stand for polite discourse and treating the other person fairly and all that, maybe instead of inserting random jabs every couple of months to show you’re onto me, you could just stop being a jerk in my direction? I would appreciate it. Because, hello, actual human being here, not just a foil for you to show your moderate awesomeness, you know?
As for your other points; I don’t think you’re being sufficiently attentive to Kim’s point. She isn’t saying that anyone who disagrees with her about CH is a racist or stupid. She’s saying that framing the argument as about censorship is confused or malicious, because no one is actually arguing that cartoonists should be murdered for making cartoons. Kim is not actually mocking the idea that there can be any debate (she mentions in the piece that she’s trying to see Spiegelman’s side.) So…yeah, you might want to reread.
Jones and Alex Buchet’s comments illustrate a perennial truth: the more someone crows about their own objectivity, the more likely it is they’re saying something super biased or altogether wrong. Jones, my whole letter was about valuing different perspectives, acknowledging personal bias, avoiding gross solipsism, and granting there is intelligence on both sides. But your nuanced thoughts on my “being a dick” for a comment you misread has been duly noted. Ta.
Like every other critic of CH, I don’t condone murder. If you still don’t get that I recommend the link Kasper dropped above. Here’s a sentence I never thought I’d write: His kitten-murderer analogy is spot on.
It’s also worth noting that accusing someone of racism isn’t saying they’re Hitler. Racism is common and doesn’t always come down to malice or personal hatred. I would never argue that Spiegelman, Gaiman, or Bechdel hate black people or Muslims. In fact I assume they don’t.
Kim — hey, totally, the Hitler thing was hyperbole, meant to be OOT funny (well, yeah, okay, don’t give up the day job, I guess). I actually wish it were more generally understood that being accused of being racist does not mean you’re a complete arsehole, it just means that you’re being racist. Taking it, as rightwing types do, as being accused of the equivalent of (say) genocide or child abuse, is precisely why older white privileged dudes bristle at the accusation, and that’s really unhelpful of them. (I think Dave Sim felt similarly about accusations of misogyny). It isn’t the equivalent, and everyone in privilege needs to get that in their heads.
[…just to be absolutely clear here, I’m NOT in any way, shape or form saying that this is the fault or responsibility of people making such charges, or that they need to mollycoddle the hurt feelings of those thus charged. If someone tells you “hey that was racist/sexist/whatever”, it’s totally on you to hear that, think about their perspective, and do whatever you’ve got to do differently. My point is that (a) I don’t actually think being accused of racism is, like, the new racism, or the only racism in modern America, or (to the point here) being equated to Hitler — it was a joke, and (b) I wish other people with various bits of privilege realised that too — and it’s on them to get there. Sorry if any of this still makes me sound like a dickhead; if so, I haven’t expressed myself well enough…or maybe I just am a dickhead]
I’m far-left-wing, but I’ve also taken various IATs, and read bits of the psych. literature. I know I’ve got racist, sexist and probably other prejudiced attitudes that come out in my behaviour [definitely classist — that’s the major source of prejudice that it’s still okay for lefty college grads like me to profess, which is fucked up]; I know I was more part of the problem ten years ago than I am today, but I’m still trying. So, yeah, I think probably (judging from the research) everyone reading this “is” racist and otherwise prejudiced — we’ve all got some dodgy unconscious shit, no matter how our deeply felt moral commitments work against it.
And I didn’t remotely mean to suggest you were condoning murder — just that that’s how the extreme of the other “side” frames you. Sorry if it read differently.
As for me misreading, being a dick, unnuanced etc. in my interpretation of your comment…well, maybe you don’t want a back and forth on the finer hermeneutics of your comment, which is fair enough. So maybe I’ll just have another go at saying how I read it, and I should leave it at that. This is what you said:
“As I’ve argued elsewhere, CH supporters who try to frame this as a debate about censorship (or murder, I mean, come on) are arguing a dead moral question. The reason they continue to do so is because they are either stupid, racist, or (if you’re feeling charitable) uncomfortable talking about racism.”
There’s at least two ways somebody could disagree with your take on CH — first, they could disagree in the debate as you (and they) frame it. Secondly, they could disagree, at a meta-level, about the way you frame it. You are accusing your opponents in the meta-debate of racism and/stupidity. I think that’s an unjustified ad hominem, and that such people can have what appear to them good reasons to frame it differently, and those reasons need not be racism and/or stupidity. (I’m not saying the reasons actually are good!!). But insofar as I took your accusation against your second-order-opponents to be also an accusation against your first-order-opponents — and I totally did, because I’ve only now seen the difference — I misread, and I’m sorry.
Noah — I apologise sincerely, and I’ll knock it off.
For the record, what I have in mind for where it’s affected me directly are chiefly various discussions about religion and ethics. Christianity (say) gets to be represented by Stanley Hauerwas and other theologians who’ve thought deeply and intelligently about the issues; secular utilitarianism (say) gets to be represented by George W. Bush and Richard bloody Dawkins. I know that I’ve seen (what appeared to me to be) other examples, but they were usually directed at other people, so I can’t remember specifics. Nobody wants to reprosecute those arguments, but just so you know that it’s not (from where I’m sitting) coming from nowhere, that’s where it’s coming from.
But I’ll knock it off, and I apologise.
It’s odd that nobody here realises that I am discussing issues of fact, not opinion.
Noah, the only person I outright called a liar is Tariq Ramadan, because he is. He claimed Charlie Hebdo went bankrupt (it didn’t) and that a former editor joined a right-wing extremist organisation (he didn’t.) These aren’t mistakes. Ramadan knows the French scene intimately.
When I state that ‘welfare’ is a wrong translation of ‘allocs’ I am making a statement of fact. If any disagree, the onus is on them to disprove it.
The rest is name-calling and sarcasm at my expense.
Alex,
Again, I respectfully ask that you participate in this conversation. Several commenters, myself included, asked questions relevant to your stated facts about the translation of welfare. Kim’s article was not about that translation, nor did anyone in the comments disagree with your translation.
Rather, we all asked whether you’d given due respect to other views, and at times supplied you with examples of those views. So far, you’ve refused.
I asked you to comment on the PEN award. You replied with an erroneous statement about who decides the award, and then shifted the grounds of your argument to suit your defense of the organization. When pressed by RSM for details you remained silent, much as you did when he asked you to explain how the porn star prophet cartoon could be read as anything other than a provocation.
Finally, and this is what kills me, you’re making a gross argument from authority. This is a logical fallacy, not a breach of some fuzzy humanist notion about how discourse should work. Even if I accept that your credentials as a translator and resident of France are necessary conditions for a defensible interpretation of the cartoons, they are by no means sufficient. I can go to a French message board to defend a New Yorker cartoon and still be dead wrong about its meaning. On this very website smart people disagree about the meaning of North American comics (I’m looking at you, Noah and Jones). I suspect you think one of them is wrong and the other is right.
Basically, I’m asking you to engage and not obfuscate.
First of all, Nate, you have not taken into account the time difference between Europe and America. While you were all posing those questions I was at home asleep in bed. I resent the implication that I’m stonewalling.
Second, I am in no way subject to compulsion or judgement from anyone on this site. Clear?
Now: on the PEN award. Such awards are necessarily made by the individual chapters. But they have an international reach. As proof of this consider the participation in the controversy of the Australian Peter Carey and the Anglo-Indian Salman Rushdie.
Of course the porn star prophet cartoon was meant as a provocation. It was also an act of defiance against the terrorists who had firebombed CH’s offices.
Argument from authority a fallacy? Then I suppose you’d prefer
getting your medical advice from Earl the plumber than from a doctor.
I have to repeat myself again and again and again. I was NOT DEFENDING THE CARTOON. I was pointing out the error in translation that led to a complete misunderstanding of its intent and to the portrayal of CH as a reactionary anti-immigrant organ. In fact CH has for decades been at the forefront of the defense of immigrants and other oppressed minorities.
BTW, it’s hilarious being reproached for embracing cultural diversity, when said diversity is to HU what gambling is to Las Vegas.
I’m not sure why this matters.
As I understand this controversy, some people object to the idea that a publication that engages in arguably racist and sexist imagery (in service of amorphous satire or not, it really doesn’t matter) should be honored as an example of free speech ideals in the West. That, to me, makes sense. I don’t believe that a history of defending immigrants and other oppressed minorities excuses depictions of Black people as monkeys.
I don’t know of any context or history of service to immigrants and other oppressed minorities that justifies likening Black people to animals.
Again, you have to know the context.
A far-right publication had run a cover implying that Christine Taubira, the Minister of Justice and a person of color, was a monkey. The CH cover parodied this in a “see, this is what they REALLY wanted to do.” Shock and provocation.
Thanks Jones; I appreciate it.
Alex, shock and provocation proves no worthy reasoning for likening Black people to animals in public. I’m sorry, but the context you’ve outlined fails to persuade me that CH’s use of demeaning Black stereotypes elevates it’s material much past the far-right publication it hoped to lampoon.
Does context matter? Generally, yes. But when I saw that image from CH, it brought to mind all the times in my life where people like me are assumed to be beasts first and human never. CH promoted such thinking, even if they only intended to lampoon it, as you say. I expect satirists to have more capacity for the limits of context and nuance, and that image did not display such sophistication.
One can oppose terrorists who employ violence in an attempt to silence provocateurs like Charlie Hebdo without supporting the content those provocateurs employ or any attempts to raise such persons as examples of civic virtue. Charlie Hebdo deserves neither assassin’s bullets nor free speech awards. Ignoring them appears the sensible option.
Okay, so this is the thing Alex. Even in context, you can still think that portraying black people as monkeys is racist.
The cartoonists may well have intended to satirize racism. But do they succeed? Or do they just reproduce racist tropes in the name of being funny/shocking/clever? You can disagree about that—but people who disagree with you about that aren’t doing so out of lack of knowledge or a failure to appreciate the context, necessarily. This is Jeet’s point, as I understand it; CH is not sufficiently thoughtful about racism, and so reproduce gross stereotypes in the name of liberation, without being talented enough to actually challenge those stereotypes.
Again, you can disagree with that. But if you in fact think that CH is participating clumsily in racist discourses, and by default baiting marginalized groups (especially Muslims), then it makes sense that you’d say, hey, this content is racist and stupid, and they don’t necessarily deserve an award for it. (Which does not mean that you think they should have been killed for it either.)
I think using Muslim caricatures as a way to sneer at Muslims, even if “not all Muslims” — it’s hard for me to see a context where I’d really want to cheer that on. Again, this could well be a failure of competence; they’re just not talented enough to figure out a way to criticize Islam without using racist tropes. I don’t exactly see that as what’s happening—but either way.
Well, that’s reasonable.
Perhaps it is entirely my fault but I confess there is much about this article and the subsequent discussion I simply do not understand.
1) Near the end of her article, Kim writes; “Real criticism thrives in multiplicity. It can’t live in the certainty of a person who shoots down opposing points of view, whether it’s with bullets or rhetoric. It demands room for doubt.” A fine sentiment!
A paragraph or so later, though, Kim says: “Murderous terrorists have long been the known enemies of cartoonists everywhere. But the lack of empathy and cultural awareness you have demonstrated is a much more subtle, grave, and pervasive threat to the health of comics today.”
If you make the ridiculous claim that a person’s peaceful expression of a point of view makes him more of a threat than “murderous terrorists” then it seems to me that you are in fact demonstrating “the certainty of a person who shoots down opposing points of view (with) rhetoric.” Perhaps Kim intended her final paragraph to be a satirical representation of the sort of rhetoric she deplored a paragraph earlier? If not, then by her own standard, it seems to me that her article cannot be considered “real criticism.”
2) You seem horrified, Kim, that Spiegelman had the temerity to publicly disagree with someone who is an art historian and someone else who is a Pulitzer Prize winning Jaime Hernandez fan. To paraphrase Martin Luther King Jr, I dream of a day when we judge people by the content of their arguments and not by the quality of their resumes. Being an art historian is a fine thing, enoying Jaime Hernandez is also perfectly fine. But those wonderful traits have nothing to do with evaluating whether or not a person is familiar enough with French culture to have a proper understanding of the context and meaning of the Hebdo cartoons. Perhaps the people you mention do have that sort of background; if so, then perhaps you should have mentioned that instead of taking the time to let us know their views on Jaime Hernandez.
3) Addressing Spiegelman, Kim writes; “You leveraged your authority as the person who put comics on the map as a literary form to publicly smack down artists who are less famous than you simply because they objected to the valorization (not the existence) of Charlie Hebdo. That you chose to badmouth them in your capacity as Captain Comics (protecting a literary gala from evil, no less) is deeply embarrassing to many of us…”
I don’t recall Spiegelman ever identifying himself as “Captain Comcs.” If he has, then I apologize for missing it. I also didn’t interpret his actions in this affair as a “Smack down.” Instead, I see a man who is using the respect he had earned in his field as a platform to speak out on a controversial subject that affects that field. To my way of thinking, that is far more laudable than being an elder statesman who never speaks out because he no longer wishes to run the risk of causing offense.
I am curious, Kim- what do you think a prominent cartoonist should do when she disagrees about something happening in her field? Does being a “Captain Comics” mean that a celebrated artist should never, ever, ever criticize someone who happens to be less well known?
4) I do not understand why you shoehorned in a criticism of a title Jeet Heer chose for his book about Spiegelman’s wife.
5) In a comment, Noah writes “…no one is actually arguing that cartoonists should be murdered for making cartoons…” If Noah means that no one is making that argument here, he is absolutely correct. But, of course, surprisingly enough, the entirety of the world contains some people who are not quite as civil as the writers and commenters at this site. Actually, you do not even have to look very far to find evidence that some people endorse killing cartoonists. Noah himself posted a quote from a 17 year old French man: ““I know some kids who agreed with the attack,”
Isn’t it important to recall that this discussion does in fact take place in a world where some people (not Kim!) do think that murdering cartoonists who offend is appropriate? And when we recognize the threatening environment these cartoonists worked in, doesn’t it become clear that they did demonstrate courage?
6) In a comment, Kim writes “Political cartooning is technical in that way; if your target is not clear–and particularly if you end up mocking the very people you meant to defend–you’re doing it badly.” Really? Please correct me if I’m wrong but you seem to be suggesting that in order to be done well a political cartoon needs to be immediately understood by not only the audience it was designed to reach but also by people in other cultures, all over the world, who may not even know about the subject matter being satirized. If satire is only acceptable if it’s immediately appreciated by the dullest imaginable member of the worldwide online audience then it seems to me you are creating a recipe for bland and downright dull cartoons.
I wonder, Kim, what you think about the “cancel Colbert” business of a while back. He satirized racism by seeming to adopt racist language. Was that bad satire because not everyone understood the joke?
Jones, re your Hitler joke…okay. I’m genuinely glad you’re progressive. But in the context of both the comment itself, which was misguided and rude, and a larger thread in which someone else literally accused me of sympathizing with al-Qaeda, how was I to infer that you actually believe the opposite of what you said? Even now that you’ve explained your position, I don’t see how it squares with your comment.
Anyway “is murder bad” is not a legit way to frame the debate was my point in the comment you misread, and it stands.
“Cancel Colbert” was a mess. Colbert’s intent was a lot clearer than CH’s, I think…though I also think that folks who said his message failed in this instance had a point. Calling for canceling the show was excessive and I think ill-advised, though. So…I think you could argue that it was bad satire, not because everyone didn’t understand it, but because joking about extremely charger subjects is difficult, and it can be pretty easy to fail. That doesn’t mean the show should be canceled (nor that anyone should commit violence against Colbert or anybody involved, obviously.)
In regards to nobody saying that; the argument here is between people who object to the PEN award and those who don’t. Nobody who objected is in favor of the attacks. So suggesting that they support murder or are against free speech is duplicitous or confused (or perhaps in some cases both.)
Spiegelman, in his comments on this issue, has been an arrogant, condescending prick. You can spin that this way and that, but he still comes across looking like an arrogant, condescending prick. And yes, running around and getting big name comics artists to stand up for comics in the name of comics does mean he’s setting himself up as Captain Comics, in my view.
Alex,
I agree that you are not subject to compulsion. However, not responding to queries evinces a lack of respect for your interlocutors and the discussion into which you’ve intervened, especially when they ask for elaboration on your points.
As to your suggestion that I was acting in bad faith, you’ll see that RSM and I both asked for elaboration and explanation prior to May 13 post, and you posted several times between the earlier request and the request that follows. Given this, I don’t think I acted out of line.
If you re-read my explanation of the argument from authority fallacy, you’ll see that your doctor/plumber analogy is fallacious. The better analogy would be calling a podiatrist because I’m having trouble with my sinuses. It would be reasonable to expect a well-informed referral, but not a diagnosis. Of course, this does not mean that you don’t have qualifications to interpret these cartoons that extends beyond your cultural and linguistic fluency. However, your translation of the Boko Haram cartoon provides only evidence of the former, not the latter. So I’m left with what I maintain is an argument from authority, which is different from an argument from expertise.
Finally, if your aim here is merely to argue that CH is not an anti-immigrant organ, then engaging with a single mistranslation is probably not the best way to do it. Moreover, it gets us away from Kim’s article, which was about whether the speech for which Pen honored CH is worthy of praise, or whether it isn’t perpetuating (deliberately or not) unhelpful stereotypes.
“You leveraged your authority as the person who put comics on the map as a literary form to publicly smack down artists who are less famous than you simply because they objected to the valorization (not the existence) of Charlie Hebdo.”
Oh, come on. Did you see the roster of people opposing the award? Some of the biggest names in contemporary literature. Michael Ondaatje. Peter Carey. Joyce Carol Oates.
To suggest that Spiegelman, Gaiman or Bechdel are smacking down on obscure artists is…eccentric, to be polite.
Nate A:
” Of course, this does not mean that you don’t have qualifications to interpret these cartoons that extends beyond your cultural and linguistic fluency. However, your translation of the Boko Haram cartoon provides only evidence of the former, not the latter. So I’m left with what I maintain is an argument from authority, which is different from an argument from expertise.”
For–the–last–TIME, I was NOT interpreting the cartoon. I was supplying an accurate translation in lieu of a wrong one, that misled just about everybody who discussed it.
So…Nate, I agree with most of your points, but—I don’t think you can really infer anything from anyone’s failure to engage with whatever particular arguments on a thread. I don’t think it’s disrespectful not to respond to every point or question. People have other time commitments; may not think points are relevant, or whatever—it’s a comment thread, you know? Just give everyone a little leeway, if you would.
May I respectfully suggest, Noah, that the reason you find Colbert’s intent clearer than CH’s is not because of anything inherent in the works themselves but instead because you are a member of Colbert’s intended audience and not CH’s?
I say again that I fully understand that no one here is advocating for the murder of cartoonists. But I do think that, unless you wish to engage in a purely theoretical ivory tower discussion it is important to remember that this conversation does in fact take place in a world where a substantial number of people believe that cartoonists who create offensive work should be killed.
You have harsh words for Spiegelman, Noah. Just out of curiosity, does that mean you agree with Kim that Spiegelman’s decision to speak out on this matter makes him a “much more subtle, grave and pervasive threat” than “murderous terrorists”?
I’ve never seen Colbert. I’ve read much more about CH, and seen much more of their content, than I have Colbert. Colbert’s stance on Asians is a lot easier to parse than CH’s stance on Muslims, IMO.
The world has always been one in which those who express certain opinions, via cartoons or otherwise, may be targeted for violence. Criticizing someone shouldn’t have to come with a little disclaimer, imo.
I think Spiegelman’s brand of insular idiocy is pretty bad for comics as an aesthetic medium. Terrorist violence against creators is more of threat to people, obviously, and I see that as more important, overall. Though, as long as we’re asking questions—do you have a take on Pamela Geller? Bold defender of free speech, fighting back against the terrorists? Or thuggish provocateur reveling in the violence she irresponsibly attempts to incite? Do her tactics have any relationship to CH, do you think? To Spiegelman?
Well, as an intellectual American of liberal/ progressive tendences you are a member of Colbert’s intended audience whether you actually watched the program or not. You share the same cultural awarenesses/ biases/ etc of his viewers whereas you do not have that sort of commonality with the Hebdo audience.
I want to be certain I am not misunderstanding you. Are you saying that you disagree with Kim, that her conclusion about the gravity of the threat posed by Spiegelman’s opinions is “obviously” incorrect?
Apparently unlike some here, I place a high value indeed on context and intent. I support Geller’s right to free speech and I deplore the violent attack on her contest but, yes, I would agree that she is a “thuggish provacateur reveling in the violence she irresponsibly attempts to incite.”
Putting myself inside Geller’s head, even for a moment, is a rather disagreeable task. When I do so, I imagine that her stunt was almost certainly related to CH. She saw how the attacks generated worldwide sympathy and support for the cartoonists and likely thought she had contrived a way to get some of that love sent her way. Her scheme failed, in my view, because she made the same mistake so many others have. She looked at the CH cartoons, saw simple hate speech and did not bother to take the time to learn enough about French culture so she could educate herself about what the cartoons were actually saying. Her event,therefore, copied everything about the CH cartoons except for that which gave them value. So naturally she did not get- nor did she deserve- the outpouring of suport she must have hoped for.
As to how Spiegelman relates to all this… Well, I don’t know for sure what answer you want. But it seemsto me that when Spiegelman explains/ defends the artistic and political merit of the CH cartoons he is helping to educate the public on the difference between satirical cartooning that pushes boundaries and simplistic hate speech. The fact that some people seem to experience difficulty telling the difference between CH and Geller tells me that his efforts in this area are sorely needed.
Wow, Kevin, thanks for the MLK quote. Since you keep pressing, let me point out that I didn’t say Spiegelman’s decision to speak out makes him worse than terrorists. I said that cultural insensitivity and solipsism are a more subtle, grave, and widespread threat to comics culture.
Terrorism (by militant Muslims against white people, anyway) is widely condoned. It is obviously very bad. Cultural insensitivity and solipsism are more pervasive and less obvious. They are not always wielded with malice. They are relatively banal, and they do not inflict physical harm, but they are a very serious threat to the health of the form and the discourse surrounding it. That is obviously not the same thing as the lives of its practitioners.
Contrary to what you and others seem to think here, Spiegelman’s comments about literacy were more about the act of reading comics as a form than understanding the French context. I’m not “horrified he had the temerity to disagree with someone who is an art historian.” I’m horrified by the way he represented himself as the final arbiter of what is and isn’t racist and misrepresented those who disagreed with him as incapable of reading comics. And I’m further horrified that he co-opted “black lives matter” in service of that.
I don’t think Spiegelman is worse than terrorists. I have a lot of respect for him, which I honestly thought was obvious.
As someone who originally comes from a country that went through actual Islamist (or should that be “democracy activists”, the way you thick Westerners call them?) terror, with them cutting off and leaving people’s heads on the street as a trophy, and tearing the fetuses out of women’s wombs, it gives me great pleasure to see how Western retards can’t help but kick a fuss when you receive barely a fraction of the terror that you people funded in Algeria and continue to fund in Syria and Libya.
A few cartoonists were killed by a pair of retarded fundies (no doubt descended from harki), boo hoo it’s the biggest danger ever, but still allow the Algerian butchers to live in London and help kill Syrians. But of course idiot American liberals can’t help but wring their hands and only see it from their guilt-ridden “privilege” crap, absolute idiots.
Kevin, I reject the idea that there is only one correct or intended audience for any art. Art demands different contexts. And if you draw caricatures of black people and Muslims…those are practices with an international resonance, and an international audience, whether CH wanted such or not.
Sammie…I’m not exactly sure what you’re trying to say, but shouting insults at people isn’t super helpful. If you keep commenting, try to avoid that, please.
Kim-
You honestly thought you made your respect for Spiegelman obvious in a piece that ended by suggesting he was worse than “murderous terrorists?” What would you compare him to if you didnt respect him?
You write “Contrary to what you and others seem to think here, Spiegelman’s comments about literacy were more about the act of reading comics as a form than understanding the French context.”
Kim, may I very respectfully suggest you take a moment to go back and actually read the comment you criticize? When I visit the Laura Miller piece you linked to, I find Spiegelman saying :
“The problem is cartooning is as much a literary form as it is a visual form, and it requires a great degree of sophistication to grapple with it. It builds on symbols, metaphor, irony, and one has to have a fair amount of cultural context to know what you’re looking at. It’s easy therefore to misread and misunderstand, and I found that some of my cohorts and brethren in PEN are really good misreaders.”
Is he not speakng there of the need to understand the French context?
You write “I’m not “horrified he had the temerity to disagree with someone who is an art historian.” I’m horrified by the way he represented himself as the final arbiter of what is and isn’t racist and misrepresented those who disagreed with him as incapable of reading comics.”
If the credentials of the people Spiegelman disagreed with were not a part of your argument, then why on earth did you spend space going into them?
Can you show me a quote where Spiegelman suggested he was “the final arbiter of what is and isn’t racist”? If not, can you apologize for misrepresenting his words?
And again, if you take another look at what Spiegelman actually said I think you’ll find he did not say that people who disagreed with him on this issue were “incapable of reading comics.” He instead suggested they might lack the cultural context to understand these particular comics.
You write: “Terrorism (by militant Muslims against white people, anyway) is widely condoned. It is obviously very bad. Cultural insensitivity and solipsism are more pervasive and less obvious. They are not always wielded with malice. They are relatively banal, and they do not inflict physical harm, but they are a very serious threat to the health of the form and the discourse surrounding it. That is obviously not the same thing as the lives of its practitioners. “
With all due respect, I have no idea what you’re saying there. Terrorism against whites is condoned but it’s bad? Cultural insensitivity is pervasive and not always wielded with malice but does not inflict physical harm but it’s still worse than terrorism?
Can I respectfully suggest that saying something is worse than terrorism is a bad rhetorical strategy?
Pretty sure Kim meant “condemned”, not “condoned” — just a typo. May I suggest that you could have figured that out for yourself if you weren’t intent on overwhelming the comments thread with endless legalistic quibbling?
The quote from Spiegelman suggests that comics are especially difficult to parse except by experts. He ties that into cultural context. I don’t find any of that remotely convincing; it’s just a claim that he’s expert at reading stuff and the other, very celebrated, readers and writers, are not. It’s condescending bs. Especially coming from someone who apparently isn’t able to understand what BlackLivesMatter means, or why it’s important.
“May I suggest that you could have figured that out for yourself if you weren’t intent on overwhelming the comments thread with endless legalistic quibbling?”
Sorry, Noah. I thought we were having a conversation. I certainly don’t mean to be a pest and I will refrain from commenting further on this site.
Oops, yes. “Condemned.” Listen, Kevin, thanks for all your ~super~ respectful comments about what Spiegelman #actually said. I linked to at least 3 pieces (one of which was the transcript of an interview with AS) and you can attend to those at your leisure. I don’t know how to say any more plainly that I don’t think anything or anyone is worse than terrorism. Just because I see one thing as a more insidious threat to the form doesn’t mean that I think it’s worse on some absolute scale of evil.
The mess around Cancel Colbert is displayed in all its shining white audacity here in this thread. That being said, all criticisms that rely on venerating Colbert’s satirical intent while failing to notice the hashtag’s organizers’ intent and meaning – which they directly explained at length in a famous national weekly at the time, for fuck’s sake – must be dismissed out of hand. “Cancel Colbert” was a modest proposal – let your buried Lit 101 syllabus be your guide – not a literal demand.*
I also can’t help noticing how patronizing and imperialistic this criticism of Asian-American activism responding to a harmful, widely broadcast representation sounds. Noah, I must assume that you missed some AA people’s sobering expression of that joke’s impact- of what it meant to them for a man in the catbird seat to faithfully reproduce a taunt associated with tears and blood in living memory. I suppose it’s possible that you also missed the torrent of anti-Asian violence in American universities, where Colbert’s singsong racist taunt is used in confined spaces to remind the target that she is vulnerable to assault/rape, or simply put her in a more amusing emotional state in which to assault/rape her. I mean, you could watch Colbert for years without noticing that kind of stuff happens and is being studied. So, who is being unserious there? Who is running their mouth without doing the homework? As if realizing he needed to provide more evidence of the detached, amused perspective with which he views Asians, his most meaningful engagement to the critique was sharing a young Asian woman’s twitter handle and profile picture to help her viewers induce anxiety attacks in her. At the end of the day, we’re tolerating someone taking up limited and valuable screen space to not do their homework and then go around saying hateful, harmful shit. Leave the armchair psychoanalysis out of it – sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
Caveat lector: Even if I were on the right device to find such testimonials in my bookmarks, a thread frequented by a small handful of bad-faith racism apologists isn’t a safe place to link to them. But I believe you have my email address, if it comes to that.
Similarly, I assume your time laudably skewering racist comics kept you from noticing when trans women pointed out that either a formal or qualitative analysis can easily prove that Colbert’s frequent and widely defended “jokes” about us are less about satiring the powerful, and more about exploiting our fear and cis people’s hatred/disgust/amusement at our situation. Trans women have been calling for his replacement for years not because he’s evil or must be silenced, but because he’s taking up both centrally-controlled bandwidth and space in the broad progressive movement to perpetuate the same old tropes and perspectives in an era when we should be seeking out new voices. Again, should your favored search engine fail you, I believe you have my email address.
Of course, the response to all this, from the shrillest unyoked Colbert-bashing to the calmest and most dispassionate dissension, especially that emerging from the cross section of white gayhood and the petty liberalism of the leisure class, exhibited the standard misogynistic and transmisogynistic dismissal/obfuscation tactics. At times – just like in the white backlash to Cancel Colbert’s main faction of Asian activists – ominously or gleefully revealing the very bigotry simmering under the surface which Colbert relies on for gut laughs when he runs out of things to say about our institutions and power structures.
Lest anyone join in to accuse me of hating white satirists, let it be known that I happen to be both a fan of and unreasonably attracted to John Oliver and Stewart Lee. In fact, Oliver may be farther away from me politically than Colbert. Either way, unless I missed something, he seems to manage to keep his kicks moving in the upward direction, at least while under HBO’s thumb.
*I admit I was among the minority who actually -did- want Colbert off the screen, but a much more common (literal) demand was that he consider bringing on a talented comedian from the group in question – i.e. Asian when discussing his singsong mockery, Native American when his critique of the racist football team came a little too close to perpetuating racism with a veneer of pious opposition.
“Colbert’s stance on Asians is a lot easier to parse than CH’s stance on Muslims, IMO.”
I guess if you’re white, you barely have to encounter any discomfort to move from hearing people complain about indignities you can’t understand to rationalizing them out of existence. Frankly, Noah, you’ve joined an active tradition of racialized gaslighting with these dismissive comments (unintentionally, I’m certain).
thinko: his viewers, not her viewers. Park has no TV show that I’m aware of.
Also, I ended up adding text after my footnote. Oops. Chicago style was always a struggle for me ;)
Rikva, I said I thought the joke didn’t work, and that I thought critics of Colbert had a point. Saying the intent is easier to parse doesn’t mean that the effect is good.
Like I said, I’ve never followed Colbert; I kind of do hate white comics in general, and I find most of those shows pretty tedious. CancelColbert’s aims and intent seemed contradictory and confused; Park said various things at various times, and I think it was pretty controversial among various activist communities (Asian American, Native American, other POC.)
I hadn’t heard of trans criticism of Colbert. Just glancing around, though, I’d say this makes a brief but convincing case that both Colbert and Stewart were peddling transphobia.
Re-reading my comments I can see how I came off as pressuring and chiding, because I was, and that’s on me.
Alex, I apologize for the tone.
Just in case anyone’s unclear on the kind of credentials that Kevin was looking for: my describing Teju Cole as an art historian who has written about Charlie Hebdo for the New Yorker isn’t exactly empty praise of his resume.
For those who remain convinced the PEN protestors are ignorant of the “real” French meanings of the cartoons: if you read around, you’ll find they’re well aware. A number of them have made public comments that clearly demonstrate they are not ignorant of cultural context.
Kim/Noah — it’s like the old saying goes, comment in haste, repent at leisure, and then do the same thing again and again and again
By the way, anyone noticed this french teen who was arrested (!) for making a satire on a well-known Charlie Hebdo cover – very much in spirit with the magazine itself?
http://robot6.comicbookresources.com/2015/01/comics-a-m-french-teen-arrested-for-posting-charlie-hebdo-parody/
The wierd thing is that I got the exact same idea as that kid did – only I never made that drawing since I didn’t want to saw more hatred (also, I just didn’t bother.)
I did a Charlie Hebdo parody…no one arrested me though. (or cared much, as far as I can tell.)
Kim: “Jeet Heer’s piece at TNR convincingly argues that the ‘warring’ interpretations of CH cartoons with regard to intent and aesthetics are not in fact mutually exclusive. His description of the aesthetic as failed (not necessarily racist) suggest that the worst Hebdo covers are simply bad cartooning (sort of like Ted Rall). Political cartooning is technical in that way; if your target is not clear–and particularly if you end up mocking the very people you meant to defend–you’re doing it badly. I think that’s compelling middle ground, though my own views are more extreme.”
The problem is that that’s not Jeet Heer’s opinion, that’s me quoting David Pilgrim: http://www.ferris.edu/HTMLS/news/jimcrow/collect/ “When satire does not work, it promotes the thing satirized.” Jeet Heer is plagiarizing.
By the way, Robert is right, even if the Pilgrim effect is true re. black people’s caricatures in CH, the thing is completely different if we’re talking about Arab caricatures in CH which are indeed racist.
Plagiarizing? That’s a serious accusation. I don’t see it (though tbh I didn’t read the whole text you linked to). Can you please explain what you mean?
Anecdotally, I can tell you I tweeted about CH covers visually mocking the people they purported to defend months ago with no knowledge of David Pilgrim. I can’t say that it strikes me as an especially original idea–I feel sure that people have made a similar argument about, say, Crumb.
Kasper – “…anyone noticed this french teen who was arrested (!) for making a satire on a well-known Charlie Hebdo cover…”
Yep, I’m sure most people have come to terms with the fact that the “Je suis Charlie” movement has zilch to do with “free speech.” That article you linked to is filled with examples. The movement was a great lesson in propaganda though. At least a free speech absolutist like Noam Chomsky is consistent in his beliefs when he wrote an article in support of that Holocaust denier.
When Jeet was very active on this blog defending Robert Crumb’s racist caricatures I quoted David Pilgrim a couple of times: https://www.hoodedutilitarian.com/2012/12/dwyck-never-just-a-joke/ https://www.hoodedutilitarian.com/2011/06/robert-crumb-survivor/ He should have acknowledged his source, but he didn’t.
Suat, I marched with the four million in the streets of Paris to support Charlie, and I assure you that we were sincere in our belief in the necessity of freedom of speech.
Thank you for that link, Kasper. I’ve been pretty much on the fence; reading through that page has pushed me much closer to rejecting “Je suis Charlie” than any of the previous “Je nes suis pas Charlie” discussions I’ve read (mostly here at HU).
Pingback: Rookie » Saturday Links: Light as a Feather Edition
Since many of those criticizing Charlie Hebdo here seem to be having some trouble understanding their cartoons (and even realizing they’re not understanding them correctly), I suggest you visit the following two pages: http://www.understandingcharliehebdo.com/ & http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/05/27/1388043/-No-Charlie-Hebdo-is-not-racist-Here-s-why
No, Charlie Hebdo is not racist. Yes, they were and still are very courageous in defending freedom of speech. Yes, you should do your homework better (I’m looking at you in particular, Jacob Canfield).
Paul K.–
I was already familiar with the “Understanding” site, and on your recommendation, I just skimmed the Daily Kos article. Unless I overlooked something, I am still waiting for someone to defend that Porn Star Muhammad piece on the grounds of satirical merit.
As I said above in the thread, all I see is an effort to antagonize Muslims and give anti-Muslim bigots a laugh at their expense. In other words, it’s hate speech. Perhaps you can enlighten me as to what I’m missing?
The Daily Kos article takes great length to explain exactly why it’s not hate speech (in the third section about religion). Perhaps you should read it instead of skim it.
The naked Muhammad piece has nothing to do with depicting Muhammad as a porn star. It’s a reference to the movie “Le mépris” by Jean-Luc Godard, in which Brigitte Bardot appears naked in the same position and asks her lover what she thinks about her body, including her buttocks. It’s a cult movie in France for cinephiles, and the scene is not considered vulgar at all but instead sexy in an artistic way. The words that appear above the drawing by Charlie Hebdo are “Le film qui embrase le monde musulman”, which means “The movie which sets ablaze the Muslim world”. It’s a play on words, since “embrase” can both refer to violent acts and to simply getting hot, for example for Brigitte Bardot in that scene. The cartoonists therefore jokingly used a title that you would expect to be referring to the outburst of violence which followed the video “The innocent of Muslims” (which they criticize harshly in the journal, by the way”), and instead linked it to a drawing which completely changed its meaning, through a reference to a classic French movie scene that most French people would easily recognize. In the process, Muhammad is put in a position which is supposed to echo his “cult”/sacred status, only instead of being a religiously iconic position it is a cinematographically iconic position. Nothing about this is supposed to be insulting to, or antagonizing, Muslims. The indirect target in sacredness, not Muslims.
The Daily Kos writer says, “blasphemy is not racism.” I fundamentally disagree with that. It’s not always racism, but when it’s targeted at a persecuted minority group–which Muslims are in France–it crosses the line.
I am quite familiar with Contempt, having written about it for this very site, and I have to say this analogy is absurd. In support of that, I point to the “une étoile est née [a star is born]” panel. Bardot never posed in such a manner in Contempt or any other film. No respectable film actor would. That is a porn pose, and an extremely tacky one at that. I don’t think even Playboy would pose one of their models in that manner.
But beyond that, I have to say that, assuming you believe the nonsense you’re spouting, you’re deeply ignorant of religion. A core tenet of the Abrahamic religions, including Islam, is the transcendence of appetite through faith. Identifying any icon of that faith, such as Muhammad or Jesus, with sexually licentious behavior, is guaranteed to provoke outrage among the faithful. Placing those figures in any sexual context, even non-licentious ones, is going to antagonize a good many people. Just look at the reaction around the world to the film The Last Temptation of Christ, which portrayed Jesus imagining life as a normal man, and having sex with his wife for the purposes of procreation. For the CH cartoonist and editors not to recognize how inflammatory that depiction of Muhammad would be, they’d have to be complete idiots.
All of the points you just raised are addressed in the article. Are you sure you actually read it?
You begin by admitting that blasphemy is not always racist, but that it can be. The Kos author says exactly the same thing, namely that criticism of religion can sometimes mask hate speech against believers. He then explains why this is not the case with Charlie Hebdo.
Second, none of the Charlie Hebdo cartoons are “targeted at a persecuted minority group”, as is explained at length in the article. Muslims are never the target of the joke – religions, religious institutions, religious extremists and sacredness are. If you can’t see a difference between a group of people and a system of beliefs, that’s your problem, not Charlie Hebdo’s.
With regards to your idea that a cartoon should be considered hate speech if it offends some believers, I direct you to the four paragraphs which begin with “Of course, one can be aware of this distinction”. They utterly refute this nonsense argument.
The analogy is in no way absurd, and is exactly what that cartoon was about. The other cartoon you refer to is a different one, drawn by a different cartoonist. Here, “A star is born” plays on the usual meaning of the sentence and links it to the actual star drawn on Muhammad’s anus. Is it subtle? No. Does it target sacredness? Yes. Does it target Muslims? No.
I’m certainly not ignorant of religion, so keep your ad hominem attacks to yourself. Again, if you don’t see there’s a difference between attacking believers and mocking religion, that’s on you.
Hey Paul. There are I think at least 10 articles about Charlie Hebdo on the site. There are also numerous comments sections. Many of them address this issue. Have you read all of them four times? If not, I would suggest you are not qualified to discuss this issue here.
Seriously, it is in fact possible to disagree on whether or not CH used racist imagery or not. Making it a question of expertise is not helpful, and suggests a depressing lack of understanding of how art works. People have debated these issues here at length. Coming in and snottily declaring yourself the determiner of all things CH is just annoying, and advances the conversation not at all. Please cut it out.
If you target a religion, its faithful are going to take it as a personal affront. Like many defenders of this trash, you have absolutely no empathy towards religious people. The most basic respect for their faith is completely absent.
Beyond that, your comment is sophistry.
@Noah: I’ve read several of them, yes, and I have yet to read one which both argues that Charlie Hebdo is racist AND makes arguments that are not utterly refuted in the piece I link to.
Your second paragraph indicates you did not read the Kos piece either, since nobody is disputing that Charlie Hebdo uses racist imagery. The Christiane Taubira drawing is a clear example of this. The point is that the journal uses racist imagery in a satirical way, precisely to denounce racism and racists. Like the article says, you can obviously disagree with this method, but the point remains that the cartoons and their message are anti-racist.
I don’t pretend to be “the determiner of all things CH”, merely someone who’s actually knowledgeable about the journal, as opposed to many of the critics I’ve seen voice their opinion here, in particular the author of your most widely shared article on the topic (Jacob Canfield).
“Again, if you don’t see there’s a difference between attacking believers and mocking religion, that’s on you.”
The problem is that Islam has in the west been reified as a racial identity, especially since 9/11. The line between attacking believers and mocking religion has been deliberately blurred by (for example) people like Pamela Gellar, and the folks wandering around outside that mosque in Phoenix with firearms. Pretending Islamophobia doesn’t exist is not a triumph of nuanced context. It’s an excuse.
@Robert: None of what I replied to you is sophistry, but I’m not surprised you’d rather not engage arguments you can’t refute.
Your statement that “if you target a religion, its faithful are going to take it as a personal affront” is factually false, in addition to being patronizing to believers. Some of its faithfuls are going to take offense and take it personally, yes, but others are not. Again, go read the paragraphs in the Kos piece I pointed you to.
Like I said, there’s a difference between attacking believers because of their faith (like Pam Geller does when she attacks Muslims) and criticizing religion in general. The former makes you a bigot, the latter does not. Charlie Hebdo targeted religions, not believers.
@Noah: Charlie Hebdo never pretended that racism and bigotry against Muslims does not exist – in fact, they have throughout the years, and in particular since 2001, denounced such bigotry. I fully agree with you that the distinction I mention has been deliberately blurred by bigots (this very point is mentioned in the Kos piece, which I can again only encourage you to read if you’re sincerely interested in these issues), but the solution is hardly to keep it blurred. The bigots that seek to hide their bigotry by pretending they’re only attacking religion (that’s what Pam Geller is doing, not Charlie Hebdo) should be called out precisely by explaining the difference between the two.
I don’t think it’s as clear as you’re suggesting that there’s a firewall between what CH is doing and what Pam Gellar is doing. CH used racialized and racist caricatures in depicting Muhammad. Perhaps they did that innocently, because they are incompetent and unimaginative. Nonetheless, using racist caricatures is in fact a slur on all Muslims, not just an attack on a religion.
I expect this is Paul on the subject of anti-black racism:
“Your statement that “if you call a black person a nigger, black people are going to take it as a personal affront” is factually false, in addition to being patronizing to black people. Some black people are going to take offense and take it personally, yes, but others are not.”
@Robert: anti-black racism targets blacks as people, while Charlie Hebdo’s criticism of religions does not target Muslims, Christians, Jews, etc., as people. I’m not sure how many times I’m going to have to point this out this distinction to you – perhaps a drawing would help, but then again you don’t seem too good at understanding drawings either.
@Noah: You are conflating two issues: using racist imagery to denounce racism, and the difference between deriding religion (which can be done through the mocking of religious icons) and attacking believers. When Charlie Hebdo used racist imagery, it was through satire, in order to attack racists and racism. When Charlie Hebdo mocked religious icons, it was to deride religion and sacredness, not to attack believers. The difference between Charlie Hebdo and Pam Geller is crucial and is obvious to anyone a little bit familiar with the two. In fact, members of the Charlie Hebdo staff have explicitly denounced Geller and her anti-Muslims bigotry, as well as anti-Muslims bigotry in general throughout the years.
Paul–
Faith is an important aspect of many people’s identity, at least as much as family and country. Insult someone’s child or sibling or parent, and you can expect that person to be insulted as well. Burn a country’s flag as a demonstration against that country, and you can expect a substantial number of people in that country to be offended, even if they’re sympathetic to the criticisms the flag-burning represents. Demean the icons of a faith, and you can expect to antagonize people of that faith.
If you don’t accept this, then print out those Porn Star Muhammad cartoons. Take them to a mosque or Muslim community center and show them around. See what kind of reaction you get. Although for your sake, I hope you have good health insurance, because you’re probably going to need it afterward.
@ Paul
You might as well say somebody’s “criticism of non-white races does not target blacks, Asians, Indians, etc., as people.”
“When Charlie Hebdo used racist imagery, it was through satire, in order to attack racists and racism. ”
That’s, like, your opinion, as they say. Charlie Hebdo’s use of racist imagery to depict Muhammad does not, to me, seem to be an instance of mocking racists. It’s an instance of using racist signifiers to make fun of Islam. People who are Muslim,it seems to me, have a good case that that is racist.
It’s cool that CH wants to distance themselves from Geller. Doesn’t necessarily mean that the two have nothing in common.
I explained how Muslim identity is racialized here.
Distinguishing between beliefs and individuals when referring to a minority group subject to intense bigotry is a difficult thing to do. As Jeet Heer suggests in the New Republic, Charlie Hebdo may have good intentions and still not have managed to deal with these issues very effectively. (I’m not entirely convinced of CH’s good intentions, either…but that’s perhaps another argument.)
And since we’ve had this discussion repeatedly elsewhere, I think it’s probably time to close the thread here. Thanks for your comments, all.
Pingback: No one has a right to not be offended - Interrobang
Pingback: Art Spiegelman Asks 'What the @#$% happened to Comics' - PopOptiq