From me...
Read More
I’ve seen the “they aren’t racist” explanation of their most offensive cover, and it’s the same sort of intent=magic defense Dan Savage uses to defend his transphobia. I’m opposed to the “ironic” racism/sexism/homophobia/transphobia/bodyshaming/slutshaming/etc of people who are ostensibly anti-r/s/h/t/b/s/etc as much as I am opposed to the more full-blooded flavors of those prejudices coming from the kyriarchs. If someone allies themselves to members of oppressed races while making caricatures that could be reblogged by the KKK with zero modification, they are being a shit ally.
I am glad the terrorists are receiving near-universal and very passionate condemnation & from powerful quarters – they are the unequivocal villains, with no excuse or shred of legitimacy anywhere in their twisted world view. But I still can’t be Charlie. I hate that I have to say these things about them after they were made victims of a terrible crime, but we aren’t being given a choice about this – because Je suis Charlie was chosen as the rallying cry.
I have done bad things. If I was chopped to pieces by assholes on Wednesday, I’d say it’s legit for those I’ve wronged to express annoyance at mandatory praise for me on Thursday.
To which Salty responded,
“This is precisely what I’m talking about. I’m not arguing what you’re suggesting I am, which should be clear from the actual words in my blog post. I don’t know whether you’re not reading my words, refusing to acknowledge and engage with them, or just shutting down your critical faculties, but this is a bad approach. I hope that if you’re ever subjected to this sort of accusation, people treat you more fairly.”
To which I decided to take things over to blog posts. Because writing walls o text in comment sections is best avoided. So then Salty – I’m sure it’s possible I misconstrued your blog post and I’ll take another look, but it’s also possible I didn’t explain myself well enough, so I’ll break down my response to your excerpt a little further.
“What I am saying is that we owe ... Charlie Hebdo”
You and I might owe CH something, but I’d argue Nigerians, muslims, women, recipients of welfare, gays, and any number of other people that were mocked don’t owe them anything. I understand the comic was illustrating the point of view of their ideological opposites – “this is what racist right wingers believe, those creepy guys.” But it was also handing them something they could proudly own, and doing so in a social climate already brimming with hatred against immigrants, muslims, and women. (I’ve seen their cinema. Regardless of what they think, France is nearly as sexist as the USA – just in different flavors.)
A better example than Dan Savage would be The Onion’s joke about Quvenzhané. It was from a source well known for saying things they don’t believe in as a way of ridiculing them, like the Colbert Report. I got the joke, could have gone all day thinking it was funny. But it came in a climate of racism, sexualization of black girls, and other social forces that made it hit oppressed people badly.
And why did they think that was fine? They were racially privileged to not notice how the joke would come off – indeed, so racially privileged they could have ignored the outcry, let racists carry the day, and stroll into the sunset. They did the right thing and apologized. From what I can tell, CH did receive this kind of criticism and strolled with it – trusted their stated intent to smooth it over, or disregarded it because it was lost in a blur with less reasonable statements from islamists.
“an approach based on fairness ... attempt to understand ... learn more ... context”
I don’t need to do a graduate thesis to see how this sort of thing could rub the oppressed the wrong way. Think about this: I’m an outsider to France, but then, so are Nigerian and muslim immigrants. I can understand the comics as well as they can, and it wouldn’t have been hard for the creators of them to know they’re welcoming strangers with a brick to the face.
The only context I’ve seen to defend this is some stuff about French culture and its relationship with satire. Again, people raised in French culture aren’t the only people in France, and even those who were raised there may have been marginalized enough to where they’d still feel some pain off of that.
“resist the tendency to jump to conclusions”
It isn’t just a jumped-to conclusion to perceive racism here. It’s a valid perspective because racism isn’t about intent – it’s about perception. You can do something racist without intending, knowing, or caring. An example from my own file of wrongdoings:
I was tired and approached a black coworker. I mistakenly called him by the name of another black coworker, probably because there are only two people who ever work that position and I’m usually far from it, other things. I knew the difference between them well. But I joked at myself, putting on a fake redneck accent, “I guess u fellers all look the same ta me, hyuk.”
By which I meant, hey, I’m a jackass. But it wasn’t interpreted that way. He got very angry. That was a legitimate reaction. The man I offended was one of my very favorite coworkers, a good guy coming up from rough circumstances, someone I felt like I could relate to in so many ways, and the fact I would do my best to defend him from any racism I could see – none of this was relevant.
“I think that’s what we’d all hope for ourselves.”
I also think many of us would hope that if we were doing something wrong, people would let us know. On the flip side, I know that when I’m dead I’m done and I’ll never care about anything ever again, so while I’d rather no one pissed on my grave, it can’t confront me too much either.
Like the victims of 9-11, the legacy of these people will empower the right wing, the racist, the militaristic, and so on. There’s nothing that could have been done about that, the bloodthirsty will have their way when blood is spilled. But unlike the victims of 9-11, CH left behind some other gifts to the right.
From what I can remember of you, I think we’re in agreement about a lot of things in life. This disagreement could be misunderstanding, or it could be a place where our perceptions diverge even if our principles don’t. Or maybe we do have different values with regard to respecting the dead. I don’t know.
And I do know that FtB has one Nigerian woman in the roster and she has stated she is not offended by the cartoons. She can decide that for herself and it carries more weight than anything you or I say. But look at who is praising her for that stance in the comments. That says something as well.
I’ll give your blog post another look and see if there’s anything I missed.
...The major point I’ve been making for the past several days: that I hate the approach that many people with basically good motives seem to be taking, which consists of a hostile... attitude ... assuming the worst, ... on the basis of ... biased reports ... half-listening ... minimizing or dismissing evidence that contradicts ... the original impression.
I agree with the point on one level, but members of oppressed groups shouldn’t be obligated to read twenty issues of CH to decide if they’re racist. It’s actually a Courtier’s Reply to expect that. Nonetheless, I have seen a lot of bullshit from both sides, as you note. I hope to not come off that way, but I think it’s ridiculous to expect someone to learn French in order to say something about this.
Skipping ahead at your asterisk:
“...not evidence of negligent racism. The evidence is overwhelming that they weren’t negligent in this case, but very thoughtful and careful (to make clear they dislike racism).”
That’s all well and good, but they painted themselves into that corner where all they could do is double down while saying “we ain’t racist.”
Come to the USA, if I started out making comics about sambos to satirize the views of racists and racists started using my images in racist literature, what should I do about it? I’d argue CH went the wrong route. They could have found a way to criticize islam and sacred cows without using the images they chose. And they could have stopped without seeming like they were capitulating, by making their stance clear with big boldface words like “Fuck God whatever you call him” on a cover instead of dark skinned monkeys in burqas.
And doubling back to the article,
“callous and disrespectful toward people who were killed for defending blasphemy and who stood for many of the same leftwing values as those attacking them”
This is an argument I will grant you even as I disagree with it. You and I do have different values with respect to the dead. I’ve always been a man apart from society, not sure why. Maybe because I was the new kid every year through elementary school so I never made friends. Doesn’t bother me or matter, but what it does mean is that I am often unsentimental about things that other people care very deeply about.
For example abortion – I wouldn’t mind having been aborted, because I know I never would have come to be a thing capable of minding. The barely sentient thing that could have been me would experience some pain maybe and then its problems would have been over. Now that I am me, I don’t want to die. But I still recognize that once I die, I will be incapable of being bothered by the fact, or anything that has been or will be said about me ever again.
Now is it callous and disrespectful to the survivors of those dead? Perhaps. I’m not going to make these arguments to their faces unless they force me to it. But you have to be careful how you allocate your sympathy and respect. A lot of people who could have tried to stop the war in Iraq let themselves be silenced to respect the dead of 9-11.
“Be especially scrupulous when characterizing people ...I think we’d all hope that this would be the approach taken to evaluating our own public statements.”
I definitely agree with that to an extent. I’ve been mischaracterized to my face in comment sections sometimes. It doesn’t feel great. But I’m not sure it applies here. That said, if I die having done ten thousand good things and one shitty thing, 75% of the world says “respect GAS so cool a guy” and 25% says “ehh, sucks that he’s dead, but there was that thing...” it doesn’t matter to me because A) I’m dead and B) There was that thing...
I don’t have a bow to put on this, it’s stream of consciousness. But I do want to hit one note with more emphasis: The French culture of satire. Why do we have to respect this? We freely allow that some aspects of some cultures are bad things that need to change. Aspects of French satire are no doubt great, but that doesn’t mean it’s 100% beyond reproach.
Nor would its own ethics want it be, unless I’m mistaken. I’m outside. And so I don’t think I’ll have much more to say after this. We’ll see.
-
Comments