The True Nature of Charlie Hebdo & Terrorism in France

I need to add an amendment to my previous post "What's so special about Charlie Hebdo?"  During the past three days, a conversation has been taking place on my facebook page and some new articles have come to my attention. 

A good friend of mine politely disagreed with some of the points that I made: in particular, he painted a very different portrait of Charlie Hebdo, arguing that, no really, Charlie has spent plenty of time lampooning other religions just as much as Islam, and that they did (and do) some real journalistic work of quality.  

On the same day, I came across this article by French journalist Olivier Tonneau, who lives in the UK: 

"Firstly, a few words on Charlie Hebdo, which was often “analyzed” in the British press on the sole basis, apparently, of a few selected cartoons. It might be worth knowing that the main target of Charlie Hebdo was the Front National and the Le Pen family. Next came crooks of all sorts, including bosses and politicians[...].  Finally, Charlie Hebdo was an opponent of all forms of organized religions, in the old-school anarchist sense: Ni Dieu, ni maître! They ridiculed the pope, orthodox Jews and Muslims in equal measure and with the same biting tone.  [...]  It is only by reading or seeing it out of context that some cartoons appear as racist or islamophobic."

What's so special about Charlie Hebdo?

On Sunday, January 11th, 2015, one of the most impressive gatherings in history took place on the streets of Paris.  It came as a response to the worst terrorist attack that France has suffered in over 50 years.  Most of my friends took part.  I chose not to, saying that jumping into a crowd of a million people would be a bit much for me.  But I watched the live feed of the march, and I was deeply moved by the sight of a million Parisians and over 40 world leaders all participating in the march from the Place de la République.  I had never seen anything like this--honestly, I wouldn't have expected anything like this, even after I knew the full extent of the Charlie Hebdo massacre.  For the leaders of almost every European country and so many others to spontaneously come together in this way was utterly unprecedented. 

And yet in spite of how touching and powerful it was, I couldn't help but wonder: why is this only happening now?  What is it about Charlie Hebdo that brought millions of people into the streets, and inspired so many heads of state to drop everything and fly to France at a moment's notice? 

It's not the first time there's been a terrorist attack in the Western world.  In fact, in terms of sheer scale, most of the other attacks of this century completely dwarf the Charlie Hebdo massacre.  Far more people died in the 2004 Madrid bombings, the 2005 London bombings, and the 2010 Moscow bombings--and those attacks were similarly perpetrated by Muslim extremists.  Even 9/11, the mother of modern terrorism, didn't provoke such a massive, world-wide show of solidarity.  There was no march of millions, the leaders of the world did not descend en masse to walk arm in arm down the streets of Washington D.C. to show their support for the American people after the World Trade Center fell and 3,000 people died. 

Now, there could be many reasons for this.  In regards to 9/11, part of it was undoubtedly pure shock and panic.  People had never seen anything like that before, and they didn't know how to react.  They were terrified, they wanted answers, and (some people) wanted vengeance--or they at least wanted the government to do something about it.  Having an international parade and holding hands in the street would have satisfied nobody. 

There is also France's time-honored tradition of public protest and marches.  The French place great faith in the power of large numbers of people in the streets and it seems natural that they would organize such an event in response to an ideological attack like this. 

And maybe also, after so many terrorist attacks and so many wars over the past 15 years, we've simply had enough.  We have fought and fought, we've compromised our own liberties and the liberties of others (looking at you, Guantanamo) trying to stamp out this terrorism, and people have decided that, after all, the pen is mightier than the gun or the bomb.  After all, this attack was different from the others.  It was not a bomb in a subway targeting any random civilians who happened to be there--it was a specific attack on journalists, and by extension, on freedom of speech.  What better response then, but to walk arm in arm down the street, to hold our pens in the air, and to proudly declare that we will not be cowed by such barbarity!

And yet...the more I think about the Charlie Hebdo situation, the more conflicted I feel. 

As I watched the live video of the march through Paris, I eagerly scanned the crowds for women wearing the Muslim head covering, and for people holding aloft the sign "Je suis musulman, Je suis Charlie"--or "I am Muslim, I am Charlie."  Now more than ever, I felt, it was important for Muslims to make their presence known, to show the world that they will not be represented by terrorists, that they, too, stand for free speech, and peace, and equality.  I knew that it would be all too easy for conservative and xenophobic groups like France's far right party, the National Front, to use this attack as another excuse to vilify and victimize Muslims.  It would be all too instinctively natural for people to fear and despise Islam because of yet another terrorist act such as this.  Now, more than ever, the world needed to see the faces of decent, normal Muslim people, standing together with everyone else. 

I saw many Jewish signs in the crowd.  Almost no Muslim ones. 

And the more I think about it, the more this does not surprise me. 

What does Charlie Hebdo stand for, really?  Many people openly admit, even now, that their cartoons are usually tasteless, at best--and downright racist, ignorant, and inflammatory at worst.  How can we expect a Muslim to go out there with a sign that reads "Je suis Charlie" when Charlie Hebdo repeatedly attacked them and their religion in smutty, bigoted, pointless ways for years?  And yes, Charlie Hebdo attacks all religions and all sorts of political figures, but that doesn't change the fact that they've clearly been targeting Islam more than any other religion, because it's the "hot-button topic" and the easiest way to provoke people.  Can we expect Muslims, then, no matter how awful they feel about these attacks, to cry out "Je suis Charlie!" without feeling that they are betraying their own dignity by doing so?

And is it really okay to go around, now, propagating the cartoons of Charlie Hebdo everywhere and donating hundreds of thousands of dollars to it (as Google just did, along with many French media groups).  Doesn't that just alienate our Muslim communities further?  Just because Charlie Hebdo was attacked, does that really mean that we need to take up their specific banner?  We must defend free speech, yes--but who's free speech are we defending, really?  As investigative journalist Glenn Greenwald points out, "It is self-evident that if a writer who specialized in overtly anti-black or anti-Semitic screeds had been murdered for their ideas, there would be no widespread calls to republish their trash in 'solidarity' with their free speech rights."

Teju Cole made the point bluntly in his article in The New Yorker: "The Charlie Hebdo cartoonists were not mere gadflies, not simple martyrs to the right to offend: they were ideologues. Just because one condemns their brutal murders doesn’t mean one must condone their ideology."

I teach at a French high school full of immigrants (or the children of immigrants) from Africa and the Middle East.  Most of my students are Muslim, and many of them have very mixed feelings about this whole situation.  Though they agree that the violence perpetrated against the journalists at Charlie Hebdo was deeply wrong, they did not feel that they could participate in the march, or even participate in the spirit of mourning that is going on throughout France.  They feel marginalized, they feel hurt and confused, and they have no desire to pay homage to a group that so cruelly slandered them and their beliefs.  Judging by this article in Le Monde, my students are not the only ones who feel this way. 

In the western world, Muslims are easily the most vilified, the most victimized, and the most misunderstood religious minority of our time.  Yes, there are an incredible number of terrorists acting in the name of Islam, and we cannot allow ourselves to bow to their demands, nor should we compromise our own values in order to fight them.  That means that Charlie Hebdo should be allowed to continue printing as they always have.  But do we really want to be Charlie?  Do we want to be so divisive, so narrow-minded, so puerile?  Is that not also a way playing into the hands of extremists? 

Or do we want to start asking ourselves the hard questions?

Joe Sacco, possibly the greatest of political cartoonists, is asking us to do exactly that.  




Sources of inspiration for this post: 

Unmournable Bodies by Teju Cole  - The New Yorker
A Saint-Denis, collégiens et lycéens ne sont pas tous « Charlie »  - Le Monde
In Solidarity With a Free Press: Some More Blasphemous Cartoons by Glenn Greenwald - The Intercept
I Am Not Charlie Hebdo by David Brooks - The New York Times
The American Absence in Paris  - The Atlantic

Book, Movie, & TV show Discoveries of 2014

Last year, just for the heck of it, I decided to start keeping a list of all the books I read, and movies & shows that I watched.  I included things that came out in 2014 and things that have many years behind them, and even ones that I was reading/watching for the 2nd, 3rd, 4th time....  Now that the new year has arrived, I thought it would be fun to look back and consider what were my favorite discoveries (and re-discoveries) of 2014. 

BOOKS

My favorite comic book/graphic novel of the year was definitely Joe Sacco's Safe Area Goražde--a powerful depiction of the war and genocide in Bosnia & Herzegovina from 1992-95.  It tells the stories of the Muslim residents in the small town of Goražde: a UN designated "safe area" which was anything but safe.  Just like Sacco's earlier graphic novel Palestine (which is what inspired me to volunteer in the West Bank a few years ago), Safe Area Goražde is beautifully drawn and tells a riveting and devastating account of the war through a deft combination of intimate, personal stories and cold, hard facts. 

My favorite short story/novella was The Cat Who Went to Heaven by Elizabeth Coatsworth.  It's a gorgeous retelling of a Buddhist folktale.  Simple and deeply touching--if you love cats, painting, or Japan, you should definitely give it a read. 

My top non-fiction discovery of the year was Bad Girls by Jan Stradling.  Telling the amazing stories of 22 kick-ass women from throughout history--queens, pirates, warriors, serial killers, and con artists--it's a really fun, interesting read.  Some of these women are already household names--like Cleopatra and Mata Hari--but there are plenty of others whose names you've never heard, and after reading their stories, you'll wonder why!

My favorite classic re-read of the year has to be a tie between The Great Gatsby by F. Scott Fitzgerald and Pride & Prejudice by Jane Austen.  I enjoyed Great Gatsby a whole lot more than I did when I had to read it in high school.  I think being an adult and having a deeper understanding of and appreciation for human behavior made a big difference--and also just being allowed to focus on the book as a story about people instead of having to talk on and on about symbolism probably helped.  -_-  Pride and Prejudice gets a mention just cause it's one of my all-time favorite books and becomes more and more so each time I read or watch it.  :-)


But my number one favorite book of the year was definitely The Hours by Michael Cunningham.

This is a really personal choice obviously.  I already love Mrs. Dalloway and this book is a take-off/homage to that novel.  But even though Cunningham is basically doing a modern retelling and exploration of this great literary landmark (he even mimics Woolf's style of writing), the resulting story is still very much his own, and it's powerful both as a stand-alone novel and as a companion to Mrs. Dalloway.  They're almost more real than real life, and they allow you to experience the world in another person's skin at a level few authors are able to achieve.


 

MOVIES

This was Wes Anderson and Quentin Tarantino year for me.  I always liked Tarantino movies, but the more I watch the more my admiration grows--though I think Pulp Fiction is still my favorite. 

As for Wes Anderson--how did I not know about this guy before?!  I saw The Grand Budapest Hotel in theaters early in the year, and I've been on an Anderson kick every since.   Moonrise Kingdom is a marvel, and one of my all-time favorites: simple--perfect--genius. 

My top cinematic experience of the year is a tie between a very new movie and a rather old one: Interstellar and The Princess Bride.   Interstellar--for all of it's little logical faults and typically Nolan-esque convoluted plot--was powerful in a surprisingly elemental and primaeval way for me.  That's the first time I've cried in a theater since Toy Story 3.  (Yes, I'm a bit of a sap--shut up).  :-P

The Princess Bride, I had the privilege of seeing at a special late-night showing at Riverview Theater in Minneapolis.  I was rather afraid that the audience would be full of people quoting along with the entire movie, but actually the only time that happened was when everyone spontaneously joined in with the Impressive Clergyman: "And wuv...twue wuv..."  :-D  Watching a movie with fans is so much fun. 

And...I finally saw Frozen.  I didn't mean to, but my friends were all going to watch it, and I was like, "Well, why not?"  I was pleasantly surprised.  I'd been very disinclined to see it since the music and what I'd heard about the plot didn't sound all that interesting--and maybe I was also turned off by all the hype--but it was pretty good.  Even the music was better in context.  As for all the hype, I think this video does a really good job of explaining it--and they point out a lot of things that I found interesting about the movie too: Why Were People & Critics So Infatuated With Frozen? | Idea Channel | PBS Digital Studios


TV SHOWS

Of course everyone was off their rockers this year about the new seasons of Sherlock, Downton Abbey, and Game of Thrones.  It was the first time that I've watched...practically anything...actually on TV in a long, long time.  I wasn't as crazy about this season of Sherlock as everyone else was though--in fact I had a lot of problems with it, not least of all the excessive mushiness into the which the plot sank like quicksand.  But I won't get into that.  Weis and Benioff almost spoiled an otherwise fantastic season of Game of Thrones with their disturbingly gratuitous rape scenes.  (Seriously, guys?  You don't think there's already enough misogynistic violence in the books?)  I could go into a long rant about why I think the changes they made are particularly creepy and damaging to the story, but I won't. 

My favorite new discoveries of the year though, were two (I think) relatively unknown shows called The United States of Tara and Moone Boy.  US of T is an American show that ran from 2009-2011 about a woman with multiple personality disorder and how she and her family try to cope with it.  To be honest, it's the sort of premise that I would normally roll my eyes at since TV has a tendency to make these things stupidly over-the-top--but the magic is in the details.  It's got wonderful, snappy dialog and winning characters (along with an award-winning performance by Toni Collette), and a lot of genuinely heart-felt moments.  Even if the portrayal of the mental disorder isn't accurate, I think the way they cope with it is. 

 

Moone Boy is a little comedic marvel.  It's mini-series about a little boy growing up in the west of Ireland in the late 80's, accompanied by a snarky, imaginary friend who gives him terrible advice.  The show is quirky and charming in all the best ways.  I'm looking forward to season three!

And okay, this is cheating cause I didn't see this until a couple days ago, but...whatever.  I am absolutely in love the mini-series Over the Garden Wall.  Broadcast on Cartoon Network in November of 2014, this children's/not-for-children cartoon miniseries is brilliant.  In every possible way.  With unforgettable characters, gorgeous animation, and a brilliant series of plots that mess with all your expectations, it's a tripped-out mash-up of Alice in Wonderland, Miyazaki, Huckleberry Finn, and good old-fashioned, scare-your-pants-off German style fairy tales.  It's absurd, profound, beautiful, creepy, joyous, and utterly mind-bending.  I've watched it twice in the last two days and I suspect I'll watch it again soon. 

BELGIUM!

BRUSSELS

Liz and I arrived in Brussels the day after Christmas.  We started off in our usual fashion by just wandering around the city until well after dark--past the art museums, through the Christmas market, and into the Grand Place, where just by chance, we happened to be right on time for the start of their epic light show.  The Grand Place is probably the most elegant, impressive square in Brussels (encircled by the City Hall, and many other ornate stone buildings).  The show lit up every building simultaneously, accompanied by dramatic music.  It very easily could’ve been cheesy, but it was actually pretty cool.  Just watching the light play over those ornate facades was awesome, and the music ranged from joyful opera choruses to some trippy, sinister, Tubular Bells kind of stuff. 

Welcome to the Christmas Market!

City Hall

The rest of Grand Place

We also found these rather odd/amusing/blasphemous things: