Forced to be “Charlie”
February 18, 2015 5:41 AM Subscribe
“When a kid tells you he’s not ‘Charlie’, he’s not saying ‘I’ll kill everybody in two months time’, he’s trying to say something in his own vocabulary, in the space where he is at. We have to stop looking at this with adult eyes”, says Truong.Valeria Costa-Kostritsky looks at the challenges teachers and pupils face in France, a month after the Charlie Hebdo massacre.
What started out as a simple expression of togetherness has been coopted
Well we can't say we didn't see it coming - it happened within hours. Anytime you see Cameron, Sarkozy and Netanyahu jostling for position behind a hashtag slogan, you know that's toxic stuff right there.
posted by colie at 7:26 AM on February 18, 2015 [19 favorites]
Well we can't say we didn't see it coming - it happened within hours. Anytime you see Cameron, Sarkozy and Netanyahu jostling for position behind a hashtag slogan, you know that's toxic stuff right there.
posted by colie at 7:26 AM on February 18, 2015 [19 favorites]
What started out as a simple expression of togetherness has been coopted
Was it just a " simple expression of togetherness"? I think it was meant as an expression of support for certain core values, like freedom of speech and secularism. Without some values behind that expression, what are we "together" on, exactly?
posted by spaltavian at 7:30 AM on February 18, 2015 [7 favorites]
Was it just a " simple expression of togetherness"? I think it was meant as an expression of support for certain core values, like freedom of speech and secularism. Without some values behind that expression, what are we "together" on, exactly?
posted by spaltavian at 7:30 AM on February 18, 2015 [7 favorites]
That was days later, though, not hours. Sure we all knew it would be coopted to an extent, but to this extent? With so little reflection? With focus on the politicians rather than the marchers? I was at Gare du Nord, there were people from all walks of life. Instead the media showed seas of white faces. I remember a France in which Le Pen was called racist to his face on live TV by well-respected journalists, and where Sarkozy was roundly criticized for his own racist remarks. There has been no such balance lately.
Was it just a " simple expression of togetherness"? I think it was meant as an expression of support for certain core values, like freedom of speech and secularism. Without some values behind that expression, what are we "together" on, exactly?
Yep, originally it was. The freedom of speech and secularism were tacked on later.
We were together against people being shot in cold blood.
posted by fraula at 7:32 AM on February 18, 2015 [10 favorites]
Was it just a " simple expression of togetherness"? I think it was meant as an expression of support for certain core values, like freedom of speech and secularism. Without some values behind that expression, what are we "together" on, exactly?
Yep, originally it was. The freedom of speech and secularism were tacked on later.
We were together against people being shot in cold blood.
posted by fraula at 7:32 AM on February 18, 2015 [10 favorites]
A lot of this is just because kids are excited by the idea of violence and destruction anyway. Bart Simpson would have settled for Al Qaeda blowing up his school if he was sure they could deliver on the deal.
posted by colie at 7:38 AM on February 18, 2015 [7 favorites]
posted by colie at 7:38 AM on February 18, 2015 [7 favorites]
Yep, originally it was. The freedom of speech and secularism were tacked on later.
It sounds like it was actually given some substance, then.
posted by spaltavian at 7:45 AM on February 18, 2015 [3 favorites]
It sounds like it was actually given some substance, then.
posted by spaltavian at 7:45 AM on February 18, 2015 [3 favorites]
We have to stop looking at this with adult eyes
The many adults who say they are not Charlie aren't likely to be planning violent acts either. No wonder the kids are so distraught if the adults around them think they're being wise and generous and "adult" when they assign the role of terrorist to anyone who refused to say je suis Charlie - unless they're under 18.
posted by congen at 7:47 AM on February 18, 2015 [2 favorites]
The many adults who say they are not Charlie aren't likely to be planning violent acts either. No wonder the kids are so distraught if the adults around them think they're being wise and generous and "adult" when they assign the role of terrorist to anyone who refused to say je suis Charlie - unless they're under 18.
posted by congen at 7:47 AM on February 18, 2015 [2 favorites]
It sounds like it was actually given some substance, then.
No, there is substance to "We oppose killing people in cold blood for any reason," that is separate from a belief in free speech and secularism as government policy. Many people may be with you on the first meaning but not so much on the second, especially when talking more specifically about speech that some perceived as racist or blasphemous.
posted by Drinky Die at 8:01 AM on February 18, 2015 [17 favorites]
No, there is substance to "We oppose killing people in cold blood for any reason," that is separate from a belief in free speech and secularism as government policy. Many people may be with you on the first meaning but not so much on the second, especially when talking more specifically about speech that some perceived as racist or blasphemous.
posted by Drinky Die at 8:01 AM on February 18, 2015 [17 favorites]
I think it was meant as an expression of support for certain core values, like freedom of speech and secularism.
The irony, it burns. "You must say this slogan to prove your support for free speech." Not to mention the inherent contradiction between secularism and "freedom" of speech.
posted by straight at 8:07 AM on February 18, 2015 [11 favorites]
The irony, it burns. "You must say this slogan to prove your support for free speech." Not to mention the inherent contradiction between secularism and "freedom" of speech.
posted by straight at 8:07 AM on February 18, 2015 [11 favorites]
The hashtag was coined by an artist named Joachim Roncin. He's not very happy with how it's been used.
posted by topynate at 8:15 AM on February 18, 2015 [4 favorites]
posted by topynate at 8:15 AM on February 18, 2015 [4 favorites]
...inherent contradiction between secularism and "freedom" of speech.
What inherent contradiction would you be speaking of?
posted by surazal at 8:17 AM on February 18, 2015 [6 favorites]
What inherent contradiction would you be speaking of?
posted by surazal at 8:17 AM on February 18, 2015 [6 favorites]
Secularism is the separation of church and state. It has nothing to do with freedom of speech. Have you misunderstood the word or are you saying that the separation of the two inhibits freedom of speech in some way?
posted by trif at 8:26 AM on February 18, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by trif at 8:26 AM on February 18, 2015 [3 favorites]
> Not to mention the inherent contradiction between secularism and "freedom" of speech.
How so? The law stops proselitizing in public buildings, with a few other bits applicable outside of them like 'no niqab'. This is as much freedom as being free to preach everywhere, since some is taken away from believers in large or militant religions, and some is given to believers in smaller or more discrete ones, who don't have to deal with discrimination. In theory, of course, but in the West freedom of speech laws are mostly theory, the practice is going to be determined by social attitudes.
posted by Spanner Nic at 8:28 AM on February 18, 2015 [1 favorite]
How so? The law stops proselitizing in public buildings, with a few other bits applicable outside of them like 'no niqab'. This is as much freedom as being free to preach everywhere, since some is taken away from believers in large or militant religions, and some is given to believers in smaller or more discrete ones, who don't have to deal with discrimination. In theory, of course, but in the West freedom of speech laws are mostly theory, the practice is going to be determined by social attitudes.
posted by Spanner Nic at 8:28 AM on February 18, 2015 [1 favorite]
The irony, it burns. "You must say this slogan to prove your support for free speech."
This is stupid. I could just as easily turn fraula's formulation on it's head and say "you must say this slogan to prove your support for not shooting people in cold blood". Neither of these idiotic, twisted meanings is what either of us meant, and that is obvious. Try harder.
Not to mention the inherent contradiction between secularism and "freedom" of speech.
We're not mentioning it because it doesn't exist.
posted by spaltavian at 8:29 AM on February 18, 2015 [4 favorites]
This is stupid. I could just as easily turn fraula's formulation on it's head and say "you must say this slogan to prove your support for not shooting people in cold blood". Neither of these idiotic, twisted meanings is what either of us meant, and that is obvious. Try harder.
Not to mention the inherent contradiction between secularism and "freedom" of speech.
We're not mentioning it because it doesn't exist.
posted by spaltavian at 8:29 AM on February 18, 2015 [4 favorites]
I expect the French state will step up to pay the legal costs of protecting the 'Je suis Charlie' trademark, like they paid for the last print run of Charlie Hebdo for some reason, making it essentially an official department of the government. The slogan itself is a perfectly-judged meaningless expression of bourgeois individualism dressed up as political awareness.
posted by colie at 8:30 AM on February 18, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by colie at 8:30 AM on February 18, 2015 [2 favorites]
Drinky Die: No, there is substance to "We oppose killing people in cold blood for any reason,"
Anyone who isn't already with you on that really couldn't care less how many people are saying it. And plenty of people who didn't like Charlie Hebdo certainly also oppose murder. If you are against assassinations but think Charlie was racist, in what way are you Charlie? It's just a feel-good buzzword without a deeper meaning; and indeed, becomes the same sort of Catch-22 "liberty oath" people fear it has become now. Only in this way, it still reduces the issue to something that can't be nuanced.
posted by spaltavian at 8:35 AM on February 18, 2015 [3 favorites]
Anyone who isn't already with you on that really couldn't care less how many people are saying it. And plenty of people who didn't like Charlie Hebdo certainly also oppose murder. If you are against assassinations but think Charlie was racist, in what way are you Charlie? It's just a feel-good buzzword without a deeper meaning; and indeed, becomes the same sort of Catch-22 "liberty oath" people fear it has become now. Only in this way, it still reduces the issue to something that can't be nuanced.
posted by spaltavian at 8:35 AM on February 18, 2015 [3 favorites]
«Je suis Charlie» is just the new "If you're not with us, you're against us." As much as its proponents might like to think it's an inclusive and tolerant message, it absolutely isn't. If there's a je, there's a tu, and drawing a stark line between the two is the exact opposite of what needs to be happening. It's fighting sectarianism with sectarianism, and it's not going to improve anything for anyone. Creating starker divisions is the goal of the terrorists; if more people are convinced there are two sides, there's a better chance some will take theirs.
Leave the us-vs.-them narrative in the terrorists' imaginations. Diminish it by creating a respectful, friendly, and harmonious dialogue with their community and others like it, with the honest aim of mutual understanding and the elimination of prejudice, alienation, and disenfranchisement. And here's the kicker -- discourage (in a non-murdery way) speech that does the opposite.
posted by Sys Rq at 8:35 AM on February 18, 2015 [28 favorites]
Leave the us-vs.-them narrative in the terrorists' imaginations. Diminish it by creating a respectful, friendly, and harmonious dialogue with their community and others like it, with the honest aim of mutual understanding and the elimination of prejudice, alienation, and disenfranchisement. And here's the kicker -- discourage (in a non-murdery way) speech that does the opposite.
posted by Sys Rq at 8:35 AM on February 18, 2015 [28 favorites]
'Je suis Charlie' has nothing to do with them vs us, not any more than 'I am Spartacus'.
posted by Spanner Nic at 8:39 AM on February 18, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by Spanner Nic at 8:39 AM on February 18, 2015 [2 favorites]
'Je suis Charlie' has nothing to do with them vs us, not any more than 'I am Spartacus'.
Except that it does. As people have pointed out, what if you are against killing someone for their speech, but are also against what that speech contained?
posted by NoxAeternum at 8:43 AM on February 18, 2015 [4 favorites]
Except that it does. As people have pointed out, what if you are against killing someone for their speech, but are also against what that speech contained?
posted by NoxAeternum at 8:43 AM on February 18, 2015 [4 favorites]
How so? The law stops proselitizing in public buildings, with a few other bits applicable outside of them like 'no niqab'. This is as much freedom as being free to preach everywhere, since some is taken away from believers in large or militant religions, and some is given to believers in smaller or more discrete ones, who don't have to deal with discrimination. In theory, of course, but in the West freedom of speech laws are mostly theory, the practice is going to be determined by social attitudes.
Anatole France made a pretty good point about the inherent unjustness of this attitude.
posted by NoxAeternum at 8:45 AM on February 18, 2015 [3 favorites]
Anatole France made a pretty good point about the inherent unjustness of this attitude.
posted by NoxAeternum at 8:45 AM on February 18, 2015 [3 favorites]
'Je suis Charlie' has nothing to do with them vs us, not any more than 'I am Spartacus'.
It's very different for those kids and other people in France wouldn't say "Je Suis Charlie". It's very different if you're a minority who is repeatedly asked to condemn acts committed by radicals in your faith. If you don't say it or don't agree or question it, then the climate very much becomes us vs them.
posted by Kitteh at 8:46 AM on February 18, 2015 [17 favorites]
It's very different for those kids and other people in France wouldn't say "Je Suis Charlie". It's very different if you're a minority who is repeatedly asked to condemn acts committed by radicals in your faith. If you don't say it or don't agree or question it, then the climate very much becomes us vs them.
posted by Kitteh at 8:46 AM on February 18, 2015 [17 favorites]
'Je suis Charlie' has nothing to do with them vs us, not any more than 'I am Spartacus'.
Um... You know Spartacus was the leader of an uprising of an opressed underclass against the dominant Roman Republic, right? If you must draw that analogy (which I wouldn't, because it plays to the wrong side), «Je suis Charlie» is more akin to "I'm Caesar."
posted by Sys Rq at 8:52 AM on February 18, 2015 [6 favorites]
Um... You know Spartacus was the leader of an uprising of an opressed underclass against the dominant Roman Republic, right? If you must draw that analogy (which I wouldn't, because it plays to the wrong side), «Je suis Charlie» is more akin to "I'm Caesar."
posted by Sys Rq at 8:52 AM on February 18, 2015 [6 favorites]
Anyone who isn't already with you on that really couldn't care less how many people are saying it
So what? People condemn terrorist attacks all the time even though they know Al Qaeda isn't gonna go..."Oh well looks like a lot of people didn't like this, we should stop!"
posted by Drinky Die at 9:03 AM on February 18, 2015 [1 favorite]
So what? People condemn terrorist attacks all the time even though they know Al Qaeda isn't gonna go..."Oh well looks like a lot of people didn't like this, we should stop!"
posted by Drinky Die at 9:03 AM on February 18, 2015 [1 favorite]
«Je suis Charlie» is more akin to "I'm Caesar."
Suggesting that people who have been murdered in cold blood are powerful rulers is more than a little tacky. Unless you wish to suggest that their killers were Brutus, fighting for freedom? Which is both tacky and stupid.
posted by ThatFuzzyBastard at 9:03 AM on February 18, 2015 [5 favorites]
Suggesting that people who have been murdered in cold blood are powerful rulers is more than a little tacky. Unless you wish to suggest that their killers were Brutus, fighting for freedom? Which is both tacky and stupid.
posted by ThatFuzzyBastard at 9:03 AM on February 18, 2015 [5 favorites]
Yes, by all means, ignore the part where I explicitly stated I would not draw that analogy because yuck.
(It's a bad analogy. It does not work any which way.)
posted by Sys Rq at 9:06 AM on February 18, 2015 [2 favorites]
(It's a bad analogy. It does not work any which way.)
posted by Sys Rq at 9:06 AM on February 18, 2015 [2 favorites]
I had assumed that "Je suis Charlie" was less about whether or not you supported or even liked Charlie Hebdo, and a lot more about acknowledging that we all do something that could be considered heresy in another culture. We're not literally Charlie, but we're all in a position where we could be the next Charlie.
Sort of like the Niemöller quote about "First they came..."
Yeah, the terrorists are a radical fringe rather than an oppressive state, but it still seems relevant to stand up for values important to the French.
posted by explosion at 9:07 AM on February 18, 2015 [6 favorites]
Sort of like the Niemöller quote about "First they came..."
Yeah, the terrorists are a radical fringe rather than an oppressive state, but it still seems relevant to stand up for values important to the French.
posted by explosion at 9:07 AM on February 18, 2015 [6 favorites]
it still seems relevant to stand up for values important to the French.
The whole point of the issue, and this thread, is that there is no such thing as 'the French.' Just seems like a lot of privileged people who live there don't get this.
posted by colie at 9:13 AM on February 18, 2015 [5 favorites]
The whole point of the issue, and this thread, is that there is no such thing as 'the French.' Just seems like a lot of privileged people who live there don't get this.
posted by colie at 9:13 AM on February 18, 2015 [5 favorites]
Fascism finds every nook and cranny, and it's favorite hiding places are false dichotomies.
posted by Navelgazer at 9:14 AM on February 18, 2015 [4 favorites]
posted by Navelgazer at 9:14 AM on February 18, 2015 [4 favorites]
Anyone who isn't already with you on that really couldn't care less how many people are saying it
So what? People condemn terrorist attacks all the time
As a perfunctory, route way so everyone can focus on the actually issue. Remember the the presidential debate where Romney tried to filibuster on whether Obama said Benghazi was a terrorist act within mandated timeframe? Was that worthwhile? If "I am Charlie" just means "killing people is bad", then's it's just another perfunctory ritual that exists solely so that if you don't do it perfectly, you can be ignored by those who trade in bad faith rhetoric.
If the term originally was just fluff, and later free speech and secularism were tacked on, then good, because there are debates worth having there. The fear that this is what lead to be co-opted is mistaken; everything will be co-opted. It's better to at least have the chance to debate what secularism means in today's France than to solely add another shibboleth to the collective consciousness.
posted by spaltavian at 9:17 AM on February 18, 2015 [2 favorites]
So what? People condemn terrorist attacks all the time
As a perfunctory, route way so everyone can focus on the actually issue. Remember the the presidential debate where Romney tried to filibuster on whether Obama said Benghazi was a terrorist act within mandated timeframe? Was that worthwhile? If "I am Charlie" just means "killing people is bad", then's it's just another perfunctory ritual that exists solely so that if you don't do it perfectly, you can be ignored by those who trade in bad faith rhetoric.
If the term originally was just fluff, and later free speech and secularism were tacked on, then good, because there are debates worth having there. The fear that this is what lead to be co-opted is mistaken; everything will be co-opted. It's better to at least have the chance to debate what secularism means in today's France than to solely add another shibboleth to the collective consciousness.
posted by spaltavian at 9:17 AM on February 18, 2015 [2 favorites]
Yeah, the terrorists are a radical fringe rather than an oppressive state, but it still seems relevant to stand up for values important to the French.
I don't think laicite should be stood up for. (And to head off the inevitable argument, laicite and secularism are not synonyms.) The idea of an aggressive secularism that delegitimizes public expression and identification of faith is very easily turned into a tool to discriminate against people of other faiths - as the history of France illustrates.
posted by NoxAeternum at 9:18 AM on February 18, 2015 [11 favorites]
I don't think laicite should be stood up for. (And to head off the inevitable argument, laicite and secularism are not synonyms.) The idea of an aggressive secularism that delegitimizes public expression and identification of faith is very easily turned into a tool to discriminate against people of other faiths - as the history of France illustrates.
posted by NoxAeternum at 9:18 AM on February 18, 2015 [11 favorites]
but it still seems relevant to stand up for values important to the French.
Which French? The secular ones? The religious ones if that religion is Christianity?
France has a long and pretty ugly history (not that they are all that unique in this) of, what shall we call it. Chauvinism. Some people will always be insufficiently French, no matter how many generations of born-and-raised they come from. Are their values not "French"?
posted by rtha at 9:19 AM on February 18, 2015 [12 favorites]
Which French? The secular ones? The religious ones if that religion is Christianity?
France has a long and pretty ugly history (not that they are all that unique in this) of, what shall we call it. Chauvinism. Some people will always be insufficiently French, no matter how many generations of born-and-raised they come from. Are their values not "French"?
posted by rtha at 9:19 AM on February 18, 2015 [12 favorites]
There was a long but interesting Richard Seymour blog post: How France Makes Jihadis:
Free speech must be defended, everyone agrees. Yet as soon as we start to concretise this, there are dilemmas. Consider that, a day after the massacre at the Rue Nicolas-Appert, the Berliner Zeitung published an antisemitic hate cartoon.posted by TheophileEscargot at 9:21 AM on February 18, 2015 [18 favorites]
It was an easy mistake to make in the circumstances. The paper had merely intended to pay tribute to Charlie Hebdo, and make a stand for free expression. The image was actually a faked version of an authentic Hebdo cover, which the Zeitung had thought was real. The original bore the banner 'Sharia Hebdo' and featured a cartoon imam, while the fake bore the banner 'Shoah Hebdo' and featured a cartoon rabbi. As I say, it was an easy mistake to make.
The Zeitung, horribly embarrassed by the gaffe, offered profuse apologies for hosting an antisemitic cartoon but, following the logic of its position to the letter, did not apologise for hosting the Islamophobic cartoons. Because free speech.
...
France, of course, is dedicated to secularism. In the name of secularism, it banned the wearing of religious garments at schools, with a particular eye to preventing girls from wearing the hijab. In the name of secularism and women's rights, it banned the public wearing of the burqa, leading to harassment, discrimination, arrests and a de facto state of house arrest for many women who would be breaking the law by stepping outside.
It may seem a very strange secularism that involves the state becoming directly involved in the private religious affairs of citizens. But then, like free speech, the separation of 'church and state' is always relative and conditional, and in a racial state it will always be racialised in its application.
...
A flexible, working theoretical account of racism would start from what has almost become a truism. Race does not produce racism; racism produces race. Races are made: the only existence race has is as a social construct, and it not necessarily constructed out of skin colour... In this sense, Muslims are undergoing a process of racialisation. They are becoming 'a race'.
I lived in Quebec for five years--and not in multi-cultural Montreal--and watched in horror as the then PQ government decided to try to pass what they called the "Secular Charter." A separation of church and state? Totally cool with me, I agree. But what I did not agree with is that the charter was targeted towards Muslims and Jews (you would not be allowed to wear any symbols of your faith) and that giant-ass crucifix in chambers would have been allowed to stay because it was an intrinsic part of a very white very French Catholic heritage. If they had wanted true secularism, then no symbols should be allowed in any government office or on any government employee.
Then there was an election, then the Liberals won and it was forgotten about. But I am hearing support for it is resurging again and this always leads to some very ugly things in the media.
posted by Kitteh at 9:23 AM on February 18, 2015 [16 favorites]
Then there was an election, then the Liberals won and it was forgotten about. But I am hearing support for it is resurging again and this always leads to some very ugly things in the media.
posted by Kitteh at 9:23 AM on February 18, 2015 [16 favorites]
I had assumed that "Je suis Charlie" was less about whether or not you supported or even liked Charlie Hebdo, and a lot more about acknowledging that we all do something that could be considered heresy in another culture. We're not literally Charlie, but we're all in a position where we could be the next Charlie.
Sort of like the Niemöller quote about "First they came..."
I think you're giving it way more thought than 99% of the I Am Charlies out there.
I think it was simply, "I am in solidarity with the murder victims because murder is wrong (and I probably have no idea how racist the magazine actually is, in which case, I probably would've left it at 'murder is bad' and not gone with the 'I am the racist magazine' angle."
--
On another note, from the article:
“Schools are in the front line. We will punish firmly..."
What could possibly go wrong?
posted by univac at 9:23 AM on February 18, 2015 [3 favorites]
Sort of like the Niemöller quote about "First they came..."
I think you're giving it way more thought than 99% of the I Am Charlies out there.
I think it was simply, "I am in solidarity with the murder victims because murder is wrong (and I probably have no idea how racist the magazine actually is, in which case, I probably would've left it at 'murder is bad' and not gone with the 'I am the racist magazine' angle."
--
On another note, from the article:
“Schools are in the front line. We will punish firmly..."
What could possibly go wrong?
posted by univac at 9:23 AM on February 18, 2015 [3 favorites]
I'm glad we're just going to declare that our thoughts on whether Charlie Hebdo was racist are universally, objectively accepted to be true.
posted by spaltavian at 9:25 AM on February 18, 2015 [9 favorites]
posted by spaltavian at 9:25 AM on February 18, 2015 [9 favorites]
I don't think laicite should be stood up for.
I guess this is where we agree to disagree. As an American, I've seen way, way too much religious overreach in this country, even where "separation of Church and State" is supposed to be a guiding principle. Religious folks are trying their damnedest to get their "morals" enshrined in laws. Churches get tax breaks, which is inherently government sponsorship!
Religion should be a private matter, and while the state has no place telling you what you ought to believe, there's a good case made for keeping religion out of state and public matters.
posted by explosion at 9:28 AM on February 18, 2015 [5 favorites]
I guess this is where we agree to disagree. As an American, I've seen way, way too much religious overreach in this country, even where "separation of Church and State" is supposed to be a guiding principle. Religious folks are trying their damnedest to get their "morals" enshrined in laws. Churches get tax breaks, which is inherently government sponsorship!
Religion should be a private matter, and while the state has no place telling you what you ought to believe, there's a good case made for keeping religion out of state and public matters.
posted by explosion at 9:28 AM on February 18, 2015 [5 favorites]
If "I am Charlie" just means "killing people is bad", then's it's just another perfunctory ritual that exists solely so that if you don't do it perfectly, you can be ignored by those who trade in bad faith rhetoric.
No, it's a collective statement of mourning and defiance against organized murderers who would target almost all of us in the West and want us to live in fear of them. You're taking a very weird angle on this where somehow that isn't substantive because Mitt Romney is a cynical douche?
Taking that collective message and shifting it into a message with significantly less collective support is also a pretty cynical thing to do. And in fact, that second cynical step often has a lot less content because it often ends up explicitly political. Romney had no content, he just wanted to shift the discussion away from the victims and onto the political agenda he wanted to push. It wasn't Obama's fault he did that.
posted by Drinky Die at 9:28 AM on February 18, 2015
No, it's a collective statement of mourning and defiance against organized murderers who would target almost all of us in the West and want us to live in fear of them. You're taking a very weird angle on this where somehow that isn't substantive because Mitt Romney is a cynical douche?
Taking that collective message and shifting it into a message with significantly less collective support is also a pretty cynical thing to do. And in fact, that second cynical step often has a lot less content because it often ends up explicitly political. Romney had no content, he just wanted to shift the discussion away from the victims and onto the political agenda he wanted to push. It wasn't Obama's fault he did that.
posted by Drinky Die at 9:28 AM on February 18, 2015
No, it's a collective statement of mourning and defiance against organized murderers who would target almost all of us in the West and want us to live in fear of them.
It was that. Now it's been co-opted by the "against X = with Y" usual suspects. That's what we're talking about.
posted by Navelgazer at 9:30 AM on February 18, 2015 [5 favorites]
It was that. Now it's been co-opted by the "against X = with Y" usual suspects. That's what we're talking about.
posted by Navelgazer at 9:30 AM on February 18, 2015 [5 favorites]
Yes, I meant was.
posted by Drinky Die at 9:32 AM on February 18, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by Drinky Die at 9:32 AM on February 18, 2015 [1 favorite]
There are three or four Muslim kids in that class and they felt uneasy with the notion. They said: ‘Miss, if one is not supposed to discriminate [against] people because of their religion, why are we being told that what happened is our fault even though these guys are not Muslims, even though what they did puts our religion to shame?’ I let them talk because it looked like they really needed to talk. And even the kid who had said Charlie Hebdo had spoken badly about Muslims ended up saying that it wasn’t a reason to kill someone.”posted by standardasparagus at 9:34 AM on February 18, 2015 [7 favorites]
Next day, my friend found out that two kids from two of her classes – boys, 14 and 15 respectively – had been taken into custody and interviewed by the police. One of them was the same kid that had said Charlie Hebdo “had spoken badly about Muslims”.
The Daily Beast article has already been discussed to death in the shooting thread. It's an article that gets its facts badly wrong, and is informed by a viewpoint so American that it's hard to reconcile its content with the respect for other cultures it pretends (earnestly, I'm sure) to support.
I have no desire to argue today, especially since it looks like it's aiming to be against specious or rhetorical points. In short: France is secular. It's a good thing, and important to the culture. Taking Maghrebi and other Islamic people out of the underclass can only be done without promoting Islam, or relaxing rules towards it.
NoxAeternum, please remember that America is a country founded especially to support Puritans, while the French Republic was geared from the start to stop religion from being powerful again (learning from that history, as pointed out above). The cultures aren't enormously different, but there are some strong divergences of opinion on a few points, and 'gallows humour' and 'overall benefits of religion' are two main ones. We will definitely have to disagree about the value of laicite, considering how mind-boggling is the power of the US Christian right to Europeans.
Also, for the record, I am puzzled when people consider Islam to be a little oppressed religion; it is by far the strongest and fastest-growing in France, and probably the world. As a religion, it is the big bully, not the underdog.
posted by Spanner Nic at 9:45 AM on February 18, 2015 [4 favorites]
I have no desire to argue today, especially since it looks like it's aiming to be against specious or rhetorical points. In short: France is secular. It's a good thing, and important to the culture. Taking Maghrebi and other Islamic people out of the underclass can only be done without promoting Islam, or relaxing rules towards it.
NoxAeternum, please remember that America is a country founded especially to support Puritans, while the French Republic was geared from the start to stop religion from being powerful again (learning from that history, as pointed out above). The cultures aren't enormously different, but there are some strong divergences of opinion on a few points, and 'gallows humour' and 'overall benefits of religion' are two main ones. We will definitely have to disagree about the value of laicite, considering how mind-boggling is the power of the US Christian right to Europeans.
Also, for the record, I am puzzled when people consider Islam to be a little oppressed religion; it is by far the strongest and fastest-growing in France, and probably the world. As a religion, it is the big bully, not the underdog.
posted by Spanner Nic at 9:45 AM on February 18, 2015 [4 favorites]
I am puzzled when people consider Islam to be a little oppressed religion; it is by far the strongest and fastest-growing in France, and probably the world. As a religion, it is the big bully, not the underdog.
I'd have thought it was obvious that Muslims are disproportionately represented in the wretchedly poor and alienated housing estates that the wondrously cultured and ethical France specialises in creating? It's also a fact that those who are identified with the north African muslim population in France are discriminated against in the all-important employment market and legal system.
posted by colie at 9:49 AM on February 18, 2015 [16 favorites]
I'd have thought it was obvious that Muslims are disproportionately represented in the wretchedly poor and alienated housing estates that the wondrously cultured and ethical France specialises in creating? It's also a fact that those who are identified with the north African muslim population in France are discriminated against in the all-important employment market and legal system.
posted by colie at 9:49 AM on February 18, 2015 [16 favorites]
Thanks for the condescension, now please explain the link between the promotion of religion and the betterment of the lot of the ghettoised North-Africans.
posted by Spanner Nic at 9:55 AM on February 18, 2015
posted by Spanner Nic at 9:55 AM on February 18, 2015
> Also, for the record, I am puzzled when people consider Islam to be a little oppressed religion
How many Catholic kids are being pulled out of class if they question or challenge "Je suis Charlie"? How many elderly Catholic (white) women are arrested or cited for wearing religious signs? Is not arresting them a "promotion" of Catholicism?
posted by rtha at 9:57 AM on February 18, 2015 [14 favorites]
How many Catholic kids are being pulled out of class if they question or challenge "Je suis Charlie"? How many elderly Catholic (white) women are arrested or cited for wearing religious signs? Is not arresting them a "promotion" of Catholicism?
posted by rtha at 9:57 AM on February 18, 2015 [14 favorites]
My goodness. This is devolving into nastiness.
Clearly the idea behind "Je suis Charlie" is that as a person who might exercise my rights to free speech, someone could just as easily take offense and feel justified in killing me. It means, "There but for the grace of G-d go I."
By that standard, anyone who refused to say it , has the absolute right not to. And there should be no meaning ascribed to that refusal.
Of course there's xenophobia, classism, and religious intolerance.
And to quote Kareem Abdul Jabar, "If ISIS represents Islam, Then the KKK represents Christianity."
Acts of terrorism performed in the name of a religion should not be conflated to all followers of that religion.
posted by Ruthless Bunny at 9:57 AM on February 18, 2015 [10 favorites]
Clearly the idea behind "Je suis Charlie" is that as a person who might exercise my rights to free speech, someone could just as easily take offense and feel justified in killing me. It means, "There but for the grace of G-d go I."
By that standard, anyone who refused to say it , has the absolute right not to. And there should be no meaning ascribed to that refusal.
Of course there's xenophobia, classism, and religious intolerance.
And to quote Kareem Abdul Jabar, "If ISIS represents Islam, Then the KKK represents Christianity."
Acts of terrorism performed in the name of a religion should not be conflated to all followers of that religion.
posted by Ruthless Bunny at 9:57 AM on February 18, 2015 [10 favorites]
The problem with laïcité is that it has changed from "no religion in government" to "only some historical religion in government" (such as federal holidays that happen only to overlap with one religion) and to "no religion by private citizens in public and/or when interacting with the government". It's a weird, hypocritical stance.
In Quebec one of the minor parties now wants to investigate mosques before they open, because they might preach against Quebec's values -- but the definitely against Quebec's values Roman Catholic churches (against gay marriage, no women as priests, etc) aren't going to be examined too.
posted by jeather at 10:00 AM on February 18, 2015 [10 favorites]
In Quebec one of the minor parties now wants to investigate mosques before they open, because they might preach against Quebec's values -- but the definitely against Quebec's values Roman Catholic churches (against gay marriage, no women as priests, etc) aren't going to be examined too.
posted by jeather at 10:00 AM on February 18, 2015 [10 favorites]
please explain the link between the promotion of religion and the betterment of the lot of the ghettoised North-Africans.
Er, if they didn't get discriminated against due to their religion and cultural identity then their lot might get betterered?
posted by colie at 10:00 AM on February 18, 2015 [10 favorites]
Er, if they didn't get discriminated against due to their religion and cultural identity then their lot might get betterered?
posted by colie at 10:00 AM on February 18, 2015 [10 favorites]
America is a country founded especially to support Puritans, while the French Republic was geared from the start to stop religion from being powerful again
If you get to go arbitrarily far back in history to claim what the two countries were "created" for you can make pretty much any claim you like. Why not argue that France was a country "created to massacre Huguenots" and that therefore Catholic bigotry is somehow hard-wired into their culture? You would, after all, at least then be going back to the same point in history that you're mischaracterizing as the founding of "America" to "support Puritans."
As it happens, the French republic's hostility to religion owes quite a lot to the same political and intellectual movements that actually created "America" in the late C18th as a country explicitly dedicated to the separation of Church and State. The French took it somewhat further during the Revolution, and then, of course, had a long period where the Church resumed a major political role in the state during the Bourbon restoration.
So, in other words, no--you really can't make some glib "it's in their cultural DNA" argument about how the Americans do church-and-state like this while the French do church-and-state like this.
posted by yoink at 10:04 AM on February 18, 2015 [16 favorites]
If you get to go arbitrarily far back in history to claim what the two countries were "created" for you can make pretty much any claim you like. Why not argue that France was a country "created to massacre Huguenots" and that therefore Catholic bigotry is somehow hard-wired into their culture? You would, after all, at least then be going back to the same point in history that you're mischaracterizing as the founding of "America" to "support Puritans."
As it happens, the French republic's hostility to religion owes quite a lot to the same political and intellectual movements that actually created "America" in the late C18th as a country explicitly dedicated to the separation of Church and State. The French took it somewhat further during the Revolution, and then, of course, had a long period where the Church resumed a major political role in the state during the Bourbon restoration.
So, in other words, no--you really can't make some glib "it's in their cultural DNA" argument about how the Americans do church-and-state like this while the French do church-and-state like this.
posted by yoink at 10:04 AM on February 18, 2015 [16 favorites]
That was days later, though, not hours. Sure we all knew it would be coopted to an extent, but to this extent? With so little reflection? With focus on the politicians rather than the marchers?
Hell, I can point to a time when that exact same thing happened in this country.
And as for "Je Suis Charlie" - I was uneasy about it myself, and expressing that un-ease brought me shit right here on the Blue. And the reason I was uneasy was because I strongly suspected that the degree of adulation the cartoonists received was unconsciously being fueled by the fact that it was Muslim men specifically who had killed them. They absolutely didn't deserve to be killed - but they weren't the Brave And Noble Speakers Of Truth To Power people were implying they were; they were, like, the equivalent of MAD Magazine's staff. I happen to know a guy who works for MAD, and he's not doing it as some kind of brave free-speech thing - he's doing it because "holy shit, I get paid to write fart jokes and that is awesome."
It was also telling, I thought, that at about the same time there was an even more deserving candidate for the public support of Hollywood and the world's politicians - the blogger Raif Badawi, who was charged with apostasy after calling for an end of religious domination over public life; he was sentenced to public flogging - 1,000 lashes, to be doled out in stages over the course of a ten-year prison sentence. He got his first 50 lashes two days after the Charlie Hebdo attack.
That's a much clearer example of "someone who is a bravely speaking out against oppression", and yet Raif received no parade, no political cartoons were drawn in his support, and no Hollywood big-wig said "I am Raif" while receiving an award at the Golden Globes or anything.
And I can't help but think that the reason that the Charlie Hebdo cartoonists got all the attention and Raif didn't is because Raif is Muslim, and the cartoonists weren't.
To me, using "Je Suis Charlie" as a slogan comes with a definite Islamophobic subtext, and I'll have no part of it.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 10:11 AM on February 18, 2015 [33 favorites]
Hell, I can point to a time when that exact same thing happened in this country.
And as for "Je Suis Charlie" - I was uneasy about it myself, and expressing that un-ease brought me shit right here on the Blue. And the reason I was uneasy was because I strongly suspected that the degree of adulation the cartoonists received was unconsciously being fueled by the fact that it was Muslim men specifically who had killed them. They absolutely didn't deserve to be killed - but they weren't the Brave And Noble Speakers Of Truth To Power people were implying they were; they were, like, the equivalent of MAD Magazine's staff. I happen to know a guy who works for MAD, and he's not doing it as some kind of brave free-speech thing - he's doing it because "holy shit, I get paid to write fart jokes and that is awesome."
It was also telling, I thought, that at about the same time there was an even more deserving candidate for the public support of Hollywood and the world's politicians - the blogger Raif Badawi, who was charged with apostasy after calling for an end of religious domination over public life; he was sentenced to public flogging - 1,000 lashes, to be doled out in stages over the course of a ten-year prison sentence. He got his first 50 lashes two days after the Charlie Hebdo attack.
That's a much clearer example of "someone who is a bravely speaking out against oppression", and yet Raif received no parade, no political cartoons were drawn in his support, and no Hollywood big-wig said "I am Raif" while receiving an award at the Golden Globes or anything.
And I can't help but think that the reason that the Charlie Hebdo cartoonists got all the attention and Raif didn't is because Raif is Muslim, and the cartoonists weren't.
To me, using "Je Suis Charlie" as a slogan comes with a definite Islamophobic subtext, and I'll have no part of it.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 10:11 AM on February 18, 2015 [33 favorites]
Also, for the record, I am puzzled when people consider Islam to be a little oppressed religion; it is by far the strongest and fastest-growing in France, and probably the world. As a religion, it is the big bully, not the underdog.
No one here has said they consider Islam to be a little oppressed religion. The point is that French society and the French government discriminate against Muslims who live in France. colie has pointed out the employment discrimination they face, and standardasparagus's excerpt from the OP shows that official distrust starts early. For another instance, here's a statistic from the noted left-wing Islamofascist publication The Washington Post:
posted by Rustic Etruscan at 10:15 AM on February 18, 2015 [11 favorites]
No one here has said they consider Islam to be a little oppressed religion. The point is that French society and the French government discriminate against Muslims who live in France. colie has pointed out the employment discrimination they face, and standardasparagus's excerpt from the OP shows that official distrust starts early. For another instance, here's a statistic from the noted left-wing Islamofascist publication The Washington Post:
This prison is majority Muslim -- as is virtually every house of incarceration in France. About 60 to 70 percent of all inmates in the country's prison system are Muslim, according to Muslim leaders, sociologists and researchers, though Muslims make up only about 12 percent of the country's population.Long story short: France's Muslim underclass is unlikely to rise to prosperity just because the law forbids religious garments in school.
posted by Rustic Etruscan at 10:15 AM on February 18, 2015 [11 favorites]
I am less interested in rehashing the same old Charlie Hebdo arguments from the original thread and more interested in discussing the crap that these poor kids are currently having to deal with by sheer dint of having been born Muslim and living in a country that routinely finds reason to hate the other.
And thanks to all the posters doing that.
posted by Kitteh at 10:31 AM on February 18, 2015 [2 favorites]
And thanks to all the posters doing that.
posted by Kitteh at 10:31 AM on February 18, 2015 [2 favorites]
Give us a break with the "wonderful" France. We do know we're not wonderful. The fact is that we're not used to deal with religion anymore because we thought that all that bullshit was over. Isis is using Islam as a Trojan Horse while its main victims are muslims. So we need finer tools to understand what's happening than "Je suis Charlie"/ "Je ne suis pas Charlie". But even if we understand how it works or why kids choose desperate moves, we've got to investigate further to prevent "Isis" action to get more widespread. Five persons have been arrrested last week. I'd like to know if they're not a threat to lost kids, even if I don't think of myself as a racist.
posted by nicolin at 10:35 AM on February 18, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by nicolin at 10:35 AM on February 18, 2015 [1 favorite]
Give us a break with the "wonderful" France. We do know we're not wonderful.
It's not the 'wonderful', it's the 'we' that is problematic.
posted by colie at 10:42 AM on February 18, 2015 [5 favorites]
It's not the 'wonderful', it's the 'we' that is problematic.
posted by colie at 10:42 AM on February 18, 2015 [5 favorites]
If there's a je, there's a tu, and drawing a stark line between the two is the exact opposite of what needs to be happening.
Well, at least we're at the informal level.
posted by malocchio at 10:43 AM on February 18, 2015 [2 favorites]
Well, at least we're at the informal level.
posted by malocchio at 10:43 AM on February 18, 2015 [2 favorites]
This prison is majority Muslim -- as is virtually every house of incarceration in France. About 60 to 70 percent of all inmates in the country's prison system are Muslim, according to Muslim leaders, sociologists and researchers, though Muslims make up only about 12 percent of the country's population.
Wow. For comparison, that's more out of proportion than the situation for African Americans in the US.
According to the US Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) non-Hispanic blacks accounted for 39.4% of the total prison and jail population in 2009 (841,000 black males and 64,800 black females out of a total of 2,096,300 males and 201,200 females).[49] According to the 2010 census of the US Census Bureau blacks (including Hispanic blacks) comprised 13.6% of the US population.
(Though I assume the overall insanely high incarceration rate in the US complicates any comparison.)
posted by Drinky Die at 10:45 AM on February 18, 2015 [8 favorites]
Wow. For comparison, that's more out of proportion than the situation for African Americans in the US.
According to the US Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) non-Hispanic blacks accounted for 39.4% of the total prison and jail population in 2009 (841,000 black males and 64,800 black females out of a total of 2,096,300 males and 201,200 females).[49] According to the 2010 census of the US Census Bureau blacks (including Hispanic blacks) comprised 13.6% of the US population.
(Though I assume the overall insanely high incarceration rate in the US complicates any comparison.)
posted by Drinky Die at 10:45 AM on February 18, 2015 [8 favorites]
The fact is that we're not used to deal with religion anymore because we thought that all that bullshit was over.
Ah, the classic cry of the privileged. I'd bet that members of minority faiths in France didn't think that "bullshit" was over, because I doubt they were allowed to forget it.
posted by NoxAeternum at 10:45 AM on February 18, 2015 [8 favorites]
Ah, the classic cry of the privileged. I'd bet that members of minority faiths in France didn't think that "bullshit" was over, because I doubt they were allowed to forget it.
posted by NoxAeternum at 10:45 AM on February 18, 2015 [8 favorites]
NoxAeternum: "The fact is that we're not used to deal with religion anymore because we thought that all that bullshit was over.
Ah, the classic cry of the privileged. I'd bet that members of minority faiths in France didn't think that "bullshit" was over, because I doubt they were allowed to forget it."
You don't like religions being called "bullshit" ? I guess you should value the way the privileged use the freedom of speech they're still allowed.
posted by nicolin at 10:56 AM on February 18, 2015
Ah, the classic cry of the privileged. I'd bet that members of minority faiths in France didn't think that "bullshit" was over, because I doubt they were allowed to forget it."
You don't like religions being called "bullshit" ? I guess you should value the way the privileged use the freedom of speech they're still allowed.
posted by nicolin at 10:56 AM on February 18, 2015
while the French Republic was geared from the start to stop religion from being powerful again
That is certainly one interpretation of events!
Also, for the record, I am puzzled when people consider Islam to be a little oppressed religion; it is by far the strongest and fastest-growing in France, and probably the world.
Really? Well, then, I guess there is no need for feminism as there are more women in the world and in France. And what's all this crazy talk about Western colonialism and white supremacy? Didn't y'all hear, whites are a racial minority when you look at the world population. Makes as much sense as saying 2% of the population of France don't constitute a minority.
informed by a viewpoint so American that it's hard to reconcile its content with the respect for other cultures it pretends (earnestly, I'm sure) to support.
You know it wasn't just England and the Puritans who had a lot of influence on America and its culture. I remember France being involved in there too. I can't think of culture besides America more likely to grasp the subtle nuances of such douchebag troll humor as used in Charlie Hebdo.
posted by bgal81 at 10:59 AM on February 18, 2015 [7 favorites]
That is certainly one interpretation of events!
Also, for the record, I am puzzled when people consider Islam to be a little oppressed religion; it is by far the strongest and fastest-growing in France, and probably the world.
Really? Well, then, I guess there is no need for feminism as there are more women in the world and in France. And what's all this crazy talk about Western colonialism and white supremacy? Didn't y'all hear, whites are a racial minority when you look at the world population. Makes as much sense as saying 2% of the population of France don't constitute a minority.
informed by a viewpoint so American that it's hard to reconcile its content with the respect for other cultures it pretends (earnestly, I'm sure) to support.
You know it wasn't just England and the Puritans who had a lot of influence on America and its culture. I remember France being involved in there too. I can't think of culture besides America more likely to grasp the subtle nuances of such douchebag troll humor as used in Charlie Hebdo.
posted by bgal81 at 10:59 AM on February 18, 2015 [7 favorites]
To be fair, much of the discrimination is based on the North African ethnicity of most Muslims, and not the other way round. That is, secular French people of North African origin face much of the same discrimination as religious ones (though yes, those who wear external signs of their religion face additional discrimination).
posted by Monday, stony Monday at 11:00 AM on February 18, 2015
posted by Monday, stony Monday at 11:00 AM on February 18, 2015
You don't like religions being called "bullshit" ? I guess you should value the way the privileged use the freedom of speech they're still allowed.
Nope, I'm just pointing out that for many minorities, they're not allowed by the culture to think that religion/race/gender/etc. is no longer an issue.
posted by NoxAeternum at 11:11 AM on February 18, 2015 [2 favorites]
Nope, I'm just pointing out that for many minorities, they're not allowed by the culture to think that religion/race/gender/etc. is no longer an issue.
posted by NoxAeternum at 11:11 AM on February 18, 2015 [2 favorites]
"No one here has said they consider Islam to be a little oppressed religion."
Oh, okay, I'll do it. Well, not quite, more like an oppressed big religion (worldwide), but in the US they certainly are an oppressed little religion. Hate crimes against its members; check. Laws being considered preventing new worship places going up; check. Major TV networks conflating the religion with terrorism; check. Free speech being curtailed for its followers; check. Infiltration of its houses of worship by the FBI; check.
To be fair, France's religious intolerance isn't only directed at Islam, it's also directed at Judaism (waiting for the FPP on this).
I'm more in favor of secularism than the next person, but to me this means keep religion out of government, it doesn't mean harassing followers of religion.
posted by el io at 11:12 AM on February 18, 2015 [13 favorites]
Oh, okay, I'll do it. Well, not quite, more like an oppressed big religion (worldwide), but in the US they certainly are an oppressed little religion. Hate crimes against its members; check. Laws being considered preventing new worship places going up; check. Major TV networks conflating the religion with terrorism; check. Free speech being curtailed for its followers; check. Infiltration of its houses of worship by the FBI; check.
To be fair, France's religious intolerance isn't only directed at Islam, it's also directed at Judaism (waiting for the FPP on this).
I'm more in favor of secularism than the next person, but to me this means keep religion out of government, it doesn't mean harassing followers of religion.
posted by el io at 11:12 AM on February 18, 2015 [13 favorites]
>those who wear external signs of their religion face additional discrimination
10 Hours of Walking in Paris as a Jew: guy dons a yarmulke, walks the streets recording the negative reactions of others. If this had been a woman in a hijab, I doubt that she would have gone ten hours before arrest.
posted by fredludd at 11:16 AM on February 18, 2015 [4 favorites]
10 Hours of Walking in Paris as a Jew: guy dons a yarmulke, walks the streets recording the negative reactions of others. If this had been a woman in a hijab, I doubt that she would have gone ten hours before arrest.
posted by fredludd at 11:16 AM on February 18, 2015 [4 favorites]
NoxAeternum: "You don't like religions being called "bullshit" ? I guess you should value the way the privileged use the freedom of speech they're still allowed.
Nope, I'm just pointing out that for many minorities, they're not allowed by the culture to think that religion/race/gender/etc. is no longer an issue."
Isn't it the other way round sometimes ? I think that journalists at Charlie Hebdo were very much part of the culture. Apparently, religion wasn't an issue anymore for them.
posted by nicolin at 11:20 AM on February 18, 2015
Nope, I'm just pointing out that for many minorities, they're not allowed by the culture to think that religion/race/gender/etc. is no longer an issue."
Isn't it the other way round sometimes ? I think that journalists at Charlie Hebdo were very much part of the culture. Apparently, religion wasn't an issue anymore for them.
posted by nicolin at 11:20 AM on February 18, 2015
Isn't it the other way round sometimes ? I think that journalists at Charlie Hebdo were very much part of the culture. Apparently, religion wasn't an issue anymore for them.
You're right, it wasn't an issue for them - because it wasn't something used to other them and remind them that they were second class citizens. (And even then, it wasn't something they completely ignored - see their firing of Sine over an anti-Semitic cartoon.)
That's the whole point - minorities don't get to forget that they are different, because the culture makes sure to remind them of that difference regularly.
posted by NoxAeternum at 12:19 PM on February 18, 2015 [2 favorites]
You're right, it wasn't an issue for them - because it wasn't something used to other them and remind them that they were second class citizens. (And even then, it wasn't something they completely ignored - see their firing of Sine over an anti-Semitic cartoon.)
That's the whole point - minorities don't get to forget that they are different, because the culture makes sure to remind them of that difference regularly.
posted by NoxAeternum at 12:19 PM on February 18, 2015 [2 favorites]
Yeah, it's a pity. People use their freedom of speech to hurt people.
But freedom of speech is still a right that should not be taken away.
posted by Thing at 12:40 PM on February 18, 2015
But freedom of speech is still a right that should not be taken away.
posted by Thing at 12:40 PM on February 18, 2015
Actually, scratch my above comment. I don't think freedom of speech really hurts people in the long run. People are either strengthened by defending their beliefs or should be thankful for having worthless beliefs destroyed. Maybe there are times and places where beliefs should be tested and where they should not, but in a publication is definitely the right place.
posted by Thing at 12:51 PM on February 18, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by Thing at 12:51 PM on February 18, 2015 [1 favorite]
It can hurt people, because the wrong ideas sometimes win out way too much. See topics like climate denialism in the US. Still, yes, better to have it than not.
posted by Drinky Die at 12:56 PM on February 18, 2015
posted by Drinky Die at 12:56 PM on February 18, 2015
People are either strengthened by defending their beliefs or should be thankful for having worthless beliefs destroyed.
Yes, because the cause of free speech is well and truly promoted through the mentality of a bully.
posted by NoxAeternum at 1:01 PM on February 18, 2015 [7 favorites]
Yes, because the cause of free speech is well and truly promoted through the mentality of a bully.
posted by NoxAeternum at 1:01 PM on February 18, 2015 [7 favorites]
NoxAeternum: "Isn't it the other way round sometimes ? I think that journalists at Charlie Hebdo were very much part of the culture. Apparently, religion wasn't an issue anymore for them.
You're right, it wasn't an issue for them - because it wasn't something used to other them and remind them that they were second class citizens. (And even then, it wasn't something they completely ignored - see their firing of Sine over an anti-Semitic cartoon.)
That's the whole point - minorities don't get to forget that they are different, because the culture makes sure to remind them of that difference regularly."
I don't get it at all. I can clearly remember an Algerian girl I was dating explaining to me that she was afraid of the frères musulmans who threatened young ladies with flasks of vitriol. She thought that this kind of nightmare was over, and it wasn't the "classic cry of the privileged". It was 20 years ago and she was part of a minority that was pretty happy when the state didn't look the other way when there was a cultural threat. Cultural relativism is fine as long as you're not in danger. The point of Laicité is sometimes to escape your own family. We've got a sort of tradition : Gide, but also Poil de Carotte. Miguel Benasayag, who escaped from the jails of Argentina because his mother was French, criticizes cultural relativism by stating that torture was no lighter to him because he came from a country where it was the culture.
posted by nicolin at 1:02 PM on February 18, 2015 [3 favorites]
You're right, it wasn't an issue for them - because it wasn't something used to other them and remind them that they were second class citizens. (And even then, it wasn't something they completely ignored - see their firing of Sine over an anti-Semitic cartoon.)
That's the whole point - minorities don't get to forget that they are different, because the culture makes sure to remind them of that difference regularly."
I don't get it at all. I can clearly remember an Algerian girl I was dating explaining to me that she was afraid of the frères musulmans who threatened young ladies with flasks of vitriol. She thought that this kind of nightmare was over, and it wasn't the "classic cry of the privileged". It was 20 years ago and she was part of a minority that was pretty happy when the state didn't look the other way when there was a cultural threat. Cultural relativism is fine as long as you're not in danger. The point of Laicité is sometimes to escape your own family. We've got a sort of tradition : Gide, but also Poil de Carotte. Miguel Benasayag, who escaped from the jails of Argentina because his mother was French, criticizes cultural relativism by stating that torture was no lighter to him because he came from a country where it was the culture.
posted by nicolin at 1:02 PM on February 18, 2015 [3 favorites]
fredludd: ">those who wear external signs of their religion face additional discrimination
10 Hours of Walking in Paris as a Jew: guy dons a yarmulke, walks the streets recording the negative reactions of others. If this had been a woman in a hijab, I doubt that she would have gone ten hours before arrest."
You're kidding, right ? You've noticed the kind of people reacting to his presence ? They're actually part of another "minority".
posted by nicolin at 1:25 PM on February 18, 2015
10 Hours of Walking in Paris as a Jew: guy dons a yarmulke, walks the streets recording the negative reactions of others. If this had been a woman in a hijab, I doubt that she would have gone ten hours before arrest."
You're kidding, right ? You've noticed the kind of people reacting to his presence ? They're actually part of another "minority".
posted by nicolin at 1:25 PM on February 18, 2015
What would I be kidding about? The yarmulke? the walking? Paris? The probability of arrest for a hijab?
posted by fredludd at 1:28 PM on February 18, 2015
posted by fredludd at 1:28 PM on February 18, 2015
I don't get it at all. I can clearly remember an Algerian girl I was dating explaining to me that she was afraid of the frères musulmans who threatened young ladies with flasks of vitriol. She thought that this kind of nightmare was over, and it wasn't the "classic cry of the privileged". It was 20 years ago and she was part of a minority that was pretty happy when the state didn't look the other way when there was a cultural threat. Cultural relativism is fine as long as you're not in danger. The point of Laicité is sometimes to escape your own family. We've got a sort of tradition : Gide, but also Poil de Carotte. Miguel Benasayag, who escaped from the jails of Argentina because his mother was French, criticizes cultural relativism by stating that torture was no lighter to him because he came from a country where it was the culture.
And if that was all that laicite was about, that it was about not allowing religion to be used as a tool of repression, then we wouldn't be having this discussion. But it's been used as a tool to justify the abuse and othering of religious minorities, especially those where belief is a strong part of identity.
posted by NoxAeternum at 1:29 PM on February 18, 2015 [3 favorites]
And if that was all that laicite was about, that it was about not allowing religion to be used as a tool of repression, then we wouldn't be having this discussion. But it's been used as a tool to justify the abuse and othering of religious minorities, especially those where belief is a strong part of identity.
posted by NoxAeternum at 1:29 PM on February 18, 2015 [3 favorites]
Actually, scratch my above comment. I don't think freedom of speech really hurts people in the long run. People are either strengthened by defending their beliefs or should be thankful for having worthless beliefs destroyed.
Precisely whose definition of "worthless" should we be using? Whoever yells loudest or is most popular?
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 1:37 PM on February 18, 2015 [7 favorites]
Precisely whose definition of "worthless" should we be using? Whoever yells loudest or is most popular?
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 1:37 PM on February 18, 2015 [7 favorites]
fredludd: "What would I be kidding about? The yarmulke? the walking? Paris? The probability of arrest for a hijab?"
Everything. The guy is walking in selected boroughs and suburbs, and the cherry-picked people who react are clearly from north-african / middle eastern origin. Check the comments. So what was your point ?
posted by nicolin at 1:38 PM on February 18, 2015
Everything. The guy is walking in selected boroughs and suburbs, and the cherry-picked people who react are clearly from north-african / middle eastern origin. Check the comments. So what was your point ?
posted by nicolin at 1:38 PM on February 18, 2015
What would I be kidding about? The yarmulke? the walking? Paris? The probability of arrest for a hijab?
He's pointing out that the video is trying to make the argument that anti-Semitism in France is mainly (or possibly wholly) stemming from the French Muslim community. Which is actually one of the uglier things that I've seen in the weeks after the shooting - the attempt to whitewash away France's endemic issues with anti-Semitism by turning the Muslim community into a scapegoat. That's not to say that said community doesn't have a problem with anti-Semitism - it clearly does. But they're not the only ones.
posted by NoxAeternum at 1:46 PM on February 18, 2015 [5 favorites]
He's pointing out that the video is trying to make the argument that anti-Semitism in France is mainly (or possibly wholly) stemming from the French Muslim community. Which is actually one of the uglier things that I've seen in the weeks after the shooting - the attempt to whitewash away France's endemic issues with anti-Semitism by turning the Muslim community into a scapegoat. That's not to say that said community doesn't have a problem with anti-Semitism - it clearly does. But they're not the only ones.
posted by NoxAeternum at 1:46 PM on February 18, 2015 [5 favorites]
Hijab - not OK, because laïcité
Yarmulke - OK, because antisemitism is illegal (although the hero gets to whine about provoked negativity)
posted by fredludd at 1:50 PM on February 18, 2015 [1 favorite]
Yarmulke - OK, because antisemitism is illegal (although the hero gets to whine about provoked negativity)
posted by fredludd at 1:50 PM on February 18, 2015 [1 favorite]
NoxAeternum: "I don't get it at all. I can clearly remember an Algerian girl I was dating explaining to me that she was afraid of the frères musulmans who threatened young ladies with flasks of vitriol. She thought that this kind of nightmare was over, and it wasn't the "classic cry of the privileged". It was 20 years ago and she was part of a minority that was pretty happy when the state didn't look the other way when there was a cultural threat. Cultural relativism is fine as long as you're not in danger. The point of Laicité is sometimes to escape your own family. We've got a sort of tradition : Gide, but also Poil de Carotte. Miguel Benasayag, who escaped from the jails of Argentina because his mother was French, criticizes cultural relativism by stating that torture was no lighter to him because he came from a country where it was the culture.
And if that was all that laicite was about, that it was about not allowing religion to be used as a tool of repression, then we wouldn't be having this discussion. But it's been used as a tool to justify the abuse and othering of religious minorities, especially those where belief is a strong part of identity."
I don't know what you're talking about. The Loi de 1905 was aimed at the catholic Church, if it's your idea of a religious minority, then I agree with you.
The 1958 French Constitution also states : « Article premier — La France est une République indivisible, laïque, démocratique et sociale. Elle assure l’égalité devant la loi de tous les citoyens sans distinction d’origine, de race ou de religion. Elle respecte toutes les croyances. »
posted by nicolin at 1:54 PM on February 18, 2015
And if that was all that laicite was about, that it was about not allowing religion to be used as a tool of repression, then we wouldn't be having this discussion. But it's been used as a tool to justify the abuse and othering of religious minorities, especially those where belief is a strong part of identity."
I don't know what you're talking about. The Loi de 1905 was aimed at the catholic Church, if it's your idea of a religious minority, then I agree with you.
The 1958 French Constitution also states : « Article premier — La France est une République indivisible, laïque, démocratique et sociale. Elle assure l’égalité devant la loi de tous les citoyens sans distinction d’origine, de race ou de religion. Elle respecte toutes les croyances. »
posted by nicolin at 1:54 PM on February 18, 2015
I don't know what you're talking about. The Loi de 1905 was aimed at the catholic Church, if it's your idea of a religious minority, then I agree with you.
The 1958 French Constitution also states : « Article premier — La France est une République indivisible, laïque, démocratique et sociale. Elle assure l’égalité devant la loi de tous les citoyens sans distinction d’origine, de race ou de religion. Elle respecte toutes les croyances. »
And yet France has laws clearly targeting religious groups, and said laws have withstood judicial scrutiny.
Actions speak louder than words.
posted by NoxAeternum at 2:02 PM on February 18, 2015
The 1958 French Constitution also states : « Article premier — La France est une République indivisible, laïque, démocratique et sociale. Elle assure l’égalité devant la loi de tous les citoyens sans distinction d’origine, de race ou de religion. Elle respecte toutes les croyances. »
And yet France has laws clearly targeting religious groups, and said laws have withstood judicial scrutiny.
Actions speak louder than words.
posted by NoxAeternum at 2:02 PM on February 18, 2015
fredludd: "Hijab - not OK, because laïcité
Yarmulke - OK, because antisemitism is illegal (although the hero gets to whine about provoked negativity)"
The Hijab is ok, as much as a Yarmulke. What isn't ok are veils covering the face entirely (but you can see that this isn't enforced very strictly since there are some women wearing this kind of veil in your vid). All religious signs aren't to be apparent on people who work for the state. In that case, the Yarmulke wouldn't be allowed either.
posted by nicolin at 2:11 PM on February 18, 2015 [1 favorite]
Yarmulke - OK, because antisemitism is illegal (although the hero gets to whine about provoked negativity)"
The Hijab is ok, as much as a Yarmulke. What isn't ok are veils covering the face entirely (but you can see that this isn't enforced very strictly since there are some women wearing this kind of veil in your vid). All religious signs aren't to be apparent on people who work for the state. In that case, the Yarmulke wouldn't be allowed either.
posted by nicolin at 2:11 PM on February 18, 2015 [1 favorite]
NoxAeternum: "I don't know what you're talking about. The Loi de 1905 was aimed at the catholic Church, if it's your idea of a religious minority, then I agree with you.
The 1958 French Constitution also states : « Article premier — La France est une République indivisible, laïque, démocratique et sociale. Elle assure l’égalité devant la loi de tous les citoyens sans distinction d’origine, de race ou de religion. Elle respecte toutes les croyances. »
And yet France has laws clearly targeting religious groups, and said laws have withstood judicial scrutiny.
Actions speak louder than words."
What laws ?
posted by nicolin at 2:12 PM on February 18, 2015
The 1958 French Constitution also states : « Article premier — La France est une République indivisible, laïque, démocratique et sociale. Elle assure l’égalité devant la loi de tous les citoyens sans distinction d’origine, de race ou de religion. Elle respecte toutes les croyances. »
And yet France has laws clearly targeting religious groups, and said laws have withstood judicial scrutiny.
Actions speak louder than words."
What laws ?
posted by nicolin at 2:12 PM on February 18, 2015
colie: " it still seems relevant to stand up for values important to the French.
The whole point of the issue, and this thread, is that there is no such thing as 'the French.' Just seems like a lot of privileged people who live there don't get this."
How do you call them ? "The privileged people of France " ?
posted by nicolin at 2:20 PM on February 18, 2015
The whole point of the issue, and this thread, is that there is no such thing as 'the French.' Just seems like a lot of privileged people who live there don't get this."
How do you call them ? "The privileged people of France " ?
posted by nicolin at 2:20 PM on February 18, 2015
And yet France has laws clearly targeting religious groups, and said laws have withstood judicial scrutiny.
Actions speak louder than words."
What laws ?
The veil ban, for one. The anti-"glorification of terrorism" law is another.
posted by NoxAeternum at 2:42 PM on February 18, 2015 [1 favorite]
Actions speak louder than words."
What laws ?
The veil ban, for one. The anti-"glorification of terrorism" law is another.
posted by NoxAeternum at 2:42 PM on February 18, 2015 [1 favorite]
These laws deal with principles, not specific religious groups.
posted by nicolin at 3:03 PM on February 18, 2015
posted by nicolin at 3:03 PM on February 18, 2015
These laws deal with principles, not specific religious groups.
And the fact that they impact one specific religious group is just coincidence, right?
Just because you found a loophole doesn't mean that nobody else noticed that you did, nor does it mean they have to pretend they didn't.
posted by NoxAeternum at 3:07 PM on February 18, 2015 [3 favorites]
And the fact that they impact one specific religious group is just coincidence, right?
Just because you found a loophole doesn't mean that nobody else noticed that you did, nor does it mean they have to pretend they didn't.
posted by NoxAeternum at 3:07 PM on February 18, 2015 [3 favorites]
I wasn't born yesterday, I guess you weren't either. These laws are super awkward, but you can't deny that there's a problem when a religious group tries to dictate rules within public services like schools, hospitals or tries to influence the way people behave in their life through peer pressure. I can only repeat what I said up thread. We've got a tool to protect individual freedom. So far, it's been used in a rather tactful way. People who try to force members of "communities" to accept symbols of their allegiance are not that tactful. Angelism is nice but we've just got an alarm call.
posted by nicolin at 3:17 PM on February 18, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by nicolin at 3:17 PM on February 18, 2015 [1 favorite]
These laws are super awkward, but you can't deny that there's a problem when a religious group tries to dictate rules within public services like schools, hospitals or tries to influence the way people behave in their life through peer pressure.
I agree that there is a problem, but at least in Quebec, the people dictating the rules in the public sphere or influencing the way folks behave through peer pressure are not religious minority groups, but white French Quebecers. But it's easier to blame the problems on them instead of examining why they make you so uncomfortable.
posted by Kitteh at 3:22 PM on February 18, 2015 [2 favorites]
I agree that there is a problem, but at least in Quebec, the people dictating the rules in the public sphere or influencing the way folks behave through peer pressure are not religious minority groups, but white French Quebecers. But it's easier to blame the problems on them instead of examining why they make you so uncomfortable.
posted by Kitteh at 3:22 PM on February 18, 2015 [2 favorites]
Kitteh: "These laws are super awkward, but you can't deny that there's a problem when a religious group tries to dictate rules within public services like schools, hospitals or tries to influence the way people behave in their life through peer pressure.
I agree that there is a problem, but at least in Quebec, the people dictating the rules in the public sphere or influencing the way folks behave through peer pressure are not religious minority groups, but white French Quebecers. But it's easier to blame the problems on them instead of examining why they make you so uncomfortable."
I guess you could find some laws that would keep them in check while pretending to be perfectly impartial.
posted by nicolin at 3:27 PM on February 18, 2015
I agree that there is a problem, but at least in Quebec, the people dictating the rules in the public sphere or influencing the way folks behave through peer pressure are not religious minority groups, but white French Quebecers. But it's easier to blame the problems on them instead of examining why they make you so uncomfortable."
I guess you could find some laws that would keep them in check while pretending to be perfectly impartial.
posted by nicolin at 3:27 PM on February 18, 2015
We've got a tool to protect individual freedom. So far, it's been used in a rather tactful way.
I'm willing to bet that the people actually impacted by said tool would disagree with your assessment.
posted by NoxAeternum at 3:32 PM on February 18, 2015
I'm willing to bet that the people actually impacted by said tool would disagree with your assessment.
posted by NoxAeternum at 3:32 PM on February 18, 2015
So far, it's been used in a rather tactful way.
Tactful: 60-70% of the French prison population is Muslim, compared to 12% of the French population as a whole, which has happened by coincidence, or because the Mohammedans have inherently criminal skulls
Untactful: ???
posted by Rustic Etruscan at 3:43 PM on February 18, 2015 [5 favorites]
Tactful: 60-70% of the French prison population is Muslim, compared to 12% of the French population as a whole, which has happened by coincidence, or because the Mohammedans have inherently criminal skulls
Untactful: ???
posted by Rustic Etruscan at 3:43 PM on February 18, 2015 [5 favorites]
what if you are against killing someone for their speech, but are also against what that speech contained?
What if you are against the killing, don't really care about the speech, but are also against anyone using this as an opportunity to write thousands of words about how strongly they dislike Charlie?
posted by sfenders at 3:44 PM on February 18, 2015
What if you are against the killing, don't really care about the speech, but are also against anyone using this as an opportunity to write thousands of words about how strongly they dislike Charlie?
posted by sfenders at 3:44 PM on February 18, 2015
Rustic Etruscan: "So far, it's been used in a rather tactful way.
Tactful: 60-70% of the French prison population is Muslim, compared to 12% of the French population as a whole, which has happened by coincidence, or because the Mohammedans have inherently criminal skulls
Untactful: ???"
They're not in jail because of their skulls, not because they're muslims, not because they wore an Hijab but I don't think that's a coincidence. They're recent immigrants, and I think that you can find a correlation there. Furthermore : I'm not sure of your figures, could you double check them ? I don't think 60/70 is correct for France as a whole. If you can find statistics, i'm sure you'll be able to find the reasons they're in jail too.
posted by nicolin at 3:48 PM on February 18, 2015 [1 favorite]
Tactful: 60-70% of the French prison population is Muslim, compared to 12% of the French population as a whole, which has happened by coincidence, or because the Mohammedans have inherently criminal skulls
Untactful: ???"
They're not in jail because of their skulls, not because they're muslims, not because they wore an Hijab but I don't think that's a coincidence. They're recent immigrants, and I think that you can find a correlation there. Furthermore : I'm not sure of your figures, could you double check them ? I don't think 60/70 is correct for France as a whole. If you can find statistics, i'm sure you'll be able to find the reasons they're in jail too.
posted by nicolin at 3:48 PM on February 18, 2015 [1 favorite]
NoxAeternum: "We've got a tool to protect individual freedom. So far, it's been used in a rather tactful way.
I'm willing to bet that the people actually impacted by said tool would disagree with your assessment."
Some of these people would disagree with much more basic things. I've already discussed about the way some people I knew, being from that community, considered those issues. You don't want to consider the vast majority of people from that community who think French law actually protects them.
posted by nicolin at 3:53 PM on February 18, 2015
I'm willing to bet that the people actually impacted by said tool would disagree with your assessment."
Some of these people would disagree with much more basic things. I've already discussed about the way some people I knew, being from that community, considered those issues. You don't want to consider the vast majority of people from that community who think French law actually protects them.
posted by nicolin at 3:53 PM on February 18, 2015
You don't want to consider the vast majority of people from that community who think French law actually protects them.
Considering the statistics on incarceration and unemployment, the fact that there have been riots over the way these communities have been treated, and the fact that the French government pretty much refuses to gather any statistics on these issues...
I'm feeling pretty safe in making that bet.
posted by NoxAeternum at 4:15 PM on February 18, 2015
Considering the statistics on incarceration and unemployment, the fact that there have been riots over the way these communities have been treated, and the fact that the French government pretty much refuses to gather any statistics on these issues...
I'm feeling pretty safe in making that bet.
posted by NoxAeternum at 4:15 PM on February 18, 2015
Mod note: Folks, this needs to not turn into an interrogation of nicolin particularly; nicolin, it'd be good if you can step back a bit and let the conversation run a while without responding to everyone. Thanks.
posted by restless_nomad (staff) at 4:18 PM on February 18, 2015
posted by restless_nomad (staff) at 4:18 PM on February 18, 2015
Although the French do not collect ethnic statistics, some 60% of France’s prison population of 68,000 is Muslim, according to a parliamentary report last year.
I am not a criminologist, but based on what I know about bias and the criminal justice system, when a prison population is so overrepresented with one otherwise small group, it is not because that group is disproportionately made up of super-criminals.
posted by rtha at 5:21 PM on February 18, 2015 [10 favorites]
I am not a criminologist, but based on what I know about bias and the criminal justice system, when a prison population is so overrepresented with one otherwise small group, it is not because that group is disproportionately made up of super-criminals.
posted by rtha at 5:21 PM on February 18, 2015 [10 favorites]
In addition, I tend to see the refusal to gather data that might show poor conditions and discrimination to be a sign that one is more interested in covering up bad behavior instead of correcting it.
posted by NoxAeternum at 5:32 PM on February 18, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by NoxAeternum at 5:32 PM on February 18, 2015 [1 favorite]
rtha: "Although the French do not collect ethnic statistics, some 60% of France’s prison population of 68,000 is Muslim, according to a parliamentary report last year.
I am not a criminologist, but based on what I know about bias and the criminal justice system, when a prison population is so overrepresented with one otherwise small group, it is not because that group is disproportionately made up of super-criminals."
The thing is that those figures are highly debatable and mainly used here by right wing politicians to promote the idea that cultural differences are unredeemable. Which isn't to say that there is no racism in France, or that immigration doesn't present a set of challenges.
posted by nicolin at 3:11 AM on February 19, 2015
I am not a criminologist, but based on what I know about bias and the criminal justice system, when a prison population is so overrepresented with one otherwise small group, it is not because that group is disproportionately made up of super-criminals."
The thing is that those figures are highly debatable and mainly used here by right wing politicians to promote the idea that cultural differences are unredeemable. Which isn't to say that there is no racism in France, or that immigration doesn't present a set of challenges.
posted by nicolin at 3:11 AM on February 19, 2015
That's not to say that said community doesn't have a problem with anti-Semitism - it clearly does. But they're not the only ones.
Except those other ones don't beat or kill Jews. So no one worries about them much. Speaking as a Jew, I do not care if individual people hate Jews. I care very much if people decide to kill Jews, attack Jewish symbols, or intimidate individual Jews. Members of "said community" do that. Those other ones don't. So the former has a problem, and the latter doesn't.
posted by ThatFuzzyBastard at 5:51 AM on February 19, 2015
Except those other ones don't beat or kill Jews. So no one worries about them much. Speaking as a Jew, I do not care if individual people hate Jews. I care very much if people decide to kill Jews, attack Jewish symbols, or intimidate individual Jews. Members of "said community" do that. Those other ones don't. So the former has a problem, and the latter doesn't.
posted by ThatFuzzyBastard at 5:51 AM on February 19, 2015
Except those other ones don't beat or kill Jews. So no one worries about them much.
Except when they do. It's also worth pointing out that the FN (which, let us not forget, has seen an upswell in support since the attacks) was built on anti-Semitism originally, though the younger Le Pen has realized that demonizing the Muslim community is more politically palatable.
The thing is that those figures are highly debatable and mainly used here by right wing politicians to promote the idea that cultural differences are unredeemable.
Here's the thing - the reason that those numbers are "highly debatable" is because the French government, unlike other governments that have racial disparity in their imprisoned population (like, say, the US), refuses to actually get real statistics on the makeup of the inmate population. This forces sociologists to have to use a number of other markers to deduce said makeup, such as the number of prisoners requesting vegetarian meals (as it's one of the few ways prisoners can keep halal to some degree.)
And the argument that because the right wing uses those numbers to justify their racist stances, that somehow delegitimizes them doesn't hold water. The American right wing routinely uses incarceration statistics to defend their own stances against minorities, yet you don't see minority advocates here throwing those statistics out because of that.
posted by NoxAeternum at 6:57 AM on February 19, 2015 [3 favorites]
Except when they do. It's also worth pointing out that the FN (which, let us not forget, has seen an upswell in support since the attacks) was built on anti-Semitism originally, though the younger Le Pen has realized that demonizing the Muslim community is more politically palatable.
The thing is that those figures are highly debatable and mainly used here by right wing politicians to promote the idea that cultural differences are unredeemable.
Here's the thing - the reason that those numbers are "highly debatable" is because the French government, unlike other governments that have racial disparity in their imprisoned population (like, say, the US), refuses to actually get real statistics on the makeup of the inmate population. This forces sociologists to have to use a number of other markers to deduce said makeup, such as the number of prisoners requesting vegetarian meals (as it's one of the few ways prisoners can keep halal to some degree.)
And the argument that because the right wing uses those numbers to justify their racist stances, that somehow delegitimizes them doesn't hold water. The American right wing routinely uses incarceration statistics to defend their own stances against minorities, yet you don't see minority advocates here throwing those statistics out because of that.
posted by NoxAeternum at 6:57 AM on February 19, 2015 [3 favorites]
The article you link to is about five men "suspected of making threats online to attack a synagogue." They seemingly haven't vandalized anything or attacked anyone. Just yapped on the internet. So yeah, my point stands. One community has anti-Semites who haven't killed anyone in quite a while. One community has anti-Semites who have. The idea that police should be equally concerned with both is foolish.
posted by ThatFuzzyBastard at 8:55 AM on February 19, 2015
posted by ThatFuzzyBastard at 8:55 AM on February 19, 2015
One community has anti-Semites who have. The idea that police should be equally concerned with both is foolish.
Why are we drawing the lines of "community" at Muslim and non-Muslim here? Does it make sense to group together all Muslims living in France, regardless of ethnic background, particulars of their religious belief, socioeconomic status, education level, patterns of employment, geographic location, and so on?
Is there good evidence that there exists a Muslim "community" that is more homogeneous than any of those other groupings? If not, why should we claim police "should be [...] concerned" with such a large population, but not other distinguishing features of those who attacked Charlie Hebdo?
posted by thegears at 11:50 AM on February 19, 2015
Why are we drawing the lines of "community" at Muslim and non-Muslim here? Does it make sense to group together all Muslims living in France, regardless of ethnic background, particulars of their religious belief, socioeconomic status, education level, patterns of employment, geographic location, and so on?
Is there good evidence that there exists a Muslim "community" that is more homogeneous than any of those other groupings? If not, why should we claim police "should be [...] concerned" with such a large population, but not other distinguishing features of those who attacked Charlie Hebdo?
posted by thegears at 11:50 AM on February 19, 2015
And as for "Je Suis Charlie" - I was uneasy about it myself, and expressing that un-ease brought me shit right here on the Blue.
That's because you didn't know what you were talking about. (You still don't.)
they weren't the Brave And Noble Speakers Of Truth To Power people were implying they were; they were, like, the equivalent of MAD Magazine's staff. I happen to know a guy who works for MAD, and he's not doing it as some kind of brave free-speech thing - he's doing it because "holy shit, I get paid to write fart jokes and that is awesome."
It's true that there were a lot of tonal comparisons made between Charlie Hebdo and MAD Magazine in the wake of the massacre (purely, IIRC, because of many Americans' refusal to consider that any foreign culture might be OK unless someone explains how it's a bit like something they have at home), but I really don't think the similarities are quite so extensive that you can credibly claim to understand the motivations of Charlie Hebdo's staff based on your acquaintance with someone who works at an entirely separate publication, in a different country, in another language, that I suspect you've never actually read. Hopefully your friend will never have to survive a fire-bombing, receive death threats, live under permanent police protection, or make public statements about how he's ready to die for his work, as the editor of CH did before actually getting murdered, but if ever he does, I assure you I will consider his commitment to fart jokes to be very brave indeed.
Raif received no parade, no political cartoons were drawn in his support [...] And I can't help but think that the reason that the Charlie Hebdo cartoonists got all the attention and Raif didn't is because Raif is Muslim, and the cartoonists weren't.
You can't think of anything apart from religion that might have been the deciding factor in the smaller amount of media attention paid to the flogging of a brown Saudi Arabian man in Saudi Arabia according to Saudi Arabian law for crimes against people and institutions most of us have never heard of in a case that's been slowly working itself out for several years now, as compared to the sudden murder of 12 mostly white people (whose work you just happen to disapprove of, of course), all at once, in the kind of terrorist attack on our freedoms our leaders have been training us to shit our pants over for the last 15 years, in the place perhaps most strongly historically associated with many core Western cultural values, followed by an honest to god manhunt through the streets of Paris, followed immediately by another massacre? As someone whose major preoccupation is the disproportionate attention the world media pays to the problems of white people and Western societies, you'd have to change a least two thirds of the pieces of that puzzle before I'd expect any other picture to result. Maybe I'm just getting cynical.
The way the grief and outrage brought about by this massacre is being co-opted into something ugly and oppressive is indeed fucked up, if predictably so. But despite your gloating, you haven't established either Charlie Hebdo, the strong reaction to the fatal attack on its staff, or the "Je suis Charlie" slogan to be Islamophobic, and what's worse, it seems like you've barely tried.
posted by two or three cars parked under the stars at 2:27 PM on February 19, 2015 [5 favorites]
That's because you didn't know what you were talking about. (You still don't.)
they weren't the Brave And Noble Speakers Of Truth To Power people were implying they were; they were, like, the equivalent of MAD Magazine's staff. I happen to know a guy who works for MAD, and he's not doing it as some kind of brave free-speech thing - he's doing it because "holy shit, I get paid to write fart jokes and that is awesome."
It's true that there were a lot of tonal comparisons made between Charlie Hebdo and MAD Magazine in the wake of the massacre (purely, IIRC, because of many Americans' refusal to consider that any foreign culture might be OK unless someone explains how it's a bit like something they have at home), but I really don't think the similarities are quite so extensive that you can credibly claim to understand the motivations of Charlie Hebdo's staff based on your acquaintance with someone who works at an entirely separate publication, in a different country, in another language, that I suspect you've never actually read. Hopefully your friend will never have to survive a fire-bombing, receive death threats, live under permanent police protection, or make public statements about how he's ready to die for his work, as the editor of CH did before actually getting murdered, but if ever he does, I assure you I will consider his commitment to fart jokes to be very brave indeed.
Raif received no parade, no political cartoons were drawn in his support [...] And I can't help but think that the reason that the Charlie Hebdo cartoonists got all the attention and Raif didn't is because Raif is Muslim, and the cartoonists weren't.
You can't think of anything apart from religion that might have been the deciding factor in the smaller amount of media attention paid to the flogging of a brown Saudi Arabian man in Saudi Arabia according to Saudi Arabian law for crimes against people and institutions most of us have never heard of in a case that's been slowly working itself out for several years now, as compared to the sudden murder of 12 mostly white people (whose work you just happen to disapprove of, of course), all at once, in the kind of terrorist attack on our freedoms our leaders have been training us to shit our pants over for the last 15 years, in the place perhaps most strongly historically associated with many core Western cultural values, followed by an honest to god manhunt through the streets of Paris, followed immediately by another massacre? As someone whose major preoccupation is the disproportionate attention the world media pays to the problems of white people and Western societies, you'd have to change a least two thirds of the pieces of that puzzle before I'd expect any other picture to result. Maybe I'm just getting cynical.
The way the grief and outrage brought about by this massacre is being co-opted into something ugly and oppressive is indeed fucked up, if predictably so. But despite your gloating, you haven't established either Charlie Hebdo, the strong reaction to the fatal attack on its staff, or the "Je suis Charlie" slogan to be Islamophobic, and what's worse, it seems like you've barely tried.
posted by two or three cars parked under the stars at 2:27 PM on February 19, 2015 [5 favorites]
10 Hours of Walking in Paris as a Jew yt : guy dons a yarmulke, walks the streets recording the negative reactions of others. If this had been a woman in a hijab, I doubt that she would have gone ten hours before arrest.
French Media Documents Israeli Reporter’s Fraudulent Paris Walk on Muslim “Wild Side”
posted by standardasparagus at 2:57 PM on February 19, 2015 [3 favorites]
French Media Documents Israeli Reporter’s Fraudulent Paris Walk on Muslim “Wild Side”
posted by standardasparagus at 2:57 PM on February 19, 2015 [3 favorites]
I don't speak French, but what struck me about the Tikun Olam article was that it spends more time hating the journalist himself than the video - and most of the his points critical of the video (he had a bodyguard, the video is short) weren't exactly convincing to me. Even if you assume the most "malicious" editing possible and that having a bodyguard was somehow a provocation, there are still some interactions in that video that I found disturbing.
posted by rosswald at 5:34 PM on February 19, 2015
posted by rosswald at 5:34 PM on February 19, 2015
Two or three cars - I don't know exactly where that lengthy diatribe came from so late after I spoke, but if you believe I was trying to "gloat," you have things VERY wrong.
And as to what my statement has to do with this article: The kids who are saying "I'm not Charlie", as I understood from the article, are conflicted about joining in the celebration and memorializing of some guys who were basically telling the kids that their religion was stupid. It doesn't mean they wanted the guys dead, they just don't want to be pressured into saying "they're great".
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 6:25 PM on February 19, 2015 [4 favorites]
And as to what my statement has to do with this article: The kids who are saying "I'm not Charlie", as I understood from the article, are conflicted about joining in the celebration and memorializing of some guys who were basically telling the kids that their religion was stupid. It doesn't mean they wanted the guys dead, they just don't want to be pressured into saying "they're great".
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 6:25 PM on February 19, 2015 [4 favorites]
Why are we drawing the lines of "community" at Muslim and non-Muslim here?
That's a very good point. The "Muslim community" is not the problem community. Young men who are interested in fundamentalist Islam, particularly those with a criminal background, are. There is probably anti-Semitism in the larger Muslim community, just as there is in the larger white French community (though many polls suggest there's much less), but it's the all-talk, non-threatening kind.
posted by ThatFuzzyBastard at 5:59 AM on February 20, 2015
That's a very good point. The "Muslim community" is not the problem community. Young men who are interested in fundamentalist Islam, particularly those with a criminal background, are. There is probably anti-Semitism in the larger Muslim community, just as there is in the larger white French community (though many polls suggest there's much less), but it's the all-talk, non-threatening kind.
posted by ThatFuzzyBastard at 5:59 AM on February 20, 2015
Actually, I'm sorry about directing such a snarky and unpleasant comment at you, EmpressCallipygos. I should have taken more time to think about what I was writing, and probably shouldn't have trusted myself to comment on this topic at all, because I'm terribly emotionally invested. I've lived in France, I believe in it and hopelessly love it, yet I can't forget that for half the time I was there I existed under a sick cloud of racism (and related -isms and -phobias) that must be unimaginably suffocating to POC who spend their whole lives in certain areas of the country. It's a magnificent place with some very complicated problems that I care about immensely and relate to very personally, and I've basically been hulking out in slow motion for the past month over all the post-Charlie commentary that I feel doesn't do the situation justice. But this wasn't the place and you weren't the person, and I apologise.
posted by two or three cars parked under the stars at 8:09 AM on February 20, 2015 [4 favorites]
posted by two or three cars parked under the stars at 8:09 AM on February 20, 2015 [4 favorites]
That's kind of you, cars. Thank you.
For my part, I should admit that part of my own reaction has also possibly been fueled by having experienced similar "group-speak" pressure immediately after 9/11, when everyone around me was all up into putting flags on everything; I've never been one to wear my patriotism on my sleeve, so I didn't join in, and I got some flak for it. And so the "feeling like you had to go along with the rest of the country even though your feelings were more subtle" was a situation that resonated in a particular way on my part as well.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 8:17 AM on February 20, 2015 [5 favorites]
For my part, I should admit that part of my own reaction has also possibly been fueled by having experienced similar "group-speak" pressure immediately after 9/11, when everyone around me was all up into putting flags on everything; I've never been one to wear my patriotism on my sleeve, so I didn't join in, and I got some flak for it. And so the "feeling like you had to go along with the rest of the country even though your feelings were more subtle" was a situation that resonated in a particular way on my part as well.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 8:17 AM on February 20, 2015 [5 favorites]
« Older The Magic Poop Potion | No, "Twilight" doesn't count... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
They're being othered, being taught that they can't even express their otherness, and that this otherness is inescapable. Anyone similar to them will be punished for it too. Systemic discrimination right in front of everyone's eyes. I would feel less desperately worried about it if the media were doing their job and criticizing this stuff more vocally, but instead they just parrot the talking heads and let egregious mischaracterizations and conflations – les amalgames – go unchallenged.
/rant, sigh, mais qu'est-ce qu'on y peut quand on n'a pas de voix, quand on n'est qu'une "pauvre étrangère qui ne comprendra jamais la France" merde
posted by fraula at 7:18 AM on February 18, 2015 [37 favorites]