There’s
been a lot written about the attacks in Paris, about what they mean about our
world, and what the world’s response should be.
I’m more than a little worried about our response. Every time the West feels like it has been
victimized, it tends to feel it is righteous, if not innocent. Believing oneself righteous can easily lead
to believing one’s actions are righteous, no matter what. The atrocities our country has committed
after 9-11-2001—Abu Ghraib, torture, the invasion of Iraq, the tens of thousands
of civilian deaths—dwarf the truly heinous nature of the acts of 9-11. And yet, many in the US and the West consider
ourselves to be justified in our response.
I’m
also worried when we make it all about freedom.
Because then we are the good guys.
We are the defenders of freedom, and we frame the narrative as “these
intolerant terrorists want to destroy our freedoms”. Freedom of speech, religion and expression
are something I value highly, and I am grateful that I live in a society that
protects them to a great extent. But our
record on promoting freedom—especially in other countries—is a mixed bag, to
say the least. When we make it all about
our freedom, we overlook the complex nature of violence in the world today, and
too often find it easy to use violence as a response to violence, causing
further enmity and strengthening the hand of those who benefit from hate.
The
motivation of those who committed these heinous crimes in Paris is complicated,
and we would do well not to reduce it to slogans. Part of that is opposition to the West’s
policies—economic, political and especially military. I don’t mean to imply
that somehow we are responsible for the actions of the murderers. But I do mean
to say that we are responsible for
our part in creating the conditions that cause terrorism to grow.
(The
use of the term “terrorist” has been so misused, that I hesitate to even use it
any more. Its use has been corrupted so
that it essentially means “what they do to us is terrorism” and “what we do to
them is fighting terrorism”. After 9-11,
we increased funding to the Colombian military—one of the worst human rights
violators in the hemisphere—in order for them to “fight terrorism”. We call the indiscriminate bombing of Israeli
towns by the Palestinians as terrorism, but not the deliberate mass bombing of Palestinian
civilian areas by the Israelis.)
I’m
not sure if I want to “Je Suis Charlie”. I will defend their right to publish
what they want, but the racist and intolerant tone of some of their work isn’t
helpful. Satire will usually use a sledgehammer instead of a nail clipper—I get
that. But while we are free to write or
print or say anything we want to, we are also responsible for the consequences
of our words. Including the consequences we didn’t mean to happen.
Instead
of saying “Je Suis Charlie”, I would rather say, “Je Suis Nigeria”, where
thousands were murdered by Boko Haram during the same time as the atrocities in
France, to very little mourning or action by the world. I would rather say “Je Suis the Poor”,
because as Congress and our state legislature convene, they are conveniently
left out of the discussion.
But
to be honest, I need to say “Je Suis America”; because I am—we are—and thus share
responsibility for all that is done in our name.
Be
justice. Be beauty. And I think, be wary of slogans.
Patrick
No comments:
Post a Comment