 |
| Photo from: Daily Mail |
These days, the word ‘massacre,’ technically defined as “an indiscriminate and brutal slaughter of many people,” is used quite lightly. Granted, the definition is ambiguous and tends to raise a lot of questions. What does brutal look like? How many is too many? And, more importantly, are massacres always indiscriminate?
Early this month, we witnessed the “Charlie Hebdo Massacre” unfold when two gunmen intruded and open fired in the offices of the well known French satirical publication, Charlie Hebdo, and killed 12 employees. All the while, the gunmen screamed “Allahu Akbar!”, Arabic for “God is the greatest.” From this act of terror, a movement was born. Millions of people rallied in France in support of free speech, adopting the slogan, “Jes Suis Charlie,” which directly translates to, “I am Charlie.” In a matter of hours, #JesSuisCharlie was tweeted over one million times, garnering support from everywhere possible.
Sure, there is something beautiful and almost mesmerizing about the solidarity of it all. But if we force ourselves to look past the propaganda we see a movement without much substance -- a massacre that would’ve had a smaller effect had it been elsewhere in the world. Had a massacre of similar nature occurred outside of the West, would it be any different?
Yes, it would.
Take the Boko Haram massacre in Nigeria, for example. This one is more aptly named, with casualties of at least 2000 Nigerian villagers, including women and children (the gunmen of the Charlie Hebdo Massacre refused to shoot women). Just last year, 276 schoolgirls were kidnapped by Boko Haram and made global headlines, even spurring the #bringbackourgirls social-media campaign supported by various celebrities and political figureheads. According to The Guardian, at least 27 Nigerians died per day due to Boko Haram related violence last year, proving that the genocide committed by the Boko Haram was truly indiscriminate. The victims were not cartoonists who continually tarnished the sacred images of religious figures under the pretense of freedom of expression - they lead their own lives and weren’t concerned with voicing their opinions on Islam.
Compared to the horrific violence in Nigeria, the Charlie Hebdo ‘Massacre’ seems miniscule. Therefore, wouldn’t it make sense that even more of the world would be united in solidarity, working together to aid those affected as best they can? Wouldn’t it inspire an even larger following than that of Jes Suis Charlie?
Shouldn’t it?
The fact is that, while Jes Suis Charlie attracts more attention and followers everyday, the world becomes less concerned with the events in Nigeria. While? Obama has publicly condemned the actions of the gunmen in France? and pledged his support for? Jes Suis Charlie, the US has since provided little aid for Nigeria. No reinforcements arrived upon the events of the Boko Haram massacre, while 40 world leaders turned up in Paris to march in honour of the twelve cartoonists that had been killed.
I think it’s incredibly unfair. Yes, Paris may be the ‘new kid on the block,’ so to speak, having never really experienced Islamic terrorism. However, just because we’re more familiar with seeing images of Africa stricken with unspeakable amounts of violence, doesn’t make Nigeria’s story any less appalling or worthy of our attention. Charlie Hebdo has long been associated with acts of terrorism due to it’s infamously offensive cartoon depictions that most religious communities find extremely offensive - it’s former editor in chief was even on the Al Qaeda’s Most Wanted list prior to his death. We should’ve at least seen this coming.
It’s not just a case of unfamiliarity. The reason for the Nigeria’s lack of representation in the media is simple; the cartoonists were European and the Nigerians are not. ‘Colourism’ existed in the history of our many cultures, fair skinned people were seen as superior as fair skin has always been associated with cleanliness, while dark skin has always denoted impurity. I think that because racism has become intrinsic, we more readily empathise with people part of a race that continues to dominate our history, media and culture.
Perhaps the problem isn’t in the word as most of us may think. The ambiguity of ‘massacre’ serves a significant purpose. It remind us that all lives, whether it be that of a political leader, a middle-class French artist or that of a poor Nigerian villager, have equal value, and should therefore be treated as such; whether in life, or in death. However, to use it as lightly as we do is just as deadly as the event itself, for we are not only condoning horrific and unreasonable violence; we are silencing the voices of its true victims.
%20(1).png)
0 comments:
Post a Comment