- Religion is different than race, because race is something that a person is born with and cannot possibly change.
- He tries to make deliberately offensive panels that are supposed to provoke the same reaction in people as Charlie Hebdo's comics supposedly provoke in muslims, but he falls short by a long shot. The reaction to his deliberately offensive panels is "meh", not outrage, which completely undermines his point.
- He depicts Charlie Hebdo as a magazine that makes fun of certain groups by maximally offending them without any satirical value. This is incorrect. When you place them in their cultural context you see that their comics are actually very left wing and sure they are against religion (any form), but also against racism, islamophobia, classism, xenophobia, etc. When you are outside the culture you may misinterpret the comics if you take them at face value. This isn't a 'lets make fun of muslims' magazine.
- Even if it were true that Charlie Hebdo was just trying to offend people, his implication that it's then not worthy and we should rather appease the offended groups is still wrong. Free speech as long as you like what is said is not free speech.
- His comic is patronising ordinary muslims, as if the average muslim can't handle satire and needs to be protected from it, while people from other religions can handle it.
>Religion is different than race, because race is something that a person is born with and cannot possibly change.
You assume that change is a desired outcome. Mr. Sacco does not.
>He tries to make deliberately offensive panels that are supposed to provoke the same reaction
I don't think Mr. Sacco believed it would invoke the same outrage as much as illustrate his point using imagery that everyone would recognize as offensive, even if they understood that he was making a point and were not actually offended.
>He depicts Charlie Hebdo as a magazine that makes fun of certain groups by maximally offending them without any satirical value.
I don't know the complete history of Charlie Hebdo, but Mr. Sacco provided at least one example of what he perceived as a double-standard. And, he calls into question the low-brow maligning of Muslims from both an artistic perspective, and a cultural one. As has been often pointed out, no other group seems to respond to satire as does a particular subset of Islamists. Mr. Sacco is simply suggesting that perhaps we should be asking why this is the case. This is why he singles out the magazine's attack on Muslims.
>his implication that it's then not worthy and we should rather appease the offended groups is still wrong
I don't think he was saying this. Rather, he's calling for introspection and earnest exploration of whether there is even the possibility that other dynamics are at play here.
There is, perhaps, a thin line between satire and hatefulness, bigotry, or even the simple promulgation of cultural superiority. At a minimum, he's asking us to be aware of that line.
>Free speech as long as you like what is said is not free speech.
He's specifically not condemning free speech (in fact, he "affirms" it in panel eight). He's calling for understanding, purposefulness, introspection, and responsibility in employing free speech. He's also speaking to his fellow artists and, tacitly, asking them to consider their standards.
>His comic is patronising ordinary muslims
Actually, I think your comment patronizes "ordinary muslims" more so than does Mr. Sacco's comic. And, I think you're making the assumption, not him. But, perhaps he could have been clearer in saying "some Muslims" for those who might take him literally.
I think you completely misinterpreted/misunderstood the message here.
I already addressed some of this in my cousin-comment, and I think unclebucknasty addresses a lot of it, but anyway...
1) Yes, he depicts CH as mocking for the sake of mocking. Perhaps islamophobic-specific, perhaps just whoever-we-can-hurt. In a recent comment filoeleven links a Greenwald piece that characterizes CH the same way (I think the Greenwald piece is great overall). I dunno anything about CH's context, but if you and Bolling are correct about CH (and it seems very plausible that you are), then Sacco and Greenwald are wrong about CH. Fine.
1b) What's most-plausible about Bolling's thesis is that some of CH's "jokes", including tomorrow's cover, just do not make as much sense if CH's whole goal is offense. They make a lot more sense if CH is trying to mock the whole dialog (both the islamophobic side, and also the extremist islamist side).
2) "Free speech as long as you like what is said is not free speech." Yes, absolutely. Even if CH is just trying to offend... even if CH is just trying to offend whoever they think is most vulnerable... tough shit, that's free speech. Defend it.
3) I'm not seeing how it's patronising. Again, I don't think Sacco is saying "don't offend", I think Sacco is saying "if all you're doing is offending, that's vapid; there are more constructive things we could do" (see my other comment). But even if someone WERE to say "don't offend", there's room to say that without being patronising. It could look like this: "Hey, hypothetical-CH, you're being a dick. You shouldn't kick people when they're down. Pick on the strong, you asshole. (Though I will defend your right to say these reprehensible things you've been saying.)"
4) I'm not sure what to make of the offend-black-people and offend-jews panels. I'm not sure that the respective communities would find them "meh", though. Personally, I don't understand why blackface performances are so abhorred, but I have well taken note that they are. And I think his point about the jew panel is spot on: maybe everyone can "take the joke" today, but what about in 1933? Anyway, I'm not sure what his point is here. My suspicion is that these panels are not really relevant if you/Bolling are correct about CH's actual intent; this part of the comic is probably, as you say, an "uninsightful and flawed analogy". HOWEVER...
5) EVEN IF YOU ARE 100% CORRECT ABOUT CH..... I hope you don't dispute that CH's cartoons are being seen by everyone else as being tweaking-the-dirty-muslims. Tomorrow's print run of 10x the normal size.... who's gonna buy those up? People who understand CH's nuanced iconoclastic leftist humour? Or people who want to spit in the face of the murderers? Since it's the latter, criticism of this way of thinking is hugely relevant, and the conclusion that I attribute to him (see other comment) is still hugely relevant, without disagreeing with your claim that "He completely misjudges Charlie Hebdo and the cultural context.".
The fact is, CH is now a symbol. Luz said in an interview that this is horrible for CH, because disrupting symbols was a primary mission of CH. Well, I guess the murderers won. Sucks to be you, CH, sucks to be you. Anyway, as a symbol, now we have to fight about what it's a symbol OF, and FOR.
side note: I'm doing a lot of disagreeing with you on details, jules, but I want to note that I appreciate the respectful tone you've brought
- Religion is different than race, because race is something that a person is born with and cannot possibly change.
- He tries to make deliberately offensive panels that are supposed to provoke the same reaction in people as Charlie Hebdo's comics supposedly provoke in muslims, but he falls short by a long shot. The reaction to his deliberately offensive panels is "meh", not outrage, which completely undermines his point.
- He depicts Charlie Hebdo as a magazine that makes fun of certain groups by maximally offending them without any satirical value. This is incorrect. When you place them in their cultural context you see that their comics are actually very left wing and sure they are against religion (any form), but also against racism, islamophobia, classism, xenophobia, etc. When you are outside the culture you may misinterpret the comics if you take them at face value. This isn't a 'lets make fun of muslims' magazine.
- Even if it were true that Charlie Hebdo was just trying to offend people, his implication that it's then not worthy and we should rather appease the offended groups is still wrong. Free speech as long as you like what is said is not free speech.
- His comic is patronising ordinary muslims, as if the average muslim can't handle satire and needs to be protected from it, while people from other religions can handle it.
I could go on...