|
Charlie Hebdo's cover:
http://goo.gl/UmLiJr
Errol's comment:
"Maybe the Charlie Hebdo message is a little over the heads of some, I don't know.
However, image aside, I really do not have a problem with the satirical message behind it and think it is quite clever even though the use of the picture is not one of CH's best ideas.
It's a difficult one, I know, but I think the subtle and veiled (no pun intended whatsoever) reference to 16th century dunking is very clever indeed and should, actually, make people think long and hard about what the real message behind it is."
A further commentary:
"
(1) Maybe the Charlie Hebdo message is a little over the heads of some, I don't know.
- Just an average putdown
(2) However, image aside, I really do not have a problem with the satirical message behind it and think it is quite clever
- whatever the message of CH is it a removal matter just to state the poster's opinion of it? surely not
(3) even though the use of the picture is not one of CH's best ideas.
ETS has some reservations about the cartoon
(4) It's a difficult one, I know, but I think the subtle and veiled (no pun intended whatsoever) reference to 16th century dunking is very clever indeed and should, actually, make people think long and hard about what the real message behind it is.
- ok, so the trouble is in the last sentence. As the original post with the link to CH latest cover has not been removed I guess some tentative conclusions can be drawn about the referrer.
The essence of the plaint seems to be that CH have ( as is their wont ) published an in your face cartoon ( Steve Bell in the Guardian does much the same ) but opinions about it other then condemnation are deemed as unacceptable
OR
- and this is what ETS is saying - the CH cover has been misunderstood and his approval if its message has been taken as approval of the death of two young would be emigres. Far from it.
So let's look at the content.
CH since its inception has always take a strong line against American business and implantations in France in particular. Thus adding McDo's to the mix is par for the course. So what is CH alluding to here ?
The French ( translated ) says:
"Welcome immigrants. So near to your goal (target ) Two children's menus for the price of one"
which is juxtaposed with two drowned children on the beach.
This is a pure and simple attack on the hyporcacy of the EU & USA not any kind of attack on the immigrants themselves. The degree of hypocracy became even more evident a few days later as the EU attempted to bribe Turkey in an effort so make the problem go away - to the tune of € 3bn and visa free travel for Turks. France put the kibosh on it (good for France ).
So nothing to get over excited about here just routine indifference of European elites to the poor and downtrodden.
Next.
Again translating:
"The proof that Europe is Christian.
The Christians walk on water.
The muslim children drown!"
with an image of a bearded Christian walking on water while a muslim child drowns.
For those who skipped Sunday school there is a famous verse in the New Testament where Jesus walked across the water to his followers in a fishing boat. This is generally taken to mean that with unbound faith in God anything is possible. fwiw Islam has the same idea, most religions do which is why Mr Dawkins is so agin but I digress.
What is CH driving at here?
CH is taking issue with statements from political leaders in E Europe and especially Hungary, Poland who claim that Europe is inherently Christian and that this confers some kind of superiority on the EU such as that it is always right (walk on water) and never wrong. The proof of this is that God does not rescue the muslim kids but they drown and don't make it to McDo's.
Savage humour to be sure but it is our gutless leaders that CH is taking a poke at not the unfortunate kids.
ETS is bound to admire this as he is a true liberal.
For hundreds of years "trial by water" aka dunking was a popular means of establishing guilt or innocence. This method of torture has of course been brought back into use by the CIA and its friends. The advantage of water torture is that it leaves no physical marks.
ETS is saying that in addition to the "walk on water" theme the emigres are effectively being subject to trial by torture. This torture was far more common in France than in England as they had a far bigger problem with religous dissidents. This will resonate with French readers if not Brits - to whom the cartoon was never aimed.
A leading Islamist had this to say ( contained in the original post )
"Taste is always in the eye of the beholder. But these cartoons are a damning indictment on our anti-refugee sentiment,"
Quite.
Whoever decided to refer and remove Errol's post did not understand either Errols post or the original CH cover.
there you go
Jesus Walks on the Water
22 Immediately Jesus made the disciples get into the boat and go on ahead of him to the other side, while he dismissed the crowd. 23 After he had dismissed them, he went up on a mountainside by himself to pray. Later that night, he was there alone, 24 and the boat was already a considerable distance from land, buffeted by the waves because the wind was against it.
25 Shortly before dawn Jesus went out to them, walking on the lake. 26 When the disciples saw him walking on the lake, they were terrified. “It’s a ghost,” they said, and cried out in fear.
27 But Jesus immediately said to them: “Take courage! It is I. Don’t be afraid.”
28 “Lord, if it’s you,” Peter replied, “tell me to come to you on the water.”
29 “Come,” he said.
Then Peter got down out of the boat, walked on the water and came toward Jesus. 30 But when he saw the wind, he was afraid and, beginning to sink, cried out, “Lord, save me!”
31 Immediately Jesus reached out his hand and caught him. “You of little faith,” he said, “why did you doubt?”
32 And when they climbed into the boat, the wind died down. 33 Then those who were in the boat worshiped him, saying, “Truly you are the Son of God.”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VucczIg98Gw
HINT: It is best when commenting on stuff on the internet to be familiar with the language used as the meaning may be the complete opposite of that conveyed solely by pictures.
|
