A simple question:
While Je Suis Charlie is a noble sentiemnt in the United States, it's worth noting that there was a recent terrorist attack involving a bombing aimed at censoring the viewpoints and freedom of speech of another group of radicals dedicated to challenging the status quo founded by a Marxist:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2015/01/07/naacp-bombing-social-media-twitter-naacpbombing/21403499/
http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-01-08/with-the-naacp-bombing-the-mediacoverage-gap-went-viral
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/09/boko-haram-deadliest-massacre-baga-nigeria
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/01/07/us-yemen-security-idUSKBN0KG0AD20150107
In contrast to the deplorable incident in France, the deplorable NAACP bombing in the United States was another damp fizzle of coverage. Why is this so? Fundamentally because it's a reflection of the same pattern where terrorism is not called terrorism if the motivation behind it or the person who does it is related to white supremacy or whiteness. When white terrorists fly planes into buildings, it's an isolated incident. When white terrorists bomb buildings and murder people in churches for ideologically motivated reasons, it's an isolated incident. When white terrorists are shown to be heavily involved with local law-enforcement agencies, it makes as much impression as people legally subsidizing the defense of a white serial rapist cop.
A long way back I posted on how the freedom fighter and the terrorist differ primarily in skill in PR. In terms of the Breivik terrorist or the one who bombs the NAACP and the men who shooot up a satire magazine, the opprobrium likewise varies because ultimately in the end in majority white societies, the white terrorist benefits from belonging to the majority that rigs the system to favor itself, while the Islamist is safely in the Other category and thus far easier to demonize with zero qualms or necessary relevance to truth or accuracy.
So, in the end, if the Charlie Hebdo shooting is indeed such a moral issue, why wasn't the NAACP bombing? What are your thoughts on the reason that coverage favors one and not the other?
Not to mention that as per the edit, 37 Yemenis and 2,000 Nigerians were massacred for ideological reasons, too, in recent days. Both killed by Islamist terrorists just like the people in Paris were. Who decides which category of human life is or isn't worth protests and slogans for? If Je Suis Charlie Sebdo, why not Je Suis Nigeria, or Je Suis Yemen?
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2015/01/07/naacp-bombing-social-media-twitter-naacpbombing/21403499/
http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-01-08/with-the-naacp-bombing-the-mediacoverage-gap-went-viral
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/09/boko-haram-deadliest-massacre-baga-nigeria
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/01/07/us-yemen-security-idUSKBN0KG0AD20150107
In contrast to the deplorable incident in France, the deplorable NAACP bombing in the United States was another damp fizzle of coverage. Why is this so? Fundamentally because it's a reflection of the same pattern where terrorism is not called terrorism if the motivation behind it or the person who does it is related to white supremacy or whiteness. When white terrorists fly planes into buildings, it's an isolated incident. When white terrorists bomb buildings and murder people in churches for ideologically motivated reasons, it's an isolated incident. When white terrorists are shown to be heavily involved with local law-enforcement agencies, it makes as much impression as people legally subsidizing the defense of a white serial rapist cop.
A long way back I posted on how the freedom fighter and the terrorist differ primarily in skill in PR. In terms of the Breivik terrorist or the one who bombs the NAACP and the men who shooot up a satire magazine, the opprobrium likewise varies because ultimately in the end in majority white societies, the white terrorist benefits from belonging to the majority that rigs the system to favor itself, while the Islamist is safely in the Other category and thus far easier to demonize with zero qualms or necessary relevance to truth or accuracy.
So, in the end, if the Charlie Hebdo shooting is indeed such a moral issue, why wasn't the NAACP bombing? What are your thoughts on the reason that coverage favors one and not the other?
Not to mention that as per the edit, 37 Yemenis and 2,000 Nigerians were massacred for ideological reasons, too, in recent days. Both killed by Islamist terrorists just like the people in Paris were. Who decides which category of human life is or isn't worth protests and slogans for? If Je Suis Charlie Sebdo, why not Je Suis Nigeria, or Je Suis Yemen?