gourimoko
Fighting the good fight!
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2008
- Messages
- 39,845
- Reaction score
- 53,645
- Points
- 148
Well, there clearly is "doubt", else nobody would have asked.
I never heard of this publication until this incident, but given typical European sensibilities, I'd find it odd that an openly racist publication would be defended at all. Nor have I read any accusations that it was racist from those you'd usually think would be making that accusation.
Now, I do know that it is a satirical publication, and likely draws a lot of caricatures of people of various races, religions, whatever. But that doesn't make it racist.
You haven't even said anything here. You admittedly don't know anything about the publication.
Go do your own research. It would take you all of 5 minutes to see their characterture of Blacks as monkeys, and Arabs as something less than human.
Again, comedy and satire is not immune to racism.
---quote---
there is already an enormous pressure, in this context, to defend Charlie Hebdo as a forceful exponent of “Western values,” or in some cases even as a brilliantly radical bastion of left-wing anti-clericalism.
Now, I think there’s a critical difference between solidarity with the journalists who were attacked, refusing to concede anything to the idea that journalists are somehow “legitimate targets,” and solidarity with what is frankly a racist publication.
I will not waste time arguing over this point here: I simply take it as read that — irrespective of whatever else it does, and whatever valid comment it makes — the way in which that publication represents Islam is racist. If you need to be convinced of this, then I suggest you do your research, beginning with reading Edward Said’s Orientalism, as well as some basic introductory texts on Islamophobia, and then come back to the conversation.
--end quote--
Seriously, if you need to be brought up to speed then you've gotta at least spend a few minutes researching the topic.
To anyone open to the idea, there should be no doubt with regards to whether or not Charlie Hebdo was a racist, bigoted publication.
In any case, the attack apparently was for cartoons that were viewed as disrespectful to Muhammed. Are you say that those particular cartoons were racist?
We don't know what the attack was over specifically or what specific cartoon, if any, the gunmen were offended by. It may not have been one, it may have been many.
Why are you trying to narrow this down to argue minutea?
Because if not, anything else they did really isn't relevant.
....Neither you or I know why the gunmen attacked, so you have no idea what would or wouldn't be relevant. No one is arguing the gunman's position either; least of all me, so I cannot take their point of view in your strawman argument.
Suffice it to say though, the authors at that publication knew what they were doing, and yes, much of it was bigoted, prejudiced, and racist.