Based on Charlie Hebdo's well-established modus operandi and the number of mental hoops involved with this interpretation, I'm going to invoke Occam's Razor here.
Your interpretation of their intent is unlikely at best.
Yes, it's tasteless and probably racist, but it's certainly intended as a shot at the royals rather than Meghan.
Satire has no bounds and it should not have. People saying "they have no right", yes, they do actually.
This is exactly what you'd envision? I think it would be much more natural to directly mock her for being aggrieved at being part of the highly idolized British royal family. Emphasizing the luxury and privilege of it all. What Charlie Hebdo conceived of here is something completely alien to me.It's rooted in if someone asked me to picture what a reduction to absurdity comic mocking Markle' POV regarding her experiences of racism... this is exactly what I'd envision.
This is exactly what you'd envision? I think it would be much more natural to directly mock her for being aggrieved at being part of the highly idolized British royal family. Emphasizing the luxury and privilege of it all. What Charlie Hebdo conceived of here is something completely alien to me.
There are no hoops when she actually said she felt suffocated. Like that's clearly why they chose this. The most you can dispute os if the depiction is intented to sympathize with Markle or mock her.
You are judging a book by its cover because someone on your twitter timeline got offended by it. Satire is made to provoque and sometimes you are the target of that provocation. They could depict Floyd himself in that cover and they would still be in their right, the same way they were in their right when they depicted the prophet Muhammad. You are appealing to a form of censorship which is far more dangerous than satire.I'm sorry what, with this logic it'd be cool to genuinely cheer on genocide as long as it was in a satirical cartoon.
French society has always been racist, and although it's getting better, it's still quite far away from reaching post racism, to put it lightly. Charlie has certainly published racist cartoons in the past, but they've always been on the left side of the spectrum in France, which like in many (all?) other countries, is _less_ racist than the right (which as I said above obviously doesn't mean that there is no racism at all). What I mean by that is that a lot of their racist drawings were "accidental" racism (I'm by no means condoning this, just trying to differentiate from what you'd get from a far-right rag). The intent isn't there. In the case of this particular drawing, using George Floyd imagery might be racist, but it wasn't to the cartoonist or and it won't be to a significant portion of the French public. Once again, I'm not making a value judgment here, just saying that knowing this context will help understand who is being targeted by the cartoon.
Charlie has done a lot of work in recent years on antiracism, something else to take into account when considering the target of this cartoon. https://charliehebdo.fr/lutte-contre-le-racisme/
Finally, Charlie (and really all of French society) has also always shat on the Queen and the rest of British monarchy.
Given all that context, nobody in France would see that cartoon and take it as an attack on Meghan Markle. It's obvious to anyone with the context (and to tons without, considering this thread) that this was an attack on the royals.
You are judging a book by its cover because someone on your twitter timeline got offended by it. Satire is made to provoque and sometimes you are the target of that provocation. They could depict Floyd himself in that cover and they would still be in their right, the same way they were in their right when they depicted the prophet Muhammad. You are appealing to a form of censorship which is far more dangerous than satire.
French society has always been racist, and although it's getting better, it's still quite far away from reaching post racism, to put it lightly. Charlie has certainly published racist cartoons in the past, but they've always been on the left side of the spectrum in France, which like in many (all?) other countries, is _less_ racist than the right (which as I said above obviously doesn't mean that there is no racism at all). What I mean by that is that a lot of their racist drawings were "accidental" racism (I'm by no means condoning this, just trying to differentiate from what you'd get from a far-right rag). The intent isn't there. In the case of this particular drawing, using George Floyd imagery might be racist, but it wasn't to the cartoonist or and it won't be to a significant portion of the French public. Once again, I'm not making a value judgment here, just saying that knowing this context will help understand who is being targeted by the cartoon.
As a native french speaker, it seems like the royals are the only ones painted in a negative light.
The joke is still in poor taste imo but they arent criticizing Markle here.
They are free to publish and be damned, and people are free to call it racist trash. Satirical magazines that believe they tread the line of what's acceptable with provocative artwork to sell newsstand copies have zero defence against criticism of whether they've crossed it, as I'm sure they would be the first to admit. Freedom to say something as satirical comment is not freedom from criticism for having said so or criticism of the way it was framed.Satire has no bounds and it should not have. People saying "they have no right", yes, they do actually.
Regardless of how some of you feel about this mess, what does George Floyd murder have in common with Megan to be depicted as "satire"?
It shouldn't have been used.
You are 100% correct. It is insidious as fuck.Being a black person, and seeing people on here arguing that Markle ISN'T a target of this "satire" is truly a sight to behold.
they are trivializing this entire situation by juxtaposing it to Floyd's murder.
I guess the connection makes sense to me in retrospect. It seems like a really weird leap for the magazine to make, though.If I wanted to directly mock her for saying she was being suffocated by royal life. 100% this is the kind of image I'd imagine.
A quick glance at twitter would tell you that there are people in France taking this as an attack in Meghan
I guess the connection makes sense to me in retrospect. It seems like a really weird leap for the magazine to make, though.
Alright, I concede that "nobody" (taken literally) was not the right word to use. Sure some small minority of people might interpret it the way you do. But searching on Twitter right now, I'm not really finding much honestly. Some people are calling out the racism of using the Floyd imagery, but I'm not seeing much about it being a racist attack on Meghan Markle.A quick glance at twitter would tell you that there are people in France taking this as an attack in Meghan
I know, right. (I'm not disputing that whatsoever, this whole thread since the start was about it being a targeted attack on Markle or not).Well-meaning white leftists whose well-meaningness renders them completely blind to the racial harm and stereotypes that they both condone and perpetuate.
Wow, what a concept.
Ummmm what does it matter if its a drawing or a vocalized statement? Its a symbol and it means something. Why do people act like drawing and artwork are merely for children.Edit: 👆 wait what? How did you end up with that take?
To be more explicit, the full translation reads:
"Why Meghan left Buckingham"
"Because I couldn't breathe anymore"
It's not really my type of humor, but I never got people getting up in arms (in some sad cases, literally) about drawings.
They're calling out the Queen as being the same as Chauvin, there's worse things to get upset about in the world IMO.
You are judging a book by its cover because someone on your twitter timeline got offended by it. Satire is made to provoque and sometimes you are the target of that provocation. They could depict Floyd himself in that cover and they would still be in their right, the same way they were in their right when they depicted the prophet Muhammad. You are appealing to a form of censorship which is far more dangerous than satire.
It's a niche weekly journal who, from time to time, provoke big spurs of debate over their covers in France. But most of the time, outside of their readers, no one cares about them to the point they were on the verge of bankruptcy a month before the 2015 attack and it wasn't even the first time they had financial problems.Just because it is accepted in your society doesnt mean its ok.
Charlie Hebdo has been posting trash for decades. What is there to understand about satire when they've clearly posted racist things in the past. Just admit that your apologizing for racist satire.You can fuck right off with your hypotheticals, they're calling out racism, not engaging in it.
Re-read the post I was replying to. This was being called "bad satire" because a (presumably, I never got a reply) non-native couldn't understand it. If a French person criticized Monty Python as bad satire because they as a French person couldn't understand it, I'd say the same. Satire isn't universal.
Really?
So they tried to stretch the similarities for an edgy cover. Why am I not surprised?Nothing beyond he was suffocated and she said she felt metaphorically suffocated
Does the magazine or whatever elaborate on what it's trying to say? My interpretation was that it was painting the royals as racists and using the imagery of George Floyd inappropriately and offensively to do so.
It could be that it's satirizing Markle instead, though it would need something to indicate that this is only what Markle thought was happening and not reality, or, it would need that to do so effectively anyway. As it's drawn, the Queen does actually have her knee on her neck, and "I can't breathe" a metaphor for Markle's treatment.
Maybe this is why American cartoonists label everything?
That describes them to a t tbh.Well-meaning white leftists whose well-meaningness renders them completely blind to the racial harm and stereotypes that they both condone and perpetuate.
Wow, what a concept.
Charlie Hebdo was always a shity magazine with very poor taste and the most ham fisted humor, let's not forget that.
Just because they were victims of heinous fanatics it doesn't mean they were ever funny, ingenious or tasteful.