Iran plans Holocaust cartoon contest

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Ah, great way to calm things down guys!

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/FCE073DD-7F1B-4714-95F0-DD1F354F1D9A.htm

Of course this is not all surprising after the Supreme Leader called the original cartoons a "Zionist plot"

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/news.php3?id=98121

[angus]

Damn, I'm with Gabu.  Where are these cartoons?  All I can find here is Affeitch giving an rant in the form of an assinine geography lesson (it's cool, I've been there buddy; sometimes you just gotta blast folks), and Dems and Republicans bashing each other.  What else is new.  Anyway, I finally found them.  In french.  Good enough. 

http://www.courrierinternational.com/dessins/galeriedessin.asp?dos_id=2295&provenance=europe

Have you people lost your sense of politically incorrect himor?  This stuff is laugh out loud funny, imho.  Tacky, mind you, nasty and hateful as well, but it's funny.  Let's see those holocaust cartoons.  Those'll be a riot, I imagine.  I'm looking forward to them, along with more work from the dane. 

Vive la liberté d'expression!

[opebo]

Holocaust cartoons are actually a perfect form of retaliation.

[angus]

Holocaust cartoons are actually a perfect form of retaliation.

You remember MAD magazine?  Ever read that when you were a kid?  They used to do these tacky spoofs on shows, you may recall.  They had one several pages long back when I was maybe ten or so called "Hochmann's Heroes" which was obviously a spoof on "Hogan's Heroes"  Except that Hochman was a German Jew in a Concentration Camp, replete with emaciated body and striped prison clothes.  And Colonel Klunk was an SS colonel in charge.  All the usual characters were there except that they were Jews in a concentration camp with SS folks, instead of american, french, and english prisoners with Wehrmacht guards.  There were cheesey lines like colonel Klunk saying, "Hochman, no won has ever escaped from Auschwitz!"  And Hochmann replying, "Oh, Klunk, that just sends me to the showers!  Get it, showers?"  Arrarrarr.  That kind of campy humor.  Really black humor.  Really tacky humor.  And hilarious.  Can you imagine someone printing something like that nowadays?  Seriously, I can't.  We've come a long way since 1977, no doubt.

Think the ayatollah is a fan of Al Jaffee? 

Do they even still make MAD?

I'll be honest.  There was a time when I'd find all this stuff incredibly insensitive, and take sides with Bill Clinton on his "Tolerance of Intolerance" soapbox.  I still do, mind you, but political correctness is creepy.  I realized in about 1998 that I could actually laugh at a starving ethiopian boy living next door to an overweight, overstuff sally struthers.  I mean really laugh.  I remember Donna coming in and saying "what the hell are you watching?"  and I'm all like, "dude, if you can't laugh at starving ethiopian children, you just can't laugh."

It's really the best medicine.  Cures ailments.  This posturing by the US is silly, and will be seen for what it is.  No one should mistake this sort of cartoon for anything other than insensitive, black humor.  And like all such humor, if you can't stand it, don't buy it.  We had exactly the same discussion this summer over that Mexican Sambo garbage.  Don't like the taste?  Don't drink it.  Some of us really enjoy a bitter sarcastic ale now and then.

[opebo]

We've come a long way since 1977, no doubt.

Yes, I miss those liberal days.  I think it was a relative breeze to get a hooker then to, from what I hear.  The US has become so much more controlled in so many ways, and so much more conservative.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

angus,

There is a difference between a) a very small group of citizens of a country mocking the holocaust, and b) a national government mocking the holocaust.

Iran is only going to convince the world, if the world wasn't convinced already, that they are intent on nuking Israel. 

[TB]

How inappropriate Israel has nothing to do with the Muhammad cartoons. There are already SO many anti-semetic cartoon so this is not really a new thing. It just seems very stupid. The Muhammad cartoons were made to test self-censure, a very important and relevant issue. I do thing it was done the wrong way, just as it was misunderstood from the beginning, but this mess is just a form of destructive revenge. The should target the newspaper if the are so bitter and not the Jews. This time it has nothing to do with the Arab-Jewish relationship.

[The Man From G.O.P.]

I think we should have a new Coalition-Wide parabolic bomb trajectory path drawing contest!

[angus]

alrightalrightalright.  I'm trolling.  I'll admit it.

the thing is, I kept seeing all these threads on the subject, but no one was actually posting a cartoon.  But everyone and his brother has some opinion.  Finally today I read this very long diatribe written by a guy that works for Die Zeit (of Berlin) in WaPo online.  But they didn't even show the cartoons!  So I just couldn't stand it anymore.  I started searching and finally found the cartoons.  The French, as it turns out, thoughtfully posted them and translated them into French.  Merci beaucoup mes amis francais.  Anyway, now I had the pix.  Hell, who knows how they would have hit me in a vacuum?  I can't honestly say.  Probably I'd be offended, I'll admit.  After all they were very tacky.  And yes it would be insensitive to do holocaust cartoons as well (and oddly inappropriate, since it was a dane, not a jew, who fired the shot.  Moreover, it was one Dane and not the entire population of Denmark, so even impugning Danes would be inappropriate.)

anyway, I've read so much about it by now that I'm not sure what I think about it anymore jmfcst, other than that I'm really tired of hearing about it.

But yes BRTD is right, this isn't helping either.

I'll stop bitching now. 

Salaam and Shalom.

[Beet]

I had to respond to angus a bit.

The thing with the Danes is there's not much to go after them for. One has to understand, in order to "go after" a group of people, aka, try to push their buttons using "humor", there must be some painful, sensitive spot where you can push the button and hit something vulnerable. The holocaust is perfect. On the other hand, making fun of someone because they're not circumcised simply doesn't hit the same emotional notes. The Danes don't really have much of a reason to have any inferiority or vulnerability complex in any obvious area (though I could be wrong), unlike muslims and Jews.

A second point. I'm not sure who has had this experience, a group of kids in school laughing at you, and you don't know what to do but decide to laugh as well. Then they say "We're not laughing with you, we're laughing at you!" Curious that what matters sometimes more than the content of the derirsion is the intent and mindset of the perpetrators. And of course, their power over you, whether real or imagined. At that point, it stops becoming funny.

Edit: Though of course, the subject often has significant latitude in magnifying or minimizing the perpretrator's power over it. At the one end are the Christians who ought "turn the other cheek" at their enemies, for they are justified by an unworldly faith no one can touch (unless of course, they strike doubt). At the other end are guys like Zell Miller who once wished aloud he could challenge Chris Matthews to a "duel", presumably to defend his honor.

The above means that the utility of seeking a suppression of malicious humor is variable. On the one hand, it is little productive to suppress the open expression of malicious humor if such suppression will not change the minds of those under whose thumb one, in actuality, is (in some way). Energies might be better expended towards bettering one's own position. The Jews certainly learned early on that they could not count on their hosts to respect them unless they rose to wealth and high positions in society. On the other hand, unchecked malicious content spreading throughout society risks becoming a norm, which then affects the psychology of the perpetrating group, making hostility towards the targeted group both more accepted and more widespread, often through distorted images or implied information about targeted groups. Certainly this is not desirable either. So there are certainly no easy answers. The dynamics, are, however, mixed in nature and not so clear cut.

[MODU]

Holocaust cartoons are actually a perfect form of retaliation.

Dopie has a point, but it still doesn't mean it's the right course of action. 

[angus]

I had to respond to angus a bit.

The thing with the Danes is there's not much to go after them for. One has to understand, in order to "go after" a group of people, aka, try to push their buttons using "humor", there must be some painful, sensitive spot where you can push the button and hit something vulnerable. The holocaust is perfect. On the other hand, making fun of someone because they're not circumcised simply doesn't hit the same emotional notes. The Danes don't really have much of a reason to have any inferiority or vulnerability complex in any obvious area (though I could be wrong), unlike muslims and Jews.

A second point. I'm not sure who has had this experience, a group of kids in school laughing at you, and you don't know what to do but decide to laugh as well. Then they say "We're not laughing with you, we're laughing at you!" Curious that what matters sometimes more than the content of the derirsion is the intent and mindset of the perpetrators. And of course, their power over you, whether real or imagined. At that point, it stops becoming funny.

Edit: Though of course, the subject often has significant latitude in magnifying or minimizing the perpretrator's power over it. At the one end are the Christians who ought "turn the other cheek" at their enemies, for they are justified by an unworldly faith no one can touch (unless of course, they strike doubt). At the other end are guys like Zell Miller who once wished aloud he could challenge Chris Matthews to a "duel", presumably to defend his honor.

The above means that the utility of seeking a suppression of malicious humor is variable. On the one hand, it is little productive to suppress the open expression of malicious humor if such suppression will not change the minds of those under whose thumb one, in actuality, is (in some way). Energies might be better expended towards bettering one's own position. The Jews certainly learned early on that they could not count on their hosts to respect them unless they rose to wealth and high positions in society. On the other hand, unchecked malicious content spreading throughout society risks becoming a norm, which then affects the psychology of the perpetrating group, making hostility towards the targeted group both more accepted and more widespread, often through distorted images or implied information about targeted groups. Certainly this is not desirable either. So there are certainly no easy answers. The dynamics, are, however, mixed in nature and not so clear cut.

very nice post.  I said I was going to stop ranting so I will.  Obviously, Christians, Jews, and Muslims, as well as really fat people, are picked on in this country (and especially on this forum!) and in others.  We're pretty nice to blacks and gays 'round here though.  Not a bad place to come out, this board.

Yeah, as I said I'd seen all these posts.  At first I thought it was some inside joke and went on to ignore it.  But I kept seeing all these posts.  But no one was actually posting the cartoon!  I was like the cat with the Flexall 454.  Then I read that rant in WaPo, and I just had to see them.  As it turns out, the sight where I found them was in french.  And I must admit that I found them humorous.  Can't lie to you.  Some of them made me chuckle.  Out loud.  But obviously there were insensitive and tacky.  And under other circumstances, if I'd stumbled across them I'd probably regard them as such.  You know a Muslim can't even get on a plane without being searched for bombs, degraded, and all the rest.  And in France they're humiliated daily.  Still, I was in that anti-arab, anti-jew, anti-semitic, chauvinistic, intolerant, judgemental, art-deco neofascist mood you get into when you start reading and speaking French.  YOu know what I"m talking about.  Think Lisa Simpson in her french class.  Teacher laughing through the nasels.  And in that sinister mindset, reading french, I just let myself enjoy the tacky anti-arab humor in all its glory.  But I never claimed that I didn't think it was insensitive.  In fact, the cartoons were very insensitive.  But, funny they were.  At least after all that hard work I put into finding them they'd better have been funny!  Dammit, I've earned this laughter.

As for the Mad article.  I've thought about it, and you know it's the only time I can remember a mainstream US publication doing Holocaust humor.  Seriously.  I have to imagine that those three jewish guys that write the magazine regretted it.  I imagine Al getting his back all shaved and turning out the light and covering up, preparing for a snooze.  And some big scary Lubavitch-Chabad goons showing up.  Intimidating in black.  Black fedoras.  Black beards.  Black hair curled on the sides.  Black suits.  But with white and blue scarves, of course.  Probably pulled Al, along with his two buddies, out of bed and took them out back and roughed 'em up a bit.  Threw them out of a moving car or something.  Teach 'em to make light of the Holocaust.  I guess I came to feel sorry for those three jewish guys who wrote mad magazine.  After all, that's the last time they ever did that humor.  It is true that you just don't see that sort of stuff any more.  I can't comment on the hooker situation, but that wouldn't surprise me either.

As for propriety.  I still say if you want to go after danes, there are better ways.  Holocaust?  Pogroms?  If you want to go after Russians, Silesians, or Germans, then the way they treated Jews for 500 years is fair game.  In fact, White Man is fair game in general for tacky politically incorrect humor, since for at least 600 years Europeans have claimed moral, racial, and religious superiority over the rest of the world.  And are still doing it.  But danes would have been only minimally involved.  Sure, some dane probably gave up some jew to the nazis in the early 40s.  You can really do better that Holocaust if you want to go after Danes.  I tell ya, I can't think dane without thinking of the first time I peed in a public urinal next to a danish boy.  I was about 7 years old.  I was horrified and mortified.  I still can't think of danmark without thinking of smegma.  Oozing, slimy, dripping smegma.

Of course, on the larger issue of propriety.  You point out that it's really not "okay" to make fun of people.  Fair enough.  We make fun of fatties, rebel-sympathizers, evangelical prots on this forum like there's no tomorrow.  And you'd really gotta feel sorry for a guy who's a fat, evangelical protestant confederate-sympathizer!  (of course, such a guy might take to putting pictures in his sig of a US president being shot in the head, which kinda makes it hard for folks to sympathize, I suppose)  Yeah, "if you kill my dog I'll kill your cat" really doesn't solve problems.  Everyone's favorite Jew, Jesus H. Christ, made that clear.  Why not just turn a cheek.  But I think after 12 cartoons, the muslims may have felt that they were just running out of cheeks to turn.

But there are all these ancillary issues that come up.  Freedom of the press, and so on.  And there's much about that in the Courrier on-line, by the way.  For all their intolerance, judgement, chauvinism, and bigotry, you have to admit the French still put stock in Free Press.  We used to in this country.  At one time. 

And yeah, one year, 3rd grade I think, I had highwaters.  You know what I'm talkin' bout.  Man it was humiliating.  The folks decided to go on the cheap, buy school clothes at JCPenneys that year, and did it without us, as we'd have harassed them to buy us nice, fashionable things.  As a result, that year I had really ugly pants which were too short.  And three exactly the same kind.  So in addition to having to go through the third grade with highwaters, it looked like I never changed.  Ouch.  I shall never make fun of a kid with highwaters.

Anyway, I said I'd stop bitching.  So I will.  This was more expository than rant, don't you think?

[minionofmidas]

Well the whole point is "let's see if they'll be reprinted by the same Western papers in the same pompous tones. Let's see if this was about Freedom of the Press *at all*, will we?"
That don't mean I approve of this.
But you guys had it coming.

[MODU]

Well the whole point is "let's see if they'll be reprinted by the same Western papers in the same pompous tones. Let's see if this was about Freedom of the Press *at all*, will we?"
That don't mean I approve of this.
But you guys had it coming.

I see a French paper has started running the cartoons.  Should be interesting to see how that it is received over there following their protests a few months ago.

[angus]

From the Courrier:

"Si nous avions prévu les conséquences de la publication des dessins caricaturaux de Mahomet, aurions-nous fait le choix de ne pas les publier ? s'interroge le quotidien danois par qui la crise est arrivée. La réponse de la presse danoise est unanime : dégâts matériels et pertes humaines auraient pu être évités, mais la liberté d'expression dans une société ouverte n'est pas négociable."

Goddamned right it isn't.  But like I said, I'm not ranting anymore.

I think I also agree with lewis, if I understand what he's saying.  But I'm not sure.

[opebo]

"Si nous avions prévu les conséquences de la publication des dessins caricaturaux de Mahomet, aurions-nous fait le choix de ne pas les publier ? s'interroge le quotidien danois par qui la crise est arrivée. La réponse de la presse danoise est unanime : dégâts matériels et pertes humaines auraient pu être évités, mais la liberté d'expression dans une société ouverte n'est pas négociable."

The above as translated by Altavista:

"If we had envisaged the consequences of the publication of the caricatural drawings of Mahomet, would we have made the choice not publish them? question yourself the Danish daily newspaper by which the crisis arrived. The response of the Danish press is unanimous: property damages and human losses could have been avoided, but the freedom of expression in an open company is not negotiable."

You know I have used that Babelfish translation thing on there for many different languages, and French is the only one it does well.

[Beet]

"Si nous avions prévu les conséquences de la publication des dessins caricaturaux de Mahomet, aurions-nous fait le choix de ne pas les publier ? s'interroge le quotidien danois par qui la crise est arrivée. La réponse de la presse danoise est unanime : dégâts matériels et pertes humaines auraient pu être évités, mais la liberté d'expression dans une société ouverte n'est pas négociable."

The above as translated by Altavista:

"If we had envisaged the consequences of the publication of the caricatural drawings of Mahomet, would we have made the choice not publish them? question yourself the Danish daily newspaper by which the crisis arrived. The response of the Danish press is unanimous: property damages and human losses could have been avoided, but the freedom of expression in an open company is not negotiable."

You know I have used that Babelfish translation thing on there for many different languages, and French is the only one it does well.

How do you know it was done well? Perhaps the correct translation is:

"If we have envisaged the consequences of blasphemizing the most holy lord muhammad, would we have made the choice not to publish the fact that we piss on his grave? question yourselves oh unbelievers, how this crisis arrived. The response of the Danish press is unanimous: all heil Emperor Palpatine! Brokeback to the future! Our croissants are not negotiable. And long live free Quebec!"

[Gabu]

How do you know it was done well? Perhaps the correct translation is:

"If we have envisaged the consequences of blasphemizing the most holy lord muhammad, would we have made the choice not to publish the fact that we piss on his grave? question yourselves oh unbelievers, how this crisis arrived. The response of the Danish press is unanimous: all heil Emperor Palpatine! Brokeback to the future! Our croissants are not negotiable. And long live free Quebec!"

I can vouch for the fact that Babelfish's translation is a lot closer than yours.

[opebo]

"If we had envisaged the consequences of the publication of the caricatural drawings of Mahomet, would we have made the choice not publish them? question yourself the Danish daily newspaper by which the crisis arrived. The response of the Danish press is unanimous: property damages and human losses could have been avoided, but the freedom of expression in an open company is not negotiable."

You know I have used that Babelfish translation thing on there for many different languages, and French is the only one it does well.

How do you know it was done well?

Because it produced a beautiful and wonderfully pompous-sounding peice of English prose!  Usually when I try to translate some German or Russian it comes back with the most disjointed crap, with a smattering of words left in the original language.

I'm going to call him 'Mahomet' from now on.

[angus]

opebo,
"envisaged"??!  please.  try "forseen" or something less erudite.

a couple of other spots are awkward, e.g., "open company"  try an open society.  and the second sentence should be seriously restructured if you want to capture its true essense in english.  and stop throwing around the definite article like that.  you're going to put someone's eye out.

but yeah, you seem to get the jist of it.

factor,
I like yours better!

jmfcst,
I'm still not sure how to respond to your second comment.  I suppose I'm a chicken, since I was hoping someone else would, but it is addressed to me after all.  Okay then, yes, they're scary.  But the problem is when the Christian Right and the Jewish Right and the Neoconservative Hawks all get together in one place and start making noises about Iran, it gives some of us pause.  I'll just ask you to clarify:  Are you suggesting that we inspect Iran's nuclear energy facilities by force to ensure that they are not producing weapons?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

jmfcst,
I'm still not sure how to respond to your second comment.  I suppose I'm a chicken, since I was hoping someone else would, but it is addressed to me after all.  Okay then, yes, they're scary.  But the problem is when the Christian Right and the Jewish Right and the Neoconservative Hawks all get together in one place and start making noises about Iran, it gives some of us pause.  I'll just ask you to clarify:  Are you suggesting that we inspect Iran's nuclear energy facilities by force to ensure that they are not producing weapons?

No, I don’t think the Iranians would ever allow inspections.

In any case, we on the Christian Right are merely bystanders.

[angus]

I think you're right about the refusal.  I'm asking you what your solution would be to the problem, if it really exists, of Iran's alleged plan to blast apart the homeland of the US's best ally in the region.  Do you suggest we invade Iran with an army?  No way we can pull that off, while maintaining two other wars, without going completely broke, even if you could talk congress into it.  Do you suggest we continue putting diplomatic pressure on UN member states in the region to encourage Iran to allow inspections?  We are, and that's not working.  Do you suggest strategic bombing inside Iranian territory?  That would be an unjustified act of war, probably even more eggregious in the eyes of many UN member states, than our current war with Iraq. 

You may be a bystander but collectively you have the president's ear on many issues.  How would you council the president in the case that you seriously believe Iran is planning to nuke Israel?  Or should the US take any action at all in this case, given that it's a matter between Iran and Israel?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

angus,

Well, you know me:  I believe Israel will rebuild the Temple.  I don't know if that will be this decade or 500 years from now, but I believe it will be rebuilt.

Israel will probably make a move before Bush.  Bush is in a reactionary mode.  He's a lame duck.

If I were Bush, I would take out Iran's silkworm missiles in the Gulf and destroy its airforce.  I would do the same to Syria.  If, after that, they still feel like fighting, I would escalate it as necessary.

But Israel should be the one taking care of Iran, not the US.  So, instead of a US attack, I would simply give Israel the green light.

[minionofmidas]

"If we had envisaged the consequences of the publication of the caricatural drawings of Mahomet, would we have made the choice not

to[/quote]publish them? question yourself[/quote]Strike the last two words please...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And add them here, as "questions itself"

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This is what's written, but it's also a white lie.

Mind you, what's the "Courrier"? That's not a paper I've ever seen, come up against or heard about. As to the French paper ("France Soir", a tabloid. Sorta like the "Daily Mail" in politics) that started the whole "reprint the whole series with pompous editorial about absolute freedom of speech and big announcement on title page" trend, the editor-in-chief was sacked by the paper's Muslim ownership the same day. The same has happened at Poland's "Rzeszpospolita" (sp?) ... except for the Muslim part; they're not Muslim-owned.

[angus]

jmfcst, well at least you're consistent.  I hope you're wrong about Iran.

Trondheim, the "courrier" is a paper I linked to for the edification of posters who might be interested in seeing these cartoons.  Many US papers are not publishing the cartoons, even when they regard the publication as newsworthy (which I'd argue it is in this case).  One Boston editor did an interview last night in which he was brutally honest about it:  the paper doesn't publish the cartoons, or even give links to the cartoons in its stories out of fear.  It wants no reprisals.  Blunt, and honest.  I admire that.  I'd never heard of the courrier before either.  Doesn't really matter to me, I just started searching and that's the one I found which had the cartoons translated into a language that I can read, more or less.  I'd have been just as happy with Die Zeit if I'd stumbled on that one first.  Of course I'd been more satisfied if I'd found them in Standard American English, but as I said US papers are working under the assumption that this would enrage the Arab world. 

I wonder if the original artist is regretting his cartoons by now.