-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Charlie Hebdo Directly Invokes Imagery of George Floyd to "Satirize" Meghan Markle
- Thread starter excelsiorlef
- Start date
User banned (1 month): dismissing concerns around racist imagery
Uhm.
The intent clearly is painting the royals as racists.
It's almost clever actually.
Obviously in Hebdo's trademark awful taste, but I don't think it's being disrespectful to Floyd.
I'd say it's pretty effective in communicating that any form of racism is still racism and can be associated with that horrific event.
If the joke was about Meghan painting herself like the victim she isn't, you'd maybe see her on the floor saying she can't breathe, but there would be no one, much less the queen, keeping a knee on her neck.
I still wouldn't touch those papers with a 6ft pole.
The intent clearly is painting the royals as racists.
It's almost clever actually.
Obviously in Hebdo's trademark awful taste, but I don't think it's being disrespectful to Floyd.
I'd say it's pretty effective in communicating that any form of racism is still racism and can be associated with that horrific event.
If the joke was about Meghan painting herself like the victim she isn't, you'd maybe see her on the floor saying she can't breathe, but there would be no one, much less the queen, keeping a knee on her neck.
I still wouldn't touch those papers with a 6ft pole.
The problem with appropriating the imagery of George Floyd's murder to make a catch-all statement about racism and pushing the work on your audience to "get it" and not be offended, besides that in itself being fucking gross, is guess who else has appropriated the imagery of George Floyd's murder? Fucking Racists.
So no, the responsibility is not on Black people to "understand that they're calling out the Royal Family. It's totally satire you guys..." because,
A) How are we supposed to know that? Your satire looks an awful lot like what racist white people are doing as some sort of badge of honor.
B) Why should we care?
C) Either way it's fuck the queen all day every day over here. That white woman in that big ass house ain't nobody worth celebrating to Black folk, especially those of us over here in the US. So who is this for? Other white people? Educating White people at the expense of Black people? Yet a-fucking-gain?
So no, the responsibility is not on Black people to "understand that they're calling out the Royal Family. It's totally satire you guys..." because,
A) How are we supposed to know that? Your satire looks an awful lot like what racist white people are doing as some sort of badge of honor.
B) Why should we care?
C) Either way it's fuck the queen all day every day over here. That white woman in that big ass house ain't nobody worth celebrating to Black folk, especially those of us over here in the US. So who is this for? Other white people? Educating White people at the expense of Black people? Yet a-fucking-gain?
OP
OP
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.
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.
Being french adjacent (living in Switzerland but well aware of the culture), I dunno why so many people go to bat for Charlie for their satire.
Yeah, it might be satire. They've also been exceptionally shit at it for years. They're essentially the french equivalent of Bill Mahe or Ricky Gervaisr. They're allowed to do satire but that doesn't exempt people to rightfully point out that they always seem to use minorities as some easy punching bag for their magazine, regardless of intentions
Yeah, it might be satire. They've also been exceptionally shit at it for years. They're essentially the french equivalent of Bill Mahe or Ricky Gervaisr. They're allowed to do satire but that doesn't exempt people to rightfully point out that they always seem to use minorities as some easy punching bag for their magazine, regardless of intentions
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.
OP
OP
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.
I think this is what makes the cartoon shitty. Regardless of the interpretation of if it's mocking or not, they clearly used it because of what she said and decided it was acceptable to invoke the imagery of Floyd to make their point. I mean yeah, you can argue "art blah blah" but it's incredibly shitty to use for very obvious reasons. It's not exactly like the royal family is short of excuses to make fun of them for being racist, even from the recent Markle interview alone.
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.
User Banned (Permanent): Dismissing concerns around racist imagery, account in junior phase
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.
OP
OP
A quick glance at twitter would tell you that there are people in France taking this as an attack in Meghan
OP
OP
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.
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 is no defence against a piece being called racist. You can make a racist, satirical cartoon with fully racist intent. You can also make a racist, satirical cartoon with the very best of intentions, because satirical and political cartooning leans heavily into caricature. Which is fine when punching up at powerful figures that misuse that power, but obviously lazy and perpetuating stereotypes when leaning into broader racist caricature that has existed for centuries, which Charlie Hebdo have done in the past. Here they are drawing completely inappropriate, lazy comparisons on the basis of the cartoonist drawing the most recent thing that comes to mind with 'US' and 'racism'.
Last edited:
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.
It shouldn't have been used.
OP
OP
Nothing beyond he was suffocated and she said she felt metaphorically suffocated
I guess the connection makes sense to me in retrospect. It seems like a really weird leap for the magazine to make, though.
I've literally caught a ban on this forum for having the audacity to criticize French media's pastime of provoking violence or bigotry under the guise of "free speech", so just be aware that there are already signs of the absolutist brigade here to pick apart your responses for anything remotely actionable, regardless of context or intent or nuance. If the Floyd family gets a new round of harassment or Meghan (who expressed publicly that she had suicidal ideation) harms herself then Hebdo bears no responsibility (apparently).
OP
OP
I mean 100% that's how they came up with the connection
She said she felt metaphorically suffocated, and Floyd was actually suffocated
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.
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).
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.
Yeah sure, let's keep shitting on minorities because as everyone knows, white people's freedom to offend should take precedent over all.
I swear, the white people in this thread...
It's bad and racist satire that clearly misses it's mark if it's supposed to talking a shot at the Queen and no one else. I guess there is the connection between the word breath in the context of what Markle and with what happened to George Floyd, but it ends up falling flat, lame, and racist for me personally
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?
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?
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.
Bad taste satire is something they do since the beginning, going back to the infamous 'Tragic ball at Colombey, one dead' cover, speaking about to the death of Charles de Gaulle and about a ball where, sooner the same year, 146 young people lose their lives in a fire.
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.
So they tried to stretch the similarities for an edgy cover. Why am I not surprised?
I mean, let's not forget that outside of those drawings, just clicking on the link of their "fight against racism", most of the main articles are concern trolling about identity politics. Most of their article on trans issues play devil's advocate for terfs or people who have "concerns about trans ideologies. They go on about how poor terfs get hundreds of hateful messages after saying "Trans women will never be women". Only for maybe on the last paragraph have a "but yeah trans people also have it hard I guess".
Charlie Hebdo is obsessed with a romanticized, clean version of leftism activism. A version of french culture that has not evolved since May 68, and are now mad that the kids don't give a shit about them
Charlie Hebdo is obsessed with a romanticized, clean version of leftism activism. A version of french culture that has not evolved since May 68, and are now mad that the kids don't give a shit about them
It's not an either-or situation.
It's a double entendre. They are simultaneously criticizing the crown and mocking Markle.
The blatant disrespect of racial murder victim is icing on the cake.
We really shouldn't extending benefit of doubt to these people. They're conciously aware of how white people have been twisting "i can't breath" and other Floyd related imagery to denigrate people who complain about systemic racism.
I mean, yes, it's criticizing the royal family, but it's also obviously racist and mocking Meghan.
That describes them to a t tbh.
That and dumb on the nose satire, which is part and parcel of what you described.
It's in poor taste, but I'm pretty sure that is by design. They want to be provocative so people talk about it.
I have to say, I chuckled at first seeing that cover because I knew it would be awkwardly interpreted as first mocking Markle for blaming she can't be victim of racism because she's rich or it is of very bad taste to use George Floyd's death for this. I have to say it is my kind of dark humour but the complaints are totally warranted. And I think it was totally intended to talk about the magazine.
