One PR puff piece does not excuse 22 years of this:
http://images.dailykos.com/images/12...png?1420739736
image being used to 'satirize' Islam. I give, they demonstrate an understanding that what the extremists stand for is not what Mohammed/Islam stands for in that cover, I just haven't seen any evidence they've moved beyond the 'Well
most Muslims support the extremists' mindset.
They can claim to have blown Lord Xenu out of the sky for all I care, the evidence that they scapegoated Muslims on a social level is absolutely still there. They took a group of people, currently marginalized due to their beliefs (and conceivably because of the part of the world they immigrated from), and played on that negative image to promote a perception that what they think and do is wrong and 'unfrench'.
Ignorant.
France, or more accurately what I can ascertain of modern French society does not seem to have a lot of respect for religion. It's a secular society that exists in a vacuum of its own freedom-of-expression allowances conflicting with the gentrifying advocates of those same freedoms. One is free to express their ire for a religion in France, but one is not allowed to dress their children in the symbols or accoutrements that are part of their religious ritual.
That seems backwards to me. Tell me, could a culture that banned the wearing of religious icons (IE a crucifix necklace, Hindu T-shirt, or Religiously-obligated Turban) be considered above ignoring the growing social dissaray to cloud an issue into simply being about 'free speech' rather than having the conversation 'Did what these people publish constitute extreme abuse of free speech?'.
The thing is, getting back to the point at the start of this issue, Is it solidarity in evidence that they scoff at the very people supporting them or is it the same patent, idiotic disrespect that leads me to believe they are ignorant and hateful? Charlie Hebdo doesn't give a shit about 'Je Suis Charlie' because they themselves know it's a backwards and incomplete picture of who they are and what they do. They themselves seem to acknowledge the fundamental ignorance the social media rabble have by not appreciating Charlie Hebdo as a two sided coin; 1) Is what people want to celebrate: They expressed their criticism however they wanted. 2) They did so in a way that deliberately offended and marginalized Muslims already caught in the cycle of ignorance. Christians aren't being misunderstood and attacked in the streets, Buddhists aren't being called to answer for the extreme peacefulness exhibited by adherents to their faith.
So why then does it seem like nothing really happened here? Some men were killed, and I'm not trying to imply that doesn't matter, but there's no wellspring of understanding emerging. People are just blatantly in support of what Charlie Hebdo published because they got attacked, and that's fucking stupid.
I'm not saying they were exclusively Islamophobic. I'm sure there were plenty of other Ideological strawmen published within the pages of Charlie Hebdo. But I think that using this as an opportunity to address the growing misconceptions about muslims is a lot more legitimate than saying 'They were bad, but they weren't
that bad.' or more harmfully 'It's okay they treated all groups this disrespectfully and carelessly'.
Important edit: I think we've reached the point where the facts are on the table and peoples opinions and conjecture are taking over, especially mine. I exhibit some pretty extreme opinions on things, and I was definitely wrong to go whole-hog and label Charlie Hebdo as racist because that label was, by my own admission, easier than explaining what I meant by it. This is ironically a situation where my own extreme interpretation of things may have clouded it for other people. I think that what Charlie Hebdo published as far as cartoons about Islam was Inappropriate, or simply inopportune, given a climate of distrust and misinformation pertaining to Muslims. I don't think they were trying to get anyone deported, or motivating people to attack Muslims in the street, nothing like that. I think they played up the model of Muslim people as 'unreasonable and unwilling to change' when French law already encourages them to indulge their religious practices and rituals differently. By their very presence in France they
are change, but Charlie Hebdo singled them out regardless. This forces them (Muslims) to accept and do things differently than their interpretation of the Qur'an allows, but to continually poke fun at them and lampoon their prophet during a period where they're finding their own identity within French culture is detrimental and, to indulge myself a little, hideously short-sighted and
mean. I am however approaching this issue shortly after a tragic, violent thing that might represent more to other people than my negative associations with the subject of that attack, and could see why this seems frivolous by comparison, so perhaps I'll leave it for a later time from here on out.