Charlie Hebdo cartoon on dead Syrian child sparks anger

[Jumi]

Have you ever studied Africa? I guess you have not.

I meant that it doesn't say much that you've lived on a continent. Regarding safety if you're from Albania or Iceland is much different. Same with where you are living now, unless you mean to say that Namibia and South Africa have same crime rates?

 

[Curious George]

I have nothing to say other than

Human - morals = animal

Charlie Hebdo cartoon depicting dead Syrian toddler as a sex offender ignites anger
The French magazine Charlie Hebdo has sparked outrage by publishing a cartoon attempting to satirise the refugee crisis and recent accusations of sexual abuse in Germany. The cartoon imagines Alan Kurdi, the three-year old Syrian who died in the sea in September on the way to Europe, as an adult.

The cartoon was an attempt at mocking accusations that many assailants of sexual abuse in Cologne, Germany, on New Year's Eve were refugees, including Syrians. Many called the cartoon out as racist and said it was in incredibly bad taste
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2016/...yrian-child-sparks-anger-160113220351000.html

After reading through your thread it is clear that you originally misunderstood the point that Charlie Hebdo was trying to make. It seems that several here have explained it. We are supposed to Juxtapose one tragedy with another, and realize that you cannot blame this child an immigrant for the other tragedy simply because he is an immigrant. It would be like putting a picture of Einstein up and with a quote saying "damn Nazi's go back to Germany" during WW II. It is a complicated message, I can understand the confusion.

However, I can understand some of the outrage at using a dead child's picture to make a political point. I can understand why such might be offensive to some. Hence, when I replied to your post, I deleted the image of the dead child which you used to make a political point.

 

[Pastek]

This is getting silly. I think it's ridiculous to make fun of the dead child for any reason even if it's to support immigration. He may not exist anymore, but it will hurt the parents and relatives. I think the CH style is pretty juvenile and not meaningful for mass distribution. We have had similar cartoons, but everyone except the "fans" wisely ignore them. For some reason CH has publicity not meant for this kind of expression.

They may be leftist and anti-racist, but their works find most use among racist far right and fundamentalist. Getting support for both sides of the idiot stick is no good no matter what they intended. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

You said everything. CH has a particular humour but they aren't racist at all.
The father of Aylan cried when he was told about this cartoon, i don't think it's correct to hurt people that way.
But here we come back to the free speach debate, what is the limit ?
CH is an old satirical newspaper, you can't really compare it with others and that's why what we see as shocking, extrem, questionable or immoral and as rag, they (CH) see it as a way to denounce things at their manner and they shouldn't be taken at a face value by people.

 

[Smart_Guy]

You said everything. CH has a particul humour people but they aren't racist at all.
The father of Aylan cried when he was told about this cartoon, i don't think it's correct to hurt people that way.
But here we come back to the free speach debate, what is the limit ?
CH is an old satirical newspaper, you can't really compare it with others and that's why what we see a shocking, extrem, questionable or immoral and a rag, they (CH) see it as a way to denounce things at their manner and they shouldn't be taken at a face value by people.

If only you were the one to first reply to my needlessly aggressive post... so much needless further talk could have been avoided

 

[Pastek]

If only you were the one to first reply to my needlessly aggressive post... so much needless further talk could have been avoided

I didn't read all the posts so i don't know what you said.

Sometimes we can speak under the emotion, i guess that's what happened

 

[Smart_Guy]

After reading through your thread it is clear that you originally misunderstood the point that Charlie Hebdo was trying to make. It seems that several here have explained it. We are supposed to Juxtapose one tragedy with another, and realize that you cannot blame this child an immigrant for the other tragedy simply because he is an immigrant. It would be like putting a picture of Einstein up and with a quote saying "damn Nazi's go back to Germany" during WW II. It is a complicated message, I can understand the confusion.

However, I can understand some of the outrage at using a dead child's picture to make a political point. I can understand why such might be offensive to some. Hence, when I replied to your post, I deleted the image of the dead child which you used to make a political point.

If only you were the one to first reply to my needlessly aggressive post... so much needless further talk could have been avoided

 

[Smart_Guy]

I didn't read all the posts so i don't know what you said.

Sometimes we can speak under the emotion, i guess that's what happened

I'm so very sorry, I meant that for CG. I feel so stupid now.

Really sorry

But yes, that was exactly what happened; emotions for the poor child

 

[FearGod]

After reading through your thread it is clear that you originally misunderstood the point that Charlie Hebdo was trying to make. It seems that several here have explained it. We are supposed to Juxtapose one tragedy with another, and realize that you cannot blame this child an immigrant for the other tragedy simply because he is an immigrant. It would be like putting a picture of Einstein up and with a quote saying "damn Nazi's go back to Germany" during WW II. It is a complicated message, I can understand the confusion.

However, I can understand some of the outrage at using a dead child's picture to make a political point. I can understand why such might be offensive to some. Hence, when I replied to your post, I deleted the image of the dead child which you used to make a political point.

The carton reads “What would little Aylan have grown up to be? A groper in Germany."

If that's Okey to you, then it's your opinion which i regard as a filthy one as the carton is,
sorry that's my opinion and that's my feelings which has not to annoy you, i'm just expressing
my feeling that such work is immoral regardless of where did that child come from.

 

[FearGod]

You said everything. CH has a particular humour but they aren't racist at all.
The father of Aylan cried when he was told about this cartoon, i don't think it's correct to hurt people that way.
But here we come back to the free speach debate, what is the limit ?
CH is an old satirical newspaper, you can't really compare it with others and that's why what we see as shocking, extrem, questionable or immoral and as rag, they (CH) see it as a way to denounce things at their manner and they shouldn't be taken at a face value by people.

Yes they have the right to draw and people has the right to express their opinions,
Some defend the CH and some others regard such work as inhuman.

I did never care about their drawings about prophet Muhammed and i didn't
even think of it as a dirty work, Muhammed died more than a thousand year ago,
but this child died months ago, his family is still alive and then deciding his future
if lived as to be a groper,OMG, i can't imagine that some people here defending
such work, i can't really imagine.

 

[Pastek]

Yes they have the right to draw and people has the right to express their opinions,
Some defend the CH and some others regard such work as inhuman.

I did never care about their drawings about prophet Muhammed and i didn't
even think of it as a dirty work, Muhammed died more than a thousand year ago,
but this child died months ago, his family is still alive and then deciding his future
if lived as to be a groper,OMG, i can't imagine that some people here defending
such work, i can't really imagine.

Don't know what to say, since i'm kid i'm used to this. They were always like that and were criticized a lot for it but i'm not surprised at all as it's the way they see things.

"Hara-Kiri editions, subtitled "Journal bête et méchant" ("Stupid and vicious magazine"), were constantly aiming at established powers, be they political parties or institutions like the Church or the State. In 1961 and 1966 the monthly magazine was temporarily banned by the French government."

(...)As a result, the magazine was immediately and permanently banned from sale to minors and publicity by the minister of the interior Raymond Marcellin.

Charlie Hebdo was started immediately afterwards.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hara-Kiri_(magazine)

I don't suggest you to search for images of the magazine Hara-kiri you would be shocked or disgusted.
CH is in the same spirit of this, they don't have limits.

Even on TV they were like that in the 80-90's i do remember some clashs. They were really not liked always provocating.
Just don't pay attention to them.

 

[prometheus11]

After their terrorist attack, Charlie Hebdo's cartoonists became cowards. They even stated publicly that they wouldn't draw Muhammad anymore. Then they tried to appease ISIS by drawing that appalling and completely-not-funny cartoon about the Russian plane that was destroyed by ISIS. Then they blamed the Christian God for the terrorist attack in their offices (they draw God with a trinity triangle over his head for the Muslims to know that they weren't drawing Allah). This magazine has no balls and no taste. It is time for them to stop publishing.

You just listed all the reasons they should continue publishing. The world needs organizations with the balls to display satire and then acquiescence with cowardice when appropriate.

Public cowardice in the face of tyranny exposes abject bullying and its consequences.

 

[prometheus11]

The carton reads “What would little Aylan have grown up to be? A groper in Germany."

If that's Okey to you, then it's your opinion which i regard as a filthy one as the carton is,
sorry that's my opinion and that's my feelings which has not to annoy you, i'm just expressing
my feeling that such work is immoral regardless of where did that child come from.

No need to apologize for personal prejudice or subjective judgment. Everyone does it.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Cartoons are not for artistic reasons but politics. That cartoon simply humiliated immigrants.

The artistic and political very often and very frequently heavily overlap. The cartoon is crude, but it's not as bad as the crudeness of letting crime go unreported because you don't want it to be used to the advantage of a political party. With these immigrants who are attacking and the Oregon militia barely/hardly/not at all being acknowledged as terrorists really suggests that Western discourse regarding immigrants, race, and terrorism is really messed up right now.

 

[FearGod]

Don't know what to say, since i'm kid i'm used to this. They were always like that and were criticized a lot for it but i'm not surprised at all as it's the way they see things.

"Hara-Kiri editions, subtitled "Journal bête et méchant" ("Stupid and vicious magazine"), were constantly aiming at established powers, be they political parties or institutions like the Church or the State. In 1961 and 1966 the monthly magazine was temporarily banned by the French government."

(...)As a result, the magazine was immediately and permanently banned from sale to minors and publicity by the minister of the interior Raymond Marcellin.

Charlie Hebdo was started immediately afterwards.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hara-Kiri_(magazine)

I don't suggest you to search for images of the magazine Hara-kiri you would be shocked or disgusted.
CH is in the same spirit of this, they don't have limits.

Even on TV they were like that in the 80-90's i do remember some clashs. They were really not liked always provocating.
Just don't pay attention to them.

I searched and yes it was disgusting.

 

[MARCELLO]

I meant that it doesn't say much that you've lived on a continent. Regarding safety if you're from Albania or Iceland is much different. Same with where you are living now, unless you mean to say that Namibia and South Africa have same crime rates?

The artistic and political very often and very frequently heavily overlap. The cartoon is crude, but it's not as bad as the crudeness of letting crime go unreported because you don't want it to be used to the advantage of a political party. With these immigrants who are attacking and the Oregon militia barely/hardly/not at all being acknowledged as terrorists really suggests that Western discourse regarding immigrants, race, and terrorism is really messed up right now.

It is so easy to detect crime of immigrants. A criminal does do crime repeatedly .

 

[Shadow Wolf]

It is so easy to detect crime of immigrants. A criminal does do crime repeatedly .

And one of the issues the cartoon is addressing is the crime has been repeated, but authorities who knew failed to act because they didn't want it to play into the worldview of anti-immigrant politics. It had to be assumed that at least some crime would come with the massive influx of immigrants, and we should be asking if nations were prepared enough and handled/are handling the situation properly.

 

[MARCELLO]

And one of the issues the cartoon is addressing is the crime has been repeated, but authorities who knew failed to act because they didn't want it to play into the worldview of anti-immigrant politics. It had to be assumed that at least some crime would come with the massive influx of immigrants, and we should be asking if nations were prepared enough and handled/are handling the situation properly.

I am sorry but I did not get the smell of it from these cartoons. Perhaps I am wrong.

 

[FearGod]

I am sorry but I did not get the smell of it from these cartoons. Perhaps I am wrong.

No you aren't wrong, if you feel and know that your opinion is the right one then
let the others think that theirs are the right one but never you.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I am sorry but I did not get the smell of it from these cartoons. Perhaps I am wrong.

Many people do not get satire. It's supposed to be exaggerated and shocking, and it isn't supposed to be simple and easily digested. Whether it's mundane life or serious current events and political situations, satire is supposed to make us look at the ordinary with an unusual lens and question things. It's also a natural and perfect fit for political and social commentary, and in this situation CH is bringing up an issue that is not being handled well and is forcing people to see and acknowledge it.
Because these discussions are going on, and things like this cartoon are making it harder to ignore the problem, I would say CH is being successful in what they do (personally I don't find the cartoon funny, but it epitomizes one of the time-tested functions of political satire and why it has survived for so long - even some kings knew how to take a joke at their own expense, provided it came from the right people and under the right circumstances).

 

[prometheus11]

Many people do not get satire. It's supposed to be exaggerated and shocking, and it isn't supposed to be simple and easily digested. Whether it's mundane life or serious current events and political situations, satire is supposed to make us look at the ordinary with an unusual lens and question things. It's also a natural and perfect fit for political and social commentary, and in this situation CH is bringing up an issue that is not being handled well and is forcing people to see and acknowledge it.
Because these discussions are going on, and things like this cartoon are making it harder to ignore the problem, I would say CH is being successful in what they do (personally I don't find the cartoon funny, but it epitomizes one of the time-tested functions of political satire and why it has survived for so long - even some kings knew how to take a joke at their own expense, provided it came from the right people and under the right circumstances).

Many moons ago in one of my graduate courses we discussed how satire is often missed by those who cannot precisely parse current ideas and subtle meanings and inferences.

In other words, if you don't "get it," you're likely to be offended for a misunderstanding.