The BBC reports that some 700,000 people have taken part in marches across France to support free speech and Charlie Hebdo.
During the marches, some protesters held banners that read “I am against racism”, “unity”, or “I am Charlie” – the latter a reference to Charlie Hebdo, the satirical magazine whose Paris offices were attacked by brothers Cherif and Said Kouachi on Wednesday.
See there? Against racism and for Charlie – that wouldn’t work if Charlie were itself racist.
There’s going to be a massive march in Paris tomorrow.
Those set to attend Sunday’s rally include UK Prime Minister David Cameron, German Chancellor Angela Merkel, Turkish Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu, Spanish Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy and Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov.
The rally will depart from Paris’s Place de la Republique at 15:00 local time.
Ahmed Merabet’s brother is anti-racist. He doesn’t consider the Kouachi brothers to be anti-racism campaigners.
The family of Ahmed Merabet, one of the police officers killed during Wednesday’s attack, gave an emotional news conference on Saturday.
Mr Merabet was “Muslim, and very proud of being a police officer and defending the values of the Republic”, his brother Malek Merabet said.
“Our family is devastated by this act of barbarity, and shares the pain of the families of all the victims.”
Malek Merabet added that “racists, Islamophobes and anti-Semites” should not confuse extremists with Muslims.
The family said they were “proud” of the gatherings that had taken place to commemorate the victims, saying they proved that France could be united.
It’s not Charlie Hebdo that’s racist, it’s the Kouachi brothers and their allies who are racist. It’s important to get this right. Ni le FN ni les Kouachis.
PZ Myers just wrote:
I agree it’s important to get this right. Maybe you need to have a chat with PZ Myers about this. I’m assuming he wasn’t being sarcastic in the above-quoted portion of his comment, but I could be wrong.
sigurd, did you perhaps forget to read the rest of that comment? The part that says:
Also, why do you think that Ophelia needs to go chat with PZ about this? You know that people have differing opinions at FTB, right?
–
PS- remember the old adage about ‘assuming’? You are a fine example of it.
Of course it can work. Charlie’s way of fighting against racism implied reinforcing racist tropes. That it was made and read by self-proclaimed anti-racists does not make all of its cartoons exempt from racism.
Are you really arguing that since the reason of the attack was not the racism in CH’s cartoons, then they were not racist at all?
No, Yazikus, I didn’t miss the rest of PZ Myer’s comment. I was only addressing the part where he called CH a ‘rather ugly, racist, and worse-than-vapid publication’. What is your fucking point?
My fucking point, as you so politely put it, is that I don’t see the point of partially pasting comments from other blogs onto Ophelia’s space and demanding she correct what you perceive as their incorrect opinions.
I ‘partially pasted’ the comment because that was the only part of the comment I was addressing. I’m sorry that you do not understand how that works.
I’m not ‘demanding’ anything from Ophelia. By saying ‘maybe you should…’ I was offering her a suggestion. My suggestion to you (not a demand) is that you look up the meaning of the word ‘context’ before you barge in with an ill-informed and worthless piece of criticism.
Right, just like creationists can’t claim to be pro reason if creationism itself was unreasonable.
I’m not even of the opinion that CH is racist, but jesus fuck, that was one of the worst arguments I have ever seen.
sigurd jorsalfar @ 6,
That is part of PZ Myers’ writing style – to say something over-simplistic or ridiculous and then to negate it in the very next sentence.
To quote the first part as though he meant it and ignore the other half can only be seen as ignorant of Myers and patronising to Ophelia who knows PZ and his ways perfectly well.
Did you note the part of PZ’s comment where he mentioned that he didn’t read French and didn’t know the context of the cartoons?
PZ made a judgment based on cartoons whose context he did not understand. If I was seeing a lot of people from France claiming that Charlie Hebdo was a racist publication, then I might be swayed but I’m not. The evidence, provided by those people who read the original in its context, says that the writers and artists at CH were anti-racist and used racist imagery to skewer right-wing, racist fundamentalist of all types.
Is it then easy to misinterpret those images, brand them racist? Yes, of course. Does that mean the producers are (or, sadly, were) racist? That’s the question and I think the only answer we can strive for is one that is intellectually honest and borne out by empirical evidence. No, they were not racist. If racists take comfort in their drawings then it is nothing more than further evidence of their intellectual dishonesty – for which we already have ample evidence.
Let me tell you an illuminating story about political cartoons and context. When I was a grad student, I attended a lecture of a prof I was assisting for. In his lecture, he included a political cartoon about William Lyon Mackenzie King. I thought it was humourous, he thought it was hysterical (really, he could barely speak) and the students, who didn’t understand its context, thought it was boring and stupid.
So basically you agree with me, sambarge. Hence my suggestion that Ophelia have a talk with him. Still, your tone suggests you think you are telling me something I didn’t already know.
He didn’t negate it in the very next sentence, Maureen. He negated the idea that CH’s racism justified the massacre. It was very obvious he was negating that point. But if he was negating his view that CH is a racist and vapid publication, I still don’t see it. Saying that I am ‘patronizing’ Ophelia and ‘ignoring’ what PZ actually wrote, is a despicable and desperate attempt to score a non-existent point in defence of PZ.
Meanwhile Glen Greenwald has written a lengthy post where he misses the point even worse than PZ did – embarrassingly so, given that he ends up posting anti-semitic cartoons to make his point. I’m really getting sick of reading ppl who think they have made a profound point by condemning the attack on CH, while taking it for granted without any reflection or understanding of context, that CH is, nevertheless, a racist and vapid publication.
My tone? I’m saying that PZ is mistaken about the content of the cartoons. You seem to agree with him. In that case, you and I disagree.
I seem to agree with him about the content of the cartoons? Not in the least. For fuck’s sake. Is there anyone commenting in this thread who is capable of understanding me? Am I writing in French?
Okay then.
hcdfanatic83 @7:
And so you attempted to rebut it on the basis that you find it perfectly plausible that the 700,000 people have taken part in marches across France might be just like creationists.
(I take it you’re of the opinion that a bad argument requires a worse rebuttal!)
sigurd jorsalfar, I understood you the first time!
And I’ve posted a link to one of Salty Current’s fine B&W posts over there. I hope PZ reads it.
I’m tired of the cultural imperialism I’m seeing–people ripping those cartoons out of context and calling them racist, right-wing, Islamophobic–despite a complete lack of familiarity with French politics, French satire, or Charlie Hebdo itself.
sambarge first, then sigurd jorsalfar
What kind of coward are you, sigurd jorsalfar?
If you think PZ is wrong on something, YOU have a talk with him. He’s got a blog. It’s not that many clicks away. You could find a relevant discussion thread and have a go. I don’t see anything from you since last year, and then you were slamming the same targets as PZ.
Get some spine. Make an argument. Calling on others to do your intellectual work for you is ridiculous, don’t you think?
Oh please, Crip, I know he reads this blog too and comments here.
It’s true that I rarely comment in PZ’s blog these days, but it’s not because of PZ or because I generally disagree with him, which I don’t. It’s because I’m sick of people like you.
No, I’m simply saying that that just because they don’t see it as racist, doesn’t mean it’s not racist. I’m sure you’ve noticed that many people are really bad at spotting racism.
John Morales @14
Sorry, my comment #18 was a response to your #14.
Lady Mondegreen (aka Stacy) #15
Thanks.
hcdfanatic83 @18:
Fine.
So, logical entailment aside, you’re not disputing the observation that they “don’t see it as racist”, but merely deprecating its significance.
Do you hold that those people who march in demonstrations against racism are no better than the typical person at spotting racism?
John Morales @ 21
Deprecating is not the word I’d use but whatever….
If I had to guess, I’d say they are slightly better, but when it comes to satire, the difference between what’s racist and what’s not can be very small.
However, that’s all beside the point. You clearly can protest against racism and defend Charlie Hebdo, while failing to notice that CH is racist. (And I’m not saying they are racist)