On the news:
Islamist. Algerian. Islamic radical. All words I heard far too many times in the last two days. Today, Salon wrote a piece about the radical right-wing reactions to the tragedy at Charlie Hebdo, the satirical French magazine that became the target of an attack leaving 10 staff members and two police officers dead. Over-simplistic, fear mongering reactions are expected from the likes of Fox News, South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham (although, last time I was in South Carolina, not even Lindsey Graham was Republican enough for South Carolina Republicans), and, perhaps cynically, nothing on this list of '10 insane right wing reactions to the Charlie Hebdo massacre' came as a surprise. Why aren't we, however, up in arms about the less blatant Islamaphobic, anti-immigration remarks of the mainstream news? Certainly Don Lemon's ignorance on CNN is an obvious example of victimizing Muslims, but less apparent tactics of out-grouping are similarly problematic. Since the shooting, I have listened to BBC's Global News podcast three times, each time to be reminded that the alleged shooters are of Algerian descent. There was no negative or positive connotation attached to these statements, but simply calling these vicious attackers Muslim or Algerian conflates violence with Islam, immigration, and ethnic minorities. Of course, the press's job is to inform and when reporting on the radical anti-immigration rhetoric of Marine Le Pen and the National Front in the aftermath of these shootings, it is relevant to inform readers/ listeners that the latest round of this rhetoric is fueled (completely unjustifiably, it should go without saying) because the alleged shooters are of Algerian descent. A play-by-play of the police's attempts to catch the alleged shooters warrants no such reminder. The only difference between reporting that 'French brothers of Algerian descent' and 'French brothers' committed these attacks is that one creates an image, an image of people who look different, an image of people who look different being violent. And that image fuels hatred, stereotyping, and ethnocentrism. The Republic of France does not define its citizenship ethnically, so let French people simply be French.
Islamist. Algerian. Islamic radical. All words I heard far too many times in the last two days. Today, Salon wrote a piece about the radical right-wing reactions to the tragedy at Charlie Hebdo, the satirical French magazine that became the target of an attack leaving 10 staff members and two police officers dead. Over-simplistic, fear mongering reactions are expected from the likes of Fox News, South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham (although, last time I was in South Carolina, not even Lindsey Graham was Republican enough for South Carolina Republicans), and, perhaps cynically, nothing on this list of '10 insane right wing reactions to the Charlie Hebdo massacre' came as a surprise. Why aren't we, however, up in arms about the less blatant Islamaphobic, anti-immigration remarks of the mainstream news? Certainly Don Lemon's ignorance on CNN is an obvious example of victimizing Muslims, but less apparent tactics of out-grouping are similarly problematic. Since the shooting, I have listened to BBC's Global News podcast three times, each time to be reminded that the alleged shooters are of Algerian descent. There was no negative or positive connotation attached to these statements, but simply calling these vicious attackers Muslim or Algerian conflates violence with Islam, immigration, and ethnic minorities. Of course, the press's job is to inform and when reporting on the radical anti-immigration rhetoric of Marine Le Pen and the National Front in the aftermath of these shootings, it is relevant to inform readers/ listeners that the latest round of this rhetoric is fueled (completely unjustifiably, it should go without saying) because the alleged shooters are of Algerian descent. A play-by-play of the police's attempts to catch the alleged shooters warrants no such reminder. The only difference between reporting that 'French brothers of Algerian descent' and 'French brothers' committed these attacks is that one creates an image, an image of people who look different, an image of people who look different being violent. And that image fuels hatred, stereotyping, and ethnocentrism. The Republic of France does not define its citizenship ethnically, so let French people simply be French.
>simply calling these vicious attackers Muslim or Algerian conflates violence with Islam, immigration, and ethnic minorities
ReplyDeleteAre you saying that this it is disingenuous to conflate violence with Islam in this context? That the fact that they were Muslim had nothing to do with their attack, and mentioning it is a completely superfluous bit of information that serves only to spread hate?
Yes to the first part and no to the second. Certainly these attackers used their interpretation of Islam to justify the attacks to themselves, but that is a fringe (and improper) interpretation of the religious texts. I have explained above (not perfectly) that discussing the religion and national origin of the attackers serves an informative purpose in some contexts, but saying "Muslim Algerian attackers" every time the attacks are talked about does not serve to inform but only to simplify, label, and stereotype.
ReplyDeleteI agree that labeling them as Algerian is superfluous. I don't think the specification that they are Muslim is though, nor do I think that their interpretation of Islam is
ReplyDelete1. A fringe interpretation
2. improper
1. http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the-worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-exec/
A takeaway:
"Around the world, most Muslims also reject suicide bombing and other attacks against civilians. However, substantial minorities in several countries say such acts of violence are at least sometimes justified, including 26% of Muslims in Bangladesh, 29% in Egypt, 39% in Afghanistan and 40% in the Palestinian territories."
They are a minority, yes, but a fringe? No. These are millions and millions of people who believe violence is sometimes justified to defend Islam. Sure, only a select few will actually act and commit the violence, but the ideas are still pervasive in the Islamic world. Islamic terrorism will continue to be a problem because it is fostered and supported by substantial minorities, not just extremist fringes.
2. Improper interpretation. Yes, I get the irony of two non-muslims arguing about the interpretation of the Qur'an. Gosh, I really need to care about issues that actually matter to me. Seriously, I'm mad that I'm even writing about this. Who cares what a suburban white kid has to say about the interpretation of Islam? Yet I'm still typing.
Anyways, there is no basis for this argument. Extremists may argue that the more mainstream, peaceful interpretation is wrong and that their violent interpretation is right. The debate would breakdown to both sides quoting contradicting verses from the Qur'an. The problem is that there is nothing to settle these contradictions. There is no widely accepted, codified appendix to the Qur'an that says "Hey, that stuff about cutting the heads and hands off of disbelievers? Yeah no, don't do that. Live peacefully instead." Instead you have many people who choose to live by the peaceful verses because they have common sense and realize killing disbelievers is incompatible with living in the modern world, and others who choose to live by the violent verses.
This point comes up in the debate I linked you. Specifically, A woman asks Zeba Khan how she chooses to live by the peaceful verses and not the violent ones: http://youtu.be/rh34Xsq7D_A?t=1h23m36s . She is unable to answer the question here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rh34Xsq7D_A&feature=youtu.be&t=1h30m43s and instead tropes on about "core islamic principles" even though the question was, how does she determine what core islamic principles are?
Point is there is nothing to say the violent interpretation is wrong. The idea that extremists have a "perverted interpretation" is wrong. They just choose to ignore a different set of passages from the Qur'an, which everybody has to do, because it contradicts itself.
Sorry for the essay. Or even caring about this issue that does not affect me. I HAVE NOBODY TO TALK TO ABOUT SOCIAL ISSUES ANYMORE
also im posting as anonymous because I can't figure out how to log in because I'm dumb