A disappointingly necessary preemptive response.
What "racist institution"? If deeming "the killers... possibly linked to Islamic State... exacting political retribution for the publication’s regular satirical attacks on Islam by executing its journalists" terrorism is a narrative assumption then surely so is the ("preemptive") idea that the French population will willingly see institutionalised racism under Hollande's government? Perhaps I am confused by the ideas that this article is forwarding. Even if the two individuals are not a "civilizational threat", their whereabouts and plan is currently unknown. I would like to see the author's thoughts on whether the man-hunt operation in the north of France is excessive, disproportionate, part of a political narrative, or intentionally deceptive. I cannot see any current European government instating "statist backlash" measures against Islam. If not, then shouldn't we be waiting? I have believed bandes dessinees to be representative of a very shallow, populist left-wing vein of political commentary. Therefore: firstly, Charlie Hebdo gives us insight into comic strip criticism and that alone. Secondly, The UK also has some very prominent examples of this kind of satire (like Private Eye, although it is not nearly as forward) and I'm sure other European countries do too. They have an important cultural significance which I think this article overlooks. That is to say — did Charlie Hebdo publish racist cartoons? Yes. Should the freedom to do so change? No. And that's something bigger than what the state, or Hollande, or Marie Le Pen, or (over here), Cameron or Farage, can control. In short, I think the response to this issue will be French; and I think this article's response is American. Originally I was going to leave this as an aside, but I'm going to include it proper in this comment because I think this article looks at things in 2D. I've started picking up French again and am really excited to see Houellebecq's new novel Submission released. I read Atomised in English and was really impressed by it. I'm wondering whether to struggle through on my crappy French and see how it goes, since the translation date is to be decided. Its cover is going to be on the cover of next week's Charlie Hebdo. In an interview with the Paris Review he responded to a question on whether novels can change the world that: In many ways, I agree. Charlie Hebdo never rallied people against Islam and I don't think it can after these people's deaths either. They were part of a cultural fabric, what inferences were made from them is different. They are, in and of themselves, representative of freedom of speech. That doesn't mean that everything can be freely advocated; it means that anything can be freely said. It exists as ideological baggage. For the two suspects to take any such violent action against that is a clearly illegal. One should wait until the legal process before we start discussing institutionalised racism. I see The Jacobin magazine posted here a lot. I find it increasingly suspect.I think Marx’s Capital is too long. It’s actually the Communist Manifesto that got read and changed the world. Rousseau changed the world, he sometimes knew how to go straight to the point. It’s simple, if you want to change the world, you have to say, Here’s how the world is and here’s what must be done.
No no no no no no no The racist institution is Charlie Hebdo. The article is suggesting vigilance against the use of this attack to advance the dangerous Islamophobia that has plagued the European ideological landscape for a couple years now. And statist backlash does not mean backlash implemented by the state, or even necessarily supported by the same: the author just refers to backlash which suggests that a state response to the "Muslim problem" in France is warranted, which position has been increasingly prevalent in the French political arena of late. This does not mean a manhunt; clearly the perpetrators of this violence ought to be punished. This refers rather to the use of this event for the justification of policies which disenfranchise, oppress or disproportionately (negatively) effect French Muslims generally. I'm going to pretty much ignore the next couple paragraphs you write because they're not particularly relevant to the article, which only suggests that racist publications ought not to be supported, not that they should or shouldn't be allowed to operate. But yeah, this isn't a discussion of institutionalised racism necessary, it's a preemptive criticism of the use of this tragedy to justify Islamophobic ideologies which call for state response to some sort of "Muslim problem" that too many Europeans believe exists in France and elsewhere. Oh look, the response this article preempted totally happened You see Jacobin a lot around here because I post it. Also min tends to, and maybe another person or two. If you don't like it, filter it. Or filter #politics.galen. Or just unfollow me, I mostly post about #politics, #anarchism and #police anyway.
This is exactly what my final paragraphs were targeted at. It is simplistic to reduce Charlie Hebdo and similar publications (I'm not sure how generous to be — you've used "Charlie Hebdo" and "racist publications" interchangeably; I've said Hebdo is fairly representative of satirical comics) to a racist institution or, to inverse the words, racism at an institutional level. As a low-ground thought, Charlie Hebdo has put its sights to more than just religion. It had a freedom to say what it wanted, and sometimes targeted race. Also, I find it difficult to believe Charlie Hebdo has greatly propagated racism. In my eyes, it and similar publications are an aggravator rather than an instigator. I don't know if you find this point worth debating. According to the article, at least, I'm woefully under-qualified: So although you've said "this isn't a discussion of institutionalised racism [necessarily]", I think it's important to establish whether or not it is actually the case. Which the author has avoided. Are you any more familiar with his reasoning here than I am? I'm not sure to what extent your Washington Post article evidences something that is not "backlash implemented by the state". You've corrected my interpretation of statist backlash by saying that it is anything by anyone that sides with the state intervening against Islam. I'm not going to claim any particular knowledge of the countries outside of the UK and France, but neither of those two subsections involve people or statistics since the event that are not intimately involved with the state. I would therefore maintain that we should wait longer before deciding that this is indeed a pre-emptive response to a backlash which, by your definition, involves anyone who desires statist measures against Islam. I mainly want to get across that I feel this article is as knee-jerk and awkward as some of the statements that it plans to denigrate. Would you be more inclined to agree with my view if I said: If deeming "the killers... possibly linked to Islamic State... exacting political retribution for the publication’s regular satirical attacks on Islam by executing its journalists" terrorism is a narrative assumption then surely so is the idea that the "use of this tragedy to justify Islamophobic ideologies which call for state response to some sort of "Muslim problem" will happen?The racist institution is Charlie Hebdo. The article is suggesting vigilance against the use of this attack to advance the dangerous Islamophobia that has plagued the European ideological landscape for a couple years now.
If you need to be convinced of this, then I suggest you do your research, beginning with reading Edward Said’s Orientalism, as well as some basic introductory texts on Islamophobia, and then come back to the conversation.
Oh look, the response this article preempted totally happened
I'm actually not convinced Charlie was racist either--or even published necessarily racist material (and no, I don't know much about the author's position)--but IMO the important thing is that regardless, the attack was perpetrated by followers of radical Islam, which leaves the situation open to arguments about state responses to Islam. I mean, yes it's a narrative assumption to predict what people will do (although I think it's a different kind of assumption: the designation of terrorism explicitly seeks to define the conversation), but that assumption is based on past experience with the European right etc., and like I pointed out, the prediction came to pass. The European right are now using the attack to justify anti-Islamic sentiment.