Comments are closed.
Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.
I guess the takeaway is forced sterilization for immigrants.
do children of immigrants elsewhere, say, in 'Merica, feel that "death is their only way home"? pretty sure they don't, even if assimilation is difficult/impossible.
rather than blame Euros for intolerance, i'm going to go ahead and point at decades of Saudi funding for Wahhabist Madrassas throughout Sunni Islam, done in exchange for maintenance of their doomed, corrupt monarchy. Islamist rebellion gives alienated Muslim youth focus, meaning, romance, and certainty. it will take decades to undo, and it can't be undone by the west.
well, maybe if we stop sucking the Saud's dicks, it will happen faster.
As it turns out one is a lot more likely to get you killed than the other. Oddly, you would expect the "xenophobic right wing" to be killing you if you made fun of them but that's not what happened here.
How about this, we wait week for the victims' bodies to cool off before we start making excuses for murders who were following the advice of their imaginary sky friends.
Coming to the wrong conclusion is as dangerous and unproductive as coming to no conclusions about this.
I'm just disagreeing with the premise that this horrible event is—unlike, say, an earthquake or tsunami—beyond meaning or human context.
Their glowing ghosts would welcome us as Liberators, under King Rmoney.
Yet if they were Russian Christian or Jewish Israeli "children" who committed this massacre against Muslims, Arabs or blacks this pity party would not be taking place. Spare me. This is predictable. So much sympathy for the perps because of their religion and race. Very little attention to the victims.
Give me a fucking break. How about you wait until the bodies of the victims are off the slab before you try and make this about white people.
I think I understand the reasons very well, but am damned if I'll mute what I write about fanatics and fundamentalists (of any religious stripe) to pander to their feelings. Part of what makes The Stranger outstanding is that it has never done this. Now would be a terrible time to start.
Your argument -- responsibility, context, etc -- has been made many times before, and it segues easily into an argument for self-censorship. It's also the argument right-wing regimes make against freedom of the press, which is why a Saudi blogger today suffered the first 50 of a sentence of 1,000 lashes.
I also admire Buruma's work, but immigration may not be the main issue here. The Parisian policeman killed when rushing to help was the son of Algerian immigrants. And the grieving partner of Charlie's editor is the daughter of Algerian immigrants.
The downside of this is the possibility of fueling other violent groups (the violent right wing groups have their own sense of alienation driving their behavior) to action against Muslims regardless of actual affiliation with radicals.
In every incident there are many back stories. Dismissing these stories as overly sympathetic is ignorant of patterns taking shape in the larger world.
You know why some liberals apologize for Muslims? Because we don't want the bigots among us to start harassing them for simply being around. I don't want to live in a world where it is acceptable to round up an entire group of people.
I'd also like to point out that France and some other European countries have extremely strict laws against overt hate speech. The Front National asshole who compared a black politician to a monkey went to jail for it. Legally, maligned groups in France have much more protection from offensive speech than they would have in the United States. No Republican has gone to jail for their heelarious jokes about Obama being a money and watermelons being grown at the White House.
BTW, very canny of you to subtly demonstrate the very issue you raise! ;>)
Check your assumptions and try again.
This is a human problem.
The question is not how we deal with the fallout of this violence, the question is how the fuck do we figure out what we need to do to prevent it.
There are serious social problems that are brewing this nihilism and violence. No one is proposing we forgive those who perceive themselves as downtrodden for running amok and destroying lives. All we socially conscious folk are asking is, can these people be better integrated into society so that they're invested as equals, what would it take, can it be done in compliance with our democratic principles, and do we have the will and assets to do it?
The first question whenever anyone tries to solve a problem is, to figure out what the fuck is going on. Mr. Kiley's examination of the question is overdue.
We all have a dark streak.
So my question is "Why there are no Vietnamese terrorists? In France or the USA or anywhere?" (And lots of other groups, for that matter such as Mexicans etc etc who also get a lot of mis-treatment.)
If any group had a real gripe against the USA and France, it might be Vietnamese. But why no terrorism by that group/culture/heritage? Why aren't Vietnamese resentful and full of wrath?
I think that such question needs be answered before blaming the USA and France for their mis-deeds in the Middle East and thus excusing terrorism by people of Islamic heritage.
15 & 20 failed it!
Of course this is all still in the planning stages. I'm no Eichmann when it comes to the logistical stuff.
Of course, you can't change the text of the Koran - Islam isn't going anywhere. So you have to look at fixing the situations that get people to want to make the worst of the Koran. Yes, Islam used to be associated with great scholarship and etc. Right now it's being used by the world's worst assholes.
It should remain okay to criticize a religion within reason. Islam is not the main cause but it is very disingenuous to pretend it is not a factor.
I should be able to say all of the above without being labeled an "Islamophobe." It is not the Islam of the majority of the world but they aren't making stuff up. This is how a small minority, but still hundreds of thousands to millions of people are raised to think. It is not the reason, but it is a major factor.
Is religion a factor in religiously motivated violence. Of course. Is Islam (in it's core texts) more violent than Christianity? Nope. Is there a complicated social/political history to why there is such a widespread, violent Islamist movement now? Yes. Is talking about that justifying terrorism? No, it's the route to an actual solution.
"In response to all these well-intentioned albeit knee-jerk reactions in solidarity with those who were "murdered for free expression," the responses have been incredibly reductionist and simplistic. Not once have I seen or read a think-piece vivisecting modern, post-industrial France's byzantine relationship with its own past; one of over-reaching colonialism and horrific attempts at maintaining empire. I would go as far as to say, and forgive me for making this stretch, that France's relationship with its imperial past is as complex as our own country's relationship with race (slavery and immigration.) The two nations share a willed inability to reconcile with state trauma and a theme that is constantly whispered at an unbearable volume - IDENTITY; identity in language, in character, culture, pastime, policy, and economy. In our continued efforts to assert national identity, those who are the most afflicted in our society are those we deem unfit to include to enjoy it: people of color, religious minorities, foreign nationals or immigrants, or people with varying degrees of gender expression and sexual proclivities. Now, given that these communities suffer the brunt of an society unequal under advanced capital and the withering away of the public, is it really just to exercise your right to free expression toward the abasement of those to whom your identity is not extended? Practicing said right only to fulfill your a need to criticize marginalized persons is nothing short of wasting it. Go ahead and spew your free expression on the disempowered, but many people are seeking various means to speak truth to power, which is, correct if I'm wrong, what free speech is all about. That said, please stop referring to this as an attack on expression and speech. Please stop talking about violence in religion. This is only about identity and power."
Guess you don't know that Muslims are very small group in Vietnam, less than 0.1% so not sure of your point.
You asked, "Why there are no Vietnamese terrorists? In France or the USA or anywhere?" @41 answered "Vietnamese people have never been hopeless." That's the point. Read the whole comment next time.
Is it because of some sense of guilt If so go to a psychiatrist or priest and leave your own personal angst out of the civic discourse.
The French are right to try to mimize religious symbols from public life.
Je suis Charlie.
You want to ban a religion? Round up everyone who's Muslim and do what with them? The Nazis tried their "final solution" 75 years ago. We, I hope, are not Nazis.
Which brings us back to the question: trying to find some way(s) to overcome whatever-the-fuck-pressures are generating violent jihadists from within our own societies. That's what this article is about.
Because, after you're done assigning blame for this stream of violence, you still haven't proposed any program to ameliorate it.
Clearly Christianity is the root of parents killing their children. There are numerous child murders in The Bible and Andrea Yates and several other child murderers have said they did it because their religion told them to.
Who said anything about "blame"?
This s analysis and the answer is that there's a connection.
Maybe the answer is that Moslems have to figure it out.
The Germans have -- Germany of 1940 and 2015 are totally different cultures.
I have no idea what makes sense and what shoud be done.
But denying that Islam is involved is infantile.
Are you both deaf and blind?
Now do you mean is there currently a widespread terrorist ideology among more Muslims than Christians? Because that isn't the same thing. (This is the nuance I mentioned, it requires some thought and some accuracy of language.) This is a product of the last five decades or so, it didn't exist before. It's a reaction to modern social, political and economic forces. If the USA and Britain hadn't backed the house of Saud it might not exist at all.
Well. I do.
This assumption or racism is based on ignorance and out of context cover art and NOT on any underlying malignant philosophy or message by CH. It is SATIRE. And you morons don't attempt to understand the context of what you see.
If you stop this navel gazing internet telephone tag where one or two people see a cover and make assumptions and then just shit themselves in self righteousness and actually research the paper an entirely different story emerges.
First. The fact is Hebdo is mostly staffed by far left writers and cartoonists many of which belong to anti-racist organizations. FI: The Boko Haram cover was combining two separate issues current in France and making fun of the anti-welfare positions of the French politicians.
CH spent more of it's time provoking the right wing and the catholic church than it ever did Islam.
Second of all the style - the big nose thing is a FRENCH caricature. Look at the ALL the art over the years. All the art has big distorted features and noses.
Remember when Colbert was accuses of being a racist by that idiot woman? She fundamentally didn't not understand the nature of his satire. She was as off base in her accusations as Kiley and Sacco are.
And clearly most people accusing CH of racism don't understand FRENCH satire or the aims of the paper at all.