Saturday, 30 January 2016

Saturday Evenings: Stay In, Sit Up and Switch On

One of the turning-points in the Viet Nam war was Associated Press photographer Nick Ut’s iconic black-and-white picture of nine-year-old Kim Phuc running away from a bombed-out village. What made the image more powerful was Kim’s shocking nakedness, the result of having her clothes burned off by South Vietnamese napalm-bomb-dropping aeroplanes.



Children in conflict zones usually trigger strong emotions in us. Whether we have offspring of our own or not, we feel a degree of sympathy towards those who are usually unfortunate victims of war. Last summer the world gasped in unison as the body of Syrian Aylan Kurdi was found on a Turkish beach. All of a sudden the refugee crisis felt more real. This child could have been ours. Lying face down, the calmness of the sea betraying the tragedy-punctuated moment, Aylan became a symbol in the never-ending Syrian saga and the refugee crisis at large.

The ensuing outcry and condemnation of both Assad’s strong-man domestic policy and Europe’s intransigence in the face of humanitarian crisis might come in handy in order to explain the reaction to one of satirical French magazine Charlie Hebdo’s recent cartoons.

The drawing depicted Aylan Kurdi as an adult (had he survived) chasing two women. The image was the answer to a question in French: “What would little Alan have grown up to be?” Anyone familiar with the events of New Year in Germany and other European cities will have made the connection.

Two issues arise from Charlie Hebdo’s blunt – and some might say, insensitive – approach. The magazine was targeted by extremists a year ago. Members of its staff were killed in cold blood. Rather than toning its content down it has since then stepped it up one or two notches. The other issue is that in using a now deeply-embedded, much-loved and sympathised-with image like the Aylan Kurdi, the publication has drawn criticism from those who stood up for it twelve months ago.



There are people who have quite rightly said that the magazine’s assumption that little Aylan would have inevitably grown up to become a brute plays into the hands of the far-right. There are others who see the cartoon as a self-mocking exercise, rather than targeting Aylan, it is aiming its barrel at us. One minute we feel sorry for a toddler washed up on the beach, the next we are asking refugees to part with their belongings before they come in.

I say that the latter approach is a tad risky. You need subtlety to pull off a trick like that and in my opinion the drawing lacks it. Had Aylan-the-groper been painted inside a speech bubble with a small arrow pointing at a bigot, then the message would have been less murky.

Could the same have happened to Kim Phuc? I doubt it. I cannot imagine a cartoon depicting nine-year-old Kim as a prostitute in adulthood or similar. It could be that 1972, when the photo was taken, was a time when news lacked the immediacy it has now. Perhaps there was less cruelty, even in satirical publications.

I admit to not finding much to laugh about in the current refugee crisis. It could be then that Charlie Hebdo’s attempt to provide a light-hearted touch to the debate should be welcome. The danger is that instead of sending up ignorant bigots, it is giving them a soap box.

When it comes to freedom of speech, I am usually on the side of those who defend it at all costs. But (important “but”), sometimes I would rather we, adults, exercised caution more and focused on the long-term vision instead of the short-term gain. Are a few extra laughs worth someone else’s tears for the next decades?

It is not an easy question to answer and it is ultimately down to the individual to address. But it would be less complicated if sometimes, only sometimes, you just put a speech bubble with a small arrow pointing at a bigot.



© 2016

Next Post: “Urban Diary”, to be published on Wednesday 3rd February at 6pm (GMT)

24 comments:

  1. Why aren't the wealthy gulf states - and Malaysia the world's largest Muslim - country helping all those displaced co-coreligionists? Deciding truth based on emotional stimulus is not the way to light in my opinion. Another thought provoking post! Thank You

    ReplyDelete
  2. And what about the flagging sympathy for the refugees? Denmark's plan to seize anything over $1500 is unconscionable.

    ReplyDelete
  3. No easy answers. Charlie Hebdo's work has always struck me a poking a dog, known to be dangerous, with a stick and then expressing surprise when it bites. I AM in favour of free speech, but wish that we would better consider the messages that what we say and do sends. With rights come responsibilities.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Free speech is vitally important but I think cultural sensitivity is as well. I don't find cartoons like that funny or light-hearted. I think they are mean-spirited and that kind of treatment only inspires more hate and retaliation.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Free speech is vitally important but I think cultural sensitivity is as well. I don't find cartoons like that funny or light-hearted. I think they are mean-spirited and that kind of treatment only inspires more hate and retaliation.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Free speech is great to have indeed but people need to use common sense, which isn't so common anymore, sometimes before they open their yap.

    ReplyDelete
  7. It's a thorny one - I think freedom of speech comes with responsibility to relfect on the impact of that speech on the feelings of others. I'm unhappy about anthing that plays into the hands of bigots - the ruefugee crisis throws up enough complexities without that.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Siempre nos hace falta una imagen para actuar, lamentable es pero real.
    Un feliz fin de semana.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Free speech is just that -free. We wish it would come with a sense of responsibility, sensitivity but more and more often it does not. As well, there are actually incidents where free speech crosses a line, shouting fire in a crowd when there is none, etc. etc.
    But it takes a certain kind of mind to produce a cartoon of this sort and even if it spurs us to search for a deeper meaning of hypocrisy, the fact that it can cause such pain makes me wonder why Mr. Hebo makes it so difficult to find that deeper meaning - if in fact it is there.

    But sadly, he is free to do that.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Agh. Agree with you here. What a sad situation on all sides. A really interesting post, Cubano, thank you. k.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Publications such as Charlie Hebdo in France or Rolling Stone in the United States are in the business, first and foremost, to make money. Being provocative is one means to make money. Just ask Donald Trump. Unfortunately, what often is considered "razor's edge" or avant-garde or "pushing the envelope" is nothing more than trite babble, especially when it comes to art. To spin a well-worn concept: One man's art is another man's garbage.

    The primary point, though, is that anyone crazy enough to shoot people because they or their religion or their girlfriend has been insulted is the problem; not the person who is (one more concept) too dumb to know he is dumb when he draws his cartoon or opens his mouth.

    Great piece of writing, CiL .... and, I think I will leave concepts regarding immigration alone today ....

    ReplyDelete
  12. Hi ACIL - it is a dilemma of many sorts we are muddling around ... and dangerous. I particularly don't like a phrase being picked up and then social mediaed all over the place - we don't know the context ... it may not be right ... but it is probably spun and brought out into the open way too often.

    It is not easy ... free speech should remain ... gossip and hate should be left alone. Hilary

    ReplyDelete
  13. Not an easy subject - with freedom of speech, comes great responsibility....a fact that all too often is grossly overlooked.
    However, I guess the very phrase "Freedom of Speech" means just that...the freedom to say exactly what one feels or thinks.
    Perhaps it is also up to the observer to decide how he/she interprets another's words...and whether or not to take their perceived meaning on board.
    Phew...such a complex situation...

    Another immensely thought-provoking post, CiL.
    Bravo!

    ReplyDelete
  14. I cannot argue with your well-thought-out post. I always appreciate your analysis of current situations!

    ReplyDelete
  15. I have to agree, I wondered what they were thinking, then I remember Johnathan Swift and his "Modest Proposal" to end hunger in Ireland... Children do pull on our heart-string so perhaps that is why satirist use them.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Over and over again, I'm seeing my sentiments reflected here.. that with free speech comes responsibility. Without it, it can be dangerous.

    ReplyDelete
  17. The little girl in that photo was featured in a Sunday Morning Show story. She's gone through numerous surgeries and lived a life of pain, but she's endured because of her powerful spirituality and positive outloo. A remarkable person.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Free speech is a tricky issue. I appreciate the liberties we have in the USA but sometimes wish there were laws against hate speech. My son is taking a course on free speech this term at college in political science. I'll be curious to hear more about what he learned.

    ReplyDelete
  19. This is always going to be a difficult area. On the one hand there are legitimate concerns about irresponsible or hateful commentary and on the other there are legitimate fears about the slippery slope. The price of liberty is eternal vigilance--and endless arguing.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Another way to look at this situation is that all ideas---freedom of speech, freedom of press--carry consequences--both good and bad. The key is ultimately to examine the motives in either case and since much in the US is dominated by fear, the need for control and money, for example, who comes out on top in any debate? That tells us a lot about actual versus stated values...Thanks for your thought-provoking post.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Personally I think the Charlie Hebdo cartoon was really horrible. I don't suppose they're aiming it at people like me though. Any attempt to read more meaning into it than a dead child is really pretty crass. The fact that a little child is dead is a big enough meaning as far as I am concerned.
    I do defend Charlie Hebdo's right to speak freely however offensive. But I also think that people who push the limits are in fact furthering intolerance, because it is so hard for so many people not to feel disgusted at them. And once the unacceptable becomes OK then we are all a bit the poorer, I'd say.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Well said, dear Cubano. Please send your post to your local newspaper as an op.ed. More people need to read and think about this topic. Muchas gracias.

    ReplyDelete
  23. I think we need to be careful with our speech, whether free or not and how it will affect other people ~ I don't agree with making fun of other people or issues just for the heck of free speech, but what purpose will it ultimately serve ~ Thanks for the thoughtful post ~

    ReplyDelete
  24. Charlie Hebdo are always too extreme for my tastes, even though I support their right to free speech, I agree with you - we should all exercise more caution

    ReplyDelete

LinkWithin

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...