2 ms·
Hmn, I agree (about "best I've read so far"). Thank you for the link. In a related but distinct vein, two thoughts: Primus. I do not doubt that these murder
by jholman 12y ago
Hmn, I agree (about "best I've read so far"). Thank you for the link.
In a related but distinct vein, two thoughts:
Primus. I do not doubt that these murders are a crime and we should grieve and be angry. But why are these murders worth of all this attention, relative to the inattention paid to countless other atrocities? What of children in schools in Palestine (hundreds dead in 2014), or Boko Haram victims in Nigeria (c.f. http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/30777607 http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/30777607 ), or whatever-whatever-I-don't-know-what-because-I'm-part-of-the-problem. And so far this is all trite and obvious, so here's my point: I think there are two reasons. One, innocent if depressing, is that I know for sure I'm not a Palestinian or Nigerian child, but I can imagine myself a French iconoclast loudmouth. And the second, more sinister, is that nobody powerful benefits from focusing our attention on Boko Haram, whereas my list of beneficiaries of the Charlie Hebdo attack can effortlessly start listing European politicans (e.g. Cameron [re crypto] and Hollande).
Secundus. I read much talk of whether or not Islam is a "more violent" religion than "modern" Christianity. Pshaw. The violence doesn't come from religion, the violence comes from poverty and desperation and ego issues and little-to-lose and tribalism. Very few "Christians" (by which I include the non-religious great-great-grandchildren of Christians) lack for potable water or enough to eat, and most have pretty good security of person and property. It's cheap(er) to buy into civilization when civilization buys into you. As that Sacco cartoon says, "we can think about ... what it is about Muslims that makes them unable to laugh off a mere image".