There are two things that have been nagging me since morning about this Je Suis Charlie and critique of it affair. First, when we explain the massacre by referring to French record of state violence, racialised Islamophobia, Algerian war, and to epistemic and psychological violence committed by racialised caricatures of a sacred figure, are we trying to understand violence or are we trying to explain it away? There are quite a few people (including on my timeline) who even heroised the killers or at least equated freedom of expression with freedom to kill if offended. How do they/we explain attacked killings of Jewish people in the kosher store? How do we account for murder of innocent Jews by gunmen if we adopt the lens of provocative cartoons and therefore justified reaction by Muslim gunmen? We should expect nothing but racist anti-semitism from apologists of terrorising gunmen, but why are many others (including myself to an extent) who are referring to racism/islamophobia etc ignoring the attack on the Kosher supermarket? Is it because violent anti-semitism of Muslim chauvinists is inconvenient and complicates are preference for a master narrative of Islamophobia? Second, when we refer to How about 2000 plus killed by Boko Haram?, why are we silent there?, what bodies are mournable, etc (again, i am equally complicit with this), are we not conveniently forgetting that when in the past Boko Haram violence has been referred to, a conspicuous number of persons rejected it as Western conspiracy, Zionist plot to malign Muslims, a reaction to neocolonialism, etc. When one talks of Paris, we remind of Boko Haram. When some one talks of Boko Haram, we remind of what about Syria. When someone talks of Syria, we remind what about ISIS. And when someone talks of ISIS, we say what about US war in Iraq?, and so on. Are those of us raising what about Boko Haram really caring about deaths in Nigeria by extremist Muslim chauvinists or are we referring to is simply because it fits in with our master narrative of First world as victimiser and Third world as forever a victim? I have no certain answer but I am not comfortable with my/our position that explains away prejudices, bigotries, violence and dehumanisation of ISIS or Boko Haram, etc by referring to systemic violence of international system, Western hypocrisies, islamophobia, etc and contributes to a sense of communal victimisation. We do need to combat Islamophobia, as we combat racism, but not by stereotyping in reverse and not by ignoring questions that are inconvenient.
Posted on: Wed, 14 Jan 2015 05:13:43 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015