|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 23, 2012 20:56:19 GMT
As everybody knows, there was a dreadful series of events in and around Toulouse over the last ten days. The young French terrorist was killed, but all of the media from every country seemed to find it important to constantly say things like "the French youth of Algerian origin."
The Algerian media are quite upset about this, and in my opinion quite rightly so. They are wondering if every reference to Nicolas Sarkozy should say "the French President of Hungarian origin."
Should one's ancestral origin be evoked in every news report? And if so, why?
|
|
|
|
Post by bjd on Mar 24, 2012 8:38:59 GMT
In the case of Mohammed Merah, it's a way of linking him with Islamic fundamentalism, as opposed to the original idea that the assassin of the soldiers may have been a supporter of the extreme right. You know how the media everywhere like to pigeonhole people and simplify matters as much as possible.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 24, 2012 11:49:06 GMT
I don't know much on the actual matter other than the media blitz but, I would tend to agree with BJD. It seems any time post 9/11 when terrorist like activity occurs,whether it be solo or a group,the media (and delegated spokespersons) always seems to link the two.
And,was it only recently that someone posted on here about France and Algeria relations remaining in conflict despite their treaty? I don't know if that is at all germane to this incident.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 24, 2012 12:16:18 GMT
If the American president of Kenyan origin were referred to in that way every time his name is mentioned, I doubt that he would be very pleased about it.
In terms of Mohamed Merah, I think it is just the usual xenophobia of wanting to pin a foreign origin on anything that is bad. Of course Parsians could alway say that he was from Toulouse, which is probably a very suspicious place as well.
|
|
|
|
Post by tod2 on Mar 24, 2012 13:32:12 GMT
Ah, me thinks it's a case of news reporter's license to try and create sensationalism wherever they can. "stirring" is what south Africans call 'making mischief'. I love telling people I'm South African with Kenyan origins and Great Britain won't give me a passport! So there. ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 24, 2012 16:06:55 GMT
At the hairdresser today, there was on old Moroccan Jew getting her roots made blonde again, and she was awarding us with all of her political wisdom regarding the tragic events this week. "They should send all of those people back to their country," she concluded. I remained silent but I would have liked to remind her that he was living in his own country, and the real challenge is to fix what's wrong in the country rather than trying to export the problems. The hairdresser did try to mention the fact that he was French, but the woman just tossed it aside. "He wasn't real French." Perhaps she thought that she qualified for real French. As I listened, I started compiling in my mind a huge list of real French horrible criminals, assassins and extremists.
|
|
|
|
Post by apres on Mar 24, 2012 17:36:04 GMT
I agree with bjd, too.
There's also the tendency to place ourselves and "bad" people into tow separate camps- he's not really one of "us", he's really from some other place.
It reminds of a political cartoon from a long time ago, when Ben Johnson won the 100m gold medal at the Olympics, which made fun of the media coverage in Canada. It was three identical drawings of Johnson, with three different headings: "Canadian wins gold medal", "Jamaican-Canadian under investigation for steroids", "Jamaican stripped of gold medal".
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 24, 2012 18:06:18 GMT
Since Algeria has been fighting Islamic extremism for decades and nearly had a civil war over it when it cancelled elections in which the Islamic parties won, I always find it totally unfair to automatically associate it with this "problem." But I know that lots of Europeans also immediately think "mafia" or "gangster" when they hear that anybody is from Sicily or Corsica.
On top of that, the majority of the Algerian population are not even Arabs since they are Berbers and Kabyls, yet they are often automatically lumped into the Arab world just because the official language of the nation is Arabic, which a lot of them do not even speak. Using this reasoning, we could say that the people of the United States are all actually English. Where should we send their criminals?
|
|
|
|
Post by ninchursanga on Mar 25, 2012 1:40:17 GMT
I think it's another case of Islamophobia and the media stirring it up. You can observe the same in the Dutch or German media, where the non-Western background is often mentioned - whenever it suits.
On the contrary you never read about the German economics minister of Vietnamese origin or the state minister of Scottish origin or the Huguenot descendant.
It must be really frustrating for second or even third generation immigrants to still be regarded as less French (or Dutch, German, American, etc.) and to continuously have to explain their origins.
|
|
|
|
Post by bjd on Mar 25, 2012 6:40:27 GMT
My husband went to see someone in a old-age home yesterday. He said the comments were similar to those Kerouac heard at the hairdressers: "they should send them back where they came from". His comment that the guy was French was met with, "not real French".
|
|
|
|
Post by bixaorellana on Mar 26, 2012 2:52:12 GMT
Off the subject, but sort of funny in a sick way -- sometimes in Louisiana old people will point out that their family is "real French", as opposed to Cajun French. They say this despite the fact that the Acadians came in the mid-1700s and the last wave of "real French came in the 1800s. There's also the tendency to place ourselves and "bad" people into tow separate camps- he's not really one of "us", he's really from some other place. Absolutely. That's part of the whole "it can't happen here" syndrome. You know how the media everywhere like to pigeonhole people and simplify matters as much as possible. True and maddening. Some years ago in the US, thanks to the media it seemed that the first thing people would ask about anyone who'd done something outrageous was, "Is he a Vietnam vet?" The media has also demonized the two simple words, "black youth". And the public's swallowing of stereotypes leads to any number of Trayvon Martin tragedies. |
|
|
|
Post by onlymark on Mar 26, 2012 5:34:13 GMT
Re: pigeon hole(ing)............ aren't we all guilty of on a personal level doing the same thing though as well?
When we meet someone new don't we tend to cast around during conversation with them to find a 'box' to put them in? Even subconsciously.
Don't we tend to feel somewhat uncomfortable when thinking of or describing a person if we've not quite got a grip on who they are?
I think I'm not unusual in having a propensity to mentally try and categorise people from the first mention, whether in person or via the interweb thingy. It shows up when you try and describe someone, you describe your mental picture of them using descriptive words associated with the box you have them in. One word, like "divorced", can have a subtext that is readable by many and would usually have the same meaning amongst your friends due to your shared experiences and notional stereotypes.
The media just do the same but on a grander scale, they box someone in ...... "single mother" ........... from the outset, but can alter this depending on the development of the news story or the person.
We all fall foul of making assumptions about someone from a brief description of what box they are in, assumptions that are biased by our own experiences.
Being described as "religious" gives me a far different impression of someone than it does, say, to a Mormon. Being "Algerian" means a far different thing to a French person than it does to an Algerian.
Psychological studies have been made in this sort of thing - boxes and perception - including a thesis paper for one of my Doctorates (titled - "Psychological Houdinis. Escaping from boxes") in collaboration with Dr. Erik Weisz.
|
|
|
|
Post by patricklondon on Mar 26, 2012 7:34:42 GMT
Quite, and newspapers have to find the fewest words to tell us something about the people they're writing about. So almost everyone has their age referred to at some point, however apparently irrelevant, or there may be all sorts of other social detail - often it reeks of prejudice and preconceptions, often it's just a lazy way of reinforcing some established public image.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kimby on Apr 3, 2012 17:02:13 GMT
If the American president of Kenyan origin were referred to in that way every time his name is mentioned, I doubt that he would be very pleased about it.
That IS how he's referred to by the conservative media, who also note that they "take his word for it that he is not Muslim". But they don't actually state that he isn't Muslim. (Not that there's anything WRONG with that!) The "latest" scandal is that his birth certificate was recently found to have been faked, along with his registration with Selective Services (aka The Draft Board). C'mon, don't you think that the Clintons would have dug this stuff up during the primary campaign if it existed? |
|
|
|
Post by nycgirl on Apr 4, 2012 16:06:09 GMT
The "latest" scandal is that his birth certificate was recently found to have been faked, along with his registration with Selective Services (aka The Draft Board). C'mon, don't you think that the Clintons would have dug this stuff up during the primary campaign if it existed? The "birthers" are indeed ridiculous, but I'd like to think they're in the minority. Most conservatives don't spend all their time obsessing over his birth certificate, do they? |
|
|
|
Post by fumobici on Apr 4, 2012 18:12:25 GMT
I mourn the passing of intellectually rigorous American conservative as epitomized by WF Buckley or even the gruff but rational conservatism of Goldwater. No current Republican could say the following which was Barry just stating the obvious in his straightforward way,
|
|
|
|
Post by Kimby on Apr 4, 2012 21:59:07 GMT
Most conservatives don't spend all their time obsessing over his birth certificate, do they? They don't PERSONALLY obsess, but they are happy to let the conspiracy nuts mislead and rile up the masses. It works in their favor, so they don't quash it, even though they must know it's ridiculous. |
|
|
|
Post by Kimby on Apr 4, 2012 22:00:55 GMT
Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the [Republican] party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them. Wow, my opinion of Barry Goldwater just improved 1000% percent! Republicans weren't always idiots like they are today, were they? |
|
|
|
Post by Kimby on Apr 4, 2012 22:04:12 GMT
And this from Eisenhower:
Now this conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence — economic, political, even spiritual — is felt in every city, every Statehouse, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources, and livelihood are all involved. So is the very structure of our society.
In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.
Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades. In this revolution, research has become central, it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.
Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers. The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present — and is gravely to be regarded.
Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.
|
|
|
|
Post by imec on Apr 5, 2012 1:12:57 GMT
Republicans weren't always idiots like they are today, were they? No they weren't. Nor we're the Conservatives in our country until their agenda was hijacked by the EXTREME right. It's so bad here now that for the first time in my life I'm concerned for the future of my country - these lunatics aim to destroy it. |
|
|
|
Post by Kimby on Apr 5, 2012 3:18:32 GMT
And I heard conservative heads talking on the radio yesterday to a guy who thinks Obama is a socialist intent on declaring martial law and taking over the US economy! What a bunch of whack-jobs.
|
|
|
|
Post by hwinpp on Apr 12, 2012 7:57:49 GMT
I don't think I've ever seen a bunch of contenders worse than the republicans just fielded.
Thank God the boring one won.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kimby on Apr 22, 2012 14:52:11 GMT
(Anyone smart enough to BE president is too smart to WANT to be president. Only the corrupt or fatally idealistic will apply.)
|
|
|
|
Post by cheerypeabrain on Apr 29, 2012 19:46:20 GMT
Oooh a difficult subject that I don't really have the knowledge and skills to debate, just an opinion....we can't just blame 'the media' can we?. Of course our country of origin has a bearing on who we are. But the way that it's used by some people (who should know better) to cause division in mixed-race-communities that would otherwise settle into comfortable co-existance is abominable.
|
|
|
|
Post by onlymark on Apr 29, 2012 19:54:30 GMT
Psychological studies have been made in this sort of thing - boxes and perception - including a thesis paper for one of my Doctorates (titled - "Psychological Houdinis. Escaping from boxes") in collaboration with Dr. Erik Weisz. I'm saddened that after all this time nobody picked up that Erik Weisz is/was the real name of Harry Houdini. I need to make my bullshit posting clues easier. |
|
|
|
Post by cheerypeabrain on Apr 29, 2012 20:01:48 GMT
um....sorry Mr Mark sir....
|
|
|
|
Post by imec on Apr 30, 2012 3:04:43 GMT
I'm saddened that after all this time nobody picked up that Erik Weisz is/was the real name of Harry Houdini. Sorry, it must have escaped me. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 30, 2012 5:01:40 GMT
I think I stopped reading the sentence when I got to "one of my Doctorates."
|
|
|
|
Post by mickthecactus on Apr 30, 2012 12:18:52 GMT
Psychological studies have been made in this sort of thing - boxes and perception - including a thesis paper for one of my Doctorates (titled - "Psychological Houdinis. Escaping from boxes") in collaboration with Dr. Erik Weisz. I'm saddened that after all this time nobody picked up that Erik Weisz is/was the real name of Harry Houdini. I need to make my bullshit posting clues easier. Sorry Mark. I was too tied up to respond. |
|
|
|
Post by onlymark on Apr 30, 2012 12:26:59 GMT
mick and imec, I'll loft them up in the air, you two keep hitting them home.
|
|
