On 7 January 2015, two Islamic terrorists forced their way into and opened fire in the Paris headquarters of Charlie Hebdo, killing twelve. The aspect of personnel in the journalism field being murdered for, well, journalism, gave me something to really think about.
In my mind, I think “well damn, technically I’m a journalist.” If I’m not a journalist, I’m definitely something that can suffer a huge backlash and criticism — an abolitionist writer. Because of the subject matter of what I write, I find myself standing on a bridge between the international terrorism of Hebdo and the domestic terrorism of white supremacy. Very much technically, Onyx Truth (or simply, just I) can be killed by terrorism…. because of a disagreement of something we write.
Terrorism is a tool of violence to change socio-political behavior; this can be anything from petrol-politics, government intervention, to a black child ogling at a white woman, or an attempt at breaking institutional racism. Terrorism is simply put, using the politics of fear (of death or maiming) to control people. Bodies are placed on display for a message.
So, the problem I have here is this: due to the dead silence and lack of criticism on the terrorism inflicted upon the NAACP (which historically has happened), I can find it highly feasible that any abolitionist writers, talkers, or activists can be killed with near impunity with no media critical review. In short, if someone ran into the Onyx Truth headquarters (because we got journalism-famous) and killed a few writers in the next couple of years, I can totally picture no media coverage. And that’s scary.
While I sincerely do not condone the murder of anyone because of or a mere disagreement, I have a severe problem with the artificial heroism constructed for the Charlie Hebdo staff. While I am deeply sorry for their unfortunate loss, I simply cannot co-sign stating that these people are heroes of some sort. They are not.
To put this into perspective, these illustrations are no different than the political cartoons of the past which only spoke of the public indoctrination of racism against Afro-Americans, Jews of Germany, Irish immigrants, Italian immigrants, and the list goes on. On a superficial basis it’s easy to say “I am Charlie” when you don’t know the facts, but once you actually look at the bigger picture, I’ll have to vehemently say I am NOT Charlie Hebdo.
You see when it comes to satire, the poking of fun travels in the direction of upward, not downward. What I mean is this: satire has always been aimed at those who are more powerful than oneself (the elite, the rich, the royalty, the dominant social, economic, or political group), rather than being aimed at those who have less social capital, less socio-political power or influence. This is precisely why Jon Stewart targets politicians, and O’Reilly simply doesn’t engage in satire.
So when we sit back and attempt to suggest that “it’s all cool because it’s satire”, I’m going have to ask you to play matador and cut the bull. I’ll reiterate — I do NOT condone, support or defend the notion of killing journalists and cartoonists. But get this right here: I don’t support the notion of subtracting from others of lesser socio-political power for the sake of disturbing “sense of humor”.
Due to the fact that the white self can infinitely remove himself for the white collective, I suggest that Muslims should do the same. Why do a Muslim have to “denounce” the actions of others when whites NEVER apologize for any action in the collective sense? If a white person doesn’t have to denounce the ever-so Christian Klu Klux Clan, then maybe a Muslim doesn’t doesn’t have to denounce a Muslim terrorist. Maybe.