no words needed............
Printable View
no words needed............
......
.....
.....
Two cartoons that illustrate the iconography of hate, and ask where the dividing line lies between the satirical and the offensive. One is from Julius Streicher's Nazi rag, Der Sturmer c1936, the other is from Charlie Hebdo. The only question left is, who has the biggest nose, the Jew or the Arab?
http://research.calvin.edu/german-pr...er/ds32-29.jpg
http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/...nzgwecjmdg.png
One thing I will point out is that there is an important distinction between mocking someone's ethnic traits and satirizing a belief system, even if that doctrine is religious. Ridiculing ideas (such as the hypocrisy of threatening people for insinuating you aren't peaceful) should be fair game entirely.
But even if the cartoons are racist, that can never justify a violent response. If there are hate crime laws (personally I'm against their enactment), the authors can be taken to court. Someone can make their own cartoon. They can write an editorial stating how the cartoons go beyond some preconceived norm of decency. But people rightfully see the violence against cartoonists, even professional provocateurs, as actually threatening to one of the foundations of our civilization; the right to express oneself free of physical threat.
The point of re-printing the cartoons is not to say you would have printed them yourself had there been no threat, but that you stand in solidarity against any such threats once made.
Critique doesn't need to be disrespectful.
The preliminary aim of satire is to make a joke of those who persist in a perceived error with the ultimate aim making it very uncool to subscribe to it. Satirizing big noses is a fail, because one cannot unsubscribe to the size of one's nose. Satire is only appropriately aimed if it's ultimate subject is an erroneous belief, an irrational fear, an unjust custom etc.