Re: [Marxism] If Charlie is racist, then so am I by Zineb el- Rhazoui
POSTING RULES NOTES #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. * thank you very much dave. this is helpful. yes, it is too much to ask for simplicity in 2015. it's still the early hours here in san francisco. i've given the piece a once over but will need to read it carefully. some things struck me though. 1. she seems to be fixated on whether or not the individuals at charlie hebdo are racists, and thus herself, not whether the cartoons themselves (perhaps more) were racist. this is suspicious of course. at least since monroe beardsley's the possibility of criticism (1970) we are confident to separate the work from the artist. racist art can be produced by artists who have no such feeling. the intentions of the artist are not necessary to judge the work. 2. she creates quite a lot complexity that is worthy of rupert murdoch's legions (spell correct offered lesions), such as pointing out that their are different kinds of muslims, different kinds of africans, etc. she even uses (in fact opens with) some fox news rhetorical flourishes. if i may be so quaint, i'm not sure how meaningful this is. just because there are different ethnicities within christianity (there's a chinese christian church in my neighborhood) doesn't mean that i wouldn't recognize a jab at white america in a religious caricature containing fat white texans (questions of hegemony aside). 3. this is a bit of a broadstroke and it's early. i'm not sure she really adequately addresses whether or not she is a member of the oppressed siding with her oppressors. so the title is not something i'm prepared to run away from. 4. wouldn't it be ironic if i f c harlie hebdo is racist, then so am I became another slogan of freedom-loving imperialists. - Original Message - From: dave x via Marxism marxism@lists.csbs.utah.edu To: Charles Faulkner lacena...@comcast.net Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2015 10:00:34 PM Subject: [Marxism] If Charlie is racist, then so am I by Zineb el- Rhazoui POSTING RULES NOTES #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. * Since the Article11 piece by Olivier Cyran was posted here, I thought this reply from the same period, also translated from French, deserved posting. Every bit as biting and worth reading. More than enough accusations of orientalism and racism to go around in this discussion, IMO. http://thecharnelhouse.org/2015/01/15/if-charlie-hebdo-is-racist-then-so-am-i-zineb-el-rhazoui-responds-to-olivier-cyran/ _ Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm Set your options at: http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/lacenaire%40comcast.net _ Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm Set your options at: http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] If Charlie is racist, then so am I by Zineb el- Rhazoui
POSTING RULES NOTES #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. * A few responses: On 16/01/2015 12:17, Charles Faulkner via Marxism wrote: 1. she seems to be fixated on whether or not the individuals at charlie hebdo are racists, and thus herself, not whether the cartoons themselves (perhaps more) were racist. this is suspicious of course. at least since monroe beardsley's the possibility of criticism (1970) we are confident to separate the work from the artist. racist art can be produced by artists who have no such feeling. the intentions of the artist are not necessary to judge the work. Aside from death of the author considerations which in my view are irrelevant, I don't think she's grounding her case on the lack of subjective racism in the magazine's members, but in the context and social purpose in which the magazine existed and to which it was deployed. It's one thing to say that one can be antiracist and produce racist content by accident, it's another thing to say so when this content is being used by antiracists to combat racism. At that point we need some kind of means to determine how content produced by antiracists to combat racists and taken up for this purpose can still be racist. 2. she creates quite a lot complexity that is worthy of rupert murdoch's legions (spell correct offered lesions), such as pointing out that their are different kinds of muslims, different kinds of africans, etc. she even uses (in fact opens with) some fox news rhetorical flourishes. if i may be so quaint, i'm not sure how meaningful this is. just because there are different ethnicities within christianity (there's a chinese christian church in my neighborhood) doesn't mean that i wouldn't recognize a jab at white america in a religious caricature containing fat white texans (questions of hegemony aside). Well, the key in these distinctions is, in my view, to articulate a case for distinguishing criticism of Islamists, criticism of Islam, and racism. If you think all criticism of Islam is per se and necessarily racist, then sure, she's obfuscating. I personally can't subscribe to that position though. 3. this is a bit of a broadstroke and it's early. i'm not sure she really adequately addresses whether or not she is a member of the oppressed siding with her oppressors. so the title is not something i'm prepared to run away from. I think she addresses this fairly adequately when she refers to the oppression secularists and women suffer in the maghreb. Now if your view is that this is secondary, or irrelevant, on the light of oppression of racial or religious minorities in Europe, you may still consider that she's somehow betraying herself. I'm really dubious of propositions like this, first because I don't consider religious identities worth much, but second because people aren't singly constituted by the fact of coming from an area with a given hegemonic religious background. It would be like accusing Rosa Luxemburg of being antisemite and anti-polish, since both as a Jew and as a Pole she made a firm case against religious identities (judaism and catholicism). It also gives no room for recognition that such religious identities aren't the end of a person and can themselves be oppressive. In my opinion she makes this case better than I can hope to, though. 4. wouldn't it be ironic if i f c harlie hebdo is racist, then so am I became another slogan of freedom-loving imperialists. Sure, and all the more likely if the left doesn't come to its senses and stops this reflexive defence of religion. --David. _ Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm Set your options at: http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] If Charlie is racist, then so am I by Zineb el- Rhazoui
POSTING RULES NOTES #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. * Aside from death of the author considerations which in my view are irrelevant, I don't think she's grounding her case on the lack of subjective racism in the magazine's members, but in the context and social purpose in which the magazine existed and to which it was deployed. It's one thing to say that one can be antiracist and produce racist content by accident, it's another thing to say so when this content is being used by antiracists to combat racism. At that point we need some kind of means to determine how content produced by antiracists to combat racists and taken up for this purpose can still be racist. yes, i hope that death of author considerations are irrelevant. but that wasn't the limit of beardsley's argument. it also applied when the artist herself was unaware of her intent or worse, deceptive. the upshot was that the work stands on its own quite aside from the intent an artist had when it was made. beardsley concluded that criticism was impossible if we had to rely solely on author intention. so when we actually have the artist's intentions expressed we have a complication, not a solution. when i was on tour in southeast asia in the marine corps (post vietnam, boat people and killing fields) i often saw darkie toothpaste. my apologies for the content but for those who are unaware of its existence here is a wikipedia link with an image ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darlie ). now if our asian friends mention that it was a harmless image only intended to sell a helpful product for oral hygiene, i hope we would have a response quite aside from standard rhetoric about capitalism. i am quite willing to accept that there is a difference between racist art employed by a racist and racist art employed by an an anti-racist but both are offences if only of different degree. Well, the key in these distinctions is, in my view, to articulate a case for distinguishing criticism of Islamists, criticism of Islam, and racism. If you think all criticism of Islam is per se and necessarily racist, then sure, she's obfuscating. I personally can't subscribe to that position though. i don't. religion is simply a fact. it goes well beyond simple accusations of oppression. we atheists on the left need to get over ourselves with our pious superiority. we are the minority. denigrating religion with offensive caricatures of its believers is a doomed project. if we want to claim moral superiority over religious hierarchy, we must demonstrate respect for all people and condemn goofy ethnic images. I think she addresses this fairly adequately when she refers to the oppression secularists and women suffer in the maghreb. Now if your view is that this is secondary, or irrelevant, on the light of oppression of racial or religious minorities in Europe, you may still consider that she's somehow betraying herself. I'm really dubious of propositions like this, first because I don't consider religious identities worth much, but second because people aren't singly constituted by the fact of coming from an area with a given hegemonic religious background. It would be like accusing Rosa Luxemburg of being antisemite and anti-polish, since both as a Jew and as a Pole she made a firm case against religious identities (judaism and catholicism). It also gives no room for recognition that such religious identities aren't the end of a person and can themselves be oppressive. In my opinion she makes this case better than I can hope to, though. having been oppressed and then siding with liberators who are also oppressors isn't so uncommon. i haven't gone back to her text yet but she also uses techniques of distraction. one such, her claim of being married to a black man. it reminds me somewhat of jarheads i knew who married locals, made claims of purity of racial thought with proof in their marriage and then went on to express some of the most unlightened racist garbage i've heard in my life. and i've dealt with klan dialogue! i'm not saying she's being racist herself but maybe, just maybe, her defence of charlie hebdo, at a time that it was being criticized for it's racism, is little more than locating the butter on bread. Sure, and all the more likely if the left doesn't come to its senses and stops this reflexive defence of religion. who would you say is doing this? best regards. _ Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm Set your options at: http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] If Charlie is racist, then so am I by Zineb el- Rhazoui
POSTING RULES NOTES #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. * my reply with darkie toothpaste example. - Original Message - From: Charles Faulkner via Marxism marxism@lists.csbs.utah.edu To: Charles Faulkner lacena...@comcast.net Cc: Marxism Serve marxism@lists.csbs.utah.edu Sent: Friday, January 16, 2015 8:25:50 AM Subject: Re: [Marxism] If Charlie is racist, then so am I by Zineb el- Rhazoui POSTING RULES NOTES #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. * Aside from death of the author considerations which in my view are irrelevant, I don't think she's grounding her case on the lack of subjective racism in the magazine's members, but in the context and social purpose in which the magazine existed and to which it was deployed. It's one thing to say that one can be antiracist and produce racist content by accident, it's another thing to say so when this content is being used by antiracists to combat racism. At that point we need some kind of means to determine how content produced by antiracists to combat racists and taken up for this purpose can still be racist. yes, i hope that death of author considerations are irrelevant. but that wasn't the limit of beardsley's argument. it also applied when the artist herself was unaware of her intent or worse, deceptive. the upshot was that the work stands on its own quite aside from the intent an artist had when it was made. beardsley concluded that criticism was impossible if we had to rely solely on author intention. so when we actually have the artist's intentions expressed we have a complication, not a solution. when i was on tour in southeast asia in the marine corps (post vietnam, boat people and killing fields) i often saw darkie toothpaste. my apologies for the content but for those who are unaware of its existence here is a wikipedia link with an image ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darlie ). now if our asian friends mention that it was a harmless image only intended to sell a helpful product for oral hygiene, i hope we would have a response quite aside from standard rhetoric about capitalism. i am quite willing to accept that there is a difference between racist art employed by a racist and racist art employed by an an anti-racist but both are offences if only of different degree. Well, the key in these distinctions is, in my view, to articulate a case for distinguishing criticism of Islamists, criticism of Islam, and racism. If you think all criticism of Islam is per se and necessarily racist, then sure, she's obfuscating. I personally can't subscribe to that position though. i don't. religion is simply a fact. it goes well beyond simple accusations of oppression. we atheists on the left need to get over ourselves with our pious superiority. we are the minority. denigrating religion with offensive caricatures of its believers is a doomed project. if we want to claim moral superiority over religious hierarchy, we must demonstrate respect for all people and condemn goofy ethnic images. I think she addresses this fairly adequately when she refers to the oppression secularists and women suffer in the maghreb. Now if your view is that this is secondary, or irrelevant, on the light of oppression of racial or religious minorities in Europe, you may still consider that she's somehow betraying herself. I'm really dubious of propositions like this, first because I don't consider religious identities worth much, but second because people aren't singly constituted by the fact of coming from an area with a given hegemonic religious background. It would be like accusing Rosa Luxemburg of being antisemite and anti-polish, since both as a Jew and as a Pole she made a firm case against religious identities (judaism and catholicism). It also gives no room for recognition that such religious identities aren't the end of a person and can themselves be oppressive. In my opinion she makes this case better than I can hope to, though. having been oppressed and then siding with liberators who are also oppressors isn't so uncommon. i haven't gone back to her text yet but she also uses techniques of distraction. one such, her claim of being married to a black man. it reminds me somewhat of jarheads i knew who married locals, made claims of purity of racial thought with proof in their marriage and then went on to express some of the most unlightened racist garbage i've heard in my life. and
Re: [Marxism] If Charlie is racist, then so am I by Zineb el- Rhazoui
POSTING RULES NOTES #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. * sorry this was to a friend not on the list. - Original Message - From: Charles Faulkner lacena...@comcast.net To: Charles Faulkner lacena...@comcast.net, Activists and scholars in Marxist tradition marxism@lists.csbs.utah.edu Sent: Friday, January 16, 2015 9:58:44 AM Subject: Re: [Marxism] If Charlie is racist, then so am I by Zineb el- Rhazoui my reply with darkie toothpaste example. - Original Message - From: Charles Faulkner via Marxism marxism@lists.csbs.utah.edu To: Charles Faulkner lacena...@comcast.net Cc: Marxism Serve marxism@lists.csbs.utah.edu Sent: Friday, January 16, 2015 8:25:50 AM Subject: Re: [Marxism] If Charlie is racist, then so am I by Zineb el- Rhazoui POSTING RULES NOTES #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. * Aside from death of the author considerations which in my view are irrelevant, I don't think she's grounding her case on the lack of subjective racism in the magazine's members, but in the context and social purpose in which the magazine existed and to which it was deployed. It's one thing to say that one can be antiracist and produce racist content by accident, it's another thing to say so when this content is being used by antiracists to combat racism. At that point we need some kind of means to determine how content produced by antiracists to combat racists and taken up for this purpose can still be racist. yes, i hope that death of author considerations are irrelevant. but that wasn't the limit of beardsley's argument. it also applied when the artist herself was unaware of her intent or worse, deceptive. the upshot was that the work stands on its own quite aside from the intent an artist had when it was made. beardsley concluded that criticism was impossible if we had to rely solely on author intention. so when we actually have the artist's intentions expressed we have a complication, not a solution. when i was on tour in southeast asia in the marine corps (post vietnam, boat people and killing fields) i often saw darkie toothpaste. my apologies for the content but for those who are unaware of its existence here is a wikipedia link with an image ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darlie ). now if our asian friends mention that it was a harmless image only intended to sell a helpful product for oral hygiene, i hope we would have a response quite aside from standard rhetoric about capitalism. i am quite willing to accept that there is a difference between racist art employed by a racist and racist art employed by an an anti-racist but both are offences if only of different degree. Well, the key in these distinctions is, in my view, to articulate a case for distinguishing criticism of Islamists, criticism of Islam, and racism. If you think all criticism of Islam is per se and necessarily racist, then sure, she's obfuscating. I personally can't subscribe to that position though. i don't. religion is simply a fact. it goes well beyond simple accusations of oppression. we atheists on the left need to get over ourselves with our pious superiority. we are the minority. denigrating religion with offensive caricatures of its believers is a doomed project. if we want to claim moral superiority over religious hierarchy, we must demonstrate respect for all people and condemn goofy ethnic images. I think she addresses this fairly adequately when she refers to the oppression secularists and women suffer in the maghreb. Now if your view is that this is secondary, or irrelevant, on the light of oppression of racial or religious minorities in Europe, you may still consider that she's somehow betraying herself. I'm really dubious of propositions like this, first because I don't consider religious identities worth much, but second because people aren't singly constituted by the fact of coming from an area with a given hegemonic religious background. It would be like accusing Rosa Luxemburg of being antisemite and anti-polish, since both as a Jew and as a Pole she made a firm case against religious identities (judaism and catholicism). It also gives no room for recognition that such religious identities aren't the end of a person and can themselves be oppressive. In my opinion she makes this case better than I can hope to, though. having been oppressed and then siding with liberators who are also oppressors isn't so uncommon. i
Re: [Marxism] If Charlie is racist, then so am I by Zineb el- Rhazoui
POSTING RULES NOTES #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. * On 16/01/2015 17:24, Charles Faulkner wrote: yes, i hope that death of author considerations are irrelevant. but that wasn't the limit of beardsley's argument. it also applied when the artist herself was unaware of her intent or worse, deceptive. the upshot was that the work stands on its own quite aside from the intent an artist had when it was made. beardsley concluded that criticism was impossible if we had to rely solely on author intention. Sure. I have issues with this position but they are not germane. What I'm pointing at though is that there is a context. It is not just the matter of intent, but the matter of the actual outcomes involved. i am quite willing to accept that there is a difference between racist art employed by a racist and racist art employed by an an anti-racist but both are offences if only of different degree. Sure, but this is affirming the consequent. The question is determining whether products of an anti-racist magazine, that are deployed to anti-racist ends, and which seemingly successfully carry out this purpose, can be said to be racist in the first place. Or rather, at this point we need a bit of a theory of racist art: is it a formal or a material issue? Is it contextual or it inheres to particular features no matter how they are utilised? My own view on these matters is consequentialist: if something tends to disarticulate and combat racism, it is not racist; if it does the opposite, it is racist. religion is simply a fact. it goes well beyond simple accusations of oppression. we atheists on the left need to get over ourselves with our pious superiority. we are the minority. denigrating religion with offensive caricatures of its believers is a doomed project. if we want to claim moral superiority over religious hierarchy, we must demonstrate respect for all people and condemn goofy ethnic images. Capitalism is simply a fact. [...] We communists on the left need to get over ourselves with our pious superiority. We are the minority. Denigrating capitalism with offensive caricatures of the bourgeoisie is a doomed project. Etc. Religion is a fact, just like capitalism and alienation and class society are facts. A fact we must endeavour to get rid of. having been oppressed and then siding with liberators who are also oppressors isn't so uncommon. Perhaps it isn't, but this siding is extremely dubious to me. What's the theory here, that the PCF is the major cause for oppression in Morocco? This all seems to presuppose that anticlericalism and oppression can be straightforwardly conflated, which is really weird to me. I genuinely don't understand why there's so much reverence for religion. I'd say it's related to the way it permeates US and English-speaking societies in general but I could well be talking nonsense. i haven't gone back to her text yet but she also uses techniques of distraction. one such, her claim of being married to a black man. it reminds me somewhat of jarheads i knew who married locals, made claims of purity of racial thought with proof in their marriage and then went on to express some of the most unlightened racist garbage i've heard in my life. and i've dealt with klan dialogue! i'm not saying she's being racist herself but maybe, just maybe, her defence of charlie hebdo, at a time that it was being criticized for it's racism, is little more than locating the butter on bread. Thing is, at this point those people who have made up their mind that this is about racism are probably not going to change it. But I don't see those things as attempts to distract, I see those things as attempts to place matters in context and to try to call attention and explain to people that maybe there is something else going on than their default assumptions. I get the feeling that for some people making arguments of why something isn't racist seems to be taken as a proof of racism itself... Let's put it this way: is there any utterance that could be made by her in the article that might change your mind? Or is it all going to be read as siding with oppression, defending her material interest and distracting or obfuscating? The least one can do is assume good faith, in my opinion. who would you say is doing this? I'd say your paragraph regarding how religion is a fact and we have to live with it (like people have said we have to live with rain and taxes and slavery and illiteracy) counts as what I'd consider reflexively defending religion. --David. _ Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm Set your options at:
Re: [Marxism] If Charlie is racist, then so am I by Zineb el- Rhazoui
POSTING RULES NOTES #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. * i am quite willing to accept that there is a difference between racist art employed by a racist and racist art employed by an an anti-racist but both are offences if only of different degree. Sure, but this is affirming the consequent. i am confused here. what consequent am i affirming? as i alluded the art can be determined to be racist apart from any adjective you want to employ with the artist. The question is determining whether products of an anti-racist magazine, that are deployed to anti-racist ends, and which seemingly successfully carry out this purpose, can be said to be racist in the first place. Or rather, at this point we need a bit of a theory of racist art: is it a formal or a material issue? Is it contextual or it inheres to particular features no matter how they are utilised? My own view on these matters is consequentialist: if something tends to disarticulate and combat racism, it is not racist; if it does the opposite, it is racist. how would you say that the images in question combat racism? please don't say that it was done by anti-racists because you seem to be saying that if you determined a priori that these guys are a-okay, that they can do no wrong. for me the proof was in the images. religion is simply a fact. it goes well beyond simple accusations of oppression. we atheists on the left need to get over ourselves with our pious superiority. we are the minority. denigrating religion with offensive caricatures of its believers is a doomed project. if we want to claim moral superiority over religious hierarchy, we must demonstrate respect for all people and condemn goofy ethnic images. Capitalism is simply a fact. [...] We communists on the left need to get over ourselves with our pious superiority. We are the minority. Denigrating capitalism with offensive caricatures of the bourgeoisie is a doomed project. Etc. Religion is a fact, just like capitalism and alienation and class society are facts. A fact we must endeavour to get rid of. yea, that's cute but you conveniently left out my 2nd sentence. capitalism and religion are very different facts. religion is intertwined with how most people see themselves as persons and collectively that is distinct from capitalism. indeed, we recently have seen some cracks in a unity of purpose between capitalists and religious leaders. one can easily imagine a people throwing off capitalism and clinging to their religion. (oops! we don't have to imagine!) just as you won't convince people of the efficacy of socialism (or what have you) by mocking and insulting them you won't convince them of the errors in religion ... only more so. i haven't gone back to her text yet but she also uses techniques of distraction. one such, her claim of being married to a black man. it reminds me somewhat of jarheads i knew who married locals, made claims of purity of racial thought with proof in their marriage and then went on to express some of the most unlightened racist garbage i've heard in my life. and i've dealt with klan dialogue! i'm not saying she's being racist herself but maybe, just maybe, her defence of charlie hebdo, at a time that it was being criticized for it's racism, is little more than locating the butter on bread. Thing is, at this point those people who have made up their mind that this is about racism are probably not going to change it. But I don't see those things as attempts to distract, I see those things as attempts to place matters in context and to try to call attention and explain to people that maybe there is something else going on than their default assumptions. I get the feeling that for some people making arguments of why something isn't racist seems to be taken as a proof of racism itself... Let's put it this way: is there any utterance that could be made by her in the article that might change your mind? Or is it all going to be read as siding with oppression, defending her material interest and distracting or obfuscating? The least one can do is assume good faith, in my opinion. but don't you see that the same open mindedness could be extended to cyran? oh, but he's someone with a grudge. forget him. and i am not discounting her at all. she makes a case that shows how complex the problem is. i thought i acknowledged that. and i am grateful to you for sharing it because it addressed my earliest questions to the group. however, could she say anything that would erase the images and time? how could she? she doesn't even address their objectionable content. rather she paints a different picture of the people
Re: [Marxism] If Charlie is racist, then so am I by Zineb el- Rhazoui
POSTING RULES NOTES #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. * I don't get it, why is this argument more or less acceptable when made by an ethnic Arab? She is simply repeating the same point of view that has been rehashed time and again, which is that the cartoons were just mocking religion. The other side of the argument was not that mocking religion constitutes racism; it's that that is not, in fact, what the cartoons were doing. - Amith On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 10:00 PM, dave x via Marxism marxism@lists.csbs.utah.edu wrote: POSTING RULES NOTES #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. * Since the Article11 piece by Olivier Cyran was posted here, I thought this reply from the same period, also translated from French, deserved posting. Every bit as biting and worth reading. More than enough accusations of orientalism and racism to go around in this discussion, IMO. http://thecharnelhouse.org/2015/01/15/if-charlie-hebdo-is-racist-then-so-am-i-zineb-el-rhazoui-responds-to-olivier-cyran/ _ Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm Set your options at: http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/amithrgupta%40gmail.com _ Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm Set your options at: http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
