polite_gandalf wrote on Oct 13^th, 2015 at 1:10pm:


Yes, G, I agree. Any chance you could say why the cartoon of Muhammed FD likes so much is offensive and should be self-censored?

As discussed, I personally can't see what's bad about it, but that's just me. Is there something I should be aware of here?

polite_gandalf wrote on Oct 13^th, 2015 at 4:27pm:


I'm only talking about the one FD puts up here. The hundred lashes cartoon. No, I don't think racial features are offensive - at all. I don't think Elmer Fudd is offensive, or Captain Haddock, or the Mikado, or Fiddler on the Roof.

And as you've said, you're as Arabic as I am, so I doubt you'd feel this way because of your own ethnicity.

Yes - the Muhammed cartoon with his balls hanging out was deliberately provocative. I would not be publishing that if I was in the same position.

But if you believe any images of Muhammed should not be published because of some people's religious beliefs, I think that's unfair. I'd see that as exactly the clash of civilizations some here are getting at. P!ss Christ is legal and shown, even if it offends some people's religious sensibilities. We expect them to cop it and look away.

This is an important aspect of civilization. It's how we all get on. We also get on by not seeking to deliberately offend people for its own sake. Art that does this is just dumb, and yes, it should be self-censored. Personally, I think most of Jeff Koon's art should be self-censored, but that's just me. I find giant puppy dogs and Michael Jacksons far more offensive that P!ss Christs, but I also know that Jeff Koons is making this point - he's out to get me. Equally, I'm aware that P!ss Christ is making this point, and ultimately, it's a pretty dumb point. Such didactic crap is just dull. It doesn't resonate. No one knows what P!ss Christ looks like, and no one really cares. The point is just the reaction - the offence.

Gandalf once argued that all criticism of Islam is based on racism. No wonder he pulls out the race card every time someone draws a picture of Muhammed. Would it be less offensive if we made Muhammed Chinese, or a midget?

Quote:


You keep making subtle but important changes to this definition.

Quote:


Other than it depeicting his race, how is it a racial caricature? Does your criteria make all political style cartoons a racial caricature?

Quote:


I expect they were published to sell papers.

Quote:


Exercising editorial control is not self censorship. This accusation has been continually hurled at Charlie Hebdo by the various apologists, and merely reflects a lack of comprehension of freedom of speech.

Soren wrote on Oct 13^th, 2015 at 5:13pm:


And if so, good on them - up to a point.  Cartoons, articles - art; offending on its own does not cut it, you need a wider.purpose.

This is why the Jesus and Mo comics are so dull. They don’t say anything. Their sole purpose is to include Jesus and Mo’s image in a frame. They achieved their objective after the first panel. Done.

P!ss Christ is dumb because it’s solely didactic. Visual aesthetics don’t necessarily have to look "good", but they do have to engage beyond a shallow one-liner.

If a text doesn’t do this, it’s no more than propaganda.

Alas, your own efforts are the very definition of propaganda, Ordinary.

FD wrote on Oct 13^th, 2015 at 4:47pm:


None of those racial caricatures you listed were meant to be offensive - quite the opposite in fact. Nazi-era jewish caricatures, for example, which aim to make jewish religious and racial features (hook nose, big teethy grin, beard, hair locks, skull cap etc) synonymous with such negative attributes as greed and deceit, are completely off-limits in today's media. Any cartoonist who publishes such an image in a mainstream publication will have about a 2 second career after that.

Today's Muhammad/Islam caricatures are not very different - they cleverly associate racist arabic depictions (eg long thin nose, deep heavy eyebrows, heavy dark eyes etc) with negative muslim attributes. Just further proof, if any is needed, that Islamophobia is a form of racism.

And you're right I'm not an arab - in fact neither are most muslims. Its for that very reason it is offensive: that I and most of my fellow muslims are reduced to negative caricatures of a race I don't even belong to.

polite_gandalf wrote on Oct 14^th, 2015 at 12:51pm:


I don't think Charlie Hebdo are caricaturizing a race. They're illustrating a caricature of Muhammed. The reason Nazi cartoons of Jews are off-limits today is that those images were propaganda. They were intended to present Jews as crooked, money-hungry schemers.

The image of Muhammed we're discussing does no such thing. It's a light-hearted, iconoclastic stab at a religious figure: a hundred lashes if you don't buy this magazine. 

I haven't seen evidence of racism in Charlie Hebdo. I've only seen the images that went viral. I can't see why anyone would take offence to it - unless they're expecting secular publications to defer to a religious ban on the illustration of a prophet.

Now I know you're not coming out with this, but I do wonder if it lies at the heart of your criticism. To expect secular or even atheist publications/broadcasts to toe the line on Medieval rulings is completely unfair. South Park had similar problems with death threats and complaints. In the end, the network banned an episode containing the image of Muhammed - an example of the sort of "self-censorship" you've described here.

Personally, I think Trey Parker should have the freedom to say what he likes on his own TV show - within reason, but I understand the security issues a network like Fox would have, particularly after the Charlie Hebdo shooting proved these fears to be legitimate.

Parker has satirized Jesus (or more accurately, Christians) for years. He's not coming from a racist or offensive place. Like Charlie Hebdo, South Park is an example of satire, a genre that rulers have banned for millennia. Plato even banned satire in the Republic.

Trey Parker and others should have every right to depict Muhammed or Jesus. Muslims and Christians would benefit from laughing along. Piousness for its own sake goes against almost all the spiritual teachings. Elevating prophets to the position of gods is the problem Islam has with religions like Christianity. I'm not saying mere illustrations of Muhammed counters this, but I do think satire has an important place in society and religion. Satire is about questioning the hubris of those in power, sure, but it also asks you to question your own hubris. Saying certain things or figures are off-limits to satire is the very phenomenon satire satirizes.

Viewing satire, or allowing it to exist, does not mean you agree with the message. There are good reasons why Muslims do not illustrate Muhammed, and they're not about satirizing Muhammed, but deifying him.

But if you're arguing such images are racist, I think you need to show how. Illustrations of racial features are not implicitly racist. Racism must exist somewhere in the tone or the purpose of the text. The purpose of Nazi cartoons of Jews and the purpose of a satirical magazine like Charlie Hebdo are totally at odds. Sure, you can argue there are similarities, but to prove this you need to show how.