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."
Now comes the rather embarrassing part where I have to admit that I've never actually read an issue of Charlie Hebdo--all I've had to go on are the pieces of it that I've been able to scrounge up online and numerous articles that people are writing or have written about it. So I personally cannot comment on which point of view is more accurate. I wanted to buy the new edition that came out yesterday morning (they printed a million copies in France alone!) but when I arrived at the newsstand I was greeted by a sign that said, "Charlie Hebdo sold out by 6:45am--yes, really!"
However, yet another (and very compelling) article was brought to my attention, written in December of 2013 by Olivier Cyran, a former member of the Charlie Hebdo staff, who specifically traces the trends of Charlie's publication content over the years. (*to read it in the original French, click here) He claims that Charlie Hebdo used to be of a very different character, and that, in the wake of September 11th, the magazine gradually became more and more crass and Islamophobic. In a public letter to Charb and Fabrice Nicolino he said, "the Islamophobic neurosis which bit by bit took over your pages from that day on affected me personally, as it ruined the memory of the good moments I spent on the magazine during the 1990s."
I feel it's important for me to post this because I want to make it clear that there is actually debate over what the contents and intentions of Charlie Hebdo are and have been. In any case, I am not personally in a position to point the finger and call them overt racists. I can only tell you what others have said. However, it is not the written contents alone that matter--it's how people perceive them and what people make of them. It remains a fact that, especially among Muslims, this magazine is perceived as being extremely racist and Islamophobic, and that it therefore remains difficult for most Muslims to stand in solidarity with others who invoke the name of Charlie Hebdo.
We must also remember the question that Joe Sacco asked: what is it about Muslims in this time and place that makes them unable to laugh off a mere image? I maintain that Muslims are currently the most persecuted religious group in the Western world and to wantonly reinforce the already too-plentiful negative associations with Islam is immoral and grievously irresponsible. Yes, Charlie can publish whatever they want, and this tragic event has certainly jump-started the dialog on some very important issues. But it's our job now to take the dialog in a constructive and thoughtful direction. We need to take it upon ourselves to learn as much as we can from this event, so that we can prevent it from happening again.
And yes, it is up to us as individuals--NOT the government--to change our society. Governments are best equipped to protect us from large threats, i.e. large organizations such as Al-Qaeda. But successful terrorist attacks in our countries nowadays have less and less to do with the elaborate plots of terrorist organizations and more to do with mentally unstable, isolated individuals falling under the sway of violent and fanatical ideas. The government can't possibly weave a net tight enough to catch every crazy fish out there, and we don't want them to, because we then we would all be caught in that net. We cannot, should not censor the propagation of ideas. (Wasn't the march last Sunday allegedly in defense of free speech? Though the recent arrest of controversial comedian Dieudonné would indicate otherwise!) But we can provide more help for the mentally unstable, the trapped, and the underprivileged.
As Olivier Tonneau pointed out in the latter part of his article in defense of Charlie Hebdo (for me these were the most interesting things he said):
"Let us be clear: fundamentalism is not caused by immigration from Muslim countries. It is very easy to demonstrate this: Muslims migrated in France as early as the 1950s and the issue of fundamentalism only arose in the last fifteen years. Moreover, among the young men who enlist to fight for Daesh, many are actually disenfranchised white youth with no familial links to Islam. Fundamentalism is something new, that exercises a fascination on disenfranchised French youth in general – not on Muslims in general. In fact, the older generation of French Muslims is terrified by the phenomenon. After the killing of Charlie Hebdo, Imams demanded that the government take action against websites and networks propagating fanaticism."This is not a "Muslim problem"--this is a the problem of our era. This is the result of a deeply complex series of historical and cultural webs that have come together at this point. If we want to unravel this knot, we have to do our best to understand how we got here, and where we hope to go.
I'd like to finish by quoting the same friend who disagreed with some of what I said:
"Les musulmans n'ont rien à prouver après les attentats de la semaine dernière. Par contre, les citoyens ont tout à prouver. Je suis tenté de conclure par un slogan que j'aimerais voir plus souvent opposé à l’extrême droite: la France, aimez la, ou changez la. Par la parole, et uniquement la parole."Here's my translation:
"Muslims have nothing to prove after the attacks of last week. On the other hand, the citizens [of France] have everything to prove. I'm tempted to conclude with a slogan that I'd like to see used more often in opposition to the far right: France, love it, or change it. With words, and only with words."
Sources of inspiration for this post:
On Charlie Hebdo: A letter to my British friends by Olivier Tonneau - Mediapart
(I highly recommend reading his analysis in the latter part of the article on why it is that this generation is particular is falling into fundamentalism)
Charlie Hebdo - pas raciste ? Si vous le dites... by Olivier Cyran
Charlie Hebdo - not racist? If you say so... by Olivier Cyran (English translation by Daphne Lawless)
Facebook, and the intelligent friends I have there. :-)
No comments:
Post a Comment