:
|
I think you're perhaps running it too far in the other direction, Mac. You say it's been proven that they're all a bunch of racist assholes, but is there any evidence, aside from the cartoons themselves, that the people murdered espoused such views?
|
:
|
Regardless, post some of those cartoons that aren't being re-published because I'd like to get a look at them. Perhaps looking at the context of these cartoons will make me see it your way.
|
It might seem like a cop out, but I genuinely have no interest in looking at or circulating those comics that I deem particularly offensive. That being said, here's a link to several I feel abuse the image of an extremist as a strawman stand-in for Muslims:
http://elderofziyon.blogspot.ca/2012...-cartoons.html
I'm not sure what the political angle of that blog is so if you dig deeper and find out the guy's a big crazy anti-semite leave me out of it.
Ah, here's the comic I keep talking about. The one with Mohammed's dick and balls hanging out and 'a star is born' inexplicably inscribed above. It's at the bottom of the page. Understand that on their own I feel like these are simply politically motivated cartoons, but the more that same rough image used to depict muslims is used the less unintentional the stereotyping feels.
The evidence that I'd cite for them encouraging such views were publishing Sine's piece in the first place and firing him after it became critically and perhaps commercially necessary to do so and avoid possible legal trouble. I draw the conclusion that though the majority of the people at Charlie Hebdo were unlikely bigoted and hateful, there were people in charge willing to accomodate a certain level of ignorance either for shock value or because they actually felt the same way.
linky
I'll be the first to admit to getting carried away with describing these people as worse than they clearly were, and I'll keep things a little less indulgently critical from here on out, but at the core of my arguments is the point that Charlie Hebdo used a generalized image of Islam to criticize Muslims in general, in a part of the world that allows free speech in such a way that such a crude and abrupt depiction should not have been necessary or be considered appropriate.
:
|
Charlie Hebdo seem like the type of people that aren't going to separate religion from the atrocities or social oppression that's committed in it's name in case they offend the man on the street. Sure, it's antagonistic. It's offensive to certain people. But I think jumping down the racist or xenophobic angle seems like an easy, knee-jerk reaction since they're being martyred by many people.
|
And I'd be inclined to agree with you if the popular perception of Muslims did not already seem to be seriously negatively slanted, especially in some parts of Europe. If their purpose was to satirize there's plenty of ways of doing so without repeatedly going back to the image of the scowling terroriste, which seems to be their calling card when it comes to depicting Muslims.
Were they calling for brownies to be lynched in the street? Obviously not. Were they regurgitating a harmful and inaccurate image that encouraged a culture already wary of a group of people to single out that group of people in a negative way, I think so. While I'm not french and never truly will be, I've been aware of the growing miconceptions about Islam and the air of ignorance that pervades its popular western critics for a few years, ever since a friend got really obsessed and I grew interested in it.