The American magazine is once again at the heart of a controversy thanks to an article by Jeet Heer, a mainstay of the publication as well as a senior editor.
The article quotes a Charlie Hebdo cartoon, and claims:
On the face of it, the cartoon seems blatantly racist, although as always Charlie Hebdo has defenders who argue that it is an ironic commentary on racist attitudes. The problem with this defense is that constantly using super-racist images to satirize racism seems like a strategy with diminishing returns. After constantly publishing such racist images, isn’t it fair to ask whether this isn’t a satire on racism but simply an expression of racism?
On the face of it, the article seems blatantly critical of the anti-racist Charlie Hebdo, though as always Charlie Hebdo has its attackers who argue that it is expressing racism, rather than satirising it. The problem with this strategy is that constantly attacking anti-racist magazines to criticise racism seems like a strategy with diminishing returns. After constantly publishing such anti-anti-racist attacks, isn’t it fair to ask whether this isn’t an attempt to attack perceived racism but simply a way to defend racism against biting satire?