When information overwhelms us, oversimplification is the order of the day - or that is the modern state that we have evolved to (if you'd like to call that modern). We are not capable of the patience of taking in, and keeping every detail, while we build a story that's truly worthy of all of them. That is the unfortunate case with how we react when we most need to, like the Nice killing.
Let's look at the information and calculate the oversimplification. We can, then, get a clearer picture and choose an adequate response.
The Information:
The adherents of extremist belief have decided that their belief ranks above humanity, enough to consider another human worthless (and worthy of death) just because they celebrate other values. One set of sacred values directly, and oppositely, clashed with another like they were sworn enemies to begin with - except that they were not.
It's just the wrong place for both to exist together. They're at natural loggerheads with each other. The primary culture is not uptight for most. It allows almost everything, repressing nothing except repression of what's allowed. One is the local original and has the primary right. The other is a guest in someone else's home and has only secondary rights, yet (only when there is a clash).
The Oversimplification:
The keyword here is "all". One person does not represent all people, though it analyzes the situation easier They could represent some of them, possibly a lot of them, but certainly not every single one of them. The offended Muslim killers are not all Muslims. All Muslims don't believe that they should be able to kill people at first offense. Unfortunately, the loudest and the most stupid among us tend to speak for all, or the most, of us to those who won't take the time to understand every side of the story.
Now that we've defined the two, let's look at where lines could be crossed in our responses. Here, "our" response alludes to the "all" factor backwards. While we respond individually, we are not outside of influence. An anonymous Muslim will group our individual responses and define it anonymously collectively, and use that to take it out on anonymous people (like some of the follow-up attacks) just as we have an anonymous collective view of them and we may take it out on any Muslim. While individuals come from community and we can't just sever the link, we shouldn't let the bad apples necessarily define the rest with our ignorant - both ways.
Now let's look at the responses:
All Muslims are responsible because they are acting on what they believe and practice. That's an active choice they make and they are culpable.
It makes logical sense since we need to nip this in the bud. Some questions that can be asked is what are people taught that make them like this and how much of a danger those buds are to creating menaces and murder in society that can be sparked so easily.
People who say this most likely ignore multiple issues in their home societies and countries and become hypocritical to say it.
The killer was wrong as was the cartoon itself. Freedom of speech must have a limit and the anger of the murders is justified.
All murder is wrong as much as people who ridicule religion to the extent that what Charlie Hebdo does is less about content and more about effect I.e. they want their point of view to hurt that bad to those people who hold them. Just saying something you want to say and getting a message across for sure, at any cost, are two different things. Those with the above view seem to say yes to the first wrong but what about the second wrong almost like it's a justification. The weight we give to our arguments show our allegiances.
Charlie Hebdo was doing its thing much before Muslims started pouring into France. They reserve the first right to keep things as they are. The murdering immigrants would expect the same courtesy if these people visited their restrictive countries. Only if their homelands offered the freedom to change things at first disapproval, should they expect French society to change theirs with equal speed? We can't measure backward and forward societies by different barometers.
Now let's look at what our responses should be.
1) Murder is wrong
2) Charlie Hebdo does cross a clear line (and they know it)
3) Non-original inhabitants enter into a pecking order of societal values they must give way for
3) All people are not Charlie Hebdo or potential offended murderers
4) Punishment or retribution makes sense to those people who actually did the thing (unlike the teacher) not everyone else who simply seems like them in some fashion
5) There is a larger root factor of what (and how) many Muslims are taught to believe (that) which needs to be clearly addressed (like banning mosques that teach such ideology) but a blanket ban won't work
Any simplification of the above for the safety of one over the other ruins actual legal justice and blames innocent people disproportionately. We need to rightly place we/us from which we extract him/her before we mix them up in our effort to address everyone right.
Comments
Post a Comment