Hey, dopers… Can anyone who speaks French and is familiar with the CH publication tell me if anti black racism is a part of their schtick? I am thinking “no”. Basically, I’m assuming that people making this charge probably don’t understand satire. But I don’t speak French and can’t speak confidently on the matter. I will link some of the things that have been charged as racist. Gimmie time, I’m on a phone.
Not really, no.
Their caricatures and depictions of black people were often very “Tintin in the Congo” (or bones-through-the-nose if you prefer), but the content or intents or implications of said depictions was never (or hardly ever, anyway) mean-spirited in the particular way you mean. Indeed, they were very strongly opposed to the FN (our resident slightly-to-the-right-of-Pat-Buchanan political entity) and always active on the anti-racism, anti-antisemitism and generally anti-bigotry fronts.
Except when it comes to islamophobia, and a certain kind of anti-arab racism. There, the lines in the sand got past blurry in recent years…
Since whether something is racist is often a matter of debate, let’s move this over to Great Debates.
Colibri
General Questions Moderator
I think the European tolerance for visual stereotypes is much higher than in the US.
My understanding of the magazine Charlie Hebdo is that it consists mostly of grossly unclever caricacatures. Big nose jews, bone-in-nose black people, big titted ladies, and lame shit like that, that “Mad” would be embarassed to print – because its stupid and lazy, not because its offensive.
To be clear I defend their right to be as disgusting and unfunny and lazy and offensive as they want to be.
Vox published a piece explaining Charlie Hebdo to Americans that was endorsed by a French newspaper. I’m not going to make it an active link because it’s not safe for work, but the URL is http://www.vox .com/2015/1/7/7507883/charlie-hebdo-explained-covers minus an extra space.
Here is Charb’s brief response to the last round of these accusations. Of course he won’t be able to defend himself this time, being dead and all.
What race, if any, were they pro?
If there wasn’t one, I guess we could call them misanthropic. I still hope the killers suffered greatly before they died, though.
Thank you everyone for responses
Given that Europeans murdered 12 people in response to these visual stereotypes, I think you’re generously over-appraising their tolerance levels.
Equal opportunity skewerers without a politically correct filter.
They don’t give a rat’s ass if something is “racist.”
No, notat all.
The only people who believe not saying racist things is being PC are racists.
The impression which I get of Charlie Hebdo (which admittedly I’d never heard of before the recent tragic events) is that it’s a cruder equivalent of the British satirical magazine Private Eye. The latter appears impartially to hate, scorn, and mock, pretty well everybody and everything. After many years’ fairly faithfully reading it, I gave up on it a few years back – the negativism had become such that the mag got to be, for me, a lot more depressing than it was funny.
Nah, Charlie Hebdo was pro- a number of things. They were pretty left-wing, pro-ecology, anti-nationalism, pro-LGBT etc… It was in many ways (or used to be for a long time, anyway) a very principled and opinionated publication, idealistic even. They took sides. Which doesn’t mean they never took shots at the Left when it failed to meet their expectations, which was and is frequent :). It was negative and depressing, to a point, but never cynical - if it was misanthropic to an extent (and that’s a fair accusation) it was because its founders were disappointed by their fellow men, expected them to be better, smarter people. Not because they hated and scorned them.
But as I alluded to before, in recent years (and in large part due to, or immediately following 9/11) and under the influence of a new chief editor - who soon came under fire from long time fans of “old Charlie”, for a number of reasons - it let itself gain a increasingly disturbing blind spot for partisan attacks and amalgams when it comes to Islam.
The foreign press these days often alludes to the fact that they went after bigots and the religious of every stripe, to deflect accusations of islamophobia or racism ; and it’s true that they never failed to skewer ministers whenever they made the news for one reason or another. They also never spared Judaism whenever Israel/Palestine came up.
But OTOH the anti-Islam message had become a dependable, weekly thing, page after page. They even once had a special issue dedicated solely to Muslim-bashing (temporarily rebranding the newspaper “Shariah Hebdo”. Witty, neh ?). Yet as a former co-worker of theirs noted, who’d become disgusted by what he saw as edging towards nauseating far-right thought and anti-Arab racism (not just in the cartoons, but also in the editorials and articles - Charlie being also a serious and hard-hitting political opinion paper), they never had a “Talmud Hebdo” or “Leviticus Hebdo” week despite ostensibly styling themselves as standing against “religion” rather than “Islam”. They went after everybody… but not quite with the same force nor frequency.
As a result many of their erstwhile allies were becoming a bit disgusted with it which is why the paper, which had never been what you’d call financially healthy to begin with, not even “back when it was good”, had been bleeding subscriptions and circling the drain for a while.
Kobal2 – I get your drift, I was just wildly speculating: prompted to, somewhat, by my loathing nowadays of my once-beloved Private Eye, and the wish to threadjack a bit, by sharing same. Comparing with your telling of many formerly keen readers deserting Charlie Hebdo of late: I wonder whether a fair number of Private Eye readers have felt like me, and “voted with their feet”.
The Eye Islam-bashes with the best (or worst) of them: but as said, nowadays it seems to, as a matter of course, savagely rubbish everything and everyone on earth.
Are you familiar with Zwarte Piet?
Broad racial caricatures are more common in Europe than in the US.
No, the American definition of racism is so broad as to be perfectly ludicrous. Europeans have a saner definition, that’s all.
I think you’re missing his point: the murderers in this case were Europeans.
And did they murder because the images were “racist,” or because the images insulted The Prophet?