In defense of the sanctimonious women's studies set || First feminist blog on the internet

200+ schoolgirls kidnapped by extremists and mass media is mostly silent

Alexis Okeowo in The New Yorker: Nigeria’s stolen girls.

If this were happening anywhere else in the world, there would have been non-stop international mass media coverage of the burnt school and the grieving families and relentless questioning of the relevant officials as to the inadequacy of the search and rescue operations.

For a while after the abduction, girls trickled back into town—some rolled off trucks, some snuck away while fetching water. That trickle has stopped. “Nobody rescued them,” a government official in Chibok said of the girls who made it back. “I want you to stress this point. Nobody rescued them. They escaped on their accord. This is painful.”

This atrocity has media hot-buttons all over it (schoolgirls, abduction from school, religious fanatics, a history of serial massacres, anti-Western extremism, sexual slavery, ineffective government response) and yet in the two weeks since it happened it’s hardly made a media ripple outside Nigeria itself. Instead I read about this for the first time yesterday on a few feminist blogs, and then saw the link to Okeowo’s longform piece.

These girls deserve better: from their government, from the global mass media, and from typical media consumers too, since it’s our general complacency which allows governments and mass media to sideline stories about abuses against girls and women of colour over and over again.

n.b. this post has been updated to make it clearer that it is the international lack of media interest that is being criticised. Journalists and activists within Nigeria have been working hard to make the story more widely heard in the face of government, military and global media inertia.


179 thoughts on 200+ schoolgirls kidnapped by extremists and mass media is mostly silent

  1. At least according to the comments I’ve read, I think this issue has at least been covered in some detail by people in the Nigerian media, and it seems reasonable to recognize and appreciate that.

    1. My point was that the international coverage is missing, and that if such a mass kidnapping of schoolgirls had happened anywhere else I can think of in the world, then the international coverage would be huge. I’ll amend the post to make it clear that it is the lack of international high-profile coverage that has been lacking.

      1. I didn’t mean that as a criticism, it’s just something I read recently. Obviously Nancy Grace isn’t going to give a damn if it isn’t a rich white girl being abducted. I just wish there were something I could do to help.

      2. I saw it on Al-Jazeera and read about it in the [i]Guardian[/i], but there’s just not a lot of new news on it. The stories of the girls being sold off or forcibly married (or both) is the first new thing we’ve heard about them in weeks, and even that’s just coming from what people have heard from people living in the forest.

        That leaves the question of why the Nigerian military hasn’t done more, but maybe Boko Haram has threatened to kill all of them if they do a search (a credible threat considering they previously murdered nearly 60 male students at a school not long before).

  2. Feminists of color on Twitter have been all over this, which is how I heard about it a few days ago–and why I assumed everyone knew. What’s happened is horrible–it’s not safe to send girls to school–and the lack of international and government interest is shameful. I’m in awe of the guts of the girls who escaped. I wish all the others had their luck as well.

    1. I vary in my Twitter attentivenessm, and I haven’t been logging in hardly at all for the last few weeks, so I’d missed the relevant tweets.

      1. I’m sorry, I didn’t mean to imply that everybody should’ve known because of Twitter. I just meant it as a measure of how out of touch I am with other sources of news.

    1. Here on the mainland it has been in the news quite frequently, in all kinds of publications, ranging from Newspapers through Tabloids and TV. Although mostly under the “news from abroad” and not as the main headliner.

      Is “global mass media” just another word for CNN?

      1. Is “global mass media” just another word for CNN?

        No. I meant it as I understand it to be generally used – leading stories on primetime free-to-air news and popular news-stand tabloid/broadsheet newspapers.

  3. My usual sources of news have been talking about it a lot… but I guess I don’t want CNN or whatever. I’ve heard about it a lot on blogs, twitter, and my friends have mentioned hearing about it on NPR. I sort of assumed it WAS big news, though I still don’t know what we, as average people, could do about it from here.

    1. Yeah, Boston’s local NPR station has had small news blurbs about it for at least the past week. They also devoted the first hour of yesterday’s On Point to it.

  4. It showed up on my Google News feed for a while, which makes me think at least enough international media was picking it up for Google News algorithms to think it was important. Maybe the US media was silent?

    1. I haven’t had the time to read much media of any sort lately, but I do watch News Breakfast (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) almost every morning, and I haven’t seen a single story on it there, and that really surprises me.

  5. The front page of Yahoo News doesn’t even show the story. On Google News, in the “World” section, it’s the 6th leading story.

    An article that refers to social media campaigns to bring attention to the situation:

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2618379/BringBackOurGirls-Huge-social-media-campaign-calls-rescue-243-Nigerian-school-girls-kidnapped-two-weeks-ago-Islamic-extremists.html

    As one person says in the article, if there could be a massive international effort to find the missing Malaysian airplane, why can’t the Nigerian government ask for a similar international effort to try to find those girls?

    1. As one person says in the article, if there could be a massive international effort to find the missing Malaysian airplane, why can’t the Nigerian government ask for a similar international effort to try to find those girls?

      I think that’s only partly a fair comparison. The kidnapped girls are being held by armed men, and from what I’ve read, even if their location was known, Nigeria’s military and law-enforcement authorities wouldn’t be capable of rescuing them. At that point, you get into questions of outside intervention, which is obviously controversial outside the context of this kidnapping.

      1. Saying it would be “controversial” is pretty much echoing an anti-Western line that is not actually much different from the men who kidnapped the girls.

        1. I’m not sure I’m parsing your sentence correctly, but I’d expect that the US invading Nigeria would potentially spark a small amount of controversy in certain corners.

        1. It’s just 200+ AFRICAN GIRLS, EG. Where are your priorities? Missing plane, one dead white woman … come ON! Those things are VERY IMPORTANT.

          And after all, I can’t think of one single thing we could do to help, can you? It’s in another country, after all, and nobody – especially the U.S. – ever interferes in the business of other countries. Get a grip.

        2. Nigeria is a major trading partner of the US, as well as a key ally in anti-terrorism operations in Africa. It’s not totally beyond the realm of plausibility that US AFRICOM could offer aid, if it was invited in by the Nigerian government.

          The real issue preventing that, leaving aside the question of what form US assistance might take, is that the Nigerian government has functionally zero control over the northern quarter of the country and is desperate to avoid admitting it.

        3. And yep, looks like the State Department is announcing the US has offered unspecified aid.

        4. But the context is this kidnapping.

          My point is that U.S. military intervention against Islamic extremists has a deservedly bad reputation in much of the world. If Nigerian authorities request U.S. or UN military assistance to rescue the girls, I think that reputation should not prevent the U.S. from agreeing to help, but so far as I have read, Nigeria has not requested such assistance. And the results of recent and ongoing U.S. military interventions may have something to do with why no request for assistance has been forthcoming. (Or maybe not–as ldouglas states, there are other considerations the Nigerian government is likely weighing.)

        5. Nothing has stopped the US from perpetrating horrors across the world anyway. So why is it so unreasonable to want it to do something good every so often? The US doesn’t need the precedent or excuse to do what it wishes wherever it wishes. It does that anyway.

        6. Nothing has stopped the US from perpetrating horrors across the world anyway. So why is it so unreasonable to want it to do something good every so often? The US doesn’t need the precedent or excuse to do what it wishes wherever it wishes. It does that anyway.

          I get what you are saying here; I really do. But the thing is, US interventions are always presented as being good. When has a Presidential speech or DoD press release, etc., ever said something like, “we have ordered the 82nd Airborne to go into [some country] and perpetrate horrors”? And yet, it somehow seems to end up that way, much more often than not. Maybe it is because the US Dept. of “Defense” is not a humanitarian organization. It is not designed to be.

          I, too, wish the the US could “do good,” whatever that might be. Your comment reminds me of Lawrence Ferlinghetti’s “I Am Waiting,” where he says … and I am waiting / for the American Eagle / to really spread its wings / and straighten up and fly right … After 50 years, we’re still waiting, and it doesn’t look like it’s going to happen anytime soon.

        7. Of course it’s always presented as something good. That doesn’t mean it’s actually impossible to do good things. The military is never my first choice for that, either. But the US has immense influence in the UN, and if it wanted to put together an international resolution and back it with teeth, it could. If it wanted to send negotiators, it could. If it wanted to provide intelligence info on Boko Haram to the Nigerian government, it could–it’s done that in order to kill Lumumba and Guevara.

          You’re talking as though not aiding these girls is going to stop the US from exploiting and bombing others for its own interests. The whole point is that the US doesn’t even pretend to give a shit about these girls because exploiting and bombing Nigeria is not in its own interest, which is why it’s not going to.

        8. So alternatively, you’re saying that no matter how a government behaves, what it does or who it abuses, it is “legitimate” as long as it controls enough territory? That’s breathtakingly cynical.

          To turn it around, does that mean that the USSR was the legitimate government in the Baltic States from 1940, despite its annexation of them being widely recognised as illegal? Were western countries wrong not to recognise that annexation?

        9. That is exactly what I’m saying. The legitimate government is the one with enough guns and manpower to actually govern the territory. Further, if your analysis depends on not differentiating between governments that actually, well, govern, and political factions that have support from other nations, it’s a remarkably silly analysis.

        10. On the other hand, your analysis that there is nothing to legitimacy beyond brute force seems extremely problematic.

        11. Hugh, your argument that the USA was invited in by the government of Afghanistan is based on sophistry. You didn’t qualify your original comment by saying that you meant the “legitimate” government as recognized internationally, even though that government had never actually governed the country — which would seem to be a prerequisite for calling it an actual government.

          Were the Soviet invasions of Hungary in 1956 and Czechoslovakia in 1968 “requested by the government” because the Soviets didn’t view the then-current governments as legitimate (given their policies), and, I have no doubt, there were pro-Soviet elements in both countries whom the Soviets did view as “legitimate” and did invite them in?

          Was the “government” of the portions of France not directly occupied by the Germans between 1940 and 1944 DeGaulle’s government-in-exile in London, or the Vichy government? Would an unqualified statement that the Allies were invited by the “French government” to invade Normandy on D-Day be an accurate statement in your view?

        12. @Donna L: Interesting counterpoints, although please note that I am not arguing that an invitation by a legitimate government makes everything OK.

          But to address them one by one – in both Hungary and Czecho, although there were obviously pro-Soviet groups, they didn’t claim to be an alternative government, the international community and UN didn’t recognise them as the legit government of either country. In fact even the USSR continued to recognise and negotiate with the governments in Prague and Budapest, right up until their tanks crossed the border.

          As for Vichy, I would absolutely disagree that Petain’s illegal fascist state represented the true government of France, as I think would the vast majority of French people, although it did occupy the large part of metropolitan French territory, so it meets LDouglas’ (and, implicitly, your?) definition of ‘legitimate’. But given that the government had been dissolved by 1944, it’s not really relevant to the Normandy invasion.

          Incidentally, you are wrong about the Northern Alliance having never governed Afghanistan. It was essentially the continuation of the pre-1996 government set up after the Soviet withdrawal, which is largely why most of the international community and the UN continued to recognise it. Burhanuddin Rabbani was the President of Afghanistan in 1992, long before the Taliban began to take large areas of territory, or indeed existed.

          But let me turn it around on you – given that the Nigerian government doesn’t effectively control large areas of their country, doesn’t that make any potential call for assistance from them as problematic as the Northern Alliance’s inviting US troops into Afghanistan?

        13. there is nothing to legitimacy beyond brute force seems extremely problematic.

          That’s how governments work. That’s how nations work. That’s how laws get enforced, borders get policed, and governments stay in power. Force. Strength. It always has been. That’s reality. And yes, reality is worse than just “problematic.”

          Is the United States a legitimate government? Ask a Native American.

        14. We could jump down that rabbit hole and argue that virtually no modern government is legitimate, but I don’t think that’s very productive. Moral legitimacy is not the same as political legitimacy, although there’s some overlap as when governments or international bodies refuse to recognize a de facto government in power as legitimate. In most states the government power that is recognized is the one in control of the capital city. I think it’s highly misleading to argue that Afghanistan’s government invited the US to invade without clarifying which government. If you’re trying to make a legitimate point it’s best to refrain from misleading people. That said, I still don’t think the Northern Alliance is comparable to Nigeria’s current recognized government, since the latter is in control of the capital and most of the territory. Also, Nigeria is unlikely to request and the US is unlikely to provide assistance that involves lethal force.

        15. given that the government had been dissolved by 1944, it’s not really relevant to the Normandy invasion.

          Hugh, this is nonsense. Vichy no longer had a separate military after the German military came into the “unoccupied” zone in late 1942, but of course the Vichy government was still otherwise in charge until after the Normandy invasion. Who else do you think ran the concentration camps in the South of France where so many people in my family were held? Who else do you think was in charge of rounding up Jews and putting them on trains to be sent to the “East”? You think the Gestapo had enough people to spare for that? You think Marshal Pétain and Pierre Laval just vanished before the invasion?

        16. Maybe if we stop using the word legitimate and replace it with what we actually mean (effectual, or morally righteous, or democratically elected, or internationally recognized) we could skip a lot of pointless debate.

          No, no it’s not.

          Depends on how you define legitimate. In what sense do you mean the word?

      2. The missing airliner could have theoretically been in any one of several different countries, or in international waters. AFAIK, no one has suggested that the kidnapped women have been taken out of Nigeria.

        It is a horrifying story, but I kind of wonder what it is that people want done. It seems like the primary action really needs to be a matter for the Nigerian government and authorities.

        1. no one has suggested that the kidnapped women have been taken out of Nigeria.

          I don’t think that’s right: there are a number of stories saying that some of them have been taken into Chad and/or Cameroon.

          And the very person quoted about international help was asking the Nigerian government to request it — not for other countries to come in without such a request.

        2. True, after I posted that I realized that they mentioned “rumors” that they had been taken elsewhere.

          Still, I don’t understand what kind of international help they would need. I don’t think it would help this situation to start dropping bombs on Nigeria, which is pretty much all the US can do anymore. Maybe they could share some high-res imaging from satellites or something. I want US to butt out of more countries, not interfere in them. Nigerians should ask the folks in Afghanistan, Iraq, etc., how they feel about US “assistance.”

        3. I don’t think it would help this situation to start dropping bombs on Nigeria, which is pretty much all the US can do anymore.

          …is this a joke?

          Nigerians should ask the folks in Afghanistan, Iraq, etc., how they feel about US “assistance.”

          I could explain to you how there’s a difference between an attacking a country and lending military assistance after being invited in. I could explain how the US has a long history of providing such assistance to countries across Africa and Central/Southeast Asia, to the general approval of all involved nations. I could list myriad cases in which US special forces, naval rescue teams, medial divisions and more have provided much needed aid.

          But considering how painfully obvious this is to anyone who thinks about it for more than a couple seconds, it’s pretty clear I’d be wasting my time. Enjoy turning serious public policy issues into reductionist, inaccurate one-sentence talking points – you probably have a bright internet commenting future ahead of you.

        4. “I could explain how the US has a long history of providing such assistance to countries across Africa and Central/Southeast Asia, to the general approval of all involved nations. ”

          So you’re saying that a US military presence is unproblematic as long as it is requested by the local government?

          Are you aware that US involvement in Afghanistan came at the request of the Afghan government?

        5. There are plenty of people in Nigeria outside the government calling for international assistance. And by the way, not all international assistance = dropping bombs. (Of course, it’s the French, not the Americans, who are particularly known for military intervention, as opposed to humanitarian assistance, in Africa.)

        6. Are you aware that US involvement in Afghanistan came at the request of the Afghan government?

          Are you kidding? The Afghan government at the time was the Taliban. If you want to argue that continued U.S. presence is at the request of the Karzai government you’re on more reasonable ground.

        7. So you’re saying that a US military presence is unproblematic as long as it is requested by the local government?

          No, I’m saying the suggestion that Iraq and Afghanistan are the typical model for US assistance to foreign nations (military or otherwise) reveal that you’re generally clueless about foreign policy and need to go educate yourself.

          Are you aware that US involvement in Afghanistan came at the request of the Afghan government?

          Sort of like the US involvement in World War II came at the request of the Japanese, right?

          Case in point.

        8. I knew that sounded wrong, but Hugh said it with such great confidence that I assumed he must be right! (I’m afraid I have that tendency sometimes when men say things that way.)

        9. @Pseudonym: The government recognised in 2001 by the United Nations and all but three of its member states was the Northern Alliance, whose President was Burhanuddin Rabbani. The only measure by which the Taliban was the legitimate government of Afghanistan was in that they controlled the most territory, which is a very, very low floor for legitimacy.

        10. @ldouglas: Oh, I’m aware of US military involvement in Africa and Southeast Asia that goes beyond Iraq and Afghanistan. Somalia, Thailand, Indonesia, Egypt, Ethiopia, Djibouti… it’s a long list. What I’m not aware of are the times the US provided military assistance and everybody involved agreed it was awesome.

        11. The only measure by which the Taliban was the legitimate government of Afghanistan was in that they controlled the most territory, which is a very, very low floor for legitimacy.

          Possession is 9/10ths of the law. Having actual, you know, control, sounds like being the legitimate government to me. Unless you’re going to argue that Chiang Kai-Shek was the “legitimate” government of China from 1950 to 1975.

        12. @Pseudonym: The government recognised in 2001 by the United Nations and all but three of its member states was the Northern Alliance, whose President was Burhanuddin Rabbani. The only measure by which the Taliban was the legitimate government of Afghanistan was in that they controlled the most territory, which is a very, very low floor for legitimacy.

          Okay, if you want to define the government of Afghanistan as something other than the government in control of Afghanistan, more power to you. It brings a lot of support to your comparison of the Northern Alliance in 2001 to the current government of Nigeria, since the situations in which they are seeking foreign support are totally similar. Dealing with the kidnapping of 200 schoolgirls is just like overthrowing the de facto governing power that controls most of the nation’s territory. Thank you for sharing your incredible insights.

        13. “Dealing with the kidnapping of 200 schoolgirls is just like overthrowing the de facto governing power that controls most of the nation’s territory.”

          @pseudonym: Nice strawman. I don’t recall saying the two situations were identical. I’m just saying that the approval of the local government – and even if others don’t accept the Afghanistan example, there are plenty of times when the USA unquestionably did have the consent of the government to send troops – doesn’t mean that US involvement is unproblematic. The USA has a nasty habit of turning limited, short-term, purpose-driven involvement into full-scale invasion/occupation.

        14. @Hugh

          The USA has a nasty habit of turning limited, short-term, purpose-driven involvement into full-scale invasion/occupation.

          Exactly this. The infamous “mission creep.” And that’s if you assume, for the sake of argument, that the intentions were purely good in the first place, which I don’t. I suspect that mission creep is more often than not a feature not a bug.

          And BTW: It’s entirely possible that Boko Haram has gotten/is getting covert support from some element of the USA government.

        15. It’s entirely possible that Boko Haram has gotten/is getting covert support from some element of the USA government.

          You sound exactly like a 9/11 “Truther.” Next step: it was the Israelis.

        16. @Hugh:

          @pseudonym: Nice strawman. I don’t recall saying the two situations were identical. I’m just saying that the approval of the local government – and even if others don’t accept the Afghanistan example, there are plenty of times when the USA unquestionably did have the consent of the government to send troops – doesn’t mean that US involvement is unproblematic. The USA has a nasty habit of turning limited, short-term, purpose-driven involvement into full-scale invasion/occupation.

          The purpose of the US involvement in Afghanistan was to overthrow the legitimate de facto Taliban government that was harboring Al Qaeda. Unfortunately coalition power is about the only thing propping up the Karzai government, making exit strategies tricky. I think the real straw man is the idea that US intervention is uncontroversial and unproblematic as long as it’s requested by the government. Who was arguing that? My argument was that overthrowing a government is not analogous to providing unspecified assistance to rescue efforts for a kidnapping. This is wandering rather off-topic though.

          @Tim:

          And BTW: It’s entirely possible that Boko Haram has gotten/is getting covert support from some element of the USA government.

          What’s your evidence for this?

        17. @Pseudonym
          I don’t have any evidence; if I did it would have probably been put out there somewhere already by someone else and I would have stated it as a straightforward assertion. That’s why I only said it was “possible.” The CIA and other USA government agents have facilitated, covered for, and quite possibly actively participated in, arms trading and drug running to finance covert activities. Why would they scruple at human trafficking?

          Even now, it is known that the USA is arming all kinds of fundamentalist Islamic “freedom fighters” in Syria and supporting neo-Nazi goons in Ukraine, just to mention two current examples.

          1. @Tim:

            The US has an interest in destabilizing Assad’s government in Syria. Why would the US want to threaten the stability of Nigeria and put all those oil deals at risk? It doesn’t pass the smell test. US foreign policy for all its faults is not some unbounded font of evil.

        18. @Donna L
          This thread has already been derailed enough without going into 9-11 territory, but the term “Truther” is pretty meaningless for a lot of reasons and is just used as a conversation stopper.

        19. neo-Nazi goons in Ukraine

          If you think there aren’t at least as many (and probably far more), “neo-Nazi goons” among the so-called “pro-Russian militants” (who happen, remarkably enough, to be equipped with surface to air missiles!), you’re remarkably naive. “Neo-Nazi goons” don’t generally advocate to join the EU, as those who predominate on the Ukrainian side do. You sound like you’ve been reading too much Russian propaganda. Before, you sounded like a 9/11 Truther. Now, you sound like a reincarnation of the notorious Walter Duranty.

        20. the term “Truther” is pretty meaningless for a lot of reasons and is just used as a conversation stopper.

          Confirming my suspicions.

        21. don’t have any evidence; if I did it would have probably been put out there somewhere already by someone else and I would have stated it as a straightforward assertion. That’s why I only said it was “possible.”

          And BTW: it’s entirely possible Feministe is a secret front for al-Queda! I mean, I have no evidence, but it’s possible.

          The CIA and other USA government agents have facilitated, covered for, and quite possibly actively participated in, arms trading and drug running to finance covert activities. Why would they scruple at human trafficking?

          I think you’re confusing a willingness to do horrifying things in the pursuit of American interests, with the desire to just do random shit FOR THE EVULZ!!

          Even now, it is known that the USA is arming all kinds of fundamentalist Islamic “freedom fighters” in Syria and supporting neo-Nazi goons in Ukraine, just to mention two current examples.

          So you’re buying into the Kremlin’s universally discredited claim that the Ukrainian uprising was somehow fascist? I’d debunk for you, except you wrote

          the term “Truther” is pretty meaningless for a lot of reasons and is just used as a conversation stopper.

          which suggests you’re not particularly amenable to debunking.

        22. @Donna L

          Confirming my suspicions.

          I don’t know what suspicions you think I’ve confirmed, but at this point you seem to be just pulling random things out of thin air in response to my comments. “Truthers,” Israelis, Stalin-era journalists, 9-11. WTF? None of those things have anything to do with anything I was talking about.

        23. I think they have pretty much everything to do with your comments. And yes, what you said about 9/11 Truthers, along with your wild tinfoil-hattish speculation about Boko Haram, did confirm my suspicions.

        24. I did not say anything about 9-11 Truthers — you were the one who brought them up, out of nowhere, by saying I sounded like one. I was simply noting that throwing the epithet “Truther” at somebody out of the blue like that, on a completely unrelated subject, when you apparently have no actual arguments to make, is more of a silencing tactic than anything else.

          But really, this is getting way beyond ridiculous; you are just making stuff up now, so I’m going to leave it at that.

        25. If you can’t see how much gratuitous, baseless speculation about elements in the US government being behind Boko Haram sounds like gratuitous, baseless speculation about elements in the US government being behind 9/11, or how much swallowing Russian propaganda whole sounds like the kind of thing credulous Westerners have been doing since the days of, yes, Walter Duranty, I can’t help you. It’s your own words that lead to such comments; nothing else.

        26. @Pseudonym

          The US has an interest in destabilizing Assad’s government in Syria. Why would the US want to threaten the stability of Nigeria and put all those oil deals at risk? It doesn’t pass the smell test. US foreign policy for all its faults is not some unbounded font of evil.

          I’m not saying that US support of Boko Haram is likely. My point, clumsily made, is that there is so much secret, out-of-control, covert activity going on, that we really don’t know what our own government is already doing and we need less butting into other countries’ business, not more. Obviously mileage varies on what people think is in American interests and what is morally permissible to achieve same.

        27. we need less butting into other countries’ business, not more.

          Traditionally, isolationism has been a right-wing policy. And has not worked out very well, either. Inaction is also a(n) (im)moral choice. So pick your poison, but don’t try to tell me that yours is better.

  6. It has always been difficult to find international news coverage on cable channels.

    The BBC, Reuters, FT and al-Jazeera have done some really good reporting on this.

  7. One thing can’t be discounted. The abductors are Islamic militants, and though the Guardian did cover a bit of this, it’s unfashionable on both the right and left to go too far in criticizing Islamic militants waging a self-declared jihad. It tends to get the right wing frothing at the mouth, and the left doesn’t like criticism of any Islamic targets

    — so it’s lose -lose for both the right- and the left – wing media.

    To construct a proper response to this tragedy, people need a solid understanding of the Islamic – Jihadi nature of the conflict in Nigeria, the international pressures and deliberate blind spots (it’s Africa, so who cares? says the West; It’s against Christians, so who cares, says the Arab world and some in the West; If we criticize, we make Islam look bad, so it plays into the hands of Islamophobes – better to just say nothing and pretend it didn’t happen; There’s no hard target OR nothing worth fighting for says the right; etc.

    What we have in this case, I think, is a confluence of often otherwise opposed interests that are motivated not to take any notice of what happens.

    1. I’m not sure the right is particularly hesitant to point to militant Islam as a problem, but as a self-identified member of the left, I generally do agree that the moral cowardice exhibited by progressives (and feminists) when it comes to religion is thoroughly repulsive.

      The no-true-Scotsman game doesn’t work when it’s liberal Christians trying it out, and it doesn’t work for Islam either. Similarly, the conflation of anti-Arab racism and anti-Islamic critique is both disingenuous and offensive, insofar as most Muslims aren’t Arab.

      I’ve never heard someone satisfactorily explain why I owe religious faith any more respect than support for a particular political ideology or professional sports team.

      1. The problem here is that a large segment of the left has made a faulty analysis: “The enemy of my enemy is my friend.” I once saw Ayaan Hirsi Ali speak, and while I was skeptical at first, I then went on to read a lot of what she wrote.

        I had only read negative material about her previously. I thought it was odd that there were a lot of personal attacks on her but very little commentary about what she actually said.

        When I heard her speak, and then followed up by reading her books (“Nomad” is excellent), I realized she was being slagged in the left-wing media relentlessly.

        She’s naturally kind-of left and very progressive, and yet she’s been singled out.

        I think the left has been split down the middle. One side is still in favour of things like civil rights etc. The other has been utterly absorbed in a kind of all-consuming cultural war, in which people belong to tribes and anyone who dissents is cast out of the tribe and all enemy tribe members are de facto wrong or guilty.

        A lot of the commentary about her was violently misogynistic, and typically it came from “alpha male” left-wing commenters who thought she was free game because she badmouthed Islam.

        This split among progressives is getting very serious. I’m not the only one who’s noticed it, but you see this split emerge in reporting about stories like the abductions.

        Some people think it’s “unhelpful” to point out the central role religious belief plays in this. But if you say anything, you get immediately branded an islamophobe.

        Of course, the same is not true if you say anything else. But in the North African context, this entire problem is impossible to understand without understanding the role of Islam in sanctioning this kind of assault.

        Reading Hirsi Ali and Irshad Manji has changed my whole perspective on all of these issues and made me read the media a lot more critically – even the left-wing progressive feminist media.

        1. I’ve noticed this too. Ex-christians are celebrated in the left wing. Ex-muslims are lucky to be tolerated. Ex-muslim women are rather easy targets and pretty much reviled for stepping out of the Islam is great for women line.

        2. Also: Many progressives in the West are still bitter that socialism was defeated in the Cold War by the U.S. and take any opportunity to criticise the U.S., even when the U.S. is trying to help.

        3. The relevant criticism I’ve read of Ayaan Hirsi Ali is that she’s misrepresented her own story numerous times, including when she applied for asylum in the Netherlands, and that she characterizes Islam as a uniquely malevolent ideology that needed to be defeated both legally and militarily. She also married Niall Ferguson and works for the American Enterprise Institute, incidentally.

          1. The criticism of Ayaan Hirsi Ali you mention – changed her story, married a conservative – is part of the problem.

            If every progressive who married a conservative was disqualified from speaking, few would. And that’s not remotely germane. She’s actually pretty progressive, and it’s hard to argue her feminism.

            And as far as arguing her story, she changed it to make sure she could claim refugee status: Her life was in mortal danger, as was proved when her family attempted to intervene and fore her to marry, and later cut her off.

            This is the kind of thing that makes discussing the theological motivations for Boko Haram difficult.

        4. This is the kind of thing that makes discussing the theological motivations for Boko Haram difficult.

          No, what makes that difficult is that you haven’t discussed any of the theological motivations for Boko Haram, which have nothing to do with the accuracy of Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s autobiography.

          I don’t have a problem with her hatred of Islam. I have a problem with her wanting to make Islam illegal.

        5. If every progressive who married a conservative was disqualified from speaking, few would. And that’s not remotely germane. She’s actually pretty progressive, and it’s hard to argue her feminism.

          Who people marry is their business, so this point is well taken. But if she works for the repulsive AEI, then she can hardly be progressive. At best, she is for them probably some kind of “useful idiot.” I have kind of been on the fence about her, but if it is true she works for AEI, that pretty much zeroes out her credibility.

        6. Many progressives in the West are still bitter that socialism was defeated in the Cold War by the U.S.

          Funny thing, but when I look at Western Europe, I see an awful lot of socialism, and Sweden, for example, seems to be doing just fine.

          You mean the CP’s version of communism lost the Cold War. Don’t confuse Marxist Leninism with all socialism across the world.

          Similarly, you are deeply delusional if you think there are enough leftists who supported the USSR in the US to make up the US progressive faction. I knew leftists, sir. I grew up with leftists. Liberals are not leftists. Liberals are, by definition, strongly invested in classical liberalism’s ideology of the individual, as opposed to Marxism’s ideology of the class.

          In short, don’t be silly.

        7. The criticism of Ayaan Hirsi Ali you mention – changed her story, married a conservative – is part of the problem.

          And works for the American Enterprise Institute. You conveniently left that part out.

          Ex-muslims are lucky to be tolerated. Ex-muslim women are rather easy targets and pretty much reviled for stepping out of the Islam is great for women line.

          Sure. Ask Trans-Commie how “reviled” she is around here for her rejection of Islam.

        8. Sure. Ask Trans-Commie how “reviled” she is around here for her rejection of Islam.

          Um, we can disagree about the other issues all we want, but let’s not pretend that people who publicly speak out about their problems with Islam- especially former Muslims, especially women, and especially former Muslim weapon- don’t routinely face violence or threats thereof.

      2. I give religious belief about as much respect as I give my father’s allegiance to Marxism, maybe a little less, because I don’t have warm fuzzies from my childhood about religion. That said, I don’t really see how Islam is any worse than Christianity, which I have very strong negative feelings about, though I can acknowledge that both have enabled some people to do some good.

        1. It’s the difference between an alcoholic and a hard-core junkie.

          I used to believe there was more or less an equivalency between the criminal nature of Christianity and Islam, too. I once defended this aggressively.

          Because of Hirsi Ali I went out and did research on my own. If you actually listen to Jihadis, you think: That sounds screwed up. No way the religion endorses this stuff. No way it commands people to do this.

          The shocking thing that activists like Ali and Taslima Nasreen and Irshad Manji point out – that there’s a fundamental difference here, and that Islam is genuinely more dangerous if you’re a scriptural literalist – really informed me.

          There’s another woman who needs a lot more press. Taslima Nasreen is maybe one of the most courageous women on Earth when it comes to this whole subject. But she’s also been more or less cut off from mainstream left-feminism because of her stance on Islamic theology.

          Slavery is a huge issue, too, a black hole nobody will talk about in reference to Islam. This is the key to the issue with the abductions, here.

          According to Islamic scholars across the Arab world, nothing the abductors have done is unethical according to Islamic theology. In fact, the opposite – they’ve generally received praise, from Saudi to Morocco.

          I’m not entirely sure what anyone anywhere else in the world can do about it.

        2. That said, I don’t really see how Islam is any worse than Christianity, which I have very strong negative feelings about, though I can acknowledge that both have enabled some people to do some good.

          That’s basically my point.

          What differences there are, I think, are largely about where Islam vs. Christianity has taken root; Islam has a lot more institutional authority in most majority-Muslim countries than Christianity has in most majority-Christian countries, so you see more people being executed for blaspheming Islam and violating Qua’ranic law than for hating on Jesus. But all you have to do is go back a short time to see Christianity is every bit as capable of doing the same thing, when it amasses enough power.

          In countries like Turkey, where secularism is a political norm, institutional Islam functions in a way that’s basically identical to institutional Christianity in the United States- one powerful political force among several, which frequently tries to gain power and pass horrible policies but only sometime succeeds.

          What’s “Islamophobic” is talking as if Boko Haram = Islam in general (or even Islamic radicals in general, except perhaps the Taliban), which too many people on the right are prepared to do. When this happened:

          That’s certainly inaccurate, and I don’t think anyone here made such a claim.

          What I will say is that Islam is as much free game to critique as Christianity and Judaism are, and it’s fucking disgusting watching so-called progressives savage former Muslims who are courageous enough to speak out about the fundamental, doctrinal problems with Islam. Ayaan Hirsi Ali comes to mind.

          How many people reacted by condemning Christianity in general or claiming that this sort of violence is inherent in Christianity?

          Monotheism, I would say. Once you sign over your moral compass to your imaginary friends, there’s not much left to say.

        3. It’s the difference between an alcoholic and a hard-core junkie.

          What do you consider this difference to be? Because the main difference I can see has nothing to do with a difference between alcohol and heroin (the main one, I would say, is that it is very possible for many people to use alcohol recreationally with no harm done, whereas I would be very wary of making that claim for heroin). The main difference I can see is that alcohol is legal in the US and heroin is not. That’s what leads to a shitload of the trouble alcoholics are able to avoid.

          Islam is genuinely more dangerous if you’re a scriptural literalist

          They’re all disgustingly dangerous if you’re a scriptural literalist. Looking back at history, no, I don’t see how Islam has been more dangerous or destructive than Christianity.

          Slavery is a huge issue, too, a black hole nobody will talk about in reference to Islam. This is the key to the issue with the abductions, here.

          Sure. Because certainly nobody has ever found widespread support for slavery in Christianity. Good point.

        4. They’re all disgustingly dangerous if you’re a scriptural literalist. Looking back at history, no, I don’t see how Islam has been more dangerous or destructive than Christianity.

          Agreed. However, in the current geopolitical landscape, Islam has a lot more institutional power than Christianity, so it can get away with a lot more.

          Christianity has a lot of power, don’t get me wrong, but there are about a half a billion fewer people living under biblical law than Qua’ranic law.

        5. But what about the sway Christians have over the US, and the US’s massive influence over not only its own citizenry, but also the international scene and its policies? I’m not sure that numbers of people under direct law is the only relevant measure.

        6. But what about the sway Christians have over the US, and the US’s massive influence over not only its own citizenry, but also the international scene and its policies? I’m not sure that numbers of people under direct law is the only relevant measure.

          In the US Christianity is one powerful institution among several; I’m not sure I’d agree that Christianity has more political influence than, say, the defense industry. Christianity exerts ‘soft power’ in the US; it persuades people, it wields influence, but it doesn’t get to unilaterally set policy (and, as someone who has been pretty directly injured by organized Christianity in this country, believe me when I say I’m not minimizing how impactful that can be).

          I’d argue that worldwide, institutional Islam has more direct power over more lives than Christianity. That said, I’m totally open to the possibility I’m off base.

    2. That doesn’t really make sense for the US. The US is thrilled to bits to talk about Islamic terrorists.

    3. You all know that many of the kidnapped girls are Muslim themselves, right? What’s “Islamophobic” is talking as if Boko Haram = Islam in general (or even Islamic radicals in general, except perhaps the Taliban), which too many people on the right are prepared to do. When this happened:

      http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-27187255

      The attack is an eerie echo of a mass abduction in northern Uganda back in 1996. A total of 139 girls aged between 11 and 16 were seized from dormitories at St Mary’s School in Aboke.

      They were tied together with rope and were taken away by the Lords Resistance Army (LRA), which says it is fighting for a state based on the Biblical 10 Commandments. So, same terror tactics, different religion.

      In an extraordinary act of bravery the headmistress, Sister Rachele Fassera, followed them into the bush and managed to rescue 109 of them.

      The rest were forced to become so-called wives of the rebel commanders. Most of the “Aboke Girls” escaped and returned years later as young mothers. But at least four of them never came home.

      How many people reacted by condemning Christianity in general or claiming that this sort of violence is inherent in Christianity?

      1. This is the false equivalency issue Hirsi Ali and Taslima Nasreen always bring up.

        I used to argue this, too, until I took the time to actually learn what the various sides actually say.

        The difference: The Boko Haram militants specifically use normative, standard islamic sources and interpretations to justify their actions, which no serious islamic scholars can really protest.

        Christianity doesn’t allow these kinds of things. In fact, as loathesome and disgusting as Christianity is, it’s not prescriptive. Christians can be liberal and it’s all open to interpretation.

        As many feminist scholars of religion tell people who often don’t listen, Islam is actually formally closed to debate or varying interpretation, and the injunctions for disbelief and asking questions or questioning things like slavery is often death.

        Don’t believe me. I had the same opinion as you.

        It’s impossible to understand Boko Haram unless you understand the role that Islamic theology plays in their justifications and rationalizations.

        I’m not saying Christianity is necessarily any better – but Islam is central to the issue in this case.

        1. The difference: The Boko Haram militants specifically use normative, standard islamic sources and interpretations to justify their actions, which no serious islamic scholars can really protest.

          Christianity doesn’t allow these kinds of things. In fact, as loathesome and disgusting as Christianity is, it’s not prescriptive. Christians can be liberal and it’s all open to interpretation.

          There are plenty of highly prescriptive Christian subcultures, and they often pack up and move away from government scrutiny and law enforcement precisely so that they can impose their pre-Enlightenment interpretations of scripture on their communities without state interference, and those communities (various heavily-fortified compounds and leaders with multiple child-brides, all justified with verses from scripture) have been pretty much indistinguishable from the extremism of Boko Haram and the Taliban. Meantime less than a century ago the Ottoman empire ensured that liberal interpretations of Muslim theology informed most of their public policy towards their Muslim and non-Muslim subjects alike, and the majority of Muslim states were moving towards moderate and modern versions of Islamic observance, with plenty of liberal scholars arguing against the primacy of “standard islamic sources and interpretations”, just like the liberalisation of Christianity following the Enlightenment.

          So what has changed between now and a century ago? Then the Wahaabist extremists were desert rebels bent on destroying ancient monuments (“idolatry”) and sabotaging modern social reforms (“heresy”), and who were actively opposed by the Ottoman governments. Then the Ottomans fell and the Sauds went into partnership with the Wahaabists to build the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, and since then the Wahaabists have had royal protection and a free rein to do what they like religiously so long as it doesn’t interfere with the flow of oil. The other Gulf states pretty much followed suit, and the Wahaabist control of the sacred sites of Medina and Mecca (having destroyed all the other Arabic pilgrimage sites) has had an undue encouraging influence on Islamist literalist extremists worldwide.

          There is definitely a tension between some ex-Muslims who live in non-Muslim states now and some liberal Muslims who are still living in majority-Muslim states and how they advocate for reform/opposition with respect to the Islamist fundamentalists: one group asks Western supporters to join them in constant denunciation because they see Islam as essentially irredeemable, and the other group asks us to let them do the criticising from within the culture because they argue that Muslims subject to these regimes deserve better than having the West provide ever more fodder for their governments to further radicalise their policies currently oppressing liberal Muslims. I for one find that tension rather difficult to navigate as a secular atheist – Islamist extremists are dangerous authoritarians, but Islam in general is not necessarily extremist, and casting it that way only ends up as rhetorical ammunition for the extremists.

          Also, having spent a lot of time a few decades ago arguing against Christian biblical literalists online, I find propositions that Islam is uniquely dependent on fundamentalist interpretations of its sacred writings to be historically naive, because it’s fairly simple to find evidence that Islam in different political circumstances has been far more liberal, which lends weight to the idea that it could be again (and Christianity in different political circumstances has been far more authoritarian, and could be again). So I prefer to argue against the politicisation of religion rather than against religion itself, whatever religion the extremists are distorting in order to gain power.

        2. Christianity doesn’t allow these kinds of things. In fact, as loathesome and disgusting as Christianity is, it’s not prescriptive. Christians can be liberal and it’s all open to interpretation.

          Oh, bullshit. Talk to some Jews about how fucking non-prescriptive and liberal and open to interpretation Christianity is. I guess it’s just, what, a coincidence that for hundreds of fucking years and not so long ago those non-prescriptive liberal interpretations routinely resulted in death for Jews?

          Christianity is incredibly prescriptive. Why do you think it’s so widespread? “Convert or die” is pretty fucking prescriptive.

        3. The first thing the Catholics did after driving the Moors out of Granada was to close down the public baths and burn the books. That was normative, standard interpretation Christianity for you. To say nothing of the Inquisition.

        4. The other Gulf states pretty much followed suit, and the Wahaabist control of the sacred sites of Medina and Mecca (having destroyed all the other Arabic pilgrimage sites) has had an undue encouraging influence on Islamist literalist extremists worldwide.

          Well, that and Saudi Arabis spending tens of billions of dollars on supporting the formation of those groups across the globe. Wahaabist preachers in, say, Indonesia, often draw their paychecks from Riyadh.

          Christianity doesn’t allow these kinds of things. In fact, as loathesome and disgusting as Christianity is, it’s not prescriptive. Christians can be liberal and it’s all open to interpretation.

          It’s about place and context, not inherent flexibility. So I have to disagree here.

        5. Christianity doesn’t allow these kinds of things. In fact, as loathesome and disgusting as Christianity is, it’s not prescriptive

          What an ignorant thing to say. Have you read what “normative” figures in Christianity like Martin Luther (in “On the Jews and their Lies”) and St. John Chysostom (in his eight homilies “Against the Jews”) — to pick just two major figures out of many — had to say? If you think what they said was without influence — right up to the present day — and wasn’t prescriptive, I suggest that you educate yourself.

          1. I’m not trying to be ignorant here.

            How about this.

            Read some of the stuff produced by extremely progressive Irshad Manji, or any of the commentary at all by Hirsi Ali.

            Their arguments: Islam is similar to the hardest-core elements in the Old Testament. Unfortunately, it also demands that Muhammad be held up as the ideal of the perfect man, who has to be emulated in every way, and that this is pretty standard. Once this is accepted, then Mohammed as Warrior and Slave Owner becomes a problem.

            Christianity has lost much of its bite and there was never just one school of interpretation. But the “There are many interpretations of Islam” problem is, according to many feminist authors, part of the problem.

            Don’t take my word for it and sit there calling me ignorant. How about going and reading any material by any of these writers? There’s no shortage. There’s hundreds of apostate and liberal Muslim writers out there.

            As I said, Irshad Manji is a great source. She has ballsy and very direct arguments against the sort that commenters here have drawn up.

          2. Look, I’m just pointing out that no mater the reason, there’s a reluctance to criticize Islamic militants on the left, and on the right not a lot of concern for people in Africa – hence why the issue goes unreported or misunderstood.

        6. Islam is similar to the hardest-core elements in the Old Testament.

          And Judaism is the hardest-core elements in the Old Testament.

          Christianity has lost much of its bite and there was never just one school of interpretation.

          Yes, Western culture has progressed beyond the Dark Ages. Seriously, though, you don’t remember the Catholic Church’s persecution of heretics? The Spanish Inquisition? The Reconquista and the expulsion of Jews from Spain?

          Don’t take my word for it and sit there calling me ignorant.

          You’re ignorant as hell when it comes to Christianity.

          there’s a reluctance to criticize Islamic militants on the left

          Citations needed. You’re going to argue that the left loves the Taliban and Al Qaeda and Abu Sayyaf and Lashkar-e-Taiba? Did you think Friends of Hamas was a real thing?

        7. And Judaism is the hardest-core elements in the Old Testament.

          Speaking of ignorant! First of all, only Christians call it the “Old Testament” — a term which refers to supersessionism, not to relative age. Second, there’s plenty to criticize about the misogynistic elements of Orthodox Judaism as it’s often practiced, but unless you’re a Karaite, if you’re a practicing Jew (of any form of Judaism), what you practice is rabbinic Judaism, which consists not only of the Tanakh (the Hebrew Bible) but also something called the Talmud (consisting of the Mishnah and the Gemara), not to mention 1500 years of commentary on the Talmud. What you just said is unfortunately fairly typical of people who know nothing about Judaism, but that doesn’t make it true.

          As just one example, I pointed out recently that despite all the references in the Hebrew Bible to capital punishment, there have been few, if any actual examples (the few examples apparently being in Muslim Spain) of its being imposed in Judaism, let alone carried out by the Jewish community — even when Jews had the power to carry it out — in a couple of thousand years. Among other things, the burden of proof included a requirement of two witnesses to the punishable act, each of whom had to warn the culprit in advance that the act was punishable by death, after which the culprit had to announce that they were aware of that fact but planned to go ahead and do the act anyway! >

        8. The following statement in the Talmud (from the Mishnah (Makkot 7a)) is quite well-known:

          A Sanhedrin that puts a man to death once in seven years is called destructive. Rabbi Eliezer ben Azariah says that this extends to a Sanhedrin that puts a man to death even once in seventy years. Rabbi Akiba and Rabbi Tarfon say: Had we been in the Sanhedrin none would ever have been put to death.

          And Maimonides himself, in the 12th century (in Sefer Hamitzvot, negative commandment no. 290), said: “It is better and more satisfactory to acquit a thousand guilty persons than to put a single innocent one to death.”

          So saying that “Judaism is the hardest-core elements in the Old Testament” (emphasis in original) is at least as ignorant as anything that Sofia P. has said about Christianity.

        9. What you just said is unfortunately fairly typical of people who know nothing about Judaism, but that doesn’t make it true.

          Well, that was my point, although I guess I didn’t make it clear enough. The practice of Judaism today isn’t completely defined by the strictest reading of the “Old Testament” even though the Tanakh serves as a foundation. Islam also doesn’t have to be defined solely by the harshest reading of the Quran.

        10. I’m not trying to be ignorant here.

          Then it must just come naturally.

          There is no way, no way in hell, you or anybody else is ever going to convince me that Christianity is really, secretly, inherently more liberal and progressive, and that the hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of years of bloodshed, both internecine within Christianity and its fairly unrelenting assault on people like me are just, what, flukes? The proof of the pudding is in the eating, or, as Christ is reputed to have said, by their fruits shall ye know them. I’m looking at Christianity as a Jew, and speaking as a Jew, albeit a bitter and cynical one, it’s a death cult that has historically reveled in spilling Jewish blood. At least Islam has the Ottoman Empire to its credit–Jews were regularly fleeing the oh-so-tolerant Christendom for the relative (not absolute) safety of Turkey.

          Christianity has lost much of its bite and there was never just one school of interpretation.

          I’m glad you feel so very comfortable with modern Christianity. I sure as hell don’t. As for there never having been just one school of thought, that has, historically and to the present day just led to greater violence and bloodshed as various sects turned on one another.

        11. I’m looking at Christianity as a Jew, and speaking as a Jew, albeit a bitter and cynical one, it’s a death cult that has historically reveled in spilling Jewish blood.

          This is a really good example of what we’re trying to point out. I generally agree with your characterization of Christianity, but if I made similar and similarly accurate characterization of Islam, I’m supposedly ‘Islamaphobi,’ racist (since Muslim is a race, dontchaknow) and generally evil.

          At least Islam has the Ottoman Empire to its credit–Jews were regularly fleeing the oh-so-tolerant Christendom for the relative (not absolute) safety of Turkey.

          Thank god all those Armenians had somewhere safe to flee too!

        12. Thank god all those Armenians had somewhere safe to flee too!

          And if I were claiming that Islam in general and the Ottoman Empire in specific were angelic, non-violent, and had never done any wrong, that would be a valid rejoinder. Since what I’m saying is that Islam in general and the Ottoman Empire in particular are no worse than Christianity and, oh, Western Europe, that just serves to prove my point.

          if I made similar and similarly accurate characterization of Islam, I’m supposedly ‘Islamaphobi,’ racist (since Muslim is a race, dontchaknow) and generally evil.

          That has everything to do with power dynamics and context in the US and Western Europe. I am Jewish, and Christianity is utterly dominant in my cultural context. To my knowledge, ldouglas, you are neither Muslim nor a member of a group historically oppressed and marginalized by Muslims, so the subject position is utterly different. Further, in the US, such characterizations of Islam have been used to excuse and justify everything from street harassment to, well, wars, and Islam barely has legitimacy in the US, much less the dominant authority Christianity has.

          That said, if you confined such remarks to discussion of Islam, rather than Muslims, who make the best of what they can, like everybody else, I would certainly entertain the notion.

        13. Further, by the time of the Armenian genocide, violent anti-semitism had been mounting throughout the Ottoman Empire, so it’s not like those two traits are characteristic of the Empire simultaneously. That can happen when you’re talking about a state that lasts several hundred years.

        14. by the time of the Armenian genocide, violent anti-semitism had been mounting throughout the Ottoman Empire,

          Just by the by, it isn’t as if anti-Jewish sentiment didn’t exist, and pogroms and other massacres didn’t happen, in Islam in the classical period and later. And it isn’t as if it wasn’t severe at times, as under the Almohad dynasty in North Africa and Spain. (The reason Maimonides went from Spain to Egypt.) But on the positive side, there was nothing ever in Christian Europe to compare to the “Golden Age” in Spain, or the position of the Jews under the Fatimids in Egypt, which was well known even in Ashkenaz. (The Cairo Genizah revealed the previously-unknown story of a group of French rabbis who led several hundred of their congregants to safety in Egypt, walking almost the entire way — I forget whether it was after the public burning of 24 wagon-loads of the Talmud and other Jewish books in Paris in 1242, or after the expulsion of the Jews from France in 1306.)

          And you know how European-style anti-Semitism, complete with blood libels and other typical elements, entered and spread in the Muslim world in the 19th century? Through Christians in what’s now Syria and Lebanon (then part of the Ottoman Empire), that’s how. Who do you think was responsible for the famous blood libel in Damascus in 1840? Capuchin friars, that’s who.

        15. Yes, utterly agreed. I wouldn’t argue that anti-semitism was unknown under the Ottomans, just that it had long periods of being significantly better than Christendom, which is not a high bar to set.

        16. This is a really good example of what we’re trying to point out. I generally agree with your characterization of Christianity, but if I made similar and similarly accurate characterization of Islam, I’m supposedly ‘Islamaphobi,’ racist (since Muslim is a race, dontchaknow) and generally evil.

          I’m an ex-Muslim myself, and the ideological basis for a great deal of abuse in my life has been a conservative Sunni perspective of Islamic scriptures adopted by my dad’s side of the family. So I am all for everyone, including every non-Muslim, criticizing a religious interpretation of scripture(s) that serves as a tool of abuse. It makes ex-Muslims like me feel validated and understood because we are frequently attacked unfairly by conservative Muslims for being “delusional”, “selfish”, etc.

          But treating Islam as a monolithic religion, with either no progressive interpretations or only progressive interpretations that are invalid according to some biased criterion (most likely in favor of conservative Islamic scholars), disproportionately impacts people of color – especially those POC groups among whom is a high percentage of Muslims. That’s Islamophobia. This attack on POC implicit in Islamophobia is most clearly reflected in the constant associations between Islam and POC from countries with large Muslim populations – regardless of whether any of those POC aren’t actually Muslim. I have seen quite a few white people here in the US who, upon hearing about Islam, mock it through blatantly racist humor such as using a “Muslim accent”, deliberately mispronouncing the Arabic names of Islamic concepts or saying stuff like “LOL Durka durka Mo-ham-ed jihad!”

          So yes, Islamophobia is racist. It is directly derived from racism. But criticizing conservative Islamic beliefs and practices that contribute to oppression and abuse doesn’t have to be racist.

        17. And before any of you jump at me with the objection that a great deal of people who treat Islam as a monolithic religion and criticize it as such aren’t actually racist, consider this: the creation and maintenance of systemic racism aren’t dependent on conspiracy or intention of set-up. In other words, even though a lot of mainstream anti-Islamic polemics claim to be non-racist (which is hugely hypocritical in the first place since so many of them mimic other white supremacists in various ways), most of their attacks on Islam are racist in effect. Their anti-multiculturalist and anti-diversity discourses reflect a dangerous commonality with other white supremacists, and many of these anti-Islam polemics are also in favor of ethinic cleansing (some of the worst Islamophobes I know are in favor of some form of white nationalism) and “teaching” Muslims to be like those oh-so civilized white non-Muslim folks from the West. There are also some outright genocidal perspectives among some Islamophobic scholars – many of which involve “bombing Mecca and Medina” as a way to subdue, control Muslims, and manipulate them into leaving Islam.

        18. [CN: anti-Semitism, violence]

          And speaking of anti-Semitism, I should add that a great deal of anti-Semitism is rooted in racist attacks against Judaism (regarded as a monolithic religion). Neo-Nazis love to point to distorted, viciously hateful interpretations of Talmudic writings in order to demonize all Jews. I remember David Duke, on his website, arguing that Jews are conspiring to slaughter all Christians (or whatever) because of a section in the Talmud (at least he claimed it was in the Talmud) in which Jesus was described as being punished with a boiling vat of semen that killed him instantly. This is an extreme example, but less extreme forms of anti-Semitism rest on discourses that are critical of Judaism and treat it as a monolithic religion.

          I am not trying to compare anti-Semitism and Islamophobia – I’m just pointing out that certain anti-religious discourses play a role in maintaining white supremacy. The notion that Islamophobia is racist appears more reasonable when one assumes that racism and opposition to religion can occasionally intersect.

        19. I strongly suspect that that’s not really in the Talmud. (I refuse to google “boiling vat of semen,” and I would hope that if I did there would not be very results!)

          There is a 1,000+ year history of lies about the Talmud, and claims of blasphemy against Jesus — most of which, if they aren’t entirely fabricated, involve cherry-picking snippets that are often about entirely different people but are claimed to be coded references to Jesus.

          And even if there were any, so what? Even as far back as the Talmudic era, Jews had every right to be angry and resentful about persecution by Christians, and to make up whatever stories they wanted to.

          As far as racism is concerned, I think it’s possible to distinguish between anti-Jewishness that does and doesn’t have racial elements. I think the whole idea of Jewishness being a taint that lies in the blood, and is inherited, probably originated in Spain, even before the explusion in 1492, with all the concepts of “purity of blood” that were designed to discriminate against conversos, whether or not they still secretly practiced Judaism.

        20. @Donna

          Just to clarify, I don’t believe anything neo-Nazis say about anything related to Judaism and Jews.

          Anyway, I do think it makes sense to see anti-Jewishness as inherently racist simply because of the historical association between Judaism and Jewish identity in the broadest sense. But I haven’t read much about the history of anti-Jewishness, and in particular I don’t know enough about said historical association, so I admit that I’m probably saying a lot of inaccurate things about anti-Jewishness. Thanks for correcting me. Perhaps it’s more accurate to say that anti-Semitism as it exists today is inherently racist?

        21. And if I were claiming that Islam in general and the Ottoman Empire in specific were angelic, non-violent, and had never done any wrong, that would be a valid rejoinder. Since what I’m saying is that Islam in general and the Ottoman Empire in particular are no worse than Christianity and, oh, Western Europe, that just serves to prove my point.

          Ok, we agree.

          To my knowledge, ldouglas, you are neither Muslim nor a member of a group historically oppressed and marginalized by Muslims, so the subject position is utterly different.

          I’m a woman and an atheist, so you’re wrong on two counts.

          That has everything to do with power dynamics and context in the US and Western Europe. I am Jewish, and Christianity is utterly dominant in my cultural context.

          Either your characterization of Christianity is accurate, or not. Either my characterization if Islam is accurate, or not. If I took a flight to Dubai and posted the same comment, would your assessment of it’s accuracy change?

          That said, if you confined such remarks to discussion of Islam, rather than Muslims, who make the best of what they can, like everybody else, I would certainly entertain the notion.

          I’d go further- I’d argue Muslims are the primary victims of Islam, just like Christians are the primary victims of Christianity. At the same time, specific Christians and Muslims use the hegemonic authority their religion grants them to oppress others, and I have zero sympathy for them. In other words, I have very little sympathy for people with places in religious power structures, but a great deal of sympathy for the people who are stuck with them.

        22. But treating Islam as a monolithic religion, with either no progressive interpretations or only progressive interpretations that are invalid according to some biased criterion (most likely in favor of conservative Islamic scholars), disproportionately impacts people of color – especially those POC groups among whom is a high percentage of Muslims.

          Progressive Islam is

          I have seen quite a few white people here in the US who, upon hearing about Islam, mock it through blatantly racist humor such as using a “Muslim accent”, deliberately mispronouncing the Arabic names of Islamic concepts or saying stuff like “LOL Durka durka Mo-ham-ed jihad!”

          I don’t disagree that there are plenty of anti-Arab racists who conflate Arabs and Muslims, and that a lot of anti-Islamic pedagogy is thinly disguised, racism. That existence of racist people saying Islam is bad isn’t counter-evidence to my point, any more than the fact that Hitler was a vegetarian suggests we should eat meat.

          So yes, Islamophobia is racist. It is directly derived from racism.

          I guess it depends on how you define Islamaphobia. As you described it, I agree. But hatred of Islam isn’t inherently racist any more than hatred of Christianity or monotheism or religion itself. There are plenty of ideological routes that get you there.

          But criticizing conservative Islamic beliefs and practices that contribute to oppression and abuse doesn’t have to be racist.

          All Islamic beliefs are worthy of critique, because they ascribe moral weight to the desires of a fictional entity. That skews ethical decision-making no matter how you look at it.

          I don’t think it’s necessary to provide a caveat that progressive Muslims exist every time a related topic comes up, any more than I feel the need to say progressive Christians exist when I’m discussing a pro-life rally or whatever.

          …many of these anti-Islam polemics are also in favor of ethinic cleansing…

          And I know people whose support for abortion rights is largely based on their horror at the idea of having a kid with autism. Shall we abandon that belief, as well?

          There are also some outright genocidal perspectives among some Islamophobic scholars – many of which involve “bombing Mecca and Medina” as a way to subdue, control Muslims, and manipulate them into leaving Islam.

          Not sure they really have the right to call themselves scholars, then- not only because of the horrifying nature of such a suggestion, but since I can’t imagine a more effective way to radicalize a millions of people.

          I’m all for convincing people, nonviolently, to leave their religion, whatever it is.

        23. Perhaps it’s more accurate to say that anti-Semitism as it exists today is inherently racist?

          I mean, this goes along with the fact that Jewishness is both an ethnic and religious identifier, and people can be either or both. Some of the most anti-Jewish-religion people I know are ethnically Jewish and managed to escape Hasidic communities, for example.

        24. I’m a woman and an atheist, so you’re wrong on two counts.

          I think that’s reaching. It’s reaching because women and atheists, while groups, are not groups with cohesive, continuous community identity. That is to say, women don’t have a common cultural/historical group identity, and neither do atheists. So sure, Islam has oppressed and continues to oppress women, but not women you have much to do with, and the same with atheists. You’re scraping the bottom of that barrel.

          Either your characterization of Christianity is accurate, or not. Either my characterization if Islam is accurate, or not. If I took a flight to Dubai and posted the same comment, would your assessment of it’s accuracy change?

          It’s not a question of accuracy. It’s a question of the unspoken biases and the context informing the statements and their effects. If you moved to Dubai and lived there, not in one of the luxury high-rise hotels, but as a regular person for a few months, those biases and that context would be different.

        25. @ldouglas

          I don’t disagree that there are plenty of anti-Arab racists who conflate Arabs and Muslims, and that a lot of anti-Islamic pedagogy is thinly disguised, racisnot m. That existence of racist people saying Islam is bad isn’t counter-evidence to my point, any more than the fact that Hitler was a vegetarian suggests we should eat meat.

          I think you misunderstand my point. Islamophobia is racist because it treats Islam as a monolithic religion. And that treatment of Islam disproportionately affects Muslim POC (and POC associated with Muslims).

          I don’t think it’s necessary to provide a caveat that progressive Muslims exist every time a related topic comes up, any more than I feel the need to say progressive Christians exist when I’m discussing a pro-life rally or whatever.

          While it is unnecessary to constantly reminds everyone that not all Muslims are conservative, it is important to specify the kind of Islam that one is criticizing. Just as I wouldn’t criticize “Christianity” if I were only criticizing the Quiverfull ideology.

          Not sure they really have the right to call themselves scholars, then- not only because of the horrifying nature of such a suggestion, but since I can’t imagine a more effective way to radicalize a millions of people.

          Oh, I didn’t call them scholars out of respect, but I guess it would’ve been far better to just label them as they are: racist Christian polemics.

        26. I do think it makes sense to see anti-Jewishness as inherently racist simply because of the historical association between Judaism and Jewish identity in the broadest sense.

          Thinking about it a little more, you’re probably right that it’s very difficult to pull apart the racial and religious elements of anti-Jewishness as they existed at any time in the last couple of thousand years. After all, the widespread popular beliefs in medieval Europe that Jews had a special Jewish smell (the foetor judaicus), that they had horns and cloven hooves, that Jewish men menstruated through their penises (which was one reason they supposedly needed Christian blood — to replenish themselves), and so on, may have their historical origins in religious prejudice, but seem rather racist to me!

          I think any further discussions of this should probably go to spillover.

        27. I think that’s reaching… you’re scraping the bottom of that barrel.

          Let me ask you this- do you think a gay person in the US has standing to object to another country (say Uganda, for the sake of equal-religious-ire) executing homosexuals?

        28. It’s not a question of accuracy. It’s a question of the unspoken biases and the context informing the statements and their effects. If you moved to Dubai and lived there, not in one of the luxury high-rise hotels, but as a regular person for a few months, those biases and that context would be different.

          Asserting bias without demonstrating how it impacts my argument isn’t useful. If my characterization is inaccurate, bias is a potential hypothesis for why, but you can’t skip that first step.

          Islamophobia is racist because it treats Islam as a monolithic religion. And that treatment of Islam disproportionately affects Muslim POC (and POC associated with Muslims).

          Like I said, I guess this depends on how you define the word. I certainly agree it is frequently synonymous or at least overlapping with anti-Arab racism. But hatred or fear of Islam, in and of itself, isn’t racist. For a lot of people, like atheists living in fear of execution, it’s entirely logical.

        29. Asserting bias without demonstrating how it impacts my argument isn’t useful. If my characterization is inaccurate, bias is a potential hypothesis for why, but you can’t skip that first step.

          Nonsense. This isn’t all about you and the fantasy that words have context-free meaning. This is about how your comments are being perceived and why. You claim that your comments are being reacted to in a way you don’t like because of liberal fear of offending Islam. I am pointing out that your comments are being made in a very specific context, and that context affects their significance. This is how language works.

          Everybody has standing to criticize state-sponsored murder of gay people. That’s not the issue. If you want to criticize state-sponsored misogyny, by all means do so. But you’re not criticizing a specific government’s specific actions. You’re criticizing a huge, baggy religion across time and space, and no, a Western, white, non-Muslim woman’s relation to Islam is not comparable to an American Ashekanazi Jew’s relationship to Christianity. The latter would be comparable, to use your example, to the relationship between someone of Armenian descent living in, say, Lebanon, and Islam. What you’re doing is more akin to a white, middle-class gay man in NYC talking about Uganda as an example of the persecution of “his” community–it’s appropriation.

      2. This is the split in the progressive movement. It’s why feminists in the Arab world are angry at feminists in the west. They don’t like islamophobia, but there’s a “You can’t say that Christianity is the same, too!” attitude.

        After having been challenged by several Muslim feminists at meetings, I’ve done what they said and actually gone out and tried to educate myself.

        And the first thing you learn is that this comparison is a false equivalency.

        Don’t take it from me. Read liberal and secular Muslim writers. They don’t have much patience for this attitude.

        I suggest you try reading a few books by Irshad Manji, a feminist, lesbian and observant Muslim who says that there needs to be some pretty serious discussion, and that this split on the left and especially in feminist circles threatens to seriously undermine the global improvement of women’s lives.

        Go to Youtube and look up Irshad Manji if you don’t have time to read anything about the subject.

        1. And the first thing you learn is that this comparison is a false equivalency.

          I think (one of) the problem(s) people are having with this statement is that it’s not clear what this means. I’d agree that Christianity in the US is not a good equivalent for Wahhabism in Saudi Arabia (and note that for all their claims to fundamentalism, Wahhabism is a dramatic departure from traditional Islamic theology).

          I don’t think it’s worth arguing that if you just swapped Islam and Christianity- Rome adopted the doctrine, texts and philosophy of Islam, leading to its ubiquity in Europe and eventually the Americas, while Christianity spread in Central and Southeast Asia- that our alternate universe Islam would look very different from Christianity does today, or vice versa. Who knows, maybe it would, but you can’t separate out doctrine as if it lives on its own. Even within Islam, different schools of jurisprudence disagree over basic issues like community consensus as a valid interpretative mechanism of the Qua’ran.

          Sorry if this is totally incoherent, I’m off to bed.

        2. This is the split in the progressive movement. It’s why feminists in the Arab world are angry at feminists in the west. They don’t like islamophobia, but there’s a “You can’t say that Christianity is the same, too!” attitude.

          After having been challenged by several Muslim feminists at meetings, I’ve done what they said and actually gone out and tried to educate myself.

          And the first thing you learn is that this comparison is a false equivalency.

          I would say it’s more of a flawed premise, and it makes little sense….

          You say
          “They don’t like islamophobia, but there’s a “You can’t say that Christianity is the same, too!” attitude.”

          Who are ‘they’? Why should they like Islamophobia? What is it that you can’t say Christianity is the same as? and how is this a contrasting attitude.

          Also, could you explain to me why there is even more violence in majority Christian countries like DRC and Uganda than in Nigeria where the Muslims slightly outnumber the Christians?

      3. @Donna L
        I’m asking a question about some interesting things you said about capital punishment you said in this sub thread in spillover 16

        1. I don’t want to argue about Islam. I’m just pointing out that the reason the left end of the media underreports anything bad coming out of the Islamic world is often the religious nature of the conflict – whether it’s Saudi funded or not.

          The issue of whether another milder version of Islamic thought would be different never enters into it. It just helps explain why on the left the roots of the problem often go unknown. it all just seems anti-colonial and political, which on the face of it and given what the militants say makes no real sense.

          There’s a real tendency to excuse Islamic militants or to disregard their self-stated motives because the left sees Islam as an anti-colonial ally. And this is the reason some outlets don’t report such things.

          As far as the rest of Islam is concerned, I’ve started immersing myself in Muslim dissident writing, mostly by women, and what I’m reading bears no link in the end to what the left characterizes these conflicts as.

          There’s a lot of deliberate blindness on the Western left, is one thing many left-wing – often very left-wing and progressive – Muslim secularists say.

          Please don’t take my word for it. Go look up anti-islamophobic writers like Miriam Namazie.

          The shock to my system was learning from dissidents that the left in the west may have aligned itself with the wrong revolutionaries.

          In Egypt, this seems to be the dominant thinking among progressives.

          I don’t want to argue, but it might be salient for some commenters to actually read work by any of these dissenters. Their shock and dismay at some feminist – left positions in the West is genuine and heartfelt.

        1. Do you seriously think we should take it easy because the girls are Muslims?

          Do you seriously think we should murder all the kittens int the world?

          I mean, as long as we’re constructing strawmen.

  8. Washington Post’s subsidiary The Root covered this a couple of days ago. No clue if it was featured in the white parent paper (couldn’t find it today). U.S. did not intervene in the Congo and it’s doubtful they would do it here. The blessing of finally having women in combat roles in this country is that maybe, possibly, female volunteer troops eventually might form militias to go after the religious scum of the earth who keep women enslaved by the fiats of some nutcase book.

    1. “female volunteer troops eventually might form militias to go after the religious scum of the earth who keep women enslaved by the fiats of some nutcase book”

      What a horrifying idea.

      1. It does sound like something out of a superhero comic book more than something that’s likely ever to happen, but why is the idea so horrifying? The disregard of international borders upsets you more than the kidnapping of girls and their effective sale into slavery? (Let’s not call it marriage.)

        1. The blessing of finally having women in combat roles in this country is that maybe, possibly, female volunteer troops eventually might form militias to go after the religious scum of the earth who keep women enslaved by the fiats of some nutcase book.

          You’re going to have to explain that idea a little bit more carefully, since currently it sounds utterly detached from reality.

        2. The disregard of international borders upsets you more than the kidnapping of girls and their effective sale into slavery?

          You genuinely don’t get why the idea of a segment of the most powerful armed force in the world deserting with their weapons to go enact justice on whoever they felt like, with no civilian oversight, is horrifying?

        3. I think it depends a lot on whether or not the OP is referring to communities essentially hiring their own private security firms (mercenaries essentially) and many women with security training being willing to do it for free/low cost, or a group just getting together and deciding to ride in on high horses. Is the OP talking Seven Samurai/The Magnificent Seven or envisioning a random group getting together, deciding on the problem, and then setting out to “solve” it with little outside input? Not commenting on the feasibility of either.

        4. No, it’s not the disrespect for international borders, I could give a damn about that. It’s more a general disdain for armed militias dishing out punishments with no legitimacy beyond their military power. I’m all for women in the West helping their sisters in the Third World and international borders be damned, but there are other ways to do it that are not as intensely problematic as this.

  9. It was a Muslim woman who put me on to this book. The author went on to write several more.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Trouble_with_Islam_Today

    This dispels much of the standard “But Christianity today is exactly the same / the problem is with politics” dismissal of issues.

    This is going to cleave the left in two unless some creative synthesis is done.

    Nobody wants to be islamophobic, but it’s important to be informed. Before actually reading, I’d never known half of this material.

    And this is not a small issue in the Muslim world. Reform-minded authors like Manji are more and more common and are reaching a wide audience, but their message is often pretty hard to swallow. It makes a lot more sense to align with reformers like these than with hardliners and people who refuse to see the root ideological causes behind lots of these problems.

    And it’s true. Saudi Arabia has a lot to answer for. Ironically, the hate-spewing Saudi clerics are nominally allies of the US. They’re not, really, but that’s a conservative blind spot.

    Lots of blind spots.

  10. Basically, whatever pro-Islam sentiment exists within US liberalism is thin and new. Do you seriously think it’s more likely to be responsible for under-reporting this story in the West than liberal racism, which is entrenched and of long-standing?

      1. It also cites an unnamed source who says that Boko Haram is ready to negotiate ransoms, which seems like the best possibility for a non-disastrous outcome.

  11. Not to be the persistent odd one out, but I’ve actually seen this story reported everywhere. CNN last night, MSNBC this morning, this morning’s Times, BBC last night, literally everywhere.

    1. Yes, on May 5, after that Boko Haram has “claimed” them.

      They were kidnapped on April 14, and Googling on the May 3 brought sparse results, all reporting on the parents protesting and reported nearly 2 weeks after the abductions.

  12. I just honestly don’t know how this thread about 200+ kidnapped children came to have a comment thread dominated by whether or not “monotheism” is the culprit and about how much we are “allowed” to criticise Islam (as DonnaL points out, apparently the kidnappers are perceived as the real Muslims, not the victims! speaking of no true Scotsman…). Thanks to everyone who posted on topic and thanks to EG for the update.

    1. Yonah, are you at all surprised that a thread on this subject almost immediately got derailed by comments about how awful Islam is? And, on the other end of the spectrum, by comments about how terrible it would be if the US and other countries gave some kind of not-necessarily-military assistance — even if the Nigerian government requested it?

    2. as DonnaL points out, apparently the kidnappers are perceived as the real Muslims, not the victims! speaking of no true Scotsman…

      That’s not what no true Scotsman means. Both the victims and kidnappers are Muslim. As ever, the primary victims of religion are its adherents.

      1. Both the victims and kidnappers are Muslim.

        The kidnapped/enslaved girls include both Christians and Muslims. The boarding school was secular.

        1. The kidnapped/enslaved girls include both Christians and Muslims. The boarding school was secular.

          Sorry, I should have said “I’m aware that both the kidnappers and some of the victims are Muslim.” If you read the point I was responding to hopefully it’s clear.

  13. Also, just a quick note re: why I don’t think ‘progressive’ Islam is immune to critique; unless someone is willing to openly acknowledge that Mohammed was wrong on a number of moral issues, they don’t get a pass. The same goes for the particular homophobic/racist/ misogynistic/violent passages of the Qua’ran. I don’t know many Muslims who would do that, and pretty much every Muslim friend I have is very progressive.

    I hold Christians to the same standard.

    1. Apparently, for being concerned that ideology may be blinding people I’m not quite but almost called a racist.

      I hate saying this, because it’s not worth it most of the time and I hate it when people default to this as if it makes their arguments better. Saying this kind of thing means nothing. But I’m a black woman, and my parents understand political persecution all to well.

      Donna L and a few of the other commenters: How has it gotten to the point that thinking universal – *universal* – human rights is relevant, and that culture must take a back seat when they’re threatened?

      Am I the only progressive-minded person who reads the left/right media and sees some frightening “ellipses” and occasional wishful thinking? On both sides?

      If so, I have good company in Nick Cohen at the Guardian.

      http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/may/03/220-schoolgirls-abducted-by-boko-haram-have-been-enslaved?CMP=fb_gu

      1. Apparently, for being concerned that ideology may be blinding people, I’m not quite but almost called a racist.

        Where? Where is anybody “almost” calling you a racist?

        Where do you see anybody here being blinded by “ideology”? Nick Cohen doesn’t produce any evidence either.

        Why do you think it’s more likely that liberals are blindly pro-Islam than that they’re just, you know, racist?

  14. In case people feel too threatened to click the link to the Guardian, left it pop a bubble or two, I’ll post the most directly applicable quotes.

    “A desire for sexual supremacy accompanies their loathing of knowledge. They take 220 schoolgirls as slaves and force them to convert to their version of Islam. They either rape them or sell them on for £10 or so to new masters. The girls are the victims of slavery, child abuse and forced marriage. Their captors are by extension slavers and rapists.

    As you can see, English does not lack plain words to describe the foulness of the crimes in Nigeria, and no doubt they would be used in the highly improbable event of western soldiers seizing and selling women.

    Yet read parts of the press and you enter a world of euphemism. They have not been enslaved but “abducted” or “kidnapped”, as if they will be released unharmed when the parties have negotiated a mutually acceptable ransom. Writers are typing with one eye over their shoulder: watching their backs to make sure that no one can accuse them of “demonising the other”.

    Turn from today’s papers to the theoretical pages of leftwing journals and you find that the grounds for understanding Boko Haram more and condemning it less were prepared last year.

    Without fully endorsing Boko Haram, of course, socialists explained that it finds “resonance in the hearts of many poor and dispossessed” people, who are revolted by “the corruption and flamboyant lifestyle of the elites”. Islamism is recast as a rational reaction to local corruption and the global oppression of “neoliberalism”, one of those conveniently vague labels that can mean just about anything.

    Once, rightwing newspapers or ultra-Catholic or orthodox Jewish writers would have been the least concerned about the subjugation of women and the most willing to find excuses for religious persecution. But with the reliability of a speaking clock, it is leftwing writers of the 21st century who seek to minimise violent reaction if – and only if – the reactionaries are anti-western. (They speak out against the lesser crimes of the US religious right, without a thought for their own double standards.)

    “The mechanical denunciation of the west,” wrote the French political theorist Pascal Bruckner in 2010, “forbids the western bloc, which is eternally guilty, to judge or combat other systems, other states, other religions. Our past crimes command us to keep our mouths closed.” He might have been writing today, so persistent is the belief that the west is the root cause of the only oppression worth mentioning.”

    1. In case people feel too threatened to click the link to the Guardian, left it pop a bubble or two, I’ll post the most directly applicable quotes.

      You’re making a very thorough job of tearing that strawman apart and stomping on the pieces, I’ll give you that.

      I used the words “atrocity”, “religious fanatics” and “sexual slavery” in the OP. This is not a space that is sugarcoating anything about Boko Haram.

      1. By the way, netiquette note: I’m the same person as Sarahofthemitten above. Old nym that’s still in the autocomplete on my cell phone.

    2. These quotations you cite are bizarre

      Yet read parts of the press and you enter a world of euphemism. They have not been enslaved but “abducted” or “kidnapped”

      Is the writer…on something? He thinks “kidnapped” is a euphemism? Like, it sounds good? It’s a preferable fate? Kidnapped is fucking horrifying.

      Writers are typing with one eye over their shoulder: watching their backs to make sure that no one can accuse them of “demonising the other”.

      Does he have any actual evidence for this? Or is it all based on the bizarre assertion that “kidnapping” is some kind of euphemism?

      Turn from today’s papers to the theoretical pages of leftwing journals

      Tell me, how much influence does he imagine that left-wing journals actually have over popular Western discourse? Particularly in the US? “Imagine” is the key word here.

      socialists explained that it finds “resonance in the hearts of many poor and dispossessed” people, who are revolted by “the corruption and flamboyant lifestyle of the elites”. Islamism is recast as a rational reaction

      So he’s using quotation marks–but he’s not citing his source. What are these parts of the press? Who wrote the bits he’s citing? What papers is he taking to task? What’s with all the vaguery and unwillingness to name names? That said, I have no idea how he gets “rational” out of those quotations. Those quotations explain that it is a reaction, a real reaction that really happens. They say nothing about rationality. Humanity, perhaps, but not rationality.

      Look, this dude you’re linking us to cites Peter Singer, who values the lives of animals over those of mentally disabled children, as “a great radical thinker.” That tells me pretty much all I need to know about his values.

      it is leftwing writers of the 21st century who seek to minimise violent reaction if – and only if – the reactionaries are anti-western.

      Again, evidence? Citations?

      The only name we get is someone who agrees with him: Pascal Bruckner. So where’s the evidence?

      1. Is the writer…on something? He thinks “kidnapped” is a euphemism? Like, it sounds good? It’s a preferable fate? Kidnapped is fucking horrifying.

        How many times have you seen “married” instead of “enslaved and raped?” It certainly sticks out to me.

        The rest is pretty much goobledegook, though.

        And re: Peter Singer, that’s not really a fair analysis. He asks the question of how we should assign value to different beings, and asks why we should value a human more highly than an elephant if they had similar awareness and consciousness. He also is pretty clear that despite not having a good answer to that question, he intuitively believes a baby is more valuable than a dolphin- but wants to examine whether that institution is justified.

        The two-sentence summary that gets tossed out really doesn’t do him any justice.

        1. That’s not the example Cohen chose, though. He chose “kidnapped,” because apparently he thinks being kidnapped is not horrifying at all. Tell that to Patty Hearst or the Lindbergh baby, bud.

          Singer’s casual dismissal of the personhood of infants is quite enough for me to find him odious. From Wikipedia:

          Singer argues that newborns lack the essential characteristics of personhood—”rationality, autonomy, and self-consciousness”[26]—and therefore “killing a newborn baby is never equivalent to killing a person, that is, a being who wants to go on living.”[27]

          Note the privileging of rationality and autonomy as the most important characteristics.

        2. Note the privileging of rationality and autonomy as the most important characteristics.

          No, note the question of what characteristics should be most important if not cognitive capacity (which is not a synonym for rationality or autonomy).

          I mean, I’m not sure I have an airtight explanation for why I care more about a human child than an equally smart elephant. Maybe you do, and I’d be interested to hear it- but it’s not an inherently evil or foolish question to ask.

        3. I didn’t say it was foolish. I said it was odious. What I find unforgiveable are his utterly flawed assumptions about human infants. I’m not worried about having an airtight answer because I’m not invested in some imaginary objectivity with respect to values and morality.

          And I see no reason to privilege rationality and autonomy. Privileging the latter will always come down to devaluing connection and interdependence, and thus the people who embody interdependence, such as, for example, caretakers and those they care for. And that always ends up in misogyny. To say nothing of justifying cruelty toward infants and children.

          You are splitting hairs. If rationality and autonomy are 2/3 of the criteria by which he judges the worth of life, they are indeed being privileged above all else.

        4. Distinguishing rationality, autonomy, and cognitive capacity is not splitting hairs. They’re three radically different concepts.

          What I find unforgiveable are his utterly flawed assumptions about human infants.

          That other mammals might be as smart as they are?

          I’m not worried about having an airtight answer because I’m not invested in some imaginary objectivity with respect to values and morality.

          Right, I generally agree- which is a reason not to find the question interesting, not a reason to castigate those who enjoy the pointless intellectual wanking that is most philosophy.

          And I see no reason to privilege rationality

          Welp.

        5. Christ, ldouglas, do you go out of your way not to read for context or something? It is eminently clear from the context of the Singer quotation I cited that the context for “I see no reason to privilege rationality” is “in making invidious distinctions about the morality of murdering people.”

          Right, I generally agree- which is a reason not to find the question interesting, not a reason to castigate those who enjoy the pointless intellectual wanking that is most philosophy.

          Since I haven’t castigated anybody for enjoying philosophy, I have no idea what you think you’re arguing here.

          That other mammals might be as smart as they are?

          Actually, I meant–and again, this is something you can get from the context of the quotation I cited–his statements that murdering an infant a less immoral act than murdering an adult. I also find his statements that infants are not “self-aware” to be baseless. I do disagree with his pronouncements about infant “intelligence”, because it is based on the idea that “intelligence” is both abstract enough to be compared across species but concrete enough to be understood quantifiably, and I think that’s bullshit. I also think that, like many people, Singer vastly underestimates the intelligence of infants, and since by any definition I find reasonable, intelligence must include the capacity and potential for critical thought and learning, no, I don’t accept the proposition that other mammals are going to be as smart as a human infant.

    3. Yeah. Where are all these left-wing theorists defending Boko Haram? And where exactly is anyone claiming that Boko Haram finds “resonance” in local populations? As far as I can tell, it’s pretty much universally reviled by the population where it operates.

      And by the way, when was the time that Orthodox Jewish writers would have been “the most willing to find excuses for religious persecution” What?

      Way to make this all “the left’s” fault. A bogeyman every bit as vague and virtually meaningless as the generalized attacks on “neo-liberalism” that Cohen condemns.

    4. In case people feel too threatened to click the link to the Guardian,

      Is this meant to be serious? Right; I’m quivering with fear of what some hack might be saying in the the Guardian, the paper that loves to publish the likes of Julie Bindel.

    1. The Us has joined the search party. With Giant Robotic Drones.
      Normally, I’m not very fond of these Orwellian monstrosities, but they’re being used for good for a chance.

      I was under the impression that the biggest problem was not so much the location, but the fact that Nigeria has a tentative control of the area and has trouble exerting any force in it, especially against heavily armed organized gangs.

      But still, overall this seems to be a sound development.

  15. Thought this might be worth posting here: Barack Obama has announced that the U.S. will provide assistance to the Nigerian government to find the kidnapped girls. This will include military and law-enforcement personnel, but no armed forces. The story indicates that the Nigerian Government resisted previous offers of assistance but has now accepted assistance because of the worsening situation, though there are certainly different ways of reading that statement.

  16. My 2 cents:
    “Amnesty: Nigeria warned of Boko Haram raid at girls school, failed to act.”

    If they cannot handle the crap that goes on there, they are surely dead.
    Where is the rest of the world ??? Why do other countries sit idle and do nothing and wait for the USA to maybe send something over and when they do , they end up hating the USA for it.

Comments are currently closed.