We finally have some clarity, thanks to Francophone Matthew Cobb, who translated the explanation of the latest Charlie Hebdo cover from an article in Le Monde:
Luz (artist): « On voulait un dessin qui nous fasse marrer avant tout. Pas un dessin sur la charge émotionnelle dont on est victime. L’idée était de dessiner ce personnage de Mahomet. (…) Puis j’ai écris “tout est pardonné” et j’ai pleuré. Et on l’avait cette putain de “une”. »
Above all, we wanted a drawing that would make us laugh. Not a drawing about the emotional charge that we are experiencing, The idea was to draw Mohammed. . . Then I wrote ‘all is forgiven’ and I cried. And we had that fucking front page.’
« Notre Mahomet est vachement plus sympa que celui brandi par ceux qui ont tiré » et « c’est un bonhomme qui pleure avant toute chose », a raconté l’équipe.“Our Mohammed is much nice than the one brandished by those who were firing’.. ‘above all, it’s a man who is crying’ said the team.
But Biard wanted to be clear about what the title meant.
“It is we who forgive, not Muhammad,” he told France Info.
However, Biard said he has not forgiven the attackers just yet. Other staff members hope they can in the future.
“I think that those who have been killed, if they were here, they would have been able to have a coffee today with the terrorists and just talk to them, ask them why they have done this,” columnist Zineb El Rhazoui told the BBC. “We feel, as Charlie Hebdo’s team, that we need to forgive the two terrorists who have killed our colleagues.”
Admirable indeed, but I don’t think I’d be able to forgive anyone who slaughtered a group of my coworkers.
h/t: Mark
Nor would I.
I wonder how CH stands on free will…
/@
Forgive the dead men who committed the murders, or more broadly forgive those involved, or who cheered, but are still alive? These feel very different to me. I can understand wanting to feel forgiveness for the dead — I emphasize dead — killers. You want to take the view they were deluded and warped, and you understand they are now past anything you can do or demand, and past repentance. That I can see. Not however if they were still living, and proud, and itching to commit more murders, itching to terrorize. And not their still living accomplices.
But it would not be my reaction. It strikes me as maudlin and self-deluding. The murderers died proud, and happy, and triumphant. They were glad at what they did, felt righteous about it. No forgiveness without repentance say I even if I did learn that in Sunday school. Sometimes even Sunday school is right.
Sublimely wise…
Yes, a beautiful and enviable state of mind. Don’t need to be religious to see the wisdom of love your enemies and turn the other cheek.
For starters, suppose the murderers were yet alive, and Fortune smiled and they were captured. Shall the state forgive them and let them go?
No, but as is they’re dead and can’t do any more damage. What else is there to do?
I’m reminded of a song…
Perhaps that would be a more effective strategy, should the option arise.
Terrorism is basically a PR war. I don’t know what it takes to win a PR war, but I’m guessing that actions that appeal one’s own sense of justice aren’t the best guide–because it isn’t about justice. It’s about winning.
I still think that there are several layers in this cartoon. The best interpretation of it seems to me to be the one given by Impule (comment 53 on the preceding thread about the CH cover). It is not only forgiveness I think…
Forgive the men who committed the atrocities… DO NOT forgive the process of indoctrination/ideology which led them to the path they chose!
“Admirable indeed, but I don’t think I’d be able to forgive anyone who slaughtered a group of my coworkers.”
Agree completely – but such generosity of spirit makes the killers even worse. Not that it matters to their ilk but it WILL be noticed
by many, possibly some who waver on the brink.
I think another, more bitter meaning would be to mock those who would now hold Je Suis Charlie signs, but who had nothing but hate to throw their way a week ago. They want to make themselves believe that everything is alright now that they’re using a hashtag.
I’m sure CH want to use this drawing as front page so that one can choose to see its soothing or bitter side.
I think the huge support in the streets this weekend (it was in fact the greatest march ever recorded in France) helped tilting the balance on the soothing side. I took a few pictures while being stuck in the crowd for those interested (link on my name).
Wow, thanks for showing your photos: very moving.
Yes, thank you. Made it more real for me.
I particularly like the Voltaire poster with a “Je suis Charlie” flash added.
This is a tough one, as my instincts would be not to forgive this heinous crime. The headline does not seem sincere to me, as I can’t fathom any warm-blooded, just person not currently feeling outrage over this. It would take a long time to even come close to accepting and then forgiving. In the end, if it were eating away at me and fueling much hatred inside me, I’d have to find some way to forgive them or let go, for my own sake. That way these terrorists wouldn’t have gained too much power over me. I would not want to become like them. Je ne suis pas IS.
I’ve heard it said that forgiveness is more about releasing oneself from hate than to give exoneration to the perpetrators. http://goo.gl/Bbbx0b
+1
+2
Some elements are missing from the transcript of the press conference from Le Monde. Luz started by saying “I don’t want to have to explain the cover”. So he explained the creative process but not the meaning of the drawing. I still think there are multiple layers to this drawing, as always.
Unrelated note: Luz ended the press conference by saying “I’m Charlie, I’m a cop, I’m a jew, I’m a muslim, and I’m an atheist!” Thought you would like it.
“I’m Charlie, I’m a cop, I’m a jew, I’m a muslim, and I’m an atheist!” would have made for a better caption.
‘In Egypt, Dar al-Ifta, which issues religious edicts, called on the French government to “announce their rejection of this racist act that attempts to raise religious strife and sectarianism, and deepen hatred.”’
It’s funny how the cover seems so benign a sentiment to me, but the NYT is reporting that some people are still so fixated on the mere depiction, and see it as deeply provocative. Those who are outraged by the cover are really playing right into the clever hands of the satirists, that’s for sure. If we needed any proof that the crying Mohammed is not mere sentiment, here is is.
Not sure I can agree with this forgiveness thing, but it certainly makes those who have implied that CH was Islamaphobic look like idiots. They certainly could have used this as an opportunity to bash Muslims. But then again they’ll (Liberal Islamic apologists) probably just point out that they pictured Mohammed again, and ignore the conciliatory tone.
Wow what an incredible gesture. That not just takes the high road against the terrorists, but also puts paid to all of the haters who see the magazine as comparable to Mad or otherwise dis it as a shock rag.
As an atheist the irony that these terrorists end up in the long oblivion with the rest of us is a full acknowledgement of my atheism. Nothing in my mind can change that, no matter what the horror circumstances are.
Whatever they were thinking these young men at the time of their deaths means very little. The living may feel robbed of justice and of course this is a natural response and all that means but we could and can make that assumption for millions gone.
How we respond after the fact is more to the point, to make a better world keeping proximate and ultimate goals as the focus.
The long haul..
‘all is forgiven’…….Perhaps it’s emotion rather than logic that has, understandably, led to these words being used in the new cover of Charlie Hebdo. Perhaps, in the depths of despair and sadness, anger was not able to find a more fitting outlet.
Forgiveness, for many people, is deemed to be the ultimate ‘moral’ response to the personal atrocities or indignities that one may face. Sadly, to my thinking, the Charlie Hebdo writers, in using the expression ‘all is forgiven’, have allowed this popular thinking to distract from their own raison d’etre – the intellectual freedom to write and publish without censor. If it is their right to intellectual freedom that they seek to uphold, then they cannot forgive the actions of anyone who seeks to deny them that freedom. The response to the atrocity that they have experienced is not forgiveness. The only response necessary for the Charlie Hebdo writers is to name and shame those responsible for the atrocity. (the security forces being responsible for the legal issues involved).
Forgiveness is not a panacea – it is a loaded and problematic theological concept that has no place in psychology. Forgiveness serves to conceal, confuse and minimize the importance of the issues. Sadly, the Charlie Hebdo writers have fallen victim to the aura of virtue and decency that surrounds this problematic concept.
The forgiveness concept is not without those who question it’s use in psychotherapy. Two books worth reading on the concept are: ‘Before Forgiving: Cautionary Views of Forgiveness in Psychotherapy’ edited by Sharon Lamb and Jeffrie G. Murphy. ‘Getting Even, Forgiveness and it’s Limits’ by Jeffrie G. Murphy.
Wow, I really can’t get behind your comment. It flies right in the face of actual events in my life (and more, in the lives others I know who have suffered worse). And it strikes me as very arrogant to judge the emotions CH staff – you seem to using some academic psych viewpoint to say that they are somehow not valid. I thin they are far bigger people than many, and deserve emulation.
Bigger people because they can say ‘all is forgiven’? Right there you have captured all the nonsense that surrounds this concept.
Forgiveness as a sign of ones virtuous character, a sign of ones humanity! And those who fail to forgive are those who debase their humanity and are stuck in some psychological dark place? This is the sort of approach that made me see red many years ago: I was watching the Dr Phil and Oprah show one day when a young woman was standing up facing a very large on screen picture of the man who murdered her father. (This man was in prison). With tears pouring down her face she forgave this man for killing her father. I found it stomach curdling to watch.
In contrast to this there is the example of Julie Nicholson. Julie lost her daughter in the London tube bombing in 2005. At that time Julie was a vicar in the Church of England. She resigned her church position because she could not bring herself to forgive those who had killed her daughter.
Sure, one can simply say it’s an individual matter whether one forgives or one does not. However, since this is a concept that has infiltrated into social/political areas (The Truth and Reconciliation Commission in South Africa, for example.) and psychological therapy – it is a subject that needs urgent re-thinking.
(…the TRC’s task was to juggle amnesty for the perpetrators with reparations for the victims. In exchange for perpetrators’ full disclosure of the politically motivated atrocities in which they had engaged, they would be granted amnesty against prosecution. The victims, in turn, were encouraged to reconcile themselves to this process, while instances of victims’ explicit forgiveness of perpetrators were especially affirmed.
Thus, the injunction to forgive was implicit in the functioning of the TRC….
‘In the aftermath of political trauma: what price forgiveness’: chapter in ‘Forgiveness and the Healing Process: A Central Therapeutic Concern’. Edited by Cynthia Ransley and Terri Spy. One editor a psychotherapist and the other a psychologist. One a Christian the other an atheist. )
Forgiveness can be likened to a placebo – if one believes that what one is doing is the good, the right thing to be doing, then the forgiveness concept will work for you. What ‘works’ is not anything inherent in the makeup of this concept – it is what one believes about the concept that works. i.e. one believes one is doing good so one begins to feel good for doing good. The downside, of course, is that forgiveness remains as some sort of gold standard for human behaviour. It’s ill effects, on both the individual and society, are ignored.
While the ‘all is forgiven’ wording on the Charlie Hebdo cover is being variously interpreted, methinks, that wording could have been improved by the simple addition of a question mark. All is forgiven? That is the question the cover should have been asking instead of leaving open the question of what and who is doing the forgiving. Somethings are beyond price and somethings are beyond forgiveness.
I like what you’re saying about the whole forgiveness thing, maryhelena. It’s always bothered me, too. Something the self-righteous do to sound holier-than-thou. And for some, it seems to be just an attempt to be in the spotlight, or seem like a martyr.
Diane
Forgiveness is almost a taboo issue to discuss. It’s a pity the writers of Charlie Hebdo were unable to grasp the opportunity that came, tragically, their way. Theology’s infiltration, into the very heart of what makes us thinking beings, is so subtle that it is often able to play the trump card. Gotcha! As for psychological therapy that resorts to such methods as getting patients to forgive – for their own good – well, that is psychology admitting it’s own inadequacy as it turns to a faith based concept.
Adding a dash of theology to psychology comes at a great cost – – the loss of a moral perspective, a respect for the moral order. Theology infiltrating psychology – that mix is potent – psychological chemotherapy – dangerous stuff – it can kill the healthy cells as well as the sick. Forgiveness is no way to deal with infringements of ones dignity, no way to deal with issues of a moral nature, issues which relate to the very fabric of a civil society.
================
‘Understand and forgive, my mother said, and the effort has quite exhausted me. I could do with some anger to energize me, and bring me back to life again. But where can I find that anger? Who is to help me? My friends? I have been understanding and forgiving my friends, my female friends, for as long as I can remember…….Understand and forgive…..Understand husbands, wives, fathers, mothers. Understand dog fights above and the charity box below, understand fur-coated women and children without shoes. Understand school – Jonah, Job and the nature of the Deity; understand Hitler and the bank of England and the behaviour of Cinderella’s sisters. Preach acceptance to wives and tolerance to husbands…..Grit your teeth, endure. Understand, forgive, accept in the light of your own death, your own inevitable corruption…
Oh, mother, what have you taught me? And what a miserable, crawling, snivelling way to go, the worn-out slippers placed neatly beneath the bed, careful not to give offense.’
Fay Weldeon: ‘Female Friends’. Quoted by Jeffrie G. Murphy in the Preface to his book.
Very powerful quote. I’ve always liked Fay Weldon (what little I’ve read of hers).
A very interesting angle from which to look at things. I hadn’t really thought of the religious baggage “forgiveness” entails.
One way or another we have to find a way to live with whatever grievous happenings we experience, but “forgiveness” seems like the poorest way to characterize the process.
I was shocked by the Truth and Reconciliation thing in South Africa too – necklaces for all the white pigs would have been so much more satisfying. Hmm?
Now now……when faced with a response to atrocities it’s best not to do anything that would compromise our own dignity and integrity to our own values. And that, at the end of the day, is what made Nelson Mandela the man that he became.
Mandela: ‘Any man or institution that tries to rob me of my dignity will lose because I will not part with it at any price or under any pressure.’
So – however great the provocation – we need to treat our oppressors in a humane manner. No, not turning the other cheek and forgiving
but by dealing withe the reality of the issues before us in whatever means are open to us.
I appreciate your insights, and they’ve added a new dimension to my understanding of forgiveness. However, I see cleverness and sophistication behind the words in today’s Mohammed cartoon. I for one am not sure as to the true meaning of the cartoon. I’m satisfied that it could mean different things to different people.
In keeping with the free will discussion, forgiveness too has been historically tied up with religious bafflegab. However, I think this is one religious idea that is at least partially worth saving.
A major component of forgiveness has always been to avoid holding grudges and to try to move past the innate desire for retribution*. Yes, I could forgive the extremists who are still alive in the sense that I do not wish harm upon them and would gladly continue sharing the planet with them if they dropped the insidious religious ideas. That is more, much more, than many religious people would do, particularly the right wing. For them, as with the death penalty, it is all about revenge instead of rehabilitation.
*Disclaimer, a major component that is not worth saving is how to reconcile forgiveness with eternal torture inflicted by an angry, jealous deity.
The person with the most credibility to perfunctorily push the forgiveness thing on the aggrieved is someone who has been equally if not more aggrieved.
It’s a lot easier in this case since the cowardly murderers are dead.
Were they still alive…I think, were I in that horrible situation, for my own sake, I’d have to forgive them as soon as I was reasonably confident that they no longer posed a threat to anybody else.
This, of course, would have nothing whatsoever to do with legal questions of crime and punishment and pardon. Just personal forgiveness.
And, no. It wouldn’t at all be easy. Certainly one of the hardest things I’d ever have to do.
But, I think, it’s the only way I could manage to make something worthwhile out of whatever was left of my life.
b&
It is difficult. My uncle was murdered but I do not feel anything towards his killer but a huge sense of disappointment, for my uncle, my aunt, cousins & late mother, & the killer himself. Of course they may well feel differently. That is not forgiving – it is not for me to forgive.
Forgiveness is a strange thing.
In some cases, it is more psychologically appropriate to ‘reconcile with harm’ than to forgive:
“In the alternative, we recognize that
there are perpetrators who are unforgivable,
harmed people who are unwilling or unable to forgive, wrongdoers who do not seek forgiveness, doers and sufferers of harm who will never be reconciled, harms that cannot be undone, wounds that will not heal, and cases in which neither forgiveness nor
revenge solves the problem of harm.”
http://philosophy.ucf.edu/fpr/files/10_1/stanlick.pdf
I see their cartoon as means of doing this.
Great quote!
‘reconcile with harm’
Deal with it rather than waving the magic wand of forgiveness…;-)
Millions of people will also not forgive these. Their aim with the killings go much further! Forgiveness is the right of the families involved but should not be confused with the need to defend the values of the free world and mankind. That cannot be forgiven!
Schalk
Sent from my iPad
>