TOW #16 - How 'Je suis Charlie' makes matters worse - Written

This article was written on January 16th (the day before I'm writing this) about the recent "Je suis Charlie" trend. It was written by Saree Makdisi, a professor of English and comparative literature at UCLA and is also the author of "Making England Western: Occidentalism, Race and Imperial Culture". The author explains why he finds the "Je suis Charlie" trend to be ineffective and counterintuitive because it is just widening the antagonism between Muslims and "Westerners". It promotes the idea of Middle Eastern Muslims as intolerant and lacking the Western principle of freedom and expression. It would also suggest that all Muslims are terrorists, rather than just those involved in attacks such as these. It would continue to cause Westerners to have this view of Muslims, which is not the reality. It creates an "us/them" effect, as the author states. The author suggests that there is not true freedom of expression, even in the Western world, as there are laws against hate speech and speech promoting violence. The author cites examples of people who have been punished for these types of speech, such as Dieudonné M'bala M'bala and Maurice Sinet, who worked for Charlie Hebdo itself. However, hatred of Muslims, according to the author, is not only accepted but almost promoted as demonstrating the superiority of Western values, like freedom of expression and "tolerance".  The author also argues that the trend simplifies the issue. The author uses a strong tone in order to make his argument, primarily through his word choice. He uses phrases like "direct[ing] their barbs at reviled and vulnerable minorities" in order to make the actions seem unacceptable, and almost seems to be an appeal to pathos, suggesting these satirists are attacking these "vulnerable" people and this shouldn't be acceptable. Also, the author continues to use the idea of "us/them" throughout the article, explaining how these sorts of trends promote the idea of Muslims being different, even wrong, in their beliefs and actions. He also uses the example to explain a possible thought of the attackers, "'You' dare make fun of 'us,' they said, then 'you' will pay the price; 'we' will turn the tables".