With its dark ironies and sarcastic jabs satire stretches us. It’s never been everyone’s cup of tea. History tells us it’s always been dangerous.
With its dark ironies and sarcastic jabs satire stretches us. It’s never been everyone’s cup of tea. History tells us it’s always been dangerous. Since one person’s freedom of expression can be another person’s enemy of peace, some attempts at satirical humor bend us out of shape.
The debate that’s been underway since the Charlie Hebdo massacre in Paris on Jan. 7, 2015, has served to remind us that the edge of mockery can cut two ways. Maybe more than two ways.
Just as we always must play the hand we’re dealt, sometimes people have to choose which side they’re on. In such a world without maybes, should we now be denouncing the murderers of cartoonists in Paris? Or should we be denouncing the insulting work of irresponsible provocateurs who bent the wrong people out of shape?
To the last question, my choice is, “No.” Without qualification, I stand every time for not murdering cartoonists.
Moreover, short of a genuine crisis — riot, war, disaster, etc. — in my view free speech trumps the need society has for civility to be respected, to help maintain order. At least it does in the USA. From news reports I gather a lot of people in France agree. So the T-shirt good old Rebus is wearing in the illustration above speaks for me.
Still, I know some thoughtful folks who I respect that don’t agree with Rebus; they won’t say, “Je suis Charlie.” Plenty of people appear to agree with them. Chiefly, it seems, because they object to some of the content that has run in past issues Charlie Hebdo. They may object to the Jan. 16, 2015, Charlie Hebdo cover that reacted to the murders.
In a nutshell, there seem to be two prongs to the objections: 1.) Because the satirical magazine has crossed some lines to do with respect for religion, they don’t stand with the dead cartoonists. 2.) Because the Charlie Hebdo staffers and contributors created and promulgated what many people see as racist material, they don’t stand with the dead cartoonists.
In that aforementioned world of hard choices, to me that’s tantamount to saying the dead cartoonists were asking for it … which plays as dead wrong to me. While I deplore racism with all my heart, I think apologizing for/justifying the murderers’ actions in Paris — actions clearly meant to strike fear in the hearts of artists and publishers everywhere — seems more cowardly than it does respectful of religious differences or anti-racist.
Simply branding the contents of the magazine as “hate material” doesn’t change my stand. What constitutes hateful literature or art is always going to be subjective. Put Jon Stewart or Bill Maher in the wrong country, maybe the wrong neighborhood, and they’d get shot, too. Same goes for other politically-minded comedians, like Rush Limbaugh.
Speaking of comedians, here’s Lenny Bruce (1925-66) on insults:
I was at Anzio. Glad I wasn’t the GI enjoying that final no-wake-up-call sleep on his blood-padded mud mattress. It would be interesting to hear his comment if we could grab a handful of his hair, drag his head out of the dirt, and ask his opinion on the questions that are posed every decade, the contemporary shouts of: “How long are we going to put up with Cuba’s nonsense?” “Just how many insults can we take from Russia?” I was at Salerno. I can take a lot of insults.
Bruce might remind us today that however impolite or mean-spirited it may be, mocking other people for their perceived twisted or backward thinking is a whole lot of what satire is about. It turns a blowhard’s words back against him.
For the sake of freedom of expression, Americans are asked to put up with the occasional figurative cream pie that hits them in the face. In theory it’s worth it if the overlords and bullies in our midst must put up with it, too. Obviously, that’s not a concept that is universally accepted. Which is why I see this Charlie Hebdo imbroglio as presenting a nuanced dilemma we American ought to think about. And, please remember this — when a bully uses religion as their shield, or their spear, they are still a bully.
When insulting material is merely provocative, without elements of truth or levity, such would-be satire usually falls flat. The few cartoons I’ve seen that ran in Charlie Hebdo seemed more juvenile than anything else, but I haven‘t seen enough of them to do more than rely on what has been in the news reports. I don’t doubt that some of the stuff that has appeared in that humor magazine was over the top and would have rubbed me the wrong way.
Thus, to be fair, when we try to imagine what sort of cartoons set the zealots on their bloody rampage in Paris, we probably shouldn’t picture Walt Kelly’s Pogo strip, or Pat Oliphant’s political cartoons. Maybe it would be more accurate to imagine the sort of supposedly funny material that some segregationists circulated in the 1950s and ‘60s. Disgusting articles, illustrations and songs that laughed at lynchings, etc., and was way beyond the pale.
One of my favorite artists, Honoré Daumier (1808-79), went to jail for mocking the French government in 1832. Bringing it home, since satire has been at the heart of much of what I’ve done over the years, I’ve thought a lot about its place in the scheme of things. Tested its limits, gotten away with it and occasionally been punished.
At its best, satire risks speaking truth to power in a humorous fashion. If allowed, it harmlessly lets off steam. Hey, what nails political point better than a clever single-frame political cartoon? Good political ‘toons usually piss somebody off.
To sum up, if you can’t take a joke, well … Je suis Charlie!
