I was writing a longish reply last night, Mac, but the internet cut out and it went away with the wind. So I went to bed. The short of of it was to do with context being the most important thing, is that I think Charlie Hebdo is against Islam and religion rather than anti-Muslim, that their focus is not the man on the street but the man who idolises Muhammed and resorts to violence if his image is ever depicted, and, unfortunately for the average Muslim, they too are Muslim - and like people like Christopher Hitchens or Richard Dawkins their approach seems to be anti-theism rather than separating the terrorist from his religion on focusing on that aspect.
Unfortunately there are those who will use it as fuel to their discriminatory fire but perhaps Charlie Hebdo are the type of mag that don't feel the need to make a clear distinction in their cartoons. Perhaps they expect their readers to understand what type of Muslim they're satirising and, if they're really a left-wing anarchistic magazine, don't care for the opinion of any xenophobic readers they may have out there. The monkey cartoon, to me, would seem a prime example of this.
In the case of the anti-semite it's hard to say what went on internally and I wouldn't be quick to make any assumptions. It may come out that some of the cartoonists were actually racists at heart and I'llbe the first to throw my hands in the air - even if I still think some of these cartoons are concerned with making a social or political statement rather than spreading further xenophobia.
Also, just as a little aside, is prejudice and discrimination of Muslims actually racism? I'm pretty sure it doesn't concern their actual race but their culture or religion. It's not the same as saying "all these Muslims have massive teeth because they're not white". I'm actually curious about the distinction. Or whether the term, racism, has really evolved beyond race.
|