Defend Charile Hebdo without endorsing it

[Gypsy-Vanner]

Good article:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-01-09/s ... it/6007836

[Derived Absurdity]

We should do neither.

[Dr_Liszt]

Europeans have absolutely no idea what Nationalism is. They should just STFU about it. Really. Please.

Nationalism in Europe is the most racist, bigoted and retarded movement I've ever seen.

[phe_de]

Europeans have absolutely no idea what Nationalism is.

I thought Europeans invented it.

[Dr_Liszt]

Europeans have absolutely no idea what Nationalism is.

I thought Europeans invented it.

Nationalism is inherently racist, bigoted and stupid.
But Europeans these days have decided to multiply that x 10000000.

[phe_de]

Good article:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-01-09/s ... it/6007836

I agree with the first two paragraphs, which I will quote here.

No one should be killed for drawing a cartoon. Nor for writing an article, or for editing or publishing one.

It doesn't matter whether you live in Paris or Sydney, New York or Baghdad - expressing an opinion shouldn't be a death sentence.

But then, the author makes a mistake: He assumes that people expressing solidarity with Charlie Hebdo are endorsing the magazine's content.

This has not happened. No one denied the controversy of Charlie Hebdo. Not even on French radio. The acts of terrorism were unanimously condemned, but I didn't hear the commenters praise the dead editors and cartoonist as exceptionally brilliant or relevant.
As for me, I have never bought a copy of Charlie Hebdo, and I don't know if I ever will.

But that is irrelevant. If people are expressing solidarity with Charlie Hebdo, it's because they are defending the right to free speech; not the content of what was said.

[Gypsy-Vanner]

I dont agree. Those being the most vocal are supporting the content of the cartoons. My own Facebook is cluttered with anti Muslim comments and how the cartoons were funny.

I think he is addressing three issues here. 1. Free speech. 2. Islamphobia and 3. Terrorism. He is explaining how we can address the root issue without starting a war.

[Faustus5]

Apparently, the paper is actually pretty left wing and pro-immigrant. Accusations of racism come from people who have been posting images of cartoons without the necessary context. The only thing about the paper's politics that a lefty should have trouble with are its sexual politics. The staff are basically old hippies.

http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com ... nt-racist/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Derived Absurdity]

Apparently, the paper is actually pretty left wing and pro-immigrant. Accusations of racism come from people who have been posting images of cartoons without the necessary context. The only thing about the paper's politics that a lefty should have trouble with are its sexual politics. The staff are basically old hippies.

http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com ... nt-racist/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I don't know how much of the conversation here you've read, but I doubt there's anything in that article that would convince those of us here accusing the paper of racism of changing our mind. I hope you haven't been reading the discussions here, because if you have you would know that most of the points raised in it have already been acknowledged and dealt with.

First of all, the "they make fun of everyone" card is IMO a non-sequitar and completely misses necessary social context. I've made it clear that I don't believe in making fun of everyone and I don't think that is an automatic defense against accusations of bigotry and hate speech. When you have radical power disparities in society - as they clearly do in France - then spending an equal amount of time making fun of the powerless as you do the powerful is simply a way of strengthening the status of the powerful.

As another article explained, whites could (and probably did) make this exact same argument In thirties America when papers were depicting black people as dumb, violent, and lazy. In the midst of a society in which white people controlled the power structures, they simply reinforced the prejudices of the powerful and demonized and subjugated a powerless underclass, all the while saying "but we're not racist, we make fun of everyone!" The exact same thing occurred with Jews in Nazi Germany. The two situations are entirely comparable to the situation of Muslims in France.

So yes, as the article mentions pejoratively, the cartoons were "punching down", and if they had any inkling of social awareness at all they would have been perfectly aware of that. I mean, the article even says

And even if they do understand, they will somehow find a difference between mocking Christianity and mocking Islam. The former, in the argot of keyboard warriors, is okay because it's “punching up," while the latter is not okay because it's “punching down“. After all, Muslims are an oppressed minority, so isn't it understandable that, when provoked, they kill the perceived oppressor?

It recognizes the obvious fact that Muslims are an oppressed minority, and yet it doesn't seem to think this is at all significant and simply dismisses it out of hand.

But hey, let's tackle his question. Is it understandable that an oppressed people would resort to violent acts when provoked against their oppressors? (Let's pretend for a moment that that was their motivation, when from what we know so far it probably wasn't.) Well, it depends. Would it be understandable for blacks in the thirties to commit violence against cartoonists and other propagandists who dehumanize and caricature them? Would it have been understandable for Jews in Nazi Germany to commit violent acts against propagandists who dehumanized and caricatured them? I'm not sure - I'm leaning toward "yes" - but seeing as how propaganda and hate speech have historically had very close relationships with systemic violence and genocide against the victims of the propaganda, I think we should give them quite a bit of moral leeway. What's more, I don't think an oppressed group should have any obligation to take their oppressor's advice on how to remedy their oppression, nor do I think anyone is obligated to tolerate hate speech directed against them, nor do I think there is or should be a right to foster oppression and propaganda without consequences.

Make of that what you will.

[Faustus5]

In the midst of a society in which white people controlled the power structures, they simply reinforced the prejudices of the powerful and demonized and subjugated a powerless underclass, all the while saying "but we're not racist, we make fun of everyone!"

But in the article I linked to, it was pointed out the the paper was actually constantly attacking the anti-immigrant right wing in France. That was actually a theme the paper went back to time and time again.

He gives an example of a cartoon that has been bandied about as an example of racism. If you knew nothing about the context, it looks horribly racist. But if you lived in France and understood what had just gone on in French politics in the week leading up to that particular cartoon, you'd know that it was actually an attack on racist comments a right wing politician had made. Without the context, the dark sarcasm is lost.

From a recent Salon article:

"Others, like the Frenchwoman who blogs at the Tumblr 67 Tardis Street, have retorted “you don't know us," complaining that American commentators have taken Charlie Hebdo cartoons out of context, representing the newspaper's parodies of right-wing racism as depictions of Charlie Hebdo's own ideas and beliefs. “NO ONE," she writes, “I repeat literally NO ONE in France ever considered Charlie Hebdo as racist. We might have considered the drawings tasteless, but NOT racist. For the very simple reason that WE FUCKING KNOW OUR POLITICS.""

[Dr_Liszt]

The thing is that France and the first world in general is very racist. They have a hard time integrating their immigrants and the main reason for that has to be racism.

You claim that french people didn't find the cartoons racist but what about the Muslim population. I can bet you a lot of them felt alienated by those cartoons. I read that a lot of them felt disgusted by the "Koran is shit doesn't stop bullets" after an Egyptian massacre took place. Maybe French humour is shit, but I have a really hard time finding the satire in that.

[Cassius Clay]

And I'd like to add that racists don't get to decide what is racist. So, the simplistic defense of "we know our own politics" is relatively meaningless(And I see that Liszt already made this point pretty much).

[Faustus5]

If the paper has a rep in France for attacking right wing racists by using sarcasm and irony, do we not risk embarrassing ourselves by just employing surface interpretations of its images? Think of the idea of left leaning critics attacking the Colbert Report for being a right wing pundit. It appears to me that this is what is happening here. People are attributing to Charile Hebdo the ideas that it is actually attacking.

[Derived Absurdity]

In the midst of a society in which white people controlled the power structures, they simply reinforced the prejudices of the powerful and demonized and subjugated a powerless underclass, all the while saying "but we're not racist, we make fun of everyone!"

But in the article I linked to, it was pointed out the the paper was actually constantly attacking the anti-immigrant right wing in France. That was actually a theme the paper went back to time and time again.

So? Good for them. They also seemed to support animal rights. A few good things doesn't wash out the bad things. Unless you're saying its immigrant stance and Muslim stance are related, in which case I would make the banal observation that even if most Muslims in France are immigrants and most immigrants to France are Muslim, that doesn't mean that one equals the other. You can be pro-immigrant and anti-Muslim specifically... as the paper very clearly was.

He gives an example of a cartoon that has been bandied about as an example of racism. If you knew nothing about the context, it looks horribly racist. But if you lived in France and understood what had just gone on in French politics in the week leading up to that particular cartoon, you'd know that it was actually an attack on racist comments a right wing politician had made. Without the context, the dark sarcasm is lost.

Yes, the commenters got one specific thing wrong. That just says people need to calm down and research things before they rant about them. That doesn't disprove the larger point.

Liszt has already responded to the Salon quote. My view is I don't really have an obligation to care about what some random asshole thinks anyway, and just because someone angrily says something is not racist doesn't automatically mean it's not racist.

If the paper has a rep in France for attacking right wing racists by using sarcasm and irony, do we not risk embarrassing ourselves by just employing surface interpretations of its images?

How else would you interpret the cartoons that sikax posted other than anti-Muslim bigotry? How would "context" change any of that? The paper might have a good reputation but that doesn't change the fact that in one specific instance it's clearly targeting an oppressed minority.

Think of the idea of left leaning critics attacking the Colbert Report for being a right wing pundit. It appears to me that this is what is happening here. People are attributing to Charile Hebdo the ideas that it is actually attacking.

That's probably happening in some cases, but I don't think that's happening on this board.

[Dr_Liszt]

I don't know about you guys but when you are anti-racist and alienate oppressed races. In my opinion, you are doing anti-racism wrong, in fact if you are alienating oppressed races, wouldn't that be...... racist?

[Boomer]

"As another article explained, whites could (and probably did) make this exact same argument In thirties America when papers were depicting black people as dumb, violent, and lazy. In the midst of a society in which white people controlled the power structures, they simply reinforced the prejudices of the powerful and demonized and subjugated a powerless underclass, all the while saying "but we're not racist, we make fun of everyone!" The exact same thing occurred with Jews in Nazi Germany. The two situations are entirely comparable to the situation of Muslims in France."

A magazine with a circulation of 45,000 (putting it close to the bottom if not outside the top 100 publications in its own country) printing disparaging cartoons of Islam is "entirely comparable" to the media portrayals of Jews in Nazi Germany and blacks in the Jim-crow era South?

Even if we were to assume Charlie Hebdo's cartoons come from a place of pure bigotry and hate, that position is beyond disingenuous.

[Derived Absurdity]

Damn, you got me.

[Derived Absurdity]

I guess I should say more. The situations are entirely comparable in principle, not in execution. I'm pretty sure I made that clear, and even if I didn't I thought it was pretty clear that was what I meant. I'm not really going to exhaustively spell out every single thing I say to pre-empt someone from purposely twisting my meaning in ridiculous directions.

[sikax]

Yeah circulation numbers are hardly relevant now that we have the internet. And besides, CH has been in the public eye before for the same thing, so it's not like they're some unseen underground publication.

[Boomer]

I guess I should say more. The situations are entirely comparable in principle, not in execution. I'm pretty sure I made that clear, and even if I didn't I thought it was pretty clear that was what I meant. I'm not really going to exhaustively spell out every single thing I say to pre-empt someone from purposely twisting my meaning in ridiculous directions.

Okay, dude. You're right. People who point out the fact that Charlie Hebdo skewers every and all religions are making the same arguments as Nazis and white supremacists. Modern-day France is similar to Hitler's Germany and the Jim-crow era south. I'm the one twisting arguments into ridiculous directions, you're definitely not. Got it.

Thanks for clearing that up.

[Derived Absurdity]

You're welcome.