Je ne suis pas Charlie/ I am not Charlie.

And before I get into this, I want to be first extremely and explicitly clear: I don’t condone the massacre. I don’t think the cartoonists and writers deserved to lose their lives. There’s just no way to logically defend their deaths without ignorance and/or hate.

But I’m not Charlie though. And I’m not Charlie for several reasons: Charlie Hebdo for many people of color in France, particularly in Paris, that don’t benefit from mixed or proximity-to-White French- privilege is extremely racist. It’s a particular brand of French racism and xenophobia sheltered under the grey tent of “satire”. It’s belittingly. It’s demeaning. And it’s a larger, published example of the explicit forms of aggression that many people of color in Paris live with, daily. The irony is that I haven’t been returned to the States for even a week from Paris when this happened, after spending more than a week meeting and interviewing people of color in Paris about their experiences with racism, exociticsm, discrimation and the aggressions of living in Paris while colored. Because to put those experiences and Charlie Hebdo into context, these are some of the images and “freedom of speech” that’s being defended.

racist charlie hebdo

un peu raciste, non?

mind you, the woman depicted is an elected official.

mind you, the woman depicted is an elected official.

"The Koran is shit; it doesn't stop bullets."

“The Koran is shit; it doesn’t stop bullets.”

This is the “freedom of speech” that #JeSuisCharlie represents for so many people of color in Paris. These aren’t isolated editions. This is the humor that many White Frenchmen and Frenchwomen find funny and even consider to be political commentary. And at what point, will we draw the lines between “freedom of speech” and “hate speech”? At what point do mainstream media outlets, which are largely controlled and written by White people, stop racializing Islam and stop creating humor based on the humiliation of people of color and their culture and faiths? At what point do White people have that moment of self-reflection, without the threat of terrorism to do so?

“Don’t be afraid, calm down, I won’t kill you,” the gunman told her in a steady voice, with a calm look in his eyes, she recalled. “You are a woman. But think about what you’re doing. It’s not right.” 

je susi charlie paris

Solidarity in Paris

The “Je Suis Charlie” hashtag and the cries across the world of the infringements on freedom of speech have shades of grey in common with the demands to release the “The Interview”, which for many represented the entitlement of “bros” to laugh and disrespect anyone in the name of humor and free speech. And again, it’s interesting and telling to see informally and (unscientifically) who feels that #JeSuisCharlie is about defending the right to say anything, at whomever’s expense. As with “The Interview”, I see mostly White people that feel this is an attack on freedom of speech, specifically, their freedom of speech.  From the commentary I’ve seen from people of color, the attacks are not about freedom of speech but extreme measures taken in the face of continued humiliation and White privilege and White supremacy in the degradation of people of color.As Asghar Bukari wrote about Charlie Hebdo, “White people don’t like to admit it, but those cartoons upheld their prejudice, their racism, their political supremacy, and cut it how you will — images like that upheld a political order built on discrimination.” What’s funny about two privileged White American bros trolling North Korea and the human rights violations there? What’s funny about the White writers of Charlie Hebdo depicting sex slaves as welfare queens? It’s not a “controversy.” It’s racist. It’s hateful. And history has taught us that more often times than not, hate is met not with tolerant compassion and civil discourse, but hate that ups the ante. Hate almost always ensues that more hate will follow.

"The sex slaves of Boko Haram are angry: "Don't touch my allocations!"

“The sex slaves of Boko Haram are angry: “Don’t touch our benefits!”

A Charlie Hebdo journalist, Laurent Léger said in a 2012 interview, “And if some people are not happy with this, they can sue us and we can defend ourselves. That’s democracy. You don’t throw bombs, you discuss, you debate.” But how do you debate hate that is protected as civil discourse and freedom of speech? How does a person of color debate in court their rights and the violations of such when France doesn’t even keep racial demographic statistics? How do you address these fanatical issues of racism and White supremacy (i.e., that 200 girls stolen from school are welfare queens) which are considered to be “discourse”, “debates” or even intelligently assembled? To elaborate on Ta-Nehisi Coates, it’s the privilege and weakness of Whiteness: to live in a world of myth(s) built upon unchallenged and uniformed thought, often of one’s own creation and be confident in the assumption and expectation that you should – and will – be taken seriously. It’s the privilege of French Whiteness to mourn the loss or perceived loss of the privilege to demean French minorities, lest they have to be considerate and rigorous in their assertions. It’s the privilege of Whiteness around the world to fear this fear for French Whiteness, lest they suffer the same fate in their own racially stratified countries.

I spoke with a woman yesterday that I interviewed for an upcoming article that I’m writing, ironically, on racism in Paris. It was a tense day for her. Surrounded by grieving, mostly White people at her job, Céline* stepped outside to whisper into her cellphone. “The White people are all mourning and I am too, but I look at this differently. Charlie Hebdo has done nothing but make fun of Black people, Islam, Algerians,” she said, rushing through her words. “This needs a nuanced look because my humanity is under assault everyday, in the French system and this press which thinks that they have to make political statements by humiliating Black people and North Africans.”

And I can’t help but to think of the people that I interviewed, in 2006 and 2014, that feel so completely shut out of French society and how this only speaks to their invisibility. In an effort to combat this pervasive feeling, a the hashtag, #JeSuisAhmed is gaining ground, named after Ahmed Merabet, the North African police officer that was killed point-blank by one of the gunmen during the rampage.

Je ne suis pas Charlie

je ne suis pas charlie copy

Some hope that it will to help stem the tide of anti-Muslim violence that people are expecting in the wake of this attack and also recognize that a Muslim man was a victim as well, killed for protecting the right of the writers of Charlie Hebdo to diminish, devalue and mock him. Those fears are not unfounded, as several mosques in France have been attacked in the wake of the Charlie Hebdo attack. And continuing the trend of ignorance, in the video below, Don Lemon asks a Muslim human rights lawyer if he supported ISIS after his repeated denouncements of all forms of religious extremism, including Christianity’s: (at the 4:50 mark)

Muslims around the world, on social media and in news outlets are being burdened with the responsibility of denouncing the attacks of Brown Muslims in Paris. Newsweek declares, “Moderate Muslims must speak out.” Why should a minority of people be burdened with speaking for over one billion people that are at this moment, making sandwiches, praying or doing whatever else mundane things make up life, lived daily? Yet, White Christians are not expected to speak to the atrocities and ideologies of the KKK, the Crusades, the “discovery of the Americas”, the American Tea Party and other entities that speak and commit violence in the name of God?


Because no matter how insipid or egregious the offense, White privilege can and often is invoked to disassociate one’s White self from the White collective. The individual is invoked and dispatched like an airlift out of the messy reflection on the ramifications of Whiteness. Thus it’s possible to have the world rallying to protect Charlie Hebdo and stand in solidarity with the magazine and not have a conversation about how to change it for the better, so that it can actually represent free speech and spirited discourse that does not rely on humiliating religious, racial and sexual minorities. Charlie Hebdo, with the help of Google, French newspapers and a few other unnamed media companies, will run next week. Of course the edition will sell out. Of course it will be characterized as defiance in the face of tyranny, which it is in some ways and I respect them for that, refusing to be silenced by extremism. But unless a real conversation takes place about the rampant racism and hate in French society and Charlie Hebdo‘s role in perpetuating such, Charlie Hebdo continues to live in a world of myth, of unchallenged racial, religious and cultural assumptions and tyranny which asks French minorities to sacrifice their dignity and equality for a good rire. Because freedom of (widely distributed hate) speech.

*obviously not homegirl’s name

Correction: An earlier draft had “suis” misspelled as “sais”, which is equally clever, but an accident made in haste. My apologies for the confusion. My response to the comments can be found in the follow up article, “A Confederacy of Colorblinds: Charlie Hebdo and French Racism“.


  1. The original article mistakes championing free speech as giving approval to the content of what is spoken. That is not the case. Free speech rights are not needed for popularly accepted ideas. They are needed for the very offensive, even racist, views that many contributors to this forum claim to be present in Charlie Hebdot. But the position that people have the right to speak their minds is not equivalent to an agreement with the ideas being spoken. So much of the exchange on this site centers on whether the content of Charlie Hebdot is racist. That issue is irrelevant. People will differ on that position, often with a use of persuasive argumentation. The issue is whether the magazine has the right to express its ideas. EVEN IF THEY ARE RACIST. If they aren’t racist, there’s no need to appeal to the concept of free speech. Free speech references come into play only when the content of the ideas is offensive, ugly, hurtful, yes, even racist. We can’t have it both ways, extolling the value of free expression yet calling upon the voices to temper their presentations, to avoid giving offense, to refrain from hurting others’ feelings, to withhold views that are racist, sexist, irreligious, ageist, speciesistic, xenophobic. There’s a slippery slope here. One incursion into free speech opens the door for many others, the very others that are supposed to be protected. “One man’s ceiling is another man’s floor,” Paul Simon sings. One man’s offense is another man’s cherished value. When we value free speech, we value it above other considerations such as giving offense, depicting minorities in ugly ways and so on. The French do not value free speech in this way, as their legal system provides punishment for using racist language or images. The American legal system is more expansive and accepting of very offensive ideas, providing civil penalties for libel and slander and criminal sanctions against threats and creating”clear and present danger” of violence or harm. Actual harm as a consequence of speech is the target, but not offense, or humiliation or embarrassment. Those consequences are the price free expression advocates are willing to pay.

  2. Another fine example of victim-blaming. You reap what you sow, they were asking for it, right? You ask, where is the line between free speech and hate speech? There isn’t one! “Hate speech” is free speech no matter how much you, me, or anyone else dislikes or is offended by what is said. If people are afraid to speak their minds because they may be punished by law for offending others, then how can that be considered free speech? I am offended by someone’s words almost every day, but I am so glad that there are no laws against hate speech, if for no other reason than that they would undoubtedly be used to prosecute me because I’m a religious minority and not among the 90% majority of Christians where I live. Likewise, laws like that in France would more likely be used against Muslims than in their defense. The author of this blog should not be subject to censorship or prosecution for offending anyone, nor should I for offending anyone with this comment. And neither should anyone responsible for making content like Charlie Hedbo. The whole premise of your blog is to illustrate how terrible the magazine is, how badly it makes Muslims feel in France, and how awful white people are for creating, liking, and defending the content. The truth is no matter how terrible any of that was, no matter how offensive or awful or how badly it made anyone feel, there are no words so terrible that to simply write, speak, or think them should be punishable by law. Period. That is freedom of speech.

  3. While I agree that nobody should be ridiculed for their race, skin color or their religious beliefs, I think the writer is more than stretching it when lumping the American Tea Party together with the KKK, the Crusades and the settlers of the Americas (” Yet, White Christians are not expected to speak to the atrocities and ideologies of the KKK, the Crusades, the “discovery of the Americas”, the American Tea Party and other entities that speak and commit violence in the name of God?”. In typical leftist fashion, the writer of the article doesn’t have enough common sense and self-constraint to know when to leave well enough alone after making a valid point. They always have to get in a dig to the conservative side and make an a$$ of themselves.

  4. I am a teacher of English and I live in the Caribbean. Your article is very intriguing and informative. I will be reading this article to my students.

  5. Reblogged this on Wright Words and commented:
    This is a conversation few are having! #IamCharlie, a flashpoint as of late for freedom of expression, is not so fully embraced by people of color in France. As a matter of fact, some feel the content is racially denigrating. Here is a quote from one person interviewed “The White people are all mourning and I am too, but I look at this differently. Charlie Hebdo has done nothing but make fun of Black people, Islam, Algerians,” I urge you to read on for different viewpoint on this nationally trending story.

  6. Brilliant piece. Unless you are brown skinned and Muslim no one can comprehend the pain. The same is true black people are dealt with in the US. It is blatantly racist and anti Muslim. It is not free speech and debate it is insulting!

  7. Thank you for this thoughtful post and provocative discussion.

    The odd paradox is that we would all seem to become racist in taking positions on some imaginary Likert scale of color and privilege. Anyone who has lived in France knows the sting of being recognized as “different”, be it by skin color, race, nationality or just foreign accent, is akin to racial profiling. The harsh truth is that France’s paradigm of assimilation makes many of us – privileged or poor of any color – eternal outsiders. Someone once explained it to me as being due to a kind of genetic fear of invasion that dates back to the Roman Conquest, which seems as good as any other explanation. It is something I personally have come to grips with after 40 years here, finding that the country’s basic values translated into action are more humanitarian and generous than those that have emerged across the Atlantic in the last three decades. That does not keep me from longing for the potluck-block-party style of social integration I remember from my youth in America.

    Your readers have also pointed out the dangers of taking satire out of context, so I won’t elaborate on that point. Personally, I was unable to raise the I-Am-Charlie banner because I have long avoided Charlie Hebdo as being distasteful or, worse, just not funny, even in context. In that sense Je Suis Charlie is a sad but suitable sigil for the hoary war for freedom of speech. Seeing it as black or white, right or wrong, is ridiculous. It will always be a tidal bore (mascaret) pushing against the forces of oppression and discretion.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s