To do/questions:
- Research who Joe Sacco is.
- Translate his cartoon and describe the pictures that make up the cartoon published in the Guardian (click on the link above).
- What are the events he is reacting to in his cartoon?
- Explain what "JE SUIS CHARLIE" means.
- What is "satire"?
- Summarise the point of view Sacco expresses in his cartoon.
- Do you agree with his opinion?
- Have a look at the cartoons in the following link: Charlie Hebdo tributes, article in THE DAY
- Draw a one-picture cartoon on the theme: "The pen is mightier than the sword".
- What is the point of political (also called editorial) cartoons?
To help you understand and think about and discuss the very complex issues involved in the events that took place in Paris in January 2015, click HERE!
Answers
1) Joe Sacco, a Maltese-American born in 1960, is a well-known and respected graphic novelist, political cartoonist and journalist. His work includes Footnotes in Gaza (2009), Palestine (completed in 2010) and The Great War (2013). He is best known for having pioneered using graphic novels as immersion journalism (in which the journalist depicts himself in his account with the people involved in a complex situation over a long period).
2)
3) Islamist terrorists murdered twelve people, including five journalists/cartoonists, in Paris in early January 2015. Sacco, in his editorial cartoon for The Guardian (a British broadsheet newspaper), expresses his thoughts and feelings about the assassinations of his fellow journalists and what it implies for free speech.
4) “Charlie” is in fact Charlie Brown from the Peanuts strip cartoon by the American cartoonist Schultz. The weekly satirical Charlie Hebdo uses the name Charlie for their eponymous publication and as mascot. “Je suis Charlie” (“I am Charlie”) is probably a reference to JF Kennedy’s 1963 “Ich bin ein Berliner” (“I am a Berliner”). Kennedy meant that he stood in solidarity with the citizens of Berlin in the face of the Communist threat. The citizens around the world who declared “Je suis Charlie” meant that they stood in solidarity with the journalists of Charlie Hebdo in the face of terrorist threats, that they therefore defend free speech, and that they have compassion for the terrorists’ victims and their families. Showing your face in public holding up a piece of paper stating “I am Charlie” is a way of showing courage; you are defying the terrorists and showing you are part of a popular national and even international movement against terrorism. It is a way for individuals to stand up and be counted and feel strong all together.
5) It is the use, in writing and in pictures, of humour, sarcasm, irony, or ridicule, to expose and condemn such things as corruption, hypocrisy, ignorance, violence, or abuse of authority.
6) Sacco is very saddened about the murder of members of his “tribe”, that is, of cartoonists whom he felt close to. However, he is not vindictive and starts to think about things: the impact of satirical cartoons, the responsibilities of cartoonists, and how the majority within society treats minorities.
Answers
1) Joe Sacco, a Maltese-American born in 1960, is a well-known and respected graphic novelist, political cartoonist and journalist. His work includes Footnotes in Gaza (2009), Palestine (completed in 2010) and The Great War (2013). He is best known for having pioneered using graphic novels as immersion journalism (in which the journalist depicts himself in his account with the people involved in a complex situation over a long period).
2)
Translation
First Panel
Title : SUR LA SATIRE (par Joe
Sacco, copyright 2015)
First caption : « Ma première
réaction aux meurtres commis aux bureaux de Charlie Hebdo à Paris n’était pas
d’adopter une attitude courageuse de défi. »
Second caption : « Je n’avais pas
envie de bomber le torse et jouer au Tarzan en réaffirmant les principes de la
liberté d’expression. »
Second panel
Caption : « Ma première réaction
était d’être triste. Des gens ont été brutalement tués, parmi eux plusieurs
dessinateurs - ma tribu. »
Third panel
First speech balloon : « Mais, dans
mon chagrin, me sont venus des réflexions sur la nature de quelques-uns des
dessins satiriques de Charlie Hebdo. »
Second speech balloon : « Tordre le
nez des musulmans est peut-être permis, autant que cela est, pense-t-on, devenu
dangereux, cela ne m’a jamais sembler être autre chose qu’une façon mièvre
d’utiliser un stylo. »
Fourth panel
First caption : « Moi aussi, je
peux jouer à ce jeu ? C’est sure, je pourrai dessiner un homme noir tombant
d’un arbre avec une banane dans sa main – d’ailleurs je viens de le faire. »
Second caption : « J’ai le droit
d’offenser, non ? »
Fifth panel
Speech balloon : « Au fait,
saviez-vous que Charlie Hebdo a licencié un dessinateur - Maurice Sinet,
renseignez-vous sur lui - pour avoir, prétendument, écrit une colonne
antisémite. »
Sixth panel
First caption : « Donc, avec cela
en tête, voici un juif qui compte ses sous dans les entrailles de la classe
ouvrière. »
Second caption : « Et si vous
supporter cette « blague » aujourd’hui, aurait-elle été aussi rigolote en 1933
? »
Seventh panel
First speech balloon : « En fait,
quand on trace une ligne, on en franchi souvent une aussi, parce que des lignes
sur un papier sont une arme, et le but de la satire est de retourner le couteau
dans la plaie. Mais, la plaie de qui ? Quelle est au juste la cible ? »
Second speech balloon : « Et
pourquoi ? »
Eighth panel
Caption : « Oui, j’affirme notre
droit de « se foutre de la gueule » des autres - donc voici une image gratuite
d’un vrai croyant qui exécute l’œuvre de Dieu dans le désert. »
Speech balloon : « Mais peut-être
quand on se fatiguera de faire des doigts d’honneur on essayera de réfléchir au
sujet de pourquoi le monde est tel qu’il est… »
Ninth panel
Speech balloon : « Et de ce qui
rend les musulmans ici, aujourd’hui, incapable, à propos d’une simple image,
d’en rire. »
Tenth panel
Caption : « Et si on répond : «
Parce que il y a chez quelque chose qui va très mal chez eux » - et c’est sûr
qu’il il avait quelque chose de profondément mal chez les tueurs - dans ce cas,
chassons-les de leurs demeures et jetons-les à la mer… »
Speech balloon : « Parce que cela
sera bien plus facile que de régler comment nous allons pouvoir vivre ensemble.
»
Description of the cartoon
First panel: Sacco represents himself as Tarzan beating his chest. Two
terrorists run away from him, terrified.
Second panel: Sacco is well-dressed for a funeral in a cemetery. He is
holding his hat in front of him as a sign of respect. He is looking at a row of
five Latin crosses each made of two big crossed ink pens. These symbolize the
five cartoonists murdered in the Paris attacks. Behind these crosses are other
crosses and a Muslim tombstone (these are of the other victims of the terrorist
attacks, including a Muslim policeman). On the right, there is a French
national flag at half-mast, to show that the event has caused national grief
and to show the respect of the nation for the people killed.
Third panel: Sacco depicts himself leaving the cemetery. He has his
hands behind his back because he is deep in thought. He speaks his thoughts out
loud.
Fourth panel: A black man is shown falling head first from a tree,
apparently because the branch he was sitting on has broken. He is holding a
banana. This is a racist caricature showing a black person as a primate that is
unintelligent.
Fifth panel: Sacco speaks to the reader directly.
Sixth panel: A Jew is shown counting bank notes. He is standing in a
pile of guts. He has a severe look and an oversized beaked nose. He wears a
hat. This is an anti-Semitic caricature, showing a Jew as greedy and grasping
who exploits the working class (shown by the entrails, i.e. his victims).
Seventh panel: Sacco again speaks directly to the reader.
Eighth panel: Sacco shows himself having his throat slit by a masked
terrorist.
Ninth panel: Sacco is standing, bare-foot, on a box wearing a cloak. His
face is totally covered by a black hood. This image is a reference to the
prisoners of Abu Ghraib tortured by American servicemen.
Tenth panel: Sacco represents himself holding a big stick. He is
speaking to us. Behind him are two skinheads (i.e. members of an extreme-right
political group), one holding up an axe and the other a big bone (this is to
show how primitive his behaviour is). Sacco and the two thugs are chasing a
Muslim family shown running for their lives.
3) Islamist terrorists murdered twelve people, including five journalists/cartoonists, in Paris in early January 2015. Sacco, in his editorial cartoon for The Guardian (a British broadsheet newspaper), expresses his thoughts and feelings about the assassinations of his fellow journalists and what it implies for free speech.
4) “Charlie” is in fact Charlie Brown from the Peanuts strip cartoon by the American cartoonist Schultz. The weekly satirical Charlie Hebdo uses the name Charlie for their eponymous publication and as mascot. “Je suis Charlie” (“I am Charlie”) is probably a reference to JF Kennedy’s 1963 “Ich bin ein Berliner” (“I am a Berliner”). Kennedy meant that he stood in solidarity with the citizens of Berlin in the face of the Communist threat. The citizens around the world who declared “Je suis Charlie” meant that they stood in solidarity with the journalists of Charlie Hebdo in the face of terrorist threats, that they therefore defend free speech, and that they have compassion for the terrorists’ victims and their families. Showing your face in public holding up a piece of paper stating “I am Charlie” is a way of showing courage; you are defying the terrorists and showing you are part of a popular national and even international movement against terrorism. It is a way for individuals to stand up and be counted and feel strong all together.
5) It is the use, in writing and in pictures, of humour, sarcasm, irony, or ridicule, to expose and condemn such things as corruption, hypocrisy, ignorance, violence, or abuse of authority.
6) Sacco is very saddened about the murder of members of his “tribe”, that is, of cartoonists whom he felt close to. However, he is not vindictive and starts to think about things: the impact of satirical cartoons, the responsibilities of cartoonists, and how the majority within society treats minorities.
Sacco thinks that using drawings to mock Muslims is unoriginal. He
questions if ethnic or religious minorities are in fact legitimate targets of
cartoonists’ satire: “…What exactly is the target… and why?” he asks in the
seventh panel. Sometimes, satire can be virulent: “lines on paper are a weapon”
he says (seventh panel). He thinks that cartoonists need to avoid being
gratuitously offensive to particular groups, to become more sensitive to how, in
the present geopolitical context and the context of multicultural societies, these
groups perceive “a mere image”.
Can anybody be a legitimate target of satire or is it only certain
targets? Blacks and Jews are no longer considered targets and, even if a
cartoonist were allowed to mock them, it would be politically incorrect, so why
is it “okay” to mock Muslims? He points out (in the fifth panel) that Charlie
Hebdo itself is not, apparently, consistent: on the one hand, it wants to be
allowed to mock everyone, including Muslims, but, on the other, it does not
allow its own journalists to denigrate Jews.
As regards Muslims’ inability “to laugh off a mere image”, he hints that
their hypersensitivity to criticism or mockery might be due to the West’s
actions in the Middle East (there is a reference to torture of Arabs by GIs at
Abu Ghraib) and our inability (shown by the thugs in the last panel) to
integrate Muslim communities into our societies; some Muslims react violently
because many non-Muslims reject their presence.
Sacco, using sad irony (he uses second degree humour to comment the
potentially devastating effect of satire), is, in a politically correct
cartoon, saying that free speech is fine, it allows us to say what we want (“I’m
allowed to offend, right?” he says in the fourth panel), but questions how
constructive it is to use free speech to depict people in negative ways. He
says we, including cartoonists, should not denigrate minorities (who are
already victims) because it is insensitive and marginalises them even more by
reinforcing racist stereotypes. He also says we should try to understand why certain
religious or ethnic minorities feel victimised. He argues that we need to do
something constructive to integrate them so that they will feel less rejected.
10) The point of political cartoons is to make readers aware of a particular
political, social or other current affairs issue, and to get them perhaps to
react. A drawing is a quick way to make an issue, plus the cartoonist’s point
of view on it, clear. The frequent use of satire is intended to make the reader
not only laugh but also think. Editorial cartoons are often found on a
newspaper’s front page as a means to attract potential buyers of the paper.
In answer to your question (7), no, I do not agree! I like to read satirical publications. It is an important part of our journalistic and political traditions in France to be allowed to mock everybody and everything, especially corrupt politicians and obscurantist religions. Politicians need to be reminded, preferably using humour, of their duties and to avoid megalomania. Religions and sects too need to be put back in their place, that is: not within the public sphere but well within the private sphere (that is why we have laïcité laws after all). Religious institutions are prone to dubious practices, often exploit people’s gullibility and ignorance, and sometimes even push their followers to fanaticism; we need journalists, cartoonists and intellectuals to remind us that in France we reject this aspect of religion.
ReplyDeleteI think the laws of freedom of expression are too restrictive; journalists need to be allowed to mock everyone, because no one is more special than anyone else. I find Dieudonné’s anti-Semitism pathetic, but he should be allowed to spit his venom. Anyway, if people are offended by satirical cartoons they do not have to look at them, or if they are shocked by stupid racist comments, they can ignore them.
I think Sacco misses the point about Charlie Hebdo’s satire. It does not mock Muslims or the Prophet (just like it does not mock Jews or women or disabled people). It mocks religious dogmatism, fanatics, and, among others, the terrorists who want to set up a fascist caliphate in Syria. Muhammad is depicted as a victim of these fanatics; he is not a joke figure of Charlie Hebdo. Charlie Hebdo does mock religions in general because it is a left-wing publication with a “no gods, no masters” anarchist leaning, which makes for all its charm and fun and bite.
I disagree with Sacco’s suggestion that it is Western societies or non-Muslims that are responsible for some Muslims getting upset about cartoons or even becoming violent. The war in Iraq got rid of a tyrant, didn’t it? It is not our fault either if Bashar al-Assad is massacring his own people! And as for Muslims in France, it is up to them to adapt to the values and practices of the majority, not the other way round. And I’m not going to stop laughing because they do not have (my sense of) humour!
In France, we defend values of freedom and equality and fraternity. We do not recognize a “multicultural” society, because the law only recognizes individual citizens of the State, not separate communities. The whole point of being French is to be on an equal footing with everyone else, not first and foremost a member of some ethnic or religious group. We also have a duty, as citizens, to speak our minds and we should be allowed to do so without the fear of censorship or of being shot dead…
In answer to question (7), yes, I DO agree with Sacco’s opinion! I feel that mocking minorities is not what cartoonists should do...
ReplyDeleteLike Joe Sacco, I was shocked by the horrific murders in Paris. Nothing justifies killing and certainly not killing in the name of God. For a country to be considered civilized, in which all its citizens can live in peace with each other, violence must be avoided, verbal violence included…
The majority of Muslims are peace-loving and law-abiding citizens and are understandably offended by racist stereotypes. They do not understand the refusal of certain cartoonists to respect the fact that most Muslims (not just religious fanatics) find any representation of the Prophet, all the more so a caricatured one, very wrong. Cartoonists should be more sensitive to religious differences and sensitivities, because, like the rest of us, cartoonists live in multicultural societies in an increasingly interdependent world. I agree with Pope Francis when he says that freedom of expression has, within the confines of the law, to be upheld, but that journalists should make an effort to avoid gratuitously offending people. Living with people that are different from us is not always easy, but making disparaging comments about them or, worse, trying to ignore their presence, is sure to bring social conflict. It is not surprising, though of course inexcusable, that some Muslims turn to violence…
Cartoonists should do their job: to mock the people in positions of power that have done something wrong. The powerful need to be reminded that they should not take advantage of their position for personal advantage and that they have to set the example. We, the people, need to be reminded of our civic duties and to contribute as best we can to make the world a better place.
The majority needs to learn to be more tolerant and do more to make minorities feel they are a valued part of society; the education system and society at large largely fails to help young people from ethnic minorities, living in sad and sometimes violent suburb estates, find decent work and a sense of self-worth or belonging. More and more young people will inevitably turn to those that preach hate.
Cartoonists have themselves potentially a lot of power; they should use it to remind their readers that compassion and tolerance allow us to live in harmony. Cartoonists should remind us about the injustices in the world and help us understand them, to find solutions. Empowering the downtrodden is what cartoonists should do.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteEtienne B.'s answer to question (7): I totally agree with Joe Sacco, on every point. In France, we are lucky to be allowed to say what we want, even to criticize some people or acts: that's freedom of expression. However, I find some drawings inappropriate and, above all, useless: what is the interest in mocking Muslims, without conveying any real message? It’s just gratuitously nasty! Furthermore, they focus mostly on Muslims. In humor, you have to attack everybody, on all religions, otherwise it might be construed as racism. That's what Sacco points out in the fifth panel, when he tells us that "Charlie Hebdo fired a cartoonist [...] for allegedly writing an anti-semitic column". Why do they only attack Muslims, whereas they self-censor themselves when it comes to Jews? If I were a Muslim, I'd probably feel offended too. Moderate Muslims are lumped together with extremists who use religion as an excuse to commit horrible acts. Satirical drawing should be used to denounce what's wrong in the world. I agree with Sacco when he asks "What exactly is the target… and why?" To my mind, religious minorities, just like ethnic groups, shouldn't be targets. If the Charlie Hebdo cartoonists wanted to denounce Islamism, was it necessary to involve religion? Muslims don't want to be identified with those extremists. I heard an interview of Charb's wife in which she says the cartoonists weren't islamophobic at all, and didn't mean to offend Muslims. In that case, I think they made a big mistake by involving religion, or at least they shouldn't have done it in such an offensive way.
ReplyDeleteJoe Sacco also raises another question: what makes Muslims unable to laugh off a mere image? He alludes to our responsibility in their lack of integration. Muslims are rejected, so consequently, when a cartoon makes fun of them, they automatically feel insulted and react the way everybody would react. If we tried to integrate them, then maybe they could “take the joke”. But anyway, associating them to the extremists that commit terrible acts in the Middle East is not a joke. For me, some cartoons aim at defamation and incitement to religious/racial hatred. Everything can be summed up by one of our basic principles: "One person's freedom ends where another's begins".
To conclude, I think it is a good thing to be able to say what we want because people fought for the freedom of expression; however I think that, by offending people, we don't really honor this freedom. We should not abuse our rights. I'm not saying that there must be official censorship, otherwise it is no longer a freedom, but maybe there should be moral self-censorship by journalists so as to avoid offending people uselessly. But of course it mustn't prevent journalists from doing their job freely. The problem is, we don't all have the same view of what is shocking, so self-censorship would be really difficult. The only solution is to learn how to live together, so as to live better, as Sacco says.
To conclude, I think it is a good thing to be able to say what we want because people fought for the freedom of expression; however I think that, by offending people, we don't really honor this freedom. We should not abuse our rights. I'm not saying that there must be any official censorship, otherwise it is no longer a freedom, but maybe there should be moral self-censorship by journalists so as to avoid offending people uselessly. But of course it mustn't prevent journalists to do their job freely. The problem is, we don't have all the same view of what is shocking or not, so self-censorship would be really subjective. The only solution is to learn how to live together, so as to live better.
Answer to question 7) :
ReplyDeleteI think that nobody deserves death and nobody has the right to take another person’s life. So I don’t agree with the Islamist reaction. On the other hand, free speech must not be mixed up with freedom to mock. Charlie Hebdo has maybe crossed a line. I think that everybody should make efforts :
- The cartoonists should sometimes be more respectful,
- The terrorists, be more tolerant, these are only jokes.
One thing is sure and I agree with Joe Sacco, it is that we all need to go in the same direction to make our world better and more varied. So accept to be mocked, be respectful of differences. Everybody can THINK what HE or SHE wants but can’t IMPOSE his or her conviction on OTHERS.
I agree with Joe Sacco when he thinks that we maybe shouldn’t mock Muslim. But it is not a reason to take the cartoonists’ lives. I also agree with him when he says that everybody has to live with others in spite of their differences because it would make a better society.
AXELLE says: Yes, it’s easy and not very honest to criticise and speak ill of others. I agree when Sacco says that “…tweaking the noses of Muslims […] has never struck me as anything other than a vapid way to use the pen”. Certain cartoons by Charlie Hebdo have no worthwhile message. Some are groundless criticism and some are made just to shock.
ReplyDeleteA cartoonist has a strong impact on our understanding of the news. If he makes fun of religions, beliefs, differences in skin colour, etc, it isn’t correct and worthy of the responsibility which he is entrusted with. Sacco says: “I affirm the right to take the piss”, but I disagree with him. The role of the cartoonist is to make a pertinent point about the news, to highlight things which are important and which haven’t been said, to criticise when it enables people to realize how they are manipulated and to make them think, nothing more. His aim shouldn’t be to insult fundamental beliefs and values. We mustn’t forget that the pen can be used like a weapon…
What I say is that we have to respect others, and respect the rules of freedom of expression; remember that inciting racial hatred is against the law! Charlie Hebdo should have thought more before gratuitously insulting people and their beliefs. Obviously, I don’t excuse the horrific act of terrorism committed in Paris, but I think some of Charlie Hebdo’s cartoons should not have been allowed. I am NOT Charlie!