With yesterday being an anniversary of 9/11 it has been rather more in public conciousness than it has been for a while, and with it have started to come various jokes about it. It has kind of got me thinking about making humour about dreadful events. Will it ever be okay to make jokes about it? There seems to be a phrase said after distasteful jokes that seems to be growing in popularity: 'Too Soon?'. This seems almost to indicate that there is an unmentioned period where respect must be given, and then after that, the event is far enough away to 'loosen up' slightly about it.

For example, not that I can imagine that there is a huge amount of material to be had from it, but I can't imagine people getting offended or outraged by people making jokes about the Spanish Inquisition or the Crusades, for instance. Both of them hideous events, but separated from us by a huge amount of time. By contrast, something like the holocaust is still a no-go area more than 60 years later.

If humour is ever appropriate, are there some sorts that are more appropriate than others? After some 40-50 years in Germany when really mentioning Hitler at all was considered distasteful, there is a growing trend, particularly among the younger generations, to make fun of him, and parody him, while many other areas of humour concerning Hitler are still closed off (as I understand it, telling actual jokes about him is still distasteful, although this may have something to do with a more German attitude towards jokes). I suppose parody is one of the 'safer' forms of humour to use concerning such events, as it still keeps in context the fact that the events were vile, and don't try to demean the suffering involved.

Already in America, there is a ventriloquist (can't remember the name) who has been doing an act for a few years about 'Ahmed the Dead Terrorist', which has found popular appeal, despite the fact that as part of that he says some incredibly edgy, distasteful things. However, tell a straight joke about terrorists or their victims, and you are likely to get few laughs and many dirty looks still.

I suppose my question is 'where do you draw the line?' How soon after an event is humour appropriate, does it depend on a length of time, or just enough time for a viewpoint change to happen? And why is that it seems to be in poorer taste to make jokes about people who have died than when they are still alive? On mock the week this week, a joke was made about George best that resulted in a sharp intake of breath and an 'oooh' from the crowd, when I am fairly willing to bet that, had he been alive, that joke would just have been greeted with laughter. Personally, I would prefer people to make jokes at my expense when I am dead, when they won't affect or insult me, than when I am alive.
Anyone got any thoughts? Or did my ramblings put you to sleep?

There is no gap, humour is always acceptable, now whether its funny or not... This in my opinion is [LIFTED] humour, and pretty ignorant:


Which publication?

Private Eye, i thought they were better than that, anyway, there's nothing wrong with the attempt at humour, and I suppose many people would find it funny. i think it's totally unfunny, but I'm not going to say that they shouldn't have done it on moral grounds.

I must admit it passed me by completely...I was wondering yesterday (Saturday) when it was...I blame the American format, had it been 11/9 I'd have probably noticed it when I wrote it in my work book.

The dead are just as valid a target for humour. I remember the jokes about Bobby Sands after he died, about him arriving at the pearly gates and telling St Peter that he did not want to get in but was giving them a five minute warning. Taste less of course, still funny.

While I do not find that funny, per se, I do think it makes an interesting point.

I think humour, perhaps especially for the British, is a very important coping mechanism when dealing with grief and other terrible events. Humour is never going to be universal. What one person find hilarious another may find deeply offensive. You can't please all of the people all of the time so it's better not to try as it just results in bland, unfunny humour that nobody cares about.

I think I agree with Jimmy Carr that the beast laugh is the one that's followed by the sharp intake of breath as if the concious part of the brain has caught up with something the unconscious has found funny. You obviously found it funny before the social filter caught up with it.

After a terrible event 'bad taste' jokes, certainly in this country, seem to appear within a couple of hours. This process has been hastened by the spread of mobile phones, e-mail and all the rest of it. IN the past these jokes had to spread by physical word of mouth (or on the wired telephone) but now they can be beamed all over the place almost as soon as they are thought up.

For the record Achmed the Dead Terrorist is the work of Jeff Dunham. His other puppets aren't exactly PC either which, IMHO, is a good thing.

The length of time from deaths to jokes (and recently texts) in this country is usually significantly less than 24hrs. Examples off the top of my head, MJ, Jade Goody, Ayrton Senna.

9/11 is a much larger event than a single death, but in the UK particularly, I believe there are still a lot of people who are either unaffected or don't believe the official storyline. The older events mentioned have become canon history and unless you study them or have a specific interest, they're not questioned. The anti-American sentiment still lingers and whether people would admit it or not, I think a lot of people believe US foreign policy was instrumental in causing the attacks. Thay may mean that it's less taboo than the holocaust.

As an attempt at further explanation, the holocaust is universally reviled due to it's genocidal and specifically discriminatory nature. You could argue (although I personally wouldn't) that the towers were attacked as a symbol of capitalist greed and the people hurt, whilst "innocent", where perhaps not so much and also weren't any specific ethnic/religious background.

IMHO, we don't know the "truth" (**waits for Bratty to show**) but the date it happened on and how it galvanised the US public into supporting that last 10yrs of [LIFTED] force me to ask a lot of questions.

Finally, I wouldn't go joking about it in NYC, nor would I mention the war in the Fatherland. But that doesn't mean there isn't humour in either situation depending on company....

Regarding PE above, the problem these days IMO is that there isn't as much of an overall tone as there used to be...

On humour, I'll laugh at damn near anything - it's often the structure of a joke I'll like, and it's just a way of thinking after all.

True. With Michael Jackson is seemed to be a matter of minutes.

I think the US reaction to 9/11 is telling. It was the first time ever the US had been attacked on their own soil, and it caught them on the hop - not least because it was of their own doing, meddling in world affairs since forever.

While I can understand why they do it, I do find the commemoration of it mawkish. Perhaps the shock and pain for them is still too intense. Older nations, which lived through war and similar terrorist atrocities, seem to be able to accept it and move on with life. Humour seems to be a large part of that, and perhaps the Americans are still too po-faced about it to see it.

It worries me that the events that followed 9/11 have materially made things worse. I get angry at our armed forces being embroiled in unwinnable conflicts because of this. I also get angry that we are told things that are probably half-truths at best, and our freedoms are being curtailed in the name of a meaningless "war on terror". It angers me our leaders didn't listen to the voices of those who elect them, nor to the voices of history.

Because of all these things, I do wonder if there's not a bigger picture, some underlying plan that's being played out, just as the conspiracy theorists love to say.

(Yes, Dave. I am listening to No Agenda. )

You forget Pearl Harbour. Technically US soil, depite it not being mainland soil.

I think the Private Eye thing was very well done. You have to look beyond the apparent joke with things pike this - what's it saying? Intersting that a short time before the Floods, Cameron was doing "tough talking" about the rôle Pakistan has in the training of terrorists. Did Cameron's words influence people not to care? Why was the global reaction so slow?

This sort of humour is particularly British. We make jokes in a way that you could never get away with in other countries, particularly the US (who can't take a joke in the way we can).

I remember several years ago at a university bar there was a fresher's week rugby club bar crawl. The new intake had a two-bar start and were dressed up as terrorists (beards, white robes and imitation TNT strapped to their chests) whilst the older ones were dressed as British Army and had to catch up with them by the end of the evening (one drink per bar or something along a planned route).

I was talking to a couple of American girls that evening and their reaction was utterly speechless. They kept saying things like "I can't believe it!" and "They would totally get killed trying that in the US."

True, but that was a military target, the attacks undertaken by professionals. I should have said "terrorist attacks on US mainland", to clarify.

Yes but that is one advantage of not arming the police.

+1;

Just remember what happened after those comments...



Fast forward a couple of weeks... "We need your aid! Give us money! The west is not helping us fast enough!"

The West is rapidly running out of sympathy for the country, IMO. The Eye has picked up on that and I personally don't think it was over-the-top.