Charlie Hebdo makes fun of drowned Syrian boy.

daRobot

Custardpi wrote: »

I'd be interested to hear what people think of this cartoon, not a CH one but one which has nevertheless provoked strong reactions. The text reads "It's the return!", which in French generally refers to the return to school/college after holidays which is of course happening now. The cartoonist depicts Aylan "en écolier", ie as a school boy, in order to remind people that this is a child who should, like millions of others be settling into primary school now. The Libération writer calls it "a ferocious drawing, to show that this child didn't have the same chance as others". However, many twitter users were outraged, with one opining that "they're really looking to get themselves shot a second time". What do you make of it?

I'd make as much of it as Martin Creeds Turner prize winner.

StinkyMunkey

Custardpi wrote: »

I'd be interested to hear what people think of this cartoon, not a CH one but one which has nevertheless provoked strong reactions. The text reads "It's the return!", which in French generally refers to the return to school/college after holidays which is of course happening now. The cartoonist depicts Aylan "en écolier", ie as a school boy, in order to remind people that this is a child who should, like millions of others be settling into primary school now. The Libération writer calls it "a ferocious drawing, to show that this child didn't have the same chance as others". However, many twitter users were outraged, with one opining that "they're really looking to get themselves shot a second time". What do you make of it?

I'll share my thoughts. CH and the people who are responsible for this are smug twats - oh look at me, see how smart I am taking a modern tragedy and turning it into something witty, satirical & thought provoking. Eh no your just a shower of attention seeking douche bags, and I hope they reap what they sow. I couldn't care less about the, well you don't get it, but that's ok eejits. I do get it, a poor innocent child lost his life, the terror the poor mite must have gone through makes stomach turn.

Maybe I should start a blog and take what happened at CH office and make satirical drawings or comments - actually I don't think I will, I'm not a douche. Why would I go out of my way to upset strangers in the name of my dark satirical humour that your people just don't get.

custard gannet

While I generally like edgy, controversial humour, I have to be honest, I didn't laugh at one thing they printed that was highlighted in the news at the time of the shootings. Is it lost in translation, do the french have a quirky sense of humour, or is it actually just shiite?

strelok

i love how quickly supposedly reasonable people turn into braying daily mail readers

we really are one species, one people.

cocaliquid

Nasty people out there. Who wants to see photos of dead children or use them to make a point.

Custardpi

StinkyMunkey wrote: »

Maybe I should start a blog and take what happened at CH office and make satirical drawings or comments - actually I don't think I will, I'm not a douche. Why would I go out of my way to upset strangers in the name of my dark satirical humour that your people just don't get.

If you have a talent for art & have some points about CH & the role of cartoons, satire etc in society that can be expressed through that medium then why wouldn't you? I'd be very interested to check out such a blog & I'm sure plenty of cartoonists, including those employed by CH would be too. We may not share the same opinions but provocative humour from the other side of a debate can often be useful in informing & developing our own ideas, even if such humour can be "upsetting" to some people.

daRobot

Custardpi wrote: »

To assume that their cartoons can be interpreted at face value is a flawed approach.

As flawed as it would have been to assume I had made that assumption.

It's very easy to throw out something disgustingly offensive, and then go full on 'emperors new clothes' in the name of satire/art, claiming that some profound commentary is being made.

robdonn

daRobot wrote: »

As flawed as it would have been to assume I had made that assumption.

It's very easy to throw out something disgustingly offensive, and then go full on 'emperors new clothes' in the name of satire/art, claiming that some profound commentary is being made.

Do we actually know that these cartoons were made by Charlie Hebdo?

Custardpi

daRobot wrote: »

It's very easy to throw out something disgustingly offensive, and then go full on 'emperors new clothes' in the name of satire/art, claiming that some profound commentary is being made.

They didn't throw out anything offensive, you & others have chosen to be offended. Offense is something that is taken, not given. You could have chosen to consider alternative interpretations of the cartoon but instead have merely closed your mind to anything other than the fact that you personally don't like it.

Massimo Cassagrande

FalconGirl wrote: »

Absolutely vile comment. :eek:

He may have been joking. Just a thought. You know, the way some of them were for past cartoons? Humour? Joke? No?

Ah well.

daRobot

Custardpi wrote: »

They didn't throw out anything offensive, you & others have chosen to be offended. Offense is something that is taken, not given. You could have chosen to consider alternative interpretations of the cartoon but instead have merely closed your mind to anything other than the fact that you personally don't like it.

You mean that your key point here is that a recipient is in fact a recipient?

Strong perceptual logic lead you to that conclusion, obviously....

Realt Dearg Sec

robdonn wrote: »

Do we actually know that these cartoons were made by Charlie Hebdo?

Huh? They were on the front of the magazine, right?

biko

It's poor taste but still within general democratic rights.
The rights that we enjoy here but don't exist in Middle East.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BtWrljX9HRA

PowerToWait

The sheer narrow mindedness of many on this thread is brilliant.

wp_rathead

I took the drawing of "Jesus on water" to be making fun of those who say Europe shouldn't let the refugees in because it is a Christian continent - when there are children dying and surely that should be paramount

I don't quite get the McDonald's one

feargale

eet fuk wrote: »

They should be shot for that type of carry on

They were. Happy?

Insect Overlord

PowerToWait wrote: »

The sheer narrow mindedness of many on this thread is brilliant.

Brilliant, but terrifying. So many people just never learn how to interpret visual messages. This is only Honours English and Leaving Cert-level History stuff.

robdonn

Realt Dearg Sec wrote: »

Huh? They were on the front of the magazine, right?

They weren't on the cover, the image going around had a photocopy of a cartoon put in front of the cover.

But the images going around were crap and didn't really show any context so I bought a digital copy in the app store and yes, the images are actually in the magazine. Although their context is important.

Custardpi

feargale wrote: »

They were. Happy?

To be fair, unlike some other bile spewing posters on this thread I think the throwaway nature of the comment probably means that eet fuk was joking. I could be wrong of course but given that we're talking about a publication known for a dark sense of humour such a joke would be perfectly reasonable.

Realt Dearg Sec

ArtSmart wrote: »

Deciphering visual text is tricky, especially when emotions run high.

In the first cartoon, one must ask 'Why use an image of MacDonalds'? Why MacDonalds? Is it unimportant? Would another image, usch as the word 'cafe' have sufficed? What does MacDonalds represent?

In the second

Why use the image of Christ'? Would any other image have sufficed? What does Christ represent to Christians, to the world at large?

To me, these cartoon are very very angry statements, directed against arrogance, duplicity, complacency and hypocrisy.

Exactly. I'm amazed how many people seem to think the dead child is the butt of the joke here. Also the amount of people who think that it isn't satire if it isn't "funny". I always assumed that really prescient satire isn't meant to make you actually laugh.

R P McMurphy

wp_rathead wrote: »

I took the drawing of "Jesus on water" to be making fun of those who say Europe shouldn't let the refugees in because it is a Christian continent - when there are children dying and surely that should be paramount

I don't quite get the McDonald's one

I assume the two for the price of one is in reference to the fact that two brothers died but media focus was on one.

ArtSmart

R P McMurphy wrote: »

I assume the two for the price of one is in reference to the fact that two brothers died but media focus was on one.

Also that their deaths, and the plight of the migrants, are commodified for public consumption. (MacDonalds)

eet fuk

Custardpi wrote: »

To be fair, unlike some other bile spewing posters on this thread I think the throwaway nature of the comment probably means that eet fuk was joking. I could be wrong of course but given that we're talking about a publication known for a dark sense of humour such a joke would be perfectly reasonable.

Ha! I was joking yeah. I don't even get what the big deal is tbh.

daRobot

Realt Dearg Sec wrote: »

Exactly. I'm amazed how many people seem to think the dead child is the butt of the joke here. Also the amount of people who think that it isn't satire if it isn't "funny". I always assumed that really prescient satire isn't meant to make you actually laugh.

I think most on here understand that it's within a context, and isn't outright laughing at the child's death.

But it's a sadistically cruel image to use - and while we're at it, why not argue that the context isn't the CH cartoonists giving two fingers to the Muslim world?

They knew what they were at before with the images of Muhammad, so couldn't it be argued that this is a piece purely intended to provoke again, the clown being the symbol of corporate america, and of course a classic image of mockery.

You can spin it how you want.

testaccount123

daRobot wrote: »

You can spin it how you want.

It doesnt matter what their motivation was.

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

Mardy Bum wrote: »

Germany has just closed its borders along with a few other countries as of today. The response has been phenomenally last minute and the picture was something which awakened the politicians and citizens. The fact that it took the picture to do that when this has been going on for over a year is utterly deplorable. Thousands have died.

Refugees have been seeking asylum from Syria since 2014. There's a common misconception that the picture of that poor Syrian child was the catalyst. That's not true. However, in 2015 the number of refugees/asylum seekers has increased dramatically.

Canadel wrote: »

That's exactly what freedom of speech is.

It shouldn't be used to ridicule or oppress.

meeeeh

It's very dark and cynical but I think they are good.

It's also part of the context. I wouldn't be a fan of depicting dead people because there are still others who are grieving them. However since the picture of that poor boy was on the cover of just about any publication (and I can understand the reasoning behind it), I don't think they went overboard.

Satire should never be comfortable or politically correct.

Custardpi

Korbin Witty Neck wrote: »

It shouldn't be used to ridicule or oppress.

Free speech without the right to ridicule, satirise, joke etc is no freedom at all. No one has ever been oppressed by someone articulating controversial ideas or mocking principles which they hold dear. Freedom of expression should be at the heart of liberal democracy & the extent to which it is not there as yet is one of the flaws of Western society, although we are better at it than many other parts of the world.

testaccount123

Korbin Witty Neck wrote: »

It shouldn't be used to ridicule or oppress.

/facepalm

Then it isnt free speech, is it?

stunmer

Not sure if this has been posted yet but might help people get an idea of Charlie Hebdo. (Not updated for latest images)

http://www.understandingcharliehebdo.com/

Also excellent post by Maajid Nawaz

https://www.facebook.com/MaajidNawazFanPage/posts/920479744685958