In defense of the sanctimonious women's studies set || First feminist blog on the internet

A text graphic with the words "Je Suis Charlie"

#JeSuisCharlie Anger, Grief and Solidarity #CharlieHebdo

tigtog

From The Guardian: #JeSuisCharlie: grief and solidarity on Twitter after brutal Paris terror attack

Hashtag trends across the globe as social media users unite to condemn Charlie Hebdo murders
[…]
A grieving public gathered in at least 30 cities in France from the Place de la Republique in Paris to the Vieux Port in Marseille. A Facebook page that gave details of all the demonstrations stated they were “good gatherings of peace-lovers and Republicans, and as Chard said – death to idiots”.

As night fell in Paris, despite the bitter cold, more than 5,000 people gathered under the imposing statue of Marianne, the symbol of the republic, to show their anger, grief and solidarity. Some lit candles, others held up copies of Charlie Hebdo, including one that had on the cover a Muslim kissing a magazine cartoonist, with the headline: “Love is stronger than hate.”. Others simply held aloft pens in protest at the killing of journalists. “We need to show the terrorists that they cannot win,” said Jules, a student.

“Everyone is shocked: the cartoonists Charb, Cabu, Wolinski, Tignous … we grew up with them. Half of France grew up with them,” said one man, who did not want to be named and, like many in the crowd, was close to tears. “My God, how could this happen?”

A text graphic with the words "Je Suis Charlie"
The front page of Charlie Hebdo website following the Paris attacks on the magazine’s office
Nearly 10 years ago my family and I were holidaying in Paris, in winter, staying a short walk from the Place de la Republique. I can feel that bitter cold in that darkness and can imagine myself there, holding my pen aloft, surrounded by resolute Parisiennes holding candles or hoisting up their printouts of the defiant image from the Charlie Hebdo website: “Je Suis Charlie”.

Political cartoonists around the world are commemorating their slain colleagues. David Pope of the Canberra Times tweeted this in the early hours Australian time:

Breaking news, but not yet officially confirmed, is that the terrorists have just been arrested.

140 thoughts on #JeSuisCharlie Anger, Grief and Solidarity #CharlieHebdo

  2. The sad reality that occurs so often in other countries make a person appreciate what they have in their own country. However, it is also a reminder that all too quickly things can turn, and the violence can head straight towards us. This serves as a reminder how everything can change in a blink of an eye.

  3. I was introduced to Charlie Hebdo when I lived in Lyon, and I read it every week along with Siné Hebdo and Le Canard Enchaîné. This is a horrible tragedy and I’m extremely concerned about the fallout from this, given the climate in France. The lepenistes are already having a field say with this. On the other side, far too many people are using that fact that Charlie Hebdo was a problematic cultural institution to justify the massacre.

    Here’s what I wrote on social media:

    “Islamophobia attacks a vulnerable population. Justifying the Charlie Hebdo attacks because some of the content they put out was problematic attacks fundamental civil liberties.

    My views on Islamophobia are very clear. My views on the importance of freedom of expression are very clear. The only thing I can’t make up my mind about is how I actually feel about Charlie Hebdo as a newspaper—its politics, its satire, its art. I have always been deeply ambivalent and uncomfortable with it. There were things I loved and things I couldn’t stand. And really, that’s why I kept coming back to it—because I had this sense that it was a deeply important newspaper that needed to exist. My own ambivalence kept me questioning.
    The newspaper is disgusting sometimes, and almost always problematic. I do think it crossed the line often. I know quite well what satire is but there are times I think it was betraying some pretty repugnant viewpoints and cloaking them in satire. The French left can be quite racist, as others have pointed out. And yet, sometimes it was provocative in all the right ways. Sometimes, just when you thought “okay, they’re using ‘we’re equal-opportunity offenders! look how much we make fun of bourgeois Catholics!’ as an excuse for disenfranchising people inconvenient to them,” they would come out and speak truth to power. I have seen them call out racism in the newspaper. I don’t know how to reconcile that with something like the “aussi cons que les nègres” cover from 1980. I really don’t. But I do think that the victims of the massacre (especially Charb, Cabu et al.) deserve a defense beyond “They were awful but nonetheless, violence is never justified.” I think the value of the newspaper is more complex than either the people talking about how irredeemably racist it is or the people holding it up as a shining beacon of democracy make it out to be.”

    1. Thank you, I’m not as familiar with the work of Charlie Hebdo as you, but that’s an excellent summation of my own feelings: the magazine was frequently tasteless and problematic on many levels, but it was important nonetheless, especially when it reexamined issues from multiple perspectives. I almost got the feeling that whenever any particular group/movement/faction got overly sanctimonious or self-righteous about Charlie Hebdo supporting their views by satirising their enemies/rivals, it would become the magazine’s mission to gore that group/movement/faction’s ox in the next edition.

      This doesn’t (as you note) make them super-shiny beacons for free speech, but they made a worthwhile contribution by encouraging always checking one’s idols for feet of clay.

      1. It was racist as hell. That in no way justifies violence, but they shouldn’t get a racism pass.

        2. How so? Is it something more than anti-islam sentiment? (I’m not being antagonistic btw. I don’t know much about Charlie Hebdo and am honestly curious in what way they have been racist. A quick scan of the internet doesn’t offer an obvious answers…)

        3. This quote from a facebook thread I read sums it up pretty well:

          “The mockery and depictions UTILIZED RACIST PORTRAYALS OF MUSLIMS, promoting a narrow, specifically racist evocation of who Muslims are, contrary to the reality that Muslims comprise a variety of ethnicities and a variety of interpretations of Islam. THAT is why those mockeries are racist.”

          Lots of brown, angry-looking, large-nosed men in turbans, carrying scimitars. That kind of thing. Caricatures of what they considered ‘representative’ of Muslims. So, yeah, racist.

          Consider if a publication drew all Natives stoic and wearing feathers, or all Asians bowing and wearing queues?

        4. Thanks for the reply Andie! Right, I can definitely see how that’s racist. To be clear: does that mean they haven’t actually said anything racist, i.e. conveyed a racist message through words as opposed to imagery? (Not that caricaturing ethnic groups isn’t bad, but it’s a different kind of bad).

        7. characterized as blasphemous

          Just out of curiosity, are you equating blasphemy with racism? Because I guarantee you that I can find plenty of things you’ve written here that will be blasphemous by someone’s standards.

        8. I really am not sure what you’re asking me. Of course blasphemy isn’t the same as racism. That’s why I said “and/or.”

        9. I meant, would you characterize blasphemy as problematic in the same way as racism, sexism, etc.

          I ask because you brought up blasphemy after someone asked for examples of racism. If you don’t consider blasphemy problematic, I’m not sure how it was relevant.

        10. Because I was describing the cartoons reproduced at the Gawker article I linked to! I didn’t want anyone to think that anyone was claiming (there or anywhere) that every single one was racist.

    2. Amelia, thank you for giving some voice to what I’ve been feeling. It feels too early to me to admit that my feelings about this are…complex. But they are.

      The shooting appalls me simply because it is appalling that people can enter a building and, in the reported span of around 5 minutes, kill 12 and wound 11 people with automatic weapons. That is appalling. You need not attach any political meaning to it to find it horrifying in its own right.

      On some level, I do not like that it was a magazine that was, by all appearances, created by white men, run by white men, that delighted in attacking the situation and beliefs of black and brown people. I was long not aware of the situation of many minorities in France until I met the upstairs neighbor from me, who is a Romani French man. He enlightened me. Now, it is much harder to look at the “great secular” society the French have. I get that the magazine was “equal opportunity” in taking shots at everyone – but not all targets are equal. I get the horror of this, I do. But my fear is that this will spell the end of any critical examination of the worse aspects of the magazine and simply morph into the chance for “patriots” to have another Braveheart moment.

      It’s sort of like how I felt about Theo van Gogh. His murder in many ways turned him into a saint. His terrible history – including his brutal anti-Semitism – are largely not brought up anymore. I found the way he died horrifying, as well as the circumstances of his death and the rationale for it, but I can’t exactly mourn that he was no longer part of the world. I’m not suggesting that these people killed today don’t deserve mourning, because I don’t know enough about them. But I don’t want to see them made saints if that will preclude any discussion about the problematic histories you pointed out. People should be able to be more nuanced than that.

      1. I agree, but it’s very difficult to bring that kind of thing up in one’s very first comment about the murders without sounding like one is victim-blaming or suggesting that the people who worked there are at least partially responsible for their own deaths — as the loathsome Bill Donahue of the Catholic League has already said, by the way. It inevitably comes across as derailing, to a certain extent; as “I condemn the murder of X but he was Y and Z.” Isn’t possible to say “I condemn” without a “but,” and save the “but” for a separate comment?

        1. Donna, what you are bringing up is an issue of taste and decorum. Which I totally understand, but for me, those arguments hold little sway. I suppose that’s because I’m a WOC who has frankly heard such arguments one too many times anytime I, or others like me, tend to bring up problematic histories.

          You say that the first comment is not the place, possibly. Is the second? The third? The tenth? How much time should we let elapse exactly before we are permitted to critique the dead? A day? A week? A year? Let it sit for too long and you run the risk of allowing it to be swept under the rug and for the martyr status to set in, like in Van Gogh’s case.

          I place “time and place” arguments in largely the same category as “tone” arguments – they are little more than an attempt to silence legitimate criticisms. And people who cannot differentiate them from victim blaming should listen a little deeper. Because frankly, “If not now, when?” Nobody has a good answer, and frankly, I don’t think marginalized groups have any duty to wait for the sensibilities of the majority.

        2. I do believe I understand what you’re saying, but I’m not sure that I was simply making a tone argument; I’m not saying “don’t speak ill of the dead.” To me, mentioning them at the same time in this case has the effect, even if unintentional, of equating them substantively — implying that inflammatory cartoons about Islam = murdering 12 people in terms of meriting condemnation; that the two balance each other out. On the one hand; on the other hand.

          I understand that the analogy isn’t exact, but it reminds me a little of how terribly upset I was at the way that every time Darren Wilson’s killing of Michael Brown was mentioned, certain people immediately tried to defame him by bringing up his alleged robbery of a box of cigars. As if, even if that had been true, he deserved to be executed by a cop because of it.

        3. Prejudice against Muslims is evil, just like prejudice against racial or gender or national minorities. Criticism of Islam as a (set of) institution(s) is valuable, just like criticism of any powerful, oppressive, irrational institution. I haven’t seen much reason to believe Hebdo engaged in the former, not the latter.

          Worth reading: The Most Recent Target of Charlie Hebdo’s Satire Wasn’t Islam. It Was Islamophobia.

          Finally, I’m going to quote Daniel Fincke on why charges of Islamophobia (or any religio-phobia) need to be examined critically:

          Our revering hearts are obstacles to truth. They are barriers to necessary criticism. And far worse than just falling under the spell of a great mind for a season is worshipping a man, a god, a tradition, a phrase, a symbol—an anything. Worship is inherently unhealthy. It’s a dangerous lack of restraint in one’s allegiances and affections. It’s a surrender of one’s critical faculties. And reverence which reaches that point deserves challenge. It may be unpleasant to those challenged, but if one is to engage the ideas of those who worship, one must challenge their revering wills. Bowing deferently to their altars may be politeness and civility when a guest in their houses of worship, but in the public sphere and in the contests of ideas one’s refusal to bow can serve a constructive purpose of demonstrating your defiance of what some of the religious want to consider holy over all else.

        4. Donna – I disagree with your assessment, obviously. Mentioning two things in the same breath does not equate them. Right now, the media is strenuously trying to simplify this situation into “bad people can’t take a joke, kill the jokers over it.” And it is NOT that simple. It should completely go without saying that the killings are wrong (and frankly that is getting a little tiresome). However, it is not equating to try to discuss and point out that this event exists within a complex societal situation – particularly within France’s current abysmal situation regarding xenophobia, racism and nationalistic fervor.

          One could only believe the actions are being equated if one started from that presumption. You are essentially arguing that because an unskilled listener could take the statements as equating, that the speaker, who might have very good reasons for speaking, should just stay quiet and let it slide. And if that’s the case, that is frankly BS. The fact that there are unskilled listeners who might hear equalizing in the statements does not make them so. There are already people arguing that these killings must be understood within the larger issues in French (and Western) society, and there are already people responding with “don’t blame the victims.” But it is not the speaker’s problem that some people lack the sophistication to get that a discussion or point about context and the larger issues is not victim blaming. Frankly, I’m not sure if those people really deserve the deference.

          This is going to be used as a platform (and indeed already is being used) for far-right ultra nationalist parties to try to sweep into power in France and elsewhere. You don’t need to be smart to know that. Frankly, I don’t see the need for any waiting before people start talking about the larger issues here because you know the other side isn’t waiting.

          And I don’t think the Michael Brown analogy works. The people discussing Michael Brown’s history had no intent or purpose other than to defame him and imply that he deserved his death. There was no greater societal or political point to be made around discussing Michael Brown’s activities. This magazine’s activities are an essential part of the discussion around examining the climate in France, what leads to extremism and the propriety of directing satire at marginalized groups. That’s the distinction.

          Ludlow – I think that piece misses one large thing – context. Not all targets are created equal, like I said. And the other point is to consider the source. Guess what? There are MANY excellent critiques of Muslim fundamentalism around – but here’s the thing. The best ones are coming from other Muslims. Asra Nomani, Maajid Nawaz, etc. – all of them fantastic critics and challengers of Islamic ideas that they find problematic. And frankly, they do better than the white men who seem to find Islamic critique so fun.

          If we’re really going to acknowledge racial dynamics, we have to concede that a group of white men (mostly, I believe they also employed white women) offering critique of the beliefs of what might be one of the most marginalized groups in their own nation is slightly problematic, at best. I’m not saying it cannot be done, but wouldn’t basic logic dictate that such people should treat very, very carefully when doing so? Anytime you have those in a position of privilege attempting to critique those that are not, you are going to probably want to try to do it carefully, to say the least. You probably also need to consider how your actions might play into the dominate trends at the time.

          That is what makes me uncomfortable about “equal opportunity satire.” In theory it sounds great and wonderful and important, but it so rarely works that way in the end. Because while the satire might consider everyone equal, society does not, and your satire will invariably be filtered through that societal lens. And that is where issues of responsibility and foresight come in, and that is worth discussing, even now.

        5. Ludlow – I think that piece misses one large thing – context. Not all targets are created equal, like I said. And the other point is to consider the source. Guess what? There are MANY excellent critiques of Muslim fundamentalism around – but here’s the thing. The best ones are coming from other Muslims.

          I don’t believe I said anything about critiquing Muslim fundamentalism. I referred to critiquing Islam itself. Fundamentalism is bad, sure, but there’s plenty that shitty about garden-variety non-fundamentalist Islam as well. Anyways, why would I give more weight to the critiques of someone who accepts Islam’s supernatural truth-claims than someone who doesn’t?

          And why is it that so many smart, analytically inclined pro-social justice people, who are so adept at excavating the misogyny in song lyrics or racist implications in pop culture and so on, seem to just turn that whole chunk of their brains off when it comes to religion? Huge chunks of the hadith and the Koran (and the Bible and the Torah) are fucking horrifying. While some people spend lots of energy trying to explain why Deuteronomy 22:28-29 doesn’t actually command rape victims to marry their rapists, I’m not sure why I should take that any more seriously than some MRA trying to explain that when he uses the word ‘bitch’ he doesn’t mean it in a sexist way.

          Lastly, let’s remember that in a huge chunk of the world, being Muslim means having immense privilege. Muslim doesn’t neatly align with oppressed.

        6. Longer version in moderation, but the short version is I’m not interested solely in critiquing one brand of Islam, but Islam itself. And believers (of any stripe) are typically bad at doing the important work of pulling apart their own religions’ absurdities.

        7. Donna – I disagree with your assessment, obviously. Mentioning two things in the same breath does not equate them. Right now, the media is strenuously trying to simplify this situation into “bad people can’t take a joke, kill the jokers over it.” And it is NOT that simple. It should completely go without saying that the killings are wrong (and frankly that is getting a little tiresome). However, it is not equating to try to discuss and point out that this event exists within a complex societal situation – particularly within France’s current abysmal situation regarding xenophobia, racism and nationalistic fervor.

          This right here? This sounds way too much like victim blaming those assholes had it coming.

          It absolutely IS as a simple as saying these people were murdered for holding beliefs with which their murderers disagreed. The current mood in France or whatever is not and should never be used as cover to engage in murder. The end. Full stop.

          Disagree with what CH was doing, that’s your right. Much like in the U.S. France has laws to preserve freedom of speech, regardless of how odious or offensive some may find it. But murder? No, never ever ever ok.

        8. Lastly, let’s remember that in a huge chunk of the world, being Muslim means having immense privilege.

          That part of the world does not include France.

        9. “Anyways, why would I give more weight to the critiques of someone who accepts Islam’s supernatural truth-claims than someone who doesn’t?”

          People who are a part of Islam have a fuller understanding of Islam. Most the the criticism against Islam comes from people with no or very minimal understanding of the culture. Terrorism has lead to fear-mongering and propaganda through the western world.

          “And why is it that so many smart, analytically inclined pro-social justice people, who are so adept at excavating the misogyny in song lyrics or racist implications in pop culture and so on, seem to just turn that whole chunk of their brains off when it comes to religion?”

          Pro-social justice people understand pop culture. It’s literally part of their culture. Also, you can not equate pop culture and religion. Religion can dictate and influence every part of person’s life. It does so for huge sections of the population.

          “Lastly, let’s remember that in a huge chunk of the world, being Muslim means having immense privilege. Muslim doesn’t neatly align with oppressed.”

          France is not part of said huge chunk of the world. Muslim identity in France does align quite neatly with oppressed.

          Also, be honest about which parts of the world hold the most political power and might. The majority of that huge chunk of the world are developing countries. Most Muslims are not from Iran and Saudi Arabia. Frankly, the average citizen in Iran or Saudi Ariabia has less autonomy and political power than the citizens in western countries. Our world values certain cultures and nationalities above others.

        10. Donna,

          I think you got it right. These following statements are all victim-blaming:

          1. I condemn the murder of Charlie Hedo but they did publish racist cartoons.

          2. I condemn the murder of Eric Garner but he was just caught selling illegal cigs.

          3. I condemn the murder of Michael Brown but he did just rob a gas station.

          4. I condemn the murder of [insert name of far too many women killed in domestic violence here] but she did just have an affair.

          5. I condemn the murder of the NYPD cops but they were NYPD cops.

          Taking the life of another person, should never, ever be equated with anything else, implicitly or explicitly.

        11. That part of the world does not include France.

          Agreed. Were Muslims in France targeted by Charlie Hebdo (in the sense of the magazine being anti-immigration), or were they focused on international events? Does it matter?

        12. People who are a part of Islam have a fuller understanding of Islam. Most the the criticism against Islam comes from people with no or very minimal understanding of the culture.

          I agree with this. Unless someone non-Muslim is a recognized scholar of Islam (in the same way that the Muslim author of the recent book about Jesus is a recognized scholar on Christianity), I wouldn’t necessarily trust that their criticisms represent something more than cherry-picking horrible-sounding statements that (for all I know) could be counteracted or balanced by something else. For example, yes, there are completely repugnant statements about Jews in the Koran. But it’s my understanding that there’s plenty to counteract that.

          It’s the same way I feel about Christians who think that “Judaism” = what they call the “Old Testament,” and condemn it as such (using all sorts of code words like legalistic, wrathful, vengeful, judgment, Pharisees, and so on, in contrast to the Christian God of Love), but are barely aware (if at all!) of the Talmud. For example, I very much doubt that most of the people who point to all the offenses for which Leviticus and Deuteronomy imposed capital punishment are aware that the Talmudic discussions of the death penalty are entirely theoretical, and imposed standards of proof that made carrying it out effectively impossible. See http://www.myjewishlearning.com/life/Life_Events/Death_and_Mourning/About_Death_and_Mourning/Death_Penalty.shtml?p=0

        13. Agreed. Were Muslims in France targeted by Charlie Hebdo (in the sense of the magazine being anti-immigration), or were they focused on international events? Does it matter?

          Not if CH existed in a vacuum.

        14. Lolagirl –

          When can anything that involves religion, race and privilege interplay be simple? That’s simply reducing something down to a ridiculous degree.

          Here’s the thing – this is a deeply complex situation. It is not blaming victims to point out that complex interplay. CH published images that poked fun at French Muslims. From what I’ve read, the CH artists seemed to only believe that their work attacked Islamic fundamentalism or extremism, and I can see how they would think that and they probably believed their intentions were good.

          Well, you know what they say about the road to Hell.

          In France, Muslims are largely people of color and they are a seriously marginalized group, both on religious and racial grounds. Publishing such images, even if not intended to do so, contributes in some way (a very small way) to that marginalization. Marginalization is a huge part of what creates the fertile ground for extremism, and that extremism murdered 12 people yesterday.

          When you are in a position of privilege punching down in some way, yes, you do have a greater responsibility to really look at what you are trying to say and think, “Can I say this in a way that makes the target clear and tries to not contribute to marginalization?” Yes, I’m sorry if that means that sometimes, the majority’s most “cherished beliefs” might have to take a little back seat. That’s the nature of trying to check one’s privilege.

          Frankly, I loved the cartoon Cabu contributed – the prophet Muhammed exclaiming “How hard to be loved by jerks” or some approximation of that. That, to me, was very clear that Islamic extremism was the problem, and not Islam in general. But many of the other cartoons were not that nuanced.

          It is not victim blaming to discuss, even soon after the event, how this dynamic works and how we should be cognizant of it. The people killed seem like they were genuinely trying to make good points in a medium they believed would be effective, and I don’t think that makes them bad people. I don’t feel about them the way I’ve felt about others. And yes, I find the protests disturbing on some level in that there seems to be little critical thought going around (oh, and before you ask, it’s already translating into attacks on French Muslims and French Arabs). That sort of thing is why this discussion needs to be had, and frankly, it should be had now.

        15. Unless someone non-Muslim is a recognized scholar of Islam (in the same way that the Muslim author of the recent book about Jesus is a recognized scholar on Christianity), I wouldn’t necessarily trust that their criticisms represent something more than cherry-picking horrible-sounding statements that (for all I know) could be counteracted or balanced by something else.

          This is an important point. The last “debate” about Islam that I caught involved Bill Maher, Sam Harris, Nicholas Kristof, Michel Steele and Ben Affleck. Yes, seriously. Not a single Muslim in the bunch. How is that supposed to represent a serious debate about Islam when you cannot be bothered to seemingly even speak to a single Muslim of any persuasion? I just don’t get it.

          Muslims today are, from where I stand, one of those ultimate “others.” They don’t merit spaces at debates where they are being discussed, they don’t merit time on television (unless they’re being trotted out by Fox as examples of radicalism, a la Sean Hannity last night). I truly cannot get this. I would never, ever presume to speak about Judaism, Islam, or any other faith beyond the basics that I know. So why do so many people feel empowered to talk about Islam as if they know it?

          The amazing thing is that there are Muslims who actually confront this. Maajid Nazwa actually agreed to meet with two leaders of the English Defense League to challenge their perceptions of the Koran and Islam. The amazing thing was that after meeting him for an extended period of time, both of them left the EDL, saying that he had opened their eyes about how much they got wrong. If that is what is possible when well-versed Muslims get a chance to actually confront people, it seems so criminal that we don’t allow them a forum. But now it seems like anti-Muslim sentiment is the one thing that everyone from Christians to atheists can totally agree on. So why bother such a nice arrangement?

        16. I agree with this. Unless someone non-Muslim is a recognized scholar of Islam (in the same way that the Muslim author of the recent book about Jesus is a recognized scholar on Christianity), I wouldn’t necessarily trust that their criticisms represent something more than cherry-picking horrible-sounding statements that (for all I know) could be counteracted or balanced by something else. For example, yes, there are completely repugnant statements about Jews in the Koran. But it’s my understanding that there’s plenty to counteract that.

          So? If a comedian goes on a racist, anti-semitic, misogynist rant one night, and a couple nights later says “kidding, totes love women and Jewish people and POC” are we supposed to give him a pass? When his defenders tell us we should ignore night 1 because he said he didn’t mean it on night 2, would you take that seriously? Why is it that people think we should hold religion to a lower standard than any other form of culture?

          For example, I very much doubt that most of the people who point to all the offenses for which Leviticus and Deuteronomy imposed capital punishment are aware that the Talmudic discussions of the death penalty are entirely theoretical, and imposed standards of proof that made carrying it out effectively impossible.

          Off topic, but I actually learned this from a West Wing episode. And while (as has probably become obvious) I’m not religious, I think one of the grossest aspects of many sects of Christianity is their combination of appropriation from and demonization of Judiasm.

          That, to me, was very clear that Islamic extremism was the problem, and not Islam in general. But many of the other cartoons were not that nuanced.

          So it’s not OK to say Islam itself is the problem? Islam itself is beyond criticism? Why, exactly? Why, alone among all cultural phenomenon, all stories, all belief systems, can we not engage critically with religions? Do you afford the same protection to Scientology?

          But now it seems like anti-Muslim sentiment is the one thing that everyone from Christians to atheists can totally agree on. So why bother such a nice arrangement?

          Look, if you’re going to make truth-claims, I’m going to need evidence. If you say God exists, or Mohammed flew on a winged horse, or Moses parted the Red Sea, or Jesus was resurrected, I’m going to ask you to prove it. If you can’t, I’m going to decide you have no idea what you’re talking about, and I’m not going to give a lot of weight to subsequent claims about morality, history, cosmology, etc. that you make.

          So yeah, I think mocking Islam is valuable, because Islam is built on a series of fictions. Mocking powerful, self-righteous institutions that are incapable of critical self-examination is often the only effective tool there is to effect change.

          I don’t think mocking Muslims is valuable, or acceptable, because Muslims are victims of Islam too. Most didn’t have a choice about whether to believe- they were indoctrinated as children. They also, in France, line up with racial/ethnic minorities, which means most mockery aimed at Muslims is also racist.

        17. Our world values certain cultures and nationalities above others.

          That’s a totally nonsensical statement. I can’t think of a single nationality that, no matter where you are in the world, will be privileged. Unless it’s Canadian.

        18. How is that supposed to represent a serious debate about Islam when you cannot be bothered to seemingly even speak to a single Muslim of any persuasion?

          How can you have a serious debate about the existence of Santa Claus without involving even a single adult who believes in Santa Claus? Answer: you don’t, it’s not a debate.

        19. What? Santa Claus doesn’t exist. Islam does, and has for almost 1400 years. Its belief system and practices (at various times and places) are something that people can be experts on. Or not. Unlike Santa Claus.

          Do you similarly consider yourself qualified to discuss Christianity, Judaism, and Hinduism?

          Because if all you’re saying is that all beliefs in a deity are wrong, that’s beside the point. That’s hardly what such discussions are about.

          TL, DR: Terrible analogy.

        20. What? Santa Claus doesn’t exist. Islam does, and has for almost 1400 years. Its belief system and practices (at various times and places) are something that people can be experts on. Or not. Unlike Santa Claus.

          Not equating Santa Claus to Islam, I’m equating ‘belief in Santa Claus’ to Islam. Both are sets of truth-claims/beliefs/practices.

          But my point is, I’m not clear on why people who believe Islam’s supernatural truth-claims would be more trustworthy sources when discussing Islam as an institution, since their opinions are likely to be colored by those . Ditto for anyone who believes in spirits and magic and flying horses and demons.

          Longer post in moderation.

        21. Ludlow you answered your question Canadians. Though I never said there was one nationally privileged everywhere. Just that’s certain nationalities aren’t privileged in most places.

          Santa Clause huh? Did you miss all the posts debating the ethics and protocols around teaching children to believe in Santa Clause? They were quite common. Do you know what the authors shared a cultural background either in Christianity or a culture heavily influenced by Christianity?

        22. Ludlow, I think your downplaying scope. Santa is one specific belief and practice. Islam is entire set/worldview. I think I get your argument and I respect it. I myself made a similar argument to Steve the Quaker about the right of people to criticise religion outside of said religion.

          However, most of people criticizing Christianity are part of the same culture that gives us Christians. They know the basic precepts and rules. They know the typical lifestyle of Christians. It would be impossible not to because the religious right spends so much time informing us. Donna has spoken at length about people discussing Judaism without actually knowing basic facts about it or life as a Jew.

          Islam is the same. Western critics literally don’t share a common language with most of the people their talking about.Yes, people when you talk about religion your talking about people’s lives not just an abstract.

        23. …thread jumped the shark at Santa Claus.

          I have a lot of complicated feelings about this. I understand the feeling that bringing up Charlie Hebdo’s problematic literature now can feel like victim-blaming (a lot of crimes get justified away with a just-world hypothesis which is a form of victim-blaming, so I frankly think it’s legitimate to read it into these situations). I also think that white-washing people in their death is harmful to the people who they’ve oppressed. I don’t know how to reconcile these two thoughts in myself.

        24. @Asia

          People who are a part of Islam have a fuller understanding of Islam.

          What does it mean to be part of Islam? According to Taslima Nasreen, Islam is fundamentally violent and backwards. (and as a laicist French, I find it deeply disappointing of her, even though I think I can’t quite judge her). Charlie Hebdo never went so far. They mocked fundies of all religions as they all deserve. As all religions deserve. As all philosophies deserve. As all ideas deserve.
          Their marksmanship may have been off at times, but they never, ever, intended to attack Muslims as a whole. Publishing drawings of Muhammad isn’t an attack against Muslims. And what they did back then, denouncing a worldwide manipulation by bloodthirsty fundies, was actually reaching out to Muslims, and telling them “don’t worry, we know you are not stupid, let us try and explain to the world how fundies try to manipulate you”.

          Give me ONE example of a Charlie-Hebdo drawing that was aimed at mocking Muslims as a whole. ONE.

          They mocked fundies, and fundies killed them.

        25. I’m still not quite clear if their caricatures were meant to portray Mohammed specifically (in which case I’m not sure that’s necessarily racist, depending on how it’s done, although it’s obviously “blasphemous”), or radical Islam in general, or all Muslims. “The Jews” are always portrayed as a Hasidic Jew with a black hat and payot. I’m not sure if that’s necessarily racist — even though it obviously doesn’t accurately represent Jews worldwide — unless they gave him a giant hooked nose like in Nazi caricatures of Jews in Der Stuermer, or French anti-Dreyfusard caricatures, or the usual caricature of of “the Jew” in places like Egypt.

        26. @ Schmorgluck

          What does it mean to part of Islam? I would say anyone from a practicing Muslim to anyone born Muslim that later left the faith. I respect Taslima Nasreen and her statements. I myself left my faith. I fundamentally disagree with many parts of Islam.

          “Their marksmanship may have been off at times, but they never, ever, intended to attack Muslims as a whole. Publishing drawings of Muhammad isn’t an attack against Muslims.”

          I don’t think we know their intentions. I don’t expect non-Muslim people not to publish drawings of Muhammad. In fact, there are Muslims that disagree on the rules against depicting Muhammad.

          “And what they did back then, denouncing a worldwide manipulation by bloodthirsty fundies, was actually reaching out to Muslims, and telling them “don’t worry, we know you are not stupid, let us try and explain to the world how fundies try to manipulate you”.”

          Are there any Muslims who felt reached out to?

          “Give me ONE example of a Charlie-Hebdo drawing that was aimed at mocking Muslims as a whole. ONE.”

          Frankly, I think the depiction of any religious figure in a sexual position mocks the people of that religion. Unless, said religious figure is seen as a sexual being. I would never make such a depiction. I do not see how creating said depiction could every be seen as positive or adding anything to the conversation.

          I think it’s possible to speak out against fundies without drawing pictures of religious figures in sexual positions.

          I’m not saying Charlie-Hebdo didn’t have the right to make pictures. Freedom of speech covers all speech.

          As I mentioned below, I think I can both condemn murder and hostage taking. While also stating that racist hate speech is wrong.

        27. Drahill, how about you get over yourself with your condescension.

          Because it’s offensive and condescending of you to assume I know nothing about France or what is going on there. Btw, I am half French, raised by a parent who is French. Most of my family resides there, I speak and read French fluently and read and view several native French news sources daily. I know very well what the culture and history is comprised of.

          And you? What, precisely, are the bona fides you claim to support your role as self proclaimed expert on all things French culture, politics and society? Because it better be far more than that of outside observer reading news stories from thousands of miles and another continent away, with minimal French language skills or experience within the country itself.

          Yes. It’s a complicated culture with complex history and with its own prejudices. But to paint an entire country of millions of people with such a broad brush as you do is simply ignorant. Just as it would be no less ignorant to insist that the U.S. is filled with gun toting Cowboys shooting up schools full of children in a daily basis and overrun by Christian extremists taking away all of the birth control pills.

          Both countries have their fair share of bad, racist, ignorant apples ruining it for everyone else. Doesn’t mean those bad apples ARE the entirety of wire those countries. N’est pas?

        28. So it’s not OK to say Islam itself is the problem? Islam itself is beyond criticism? Why, exactly? Why, alone among all cultural phenomenon, all stories, all belief systems, can we not engage critically with religions? Do you afford the same protection to Scientology?

          Anyone who monolithizes Islam is an Islamophobe because Islam is not a religion that has any kind of privileged status. The problem isn’t that Islam is a religion and therefore shouldn’t be criticized – the problem is that Islam is being singled out and taken as a justification to murder us and commit genocide against fellow Muslims. And on another note, the criticism of religion isn’t really stigmatized on the basis that religions are immune from criticism, but on the basis that a criticism of religion often includes Christianity, one of the dominant religions of the world with a colonialist, capitalist history (which doesn’t mean that all forms of Christianity are like that, but I shouldn’t have to make that clarification).

          And for fuck’s sake, Islam is not even close to being comparable to Scientology. The former is a religion whose roots are in Abrahamic tradition; the latter is an elaborate money-making scheme. Only the corrupt politicians and people in power who reside in the Middle East have any interest in exploiting Islam for their own gain, and I know for a fact that many Muslims find that exploitation deplorable.

          I’m not a religious Muslim anymore, but even I have far more of a say on what Islam is than people who have never been a part of the faith or born into it. I was definitely not ok with the interpretation of Islam that my father used to abuse and isolate me for 6-8 years, but there is a difference between religious interpretation being fucked up and the religion, in all of its forms, being fucked up. It’s not your place to judge Muslims and Islam. Stop it.

      2. The shooting appalls me simply because it is appalling that people can enter a building and, in the reported span of around 5 minutes, kill 12 and wound 11 people with automatic weapons. That is appalling. You need not attach any political meaning to it to find it horrifying in its own right.

        Except that it has a political meaning when speech is answered with violence, regardless of the content of the speech. You can’t erase that reality.

        2. Your statements read to me like you lacked any practical understanding of religion. I assumed you were a particularly out of touch atheist. I should never have assumed and apologize for that question.

          Honestly, though regardless of your personal religious background. I don’t think categorical dismissal of truth/claims adds anything to the conversation. Islam deserves respect because it guides the lives of millions of people.

        3. While I don’t approve of Islam-bashing at all, I must object to the idea that anything that guides people’s lives is worthy of respect. Many, many philosophies and beliefs have guided people’s lives over the years, and many of them command not the slightest bit of respect for me. Evangelical Christianity, for instance. Patriarchy.

          Islam in the US shouldn’t be bashed because doing so is often a cover for racism, and because Muslims are a vulnerable minority.

        4. I think we’re going to have agree to disagree. I disagree with Evangelical Christianity and the patriarchy but I still respect it because of the people in it.

          I could never be fulfilled if forced to live inside of it but the whole point is choice. Yes, I know not everyone has choice and that’s a tragedy that needs to be fixed.

          Categorically, rejecting someone’s ideals, lifestyle, culture and in-group is not respect for that person. Religion is unique in the way it can touch and define a person’s entire life. It’s part of your identity. I don’t think respecting someone’s identity is too high a bar.

          And I do apologize if this is too far off-topic.

        5. Religion is really not unique in that way at all. Patriarchy. Marxism. Anarchism. Animal rights activism.

          As far as I’m concerned, respecting people does not mean respecting any old story they choose to tell themselves.

          As for respecting Evangelical Christianity–or any Christianity, really–as a Jew, I really don’t see what they’ve done to earn my respect.

        6. Religion is really not unique in that way at all. Patriarchy. Marxism. Anarchism. Animal rights activism.

          These things are not the same. Patriarchy is part of many different cultures. And no one identifies as a patriarchist.

          Animal rights activism is a form of activism. Marxism and Anarchism are political ideologies. People do identify by their political and activism stances but not in the same way as religion. Your not born in to animal rights activism. You can be born into a marxist and anarchist home but it doesn’t carry a ideological afterlife component. Afterlife is a real enough concept if fear of it is strong enough to govern lives.

          None of these three contain rules governing your life from childhood to death and beyond.

          How old is Judaism? There isn’t a political movement with anywhere near the longevity of the oldest religions.

          Religion is different from any old story people choose to tell themselves. If for no other reason, than the fact that your told religious stories. Your born into a religion and as this thread demonstrates. People are willing to defend their in-group even after no longer believe in the old story they choose to tell themselves.

          My main point is identity. Religion is a in-group that crosses language, geographical and state barriers.

          “As for respecting Evangelical Christianity–or any Christianity, really–as a Jew, I really don’t see what they’ve done to earn my respect.”

          You identify as Jewish. Is that just any old story you choose to tell yourself?

          You just described Christianity with “they’ve”. Is it more that just an abstract story? Are the current and historical conflicts between your in-group and their’s just a silly meaningless dispute over a old story you tell yourselves?

        7. You may not ever have met anybody whose commitment to a political ideology structures their whole life, but I certainly have–I’ve known a number of them. And indeed, one can structure every aspect of one’s life around the struggle one chooses to attach oneself to. And having been born into Marxism, I can guarantee that the childhood memories and feelings are deeply affecting.

          I reject the afterlife argument; the notion that those who believe in immortality just have a depth of feeling that those of us who don’t cannot fathom is absurd. Being religious doesn’t give you extra feeling neurons in your brain. An atheist Marxist, I could as easily argue, is far more passionately invested in Marxism because ze is aware that ze has a limited life-span in which to help bring about the revolution, rather than having the comfortable complacency of immortality with an all-good deity guaranteed to win in the end.

          I am an atheist. My Jewish identity is rooted in history and cultural traditions, as well as certain values and perspectives passed on by my family (these are indeed stories we tell ourselves), to say nothing of my phenotype. My disrespect and difference with Christianity has nothing to do with their supernatural stories. It has to do with its anti-semitic, murderous, documented history.

        8. I haven’t met anyone who’s political identity organizes there life to that degree. I do know and acknowledge that politics are powerful. But it doesn’t have the longevity that religion has. That documented history has contributed to more wars than politics. Nor does it inspire the same feeling of kinship.

          “the notion that those who believe in immortality just have a depth of feeling that those of us who don’t cannot fathom”

          I wasn’t making that argument. I was just stating that afterlife/immortality/enlightenment are unique concepts only found in religion. These concepts are powerful because it does give “the comfortable complacency of immortality with an all-good deity guaranteed to win in the end”. That complacency effects the world.

          “I am an atheist. My Jewish identity is rooted in history and cultural traditions, as well as certain values and perspectives passed on by my family (these are indeed stories we tell ourselves), to say nothing of my phenotype.”

          But this is what I’m trying to say. It’s more than just the specific stories and beliefs. It’s about kinship. Jewish people are a little unique because no other religion to my knowledge has ethnically religious people. But everyone has a family religion.

          I’m not worried about Islamophobia because I care about the stories. I’m worried because I’m afraid people will use it as a excuse to hurt my family. And because people think their family is superior to mine.

        9. No, not everybody has a family religion. Atheists have and raise children too.

          Politics doesn’t have longevity? Tell it to the Roman Empire, or to monarchy in general. You are making up distinctions. And even if it doesn’t have the longevity–so what? How does that translate into religion having some sort of special privileged position in human history that deserves my respect? The fact that religion has been involved in more wars for longer is supposed to make me respect it?

          And you’re simply mistaken about politics not inspiring the same feelings of kinship/lifelong devotion. Again, just because you don’t know people for whom this is true doesn’t mean they don’t exist and haven’t existed.

          I am not arguing that you should not be worried about Islamophobia. I am arguing that Islam does not deserve respect on the basis that people organize their lives around it. People organize their lives around all kinds of things, many of them terrible. No given religion is more deserving of my respect than Marxism. It is wrong for Westerners to bash Islam because of the power dynamics and persecution doing so involves, not because Islam itself is worthy.

        10. My disrespect and difference with Christianity has nothing to do with their supernatural stories. It has to do with its anti-semitic, murderous, documented history

          But you’re not allowed to think that, because there are countries where Christians are an oppressed minority. /s

          My point is that your reasons for disliking Christianity are similar to mine for disliking Islam (though I also dislike Christianity and Judaism for similar reasons), but for some reason because this website is hosted in the US only one of those positions is acceptable?

          Your argument seems to come to “sure, these statements about Islam might be true, you just can’t say so out loud.”

        11. I don’t have an argument about Islam. I am not well informed enough about Islam to have an argument regarding its history. I personally have a hard time believing anything could possibly be as harmful as Christianity, but I’ve been wrong before.

          My understanding is that historically, Christianity has been leagues ahead of Islam in the murderous anti-semitism line, but as I said, my knowledge of Islam is too slight not to defer to a better authority.

          My position regarding criticism of Islam is that critiques of Islam are different from Islam-bashing, and that due to the power dynamics in the US, one who wants to make a critique wants to be very careful that the critique is distinguishable from bashing.

        12. Atheists can and do raise children. The other half of my family is Atheist. You can imagine the cultural conflicts I’ve always had to deal with. I respect and honor their traditions too. And I’ve fought the tendency religious people have to dismiss it by saying “you don’t have a tradition”. I’m not saying that. But Muslims hear my name and try to have conversations with me because they feel kinship with me. Strangers are personally offended and saddened when they realize I don’t live life as a proper Muslim women. A person doesn’t swear loyalty to Atheism in childhood. What are baptisms, first communion, confirmation, and bat mitzvahs? I’m not making distinction there are just so many that make it unique. It’s just not the same.

          Atheism doesn’t hold that same power. Or politics people don’t respond with fear and sadness when they learn about political differences. Maybe I’ve experienced a lot of cultural/religious conflict in my life. But religion and cultural can be used interchangeably. I’ve never read of politics used that way.

          I respect power.

          ” How does that translate into religion having some sort of special privileged position in human history that deserves my respect? The fact that religion has been involved in more wars for longer is supposed to make me respect it?”

          The fact that it can unite people to repeatedly cause wars and conflict points to a huge amount of power. And said power can be used positively too. I respect the sacrifice and kindness it can inspire too.

          “I am arguing that Islam does not deserve respect on the basis that people organize their lives around it. People organize their lives around all kinds of things, many of them terrible.”

          Islam and any religion deserve respect because religious identity is part of identity. I think the kinship comparison is apt. Just because you think someone’s family is terrible doesn’t mean you don’t respect their family. You can think something is terrible and still respect it.

        13. My understanding is that historically, Christianity has been leagues ahead of Islam in the murderous anti-semitism line, but as I said, my knowledge of Islam is too slight not to defer to a better authority.

          Sorry, I wasn’t clear- I wasn’t talking specifically about antisemitism, but oppression and violence in general. That’s my understanding as well, with Catholicism standing out as having a particularly nasty history (in the interests of avoiding monolithizing religions).

          It also deeply bothers me when people turn off the feminist, analytical part of their brain when religion comes up. It’s sexist to exclude women from business, but not the priesthood? The idea that women must avoid tempting men by being modest is a rape myth, unless we’re talking about hijabs?

          My position regarding criticism of Islam is that critiques of Islam are different from Islam-bashing, and that due to the power dynamics in the US, one who wants to make a critique wants to be very careful that the critique is distinguishable from bashing.

          Ok, I guess I didn’t make understand that linguistic distinction. I get where you’re coming from much better now. Thanks for being patient!

          Atheism doesn’t hold that same power. Or politics people don’t respond with fear and sadness when they learn about political differences. Maybe I’ve experienced a lot of cultural/religious conflict in my life. But religion and cultural can be used interchangeably. I’ve never read of politics used that way. I respect power.

          Other powerful things include patriarchy, white supremacy, fascism (at one point), and so on. In what world is respecting institutions based on their power feminist? Isn’t that entirely opposed to everything that feminism stands for?

          Islam and any religion deserve respect because religious identity is part of identity. I think the kinship comparison is apt. Just because you think someone’s family is terrible doesn’t mean you don’t respect their family. You can think something is terrible and still respect it.

          How do you define respect, then?

          And if we have to respect whatever is part of someone’s identity, how can you exclude things like Neo-Nazism (which is a huge part of some peoples’ identities, and which they absolutely build their life around)?

        14. Actually, there are any number of families I feel no respect for whatsoever, exactly because they are full of terrible people doing terrible things, often to each other. The fact that they are families? Not impressive. The Bushes. The Duggars. One of my close friend’s parents–dreadful abusive people.

          If much of your family is atheist, I have no idea why you would make the absurd statement that everybody has a family religion. No, one doesn’t swear loyalty to atheism in childhood–but the fact that many religions force minors to make declarations well before they’re old enough to realize what they’re getting into inspires no respect from me whatsoever. You are arguing against propositions I never made. I never said that atheism was the equivalent of a religion; I countered your claim that everybody has a family religion.

          Again, many things are powerful and move people to come together for a common goal. Many of those things are despicable. Political movements can and have done the same. That does not make the ideologies themselves worthy of respect.

          And no, culture and religion are not interchangeable. That’s what makes it possible for me to be both Jewish and an atheist.

          Or politics people don’t respond with fear and sadness when they learn about political differences.

          For what feels like the umpteenth time, just because it hasn’t happened to you doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen. Try telling people your parents are communists in the US. And I’m sure the stupidity I encountered has nothing on what it was in the 1950s under McCarthy’s reign when people were actually blacklisted. My grandfather lost his job due to his participation in CORE. People in my family have stopped speaking to each other for decades over political differences. Conversely, when my parents moved from Chicago to NYC many decades ago, they sought out friends based on political affiliations. My mother and uncle decided where to go to college based on the activities of the New Left. My uncle says it saved his life.

          People don’t respond with fear and sadness over political differences–for pete’s sake. The US has had multiple red scares. The famous quotation begins “First they came for the communists…” Immediately after the revolution, the USSR jailed the anarchists. China had kids informing on their parents over politics.

        16. I don’t think this conversation is going anywhere and I think I now am beginning to understand why. You asked me to define respect and that got me thinking. I think we might be using the word “respect” in different ways.

          There are three definitions of respect (n) found in the Merriam-Webster Dictionary
          “: a feeling of admiring someone or something that is good, valuable, important, etc.
          : a feeling or understanding that someone or something is important, serious, etc., and should be treated in an appropriate way
          : a particular way of thinking about or looking at something”

          To me respecting something has nothing to do with admiring something. I respect lots of things I can’t admire. Another person’s faith is one of those things that I think falls under the second definition of respect. It is something important, something serious and it deserves a certain acknowledgement because of this.

          You’ve defined a part of yourself in the absence of religion and that aspect of you is just as important as that aspect of someone that is defined by the presence of their religion. It deserves acknowledgement even if it does not necessarily deserve agreement or admiration.

          In this sense of respect religion is due some. It is perhaps a weak form of respect compared to the first, fuller definition, but it is respect nonetheless. And to deny those you disagree with this tiny bit of understanding is to cheapen your argument.

        17. Meh. I mock plenty of important and serious things–in fact, I think it’s important to do so–and that’s leaving aside the issue you keep pushing of religion’s supposedly unique claim to being important and serious.

        18. Yea, but people aren’t things. How is it important to disrespect people?

          If religious identity wasn’t important and serious we wouldn’t be having this conversation. It’s unique and special because it’s part of who you are. Criticize actions not the person.

          I had no idea this was so controversial. Freedom of religion and freedom of speech are both human rights.

      3. Did you miss all the posts debating the ethics and protocols around teaching children to believe in Santa Clause?

        So why aren’t there posts debating the ethics and protocols around teaching children to believe in Islam?

        2. There are posts about raising children Muslim. This illustrates my point you don’t think people write posts about raising children Muslim. Why not? Everyone else does.

          Have you ever met or had a conversation with a Muslim?

      4. Drahill, I’m delurking for the first time to tell you that you’re just victim-blaming. All of your wishy-washy, pompous declarations of how “complicated” the situation in France is amounts to nothing more than victim-blaming.

        Actually, wait–there’s one thing other than victim-blaming in your response, and that’s condescension. Guess what? I’m a Francophone and a Muslim, now living in the US, and I know how complicated the situation is, thanks!

        None of this complication is relevant to the response to this massacre. The only thing that’s relevant to the response to this massacre is that you don’t get to kill people who offend you. Your victim-blaming offends me. It would almost certainly offend the families and friends of the Charlie Hebdo staff on a much deeper level than it offends me. Why, they may even be as deeply offended as some Muslims are to see the Prophet mocked! But you’re free to voice your victim-blaming opinions without violence, and your offensiveness isn’t relevant to that concept.

        As others have pointed out, there is no difference between your remarks and saying “Murder is wrong, but Michael Brown was no angel” or “Murder is wrong, but selling loosies is bad for quality of life” or “Rape is wrong, but she was drinking too much.” You appear to think there’s a huge difference because your motives are so much purer and your arguments are so much better than those who blame rape victims or Michael Brown or Eric Garner. There isn’t. Your entire way of thinking fails to account for the fact that people see things differently than you. They see “complication” and legitimate social issues where you don’t. But even if they see something as “complicated” when you don’t, it doesn’t matter. The complication, real or imagined, isn’t relevant to the unacceptability of murder. They don’t get to make it relevant, and neither do you.

        “But I’m talking about real issues!” you say. Well, they think they’re talking about real issues too. Your views may be right, but they’re not self-evident. You live in a world where lots of people don’t agree with you. That’s exactly why the response to killing people for their opinions has to be simple and straightforward. It’s not acceptable.

        You want to condemn the racism of a lot of Western mockery of Islam, be my guest. But don’t do it as part of a response to a massacre of people who’ve mocked radical Islam. If you want to espouse the “broken windows” policy, you are free to do so. I will disagree with you, but I won’t think you’re out of line. But if you respond to Eric Garner’s murder by saying “no, but selling loose cigarettes is BAD” then you’re victim-blaming. If you want to criticize drinking culture on uni campuses, be my guest, but be very careful if you’re doing it in response to a story about a rape victim who was assaulted after she partied hard. Don’t condemn the victim in the same breath as you condemn the perpetrator. That implies that the victim’s actions are somehow relevant to how much the perpetrator should be condemned. They’re not.

        1. BEAUTIFUL post. Thank you so much. This is a perfect, perfect synthesis of what I’ve been trying to figure out how to articulate.

      5. Oh, only a select few assholes at the top want to exploit Islam and do terrible things? Mmhmm. Just like every other belief system ever. Or wait, no, because lots of ideologies get broadbrushed right here on this very site such that any person who is a part of that system, whether voluntarily or not, is considered partly responsible for the crimes of that system. Well actually, I’ve seen a lot of blowback on criticism of Christians too, as long as its the wrong kind of person doing the critiquing. I saw a quote recently from someone I think addressing Ayaan Hirsi Ali, though the target isn’t as relevant as the quote. This Muslim was asking about her calling Islam violent and saying how unlike modern day jihadists, the Prophet only raised the sword when others had raised it first again Muslim’s, which sounds shockingly similar to what the United states claims in its messaging about its wars, including the ones against the Middle East.

        Islam functions identically to Christianity or non religious western ideologies in the political and social context. You know why we are talking about Islam and Christianity in their respective places instead of the reverse? Because Islam lost the wars. There is nothing inherently Christian about oppression, it was only the most successful oppressor historically. The fact that ancient Islam failed to take over Europe doesn’t mean its somehow exempt from criticism today. Part of the reason Greece, Spain, France, and even Germany have so many issues with Islamic minorities is the conquests of Muslims much closer to the time of the Prophet, whose claims about Islam I take far more seriously than modern Muslims, who just like Christians attempt grand historical revisionism about the birth and initial focus of their religions. You go on and on about the colonization of the world by western Christians but the Ottomans attempted and in some ways succeeded in the forcible Russian/Roman style colonization of Greece. And similar things happened when the Umayyads invaded ancient Iberia. Gee, I wonder where the institutional hatred of Islam comes from in Spain. The same goes for Austria and Southern Germany.

        Just as with Christians its certainly true that a good majority of them are not out for power based on their religion, but Islam is not some special religion exempt from criticism and possesses the same history of conquest and colonization that Christians do, excepting perhaps that they were slightly less successful after the fall of the Mongol invasions.

        If Muslims and Islam are not the containers of their worst “true believers” than neither are Christians or atheists. Some Muslims behave perfectly well and some behave awfully and the same goes for people of other faiths or no faith and the fact that some people are burning Mosques does not exempt Islam from any criticism. It only says that those people are ignorant and/or uneducated and/or probably ethnocentric who are possibly playing into the hands of people following the same strategy employed in Iraq to cause apathetic majorities to support their radical causes.

        I’m going to criticize Christians and I’m going to criticize Muslims based on their own actions, while criticism of the particular faith does not imply that all people of said faith are that way but reflects on the nature of the faith itself. Religion brings net harm to the world, even if many religious individuals are excellent people. That’s going to be true no matter what you say or how unfair you think that is.

        Should others not be allowed to argue against state communism because America was never a communist state? Nonsense. Maybe someone who has never met a Muslim or learned anything about Islam’s history doesn’t have much to say about it, but everyone else doesn’t have to be silent because those people are ignorant.

    3. The French left can be quite racist

      I take it the French Left is akin to the American right, politically.
      Not well-versed in French politics but given what I’ve read, it makes sense.

      1. The French left can be quite racist

        I take it the French Left is akin to the American right, politically.

        On most issues, quite the opposite, AIUI. There is however a big however. All these movements have an elitism problem and those elites tend to be classist and racist.

  4. Recommended reading: Juan Cole points out that it’s worth rigorously questioning the building narrative that these murders were all about outraged piety because of some tasteless cartoons, just because that’s what the terrorists said where they knew that people who weren’t their targets could overhear.

    Al-Qaeda wants to mentally colonize French Muslims, but faces a wall of disinterest. But if it can get non-Muslim French to be beastly to ethnic Muslims on the grounds that they are Muslims, it can start creating a common political identity around grievance against discrimination.

    Patrick Nielsen-Hayden at Making Light adds:

    I never cease to be amazed at how many people, including thoughtful, intelligent friends of mine, look at political events without ever considering the possibility that some actors might be doing things for reasons other than those they declare. My guess is that we’ve all become so chary of the dreaded wrongthink of “conspiracy theory” that we no longer have the common sense to extrapolate our everyday knowledge that people lie a lot into the world of larger affairs.

    1. Aoife at Consider The Tea Cosy: We should not kill people for speech. But I am not Charlie Hebdo.

      I strongly believe that if you want to tackle extremism, the way to do it isn’t to further alienate people who your society has already been marginalising.

      This is what Charlie Hebdo was doing.

      We can condemn murdering people without valorising victims.

      I don’t want a response to murder that punches down. In the wake of the Charlie Hebdo attacks, at least three (at the time I’m writing this) French mosques have been attacked in ‘retaliation’. That is not okay.

      It is also not okay to respond to the murder of people who were doing problematic things by repeating the worst things that they did.

      When you say “I am Charlie Hebdo” and repost their racist, islamophobic (and most importantly inaccurate) cartoons, you’re not standing up for freedom of speech. You’re valorising hate speech and bullying of oppressed groups.

  5. Pingback: Media Circus: #JeSuisCharlie Edition

  6. Things that can be done at the same time:

    1. Condemn murder
    2. Not be racist.
    3. Think about issues of privilege and potential to do harm as part of your “right to free speech”

    1. Yes, thank you.

      Let me try to bring a little perspective for all the [white] people in the audience:

      When a Person of Color kills a nonPOC, as much as we mourn the loss of life due to violence, we know that at that moment a target is painted on our heads. We know that any violence done to us is going to be done in the name of that innocent victim, regardless of any lack of connection we may have to the murderer or the victim. We know that that incident is going to be bandied about for years to come as “proof” of our “savagery” and “lawlessness”.

      The only similarities between the murders of Eric Garner and Michael Brown and the murders at CH are not from the treatment of the victims, but from the way in which white privilege is still being held unaccountable.

      1. I really can’t stomach the analogies between the Charlie Hebdo and the Michael Brown/Eric Garner murders.

        2. Who said they were the same? I said I was bothered by some people’s reaction to both, because I saw both as involving victim blaming. Nobody’s comparing the crimes themselves.

        3. I just hate how when one marginalized population gets attacked, for better or for worse, people try to hold up an attack on another marginalized population as comparison. For me, it’s just too close to the “if they had been [insert oppressed group here], it wouldn’t’ve happened” arguments.

        4. I just hate how when one marginalized population gets attacked, for better or for worse, people try to hold up an attack on another marginalized population as comparison. For me, it’s just too close to the “if they had been [insert oppressed group here], it wouldn’t’ve happened” arguments.

          What bugs the heck out of me about this comparison is that the editors of CH were in no way a marginalized group. I don’t even get how Eric Garner/Michael Brown even enters your mind when talking about the Paris massacre. I just don’t get it. So tired of black American struggle being pulled out of the metaphor bag, it’s as if black pain exist for illustration purposes only and is not connected to actual human beings.

    2. Of course he did. Did he get more ridiculous after leaving City Hall, or was he always that bad? I don’t seem to recall such blatant racism and fascism from the days when he was in office, but I was pretty young.

        1. Yeah, he was always this bad.

          He was a prosecutor before he was mayor, and he carried over the “anyone who disagrees with me is an evildoer” attitude that some prosecutors have. You were either an uncritical admirer or an enemy of the people (well, of Giuliani, but in his mind, they were the same thing.) It didn’t help that the press turned him into the Hero of 9/11, despite the fact that his only contribution was to appear on TV a lot (and implicitly take credit for what the people on the ground were doing.)

      2. He was always this bad. I’ve always thought he had an air of fascism about him, and that’s not a term I sling around lightly. He’s always been a petty, nasty, self-aggrandizing little man.

  8. And now the other gunman who killed the policewoman has killed two more people and taken hostages inside a kosher grocery store in Paris, while the two who apparently committed the Charlie Hebdo murders are in another building northeast of Paris with another hostage. So everything’s as wonderful as usual.

    1. Oh, and the hostages at the grocery store apparently include an Orthodox Jewish woman and her 11-month old baby.

      I’m not sure I can even read about this anymore. My associations with being Jewish in France, given what happened to my relatives there, is not so great to begin with.

      1. These last few days really have been horrifying.
        It appears that least four of the hostages at the supermarket have been killed and several more are in critical condition.
        I think it is worth mentioning that two of the dead staff at Charlie Hebdo were also Jewish.

        1. Yes, when the two brothers were interviewed while at the printing plant, they insisted that they didn’t kill women, but the one woman who was singled out and killed at the Charlie Hebdo offices, Elsa Cayat (a psychiatrist and columnist) was a French Jewish woman. One of the cartoonists, Georges Wolinski, age 80, was born in Tunisia and had a Polish-Jewish father.

  9. I haven’t had internet access for a while so I havent been able to participate in the conversation but I wanted to clarify one thing: there is no “but” in my statement. I am not saying “Murder is wrong but they were problematic.” I am saying “murder is wrong and before when you hold the newspaper up as an example of ideal speech please be nuanced. On the other hand please do not condemn the newspaper as irredeemably racist because it may not be as problematic as you think.” Some of the cartoons people have been giving as an example of racism have been woefully misunderstood.

    I don’t think it’s victim-blaming to talk about the problematic stuff because I don’t actually think they were murdered over that problematic stuff. The things are, in my mind, unrelated. As others have pointed out, they called out Islamophobia very often. The things that they were murdered over are things I do stand in solidarity with them over. But at the same time the things they are being lionized over are things I do not stand with them in solidarity over (or rather, which I do not think really apply to them). Basically, people unfamiliar with the magazine are both look lionizing and condemning them for the wrong reasons. I’m disagreeing with some of the nuances of the lionizations while simultaneously defending he newspaper from some equally unfair attacks. This only has to do with the discourse surrounding the newspaper itself which has inevitably resulted from the attacks, not about he attacks themselves which I condemn unconditionally.

    1. Oh goddamit there is a “but” in that statement. I had meant to tack a completely different rhetorical tack there and forgot. I hope my later point stands though–when referring tote attacks hem selves it’s an “and,” not a “but,” because there is no causality in my mind.

      1. Amelia, I edited your comment to fix that error. I wouldn’t normally, but I thought this particular typo was more likely than most to lead to misreadings.

        1. Thanks! There are actually many typos in the post and the follow-up comment because I’m on my phone.

  10. These are some incredible cartoons from Arabic-language newspapers responding to the massacre. I know that nobody here needs reminding that the Muslim world isn’t lined up behind the terrorists, but it’s a potent counterpoint to that all-too-prevalent belief.

  11. Trigger warning: racism

    I am not Charlie Hebdo.

    If someone attacked The Sun, The Daily Mail or Fox News, I wouldn’t be them either.

    Being honest about Charlie Hebdo’s work is not condoning their deaths, that is a “dead moral question” http://fredrikdeboer.com/2015/01/07/on-debating-dead-moral-questions/

    All the people trying to justify “hipster” racism.

    Feministe, if you are Charlie Hebdo, are you ok with portraying those kidnapped by Boko Haram as welfare queens? Are you ok with mocking those slaughtered in the Rabaa massacre?
    Is that who you are?

    1. Neither the statement “je suis Charlie Hebdo” (taken to mean a complete endorsement of the newspaper, not a simple “I stand in solidarity with the victims and condemn the attacks), nor “je ne suis pas Charlie Hebdo” accurately sums up my position. It’s more like “je suis Charlie Hebdo de manière qualifiée.”

      My actual opinion on the newspaper (not about the attacks, not about the victims, not about the killers: about the newspaper itself) lies somewhere in between this Jacobin article and this Slate article.

      The Jacobin article doesn’t give the newspaper enough credit or fully take its cultural context into account—at the risk of repeating myself, the weekly did exposés on harassment faced by veiled women, and their issue was with hegemony or authoritarianism of any kind, not Muslims as an ethnoreligious population; the Slate article doesn’t take seriously the fact that the French left has a racism problem and that Charlie Hebdo is not an exception, or grasp that the charges of racism go beyond its engagement with Islam, or admit that even equal-opprtunity anticlericalism punches down with Islam and Judaism. (I do very much like the Slate article’s description of the newspaper, however. I myself have described it in exactly the same terms, telling of my delight that such a scatological, graphics-based, toilet-stall-graffiti-like publication could be sold in every newsstand next to the newspaper of record. For that alone it somewhat symbolized freedom of the press for me, and the fact that it has no American equivalent was one of the things that endeared it to me.)

      I wish I could find a truly nuanced take that is actually reflective of how I feel, but I’m reduced to posting seemingly contradictory, dialectical media in the hopes that people will take the average.

      I do agree with Donna that judgments of the content of the weekly are irrelevant to discussion of the attacks themselves. Even if they were actually a hate group, even if they objectively spewed hate speech—which I do not really think is the case—that STILL doesn’t justify the attacks. (I wouldn’t get behind a massacre of lepenistes, either.) The only reason I’m even discussing this is because the issue has been a bit forced by now.

      I must admit I am also deeply frustrated seeing so many people weigh in on the content of the newspaper who have never heard of it before in their lives. Some of the cartoons being held up as racist are in fact problematic but not for the reasons people think, and some of them I would actually vouch for. Many have been taken so far out of context I feel like we’re not even really looking at the same image. The cartoon satirizing Dominique Strauss-Kahn for being a rapist comes to mind. People seemed to think it was promoting rape when it was doing just the opposite.

    1. This is what I mean when I talk about people who have never read the newspaper a day in their lives judging it by a handful of covers and not taking into account the full context or the full message of the images they see. I think it’s wrong to conflate the newspaper’s ideology with the reactionary backlash that’s going to come from the attacks. The newspaper was absolutely no friend of the Front National or any of their ilk. Were they tasteless? Yes. Were they sometimes racist? Yes, I think so, in a centering-whiteness-and-othering-people way, not a white supremacist way. But it is really wrong to consider them as one side of a fight between “duelling extremists.” If anything, they’re caught in the middle, attacked by one set of extremists and soon to be used as political pawns by another set of extremists they detest (the far right).

      1. Were they sometimes racist? Yes, I think so, in a centering-whiteness-and-othering-people way, not a white supremacist way.

        I’m curious about what the you see as the difference between those two. It seems like the “centering whiteness and othering people” is a pretty good working definition of white supremacism.

        1. Okay, I should be clear tht by “white supremacist” I meant having white supremacy as an explicit part of their agenda, like the Front Bational or a hate group. I don’t think the newspaper use hate speech; I think all the examples of racist hate speech people have found were taken out of context. They were still often problematic and sometimes poorly done enough that it crossed the line into racist, but not precisely on the face-value way people think. See the discussion about the Boko Haram cartoon below, and my own analysis of the DSK in Libya one; and I also think I might have myself misunderstood the 1980 “le pape à Paris” cartoon.

    2. That Boko Haram cartoon … I just … wow. Is there supposed to be some actual, satirical point to that? “Satirizing” women who are pregnant as a result of being kidnapped and raped? I mean, it’s ugly and racist, but I don’t even “get” what it is supposed to be about. Is there some tiny scrap of context, something actually said by a Boko Haram victim that could be stretched to get a point out of this?

      1. I have a friend who’s French, who says it’s intended to take attack recent cuts to welfare by demonstrating the hypocrisy of politicians who simultaneously demonize French Muslim women as ‘welfare queens,’ while also making loud noises about how Boko Haram proves Islam is misogynistic and evil (as opposed to France, which is civilized and egalitarian). Evidently, Charlie Hebdo uses the tactic of illustrating exaggerated versions of it’s opponents beliefs routinely.

        That said, I don’t know how much of that I buy. It’s hard to know without speaking French. At face value, that cartoon is disgusting.

        1. Ugh, possessive its. Sorry. Hate that.

          (also, strike the word ‘take’ from the first sentence).

          Any chance Feministe might get an edit-post function? 🙂

        2. This is sounds like an “intent” argument to me – “they didn’t *mean* to be racist/islamophobic/etc because reasons/magic/free speech”?

        3. reasons/magic/free speech”?

          tactic of illustrating exaggerated versions of it’s opponents beliefs routinely

          Not sure how those read the same, but maybe.

        4. Not sure how those read the same, but maybe.

          Try again:

          it’s intended to take attack recent cuts to welfare by demonstrating the hypocrisy of politicians who simultaneously demonize French Muslim women as ‘welfare queens,’ while also making loud noises about how Boko Haram proves Islam is misogynistic and evil (as opposed to France, which is civilized and egalitarian).

          So if we squint hard enough, cross our eyes, turn our heads to the side, and click our heels three times it might be “ironic” racism.

        5. So if we squint hard enough, cross our eyes, turn our heads to the side, and click our heels three times it might be “ironic” racism.

          Not sure how making fun of someone else’s racist belief by turning it into a hyperbolic caricature is the same thing as ‘ironic racism’ but sure, maybe.

        6. Not sure how making fun of someone else’s racist belief by turning it into a hyperbolic caricature is the same thing as ‘ironic racism’ but sure, maybe.

          Yeah, this sounds way too familiar.

        7. Yes, it reminds me of exactly that kind of argument — “I’m not being racist; I’m presenting a racist caricature in order to mock it ironically; any intelligent person would understand that!”

          True or not in terms of magical intentions or otherwise, the effect is still the same.

          And it’s true of other -isms and -phobias too — there was a scene in either Family Guy or South Park a couple of years ago (I don’t watch either cartoon, so I don’t remember which) showing a character vomiting profusely and lengthily upon discovering that a woman had a trans history. I had a strenuous argument with someone who insisted that the scene wasn’t actually transphobic, but was simply exaggerating transphobia in order to mock it, and that I obviously just wasn’t sophisticated enough to recognize irony and satire when I saw them.

          How is this different?

        8. Yeah, this sounds way too familiar.

          Yeah, and as a WOC I thought the coverage of that New Yorker cover was insipid. So we might just fundamentally disagree on that topic.

        9. Yeah, and as a WOC I thought the coverage of that New Yorker cover was insipid. So we might just fundamentally disagree on that topic.

          Evidently, because as a Black WOC I can’t understand why anyone would be willing to jump through such hoops in order to justify – in my mind, anyway – such blatant racism.

        10. Evidently, because as a Black WOC I can’t understand why anyone would be willing to jump through such hoops in order to justify – in my mind, anyway – such blatant racism.

          Might be worth taking to spillover if you want to keep discussing it. TLDR: I don’t see mocking someone’s racist beliefs by illustrating them in a ridiculously over-the-top manner as racism, I see it as anti-racist.

      2. I have read some contextualising from commentors elsewhere that it was responding to some outrageous statements by rightwingers about French Algerians having baby after baby while receiving welfare benefits, much like US right-wing tropes about welfare queens of colour. Charlie Hebdo chose to juxtapose that right-wing trope with images of the kidnapped schoolgirls from Nigeria in what was widely understood to be pointing out that Muslim women generally didn’t get any choice in their pregnancies.

        I don’t speak French well enough to vouch for that, and I’m not sure it works as CH is alleged to have intended, but I can sorta see how that was meant to work, particularly when matched with articles inside. [ETA: and it’s still racist]

        1. particularly when matched with articles inside.

          That’s the sticking point for me- it’s really hard to know what to make of cartoons without being able to read the context. I’m predisposed towards thinking it’s terribly racist, but I also don’t want to act as if I have more facts than I do, especially since actual French-speakers have told me otherwise.

    1. I was really, really afraid of this. Anti-Muslim sentiment was already bad enough, and this was just…Christ.

    3. Oh god. Hearing this news is really upsetting to me and making me cry, to be honest. The violence against fellow Muslims is just going to keep escalating and as it increases, its reality and extent will only be further obscured by political discourse about whether we should be considered human.

      I feel hopeless. There’s nothing I can do.

      1. /Please believe me when I say that I feel deeply concerned by potential consequences of this on Muslims in France and elsewhere. That was the close second thing to come to my mind after this tragedy. Just like the second thing to come to my mind after 9/11 was “Oh shit, it’s happening during Dubyah’s term of office!”

      1. Donna, don’t confuse people. Jews are White, remember. They can’t be victims, they’re privileged. Or Israel. Or something, always a something.

        1. Thank you Donna for raising this issue.

          Donna, don’t confuse people. Jews are White, remember. They can’t be victims, they’re privileged. Or Israel. Or something, always a something.

          Yes, this is such an important point to make.

      1. Please explain the impression you got. Also please tell when in the 58’56” video you linked to is the particular sequence you’re mentioning.

      2. Ah, well, watched it. Art Spiegelman’s intervention starts around 33′. Obviously he’s got a quick briefing by his wife, and gets some of the facts spottily.

        I’m unsurprised by Tariq Ramadan’s position. As far as fundies go, he may not be part of the worst crowd, but he’s a fundy nonetheless, and was a target of some of Charlie Hebdo’s journalists for years, ever since he called for a moratorium on wife beating among Muslims. A moratorium for fuck’s sake. I can easily find tens of outright condemnations of wife-beating by Muslim scholars dating back from centuries before Tariq Ramadand was born, and that schmuck who calls himself a Muslim scholar decided that a moratorium was more pertinent than an outright condemnation.

        And he deliberately misrepresents the Siné incident with a false equivalence. Read my previous Salon link if you want to know more about that. If you don’t want to know more, please [gratuitous escalation snipped ~ mods].

Comments are currently closed.