One can support the right to do something while opposing particular ways of doing it. Since the marginalization of certain religious groups in media portrayals can be intertwined with marginalization of the ethnic groups that practice said religions, it's understandable that people of color will have mixed feelings.

The majority group can take a lot of ribbing and not get hurt. Not so true for marginalized groups.

different, as they are in Paris and France. In Europe.

Or if American history, even that taught very badly, was not the only history Americans are ever taught, informed of or had a clue about.

on this issue?

I'm not really understanding your initial response.

It is complex.

Simply put, France, most of Europe, have a painful historical understanding of how crossing a certain line of malicious speech has led to violence. That is also the history of many non-white folks from many other nations who live in America, including the many descendants of slaves that are citizens in America.

It makes non-white folk rightfully nervous that white folks simply do not get how speech intended to incite hatred against a defined Minority group is dangerous. To that group, to democracy.

It is hard to explain, it is like trying to explain why 'reverse racism' does not exist.

This helps:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017241691

Charlie Hedbo cartoons. The intolerance appears to have come from the marginalized extremist islamic community.

That would be consistent with these results.

What is your personal position on the Charlie Hedbo cartoons or similar kinds of satire?

I think most white folks understand the difference between hate speech and satire.

The cartoons are not the source of the real intolerance - towards Muslims painted with the same brush.

This article is about support for satirizing religion.

I agree that there is racial intolerance in France and I understand why marginalized communities are less likely to support this kind of satire.

You initially seemed to be drawing a distinction between the US and Europe, though. I don't really see the difference in this particular case.

Oh, surprise, surprise.

people really object to this kind of satire, which is indeed a reflection of my white privilege.

Interestingly, there were not significant differences based on religious affiliation, but the numbers in the survey are pretty small and they really only looked at differences between christian groups. I would guess that marginalized religious groups might be significantly different than christians.

It might not, of course.

But in discussions of minority oppression by DU, all that's shown are stereotypical and divisive images that show minorities. You get the impression--with the overt claims--that Charlie Hebdo's mainly committed to satirizing ethnic and religious minorities in ways that resonate with American audiences.

That's because the people making the claims pick and choose the images to buttress their claims that Hebdo's mainly committed to satirizing ethnic and religious minorities, and since the claimants are Americans they pick those that resonate with that audience.

The range of satire is omitted. The context for individual cartoons is omitted. All you get is a narrow range suited to a narrow audience.

People being what they are, the immediate response is to assume that what they see and what they know is all there is to know. Few do the hard, slow thinking: "Perhaps there's more to find before I reach a conclusion, and I should track that information down even though I don't know exactly what I'm looking for. Perhaps the person who's presenting this, somebody I seem to agree with on other issues and who agrees with me, isn't really being fair on this point and at some level of abstraction I have to distrust him (or her)." Instead it's easier to side with an ally, it's easier to not have to take an hour or two to evaluate a claim that you'd like to take 3 minutes. Perhaps it's easier to just feel outrage and emote than to exercise self-discipline and reject immediate self-reinforcing outrage. If anything is "un-American" these days, it's those things--but that's really just being "un-human."

When this story first broke, I posted a very thorough overview of the magazine which included a much wider range of the satirical content they carry.

I also very much agree about the lack of independent research and verification across the board. It happens here all the time. Even after someone has posted information that shows a story to be false, the bandwagon often continues to get crowded.

Equating making fun of an idea, much less a bigoted idea, as being the same as making fun of race or sexuality is the result of massive amounts of privilege for religion.

can identify with explicitly bigoted organizations. Religious privilege in all its glory.

Do you identify positively with this?



How about this? Do you support this as well?

Satirizing the belief that a person can't be drawn simply because a belief system holds it sacred is a good use of satire IMHO, especially given blasphemy laws. Such terrible beliefs should be satirized, and such sacred cows should be gored, because otherwise you have bigoted, oppressive belief systems above criticism.

I don't know the context of the second one, so I can't really comment on it.

I think anyone who thinks it is wrong to satirize religion needs to explain what other ideas they think can be satirized, and why that's not hypocrisy. Or maybe they just are against satire.

Also, xenophobic bigots have targeted religious people of one type or another in the past, and many people don't see the difference between making fun of the religion and stereotyping the religious members. They also tend to forget that religion is part of what fuels xenophobic bigots in many cases. And that the religions themselves are very bigoted.

The second one is per se anti-Semitic. Here's the context:

the caricature of Mohammed is an ethnic slur. Mohammed is the prophet of a bigoted, terrible religion, caricature is appropriate. All caricatures exaggerate features, and Hebdo does the same with other religious figures.

Do you see the cartoons posted on DU daily? There are invariably one or several that caricature Republicans. Some even caricature Obama and Democratic leaders.

It's not at all difficult to see.

the antisemitism of the Le juif et La France.(Here, let me help you out: that's " The Jew and France&quot exhibition in Nazi-occupied Paris. Do you think that's acceptable satire, given that train loads of Jews were being shipped off to the death camps?

You don't really see any connection between the exaggerated Middle Eastern features of the Mohammed cartoon and ethnic prejudice?

I have no idea what the second poster is, or it's context, and I think it's an irrelevant red herring. If the point is to compare it to the Hebdo cartoon, then explain the similarities.

Mohamed was a prophet of a hateful religion that has a lot of power and privilege in many countries and actively oppresses all sorts of groups. I see nothing wrong with goring that sacred cow.

Just because exaggerated facial features
Have been used to propagandize against ethnic groups, it doesn't mean all caricatures are ethnic propaganda. Hebdo and many other political cartoonists to this day caricature all sorts of people. Context matters.

Islam has a ton of power and privilege, caricature of its prophet is in line with puncturing that privilege and changing the perception that it should get special treatment other ideas do not. Hebdo does it with the Pope as well, and it's needed IMHO. These are bigoted, misogynistic belief systems that are given special status because they're religions, and ridicule helps puncture that veil, it calls out the naked emperor.

just Strawmen.

of cognitive dissonance and intellectual dishonesty, look in the mirror.

And support bigoted, misogynistic belief systems is religious privilege. It even allows for the cognitive dissonance of being in an undeprivileged group on one level and an active oppressor of other underprivileged groups on the other.

Spoke at the inauguration of the first black president. It's why that same black president could be a bigot towards homosexuals for political expedience. And nobody really batted an eye in mainstream discourse.

White male heterosexual heteronormative privilege feeds and thrives on religious privilege and vice versa. It's why the Republican Party is also so religious. Conservative ideology is in many ways based on a very patriarchal, misogynistic, bigoted religion. The problem is that many Dmocrats identify with this same religion.

Thinking that religion is fair game for satire as any other idea isn't white privilege. Thinking it's not is religious privilege. But some people are willfully blind to religious privilege.

There are all sorts of privileges at work.

Religion

Obey the "lord" and tolerate abuse