TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THE CHARLIE HEBOU HORROR

Are we really free to express ourselves?

After the Charlie Hebou terrorism the talk has mostly been about religious fanatics and racial overtones are evident as well.  Fear has reared its ugly head again.  I think back to another posting about "Talking to the Enemy," by author Scott Atran, a Franco-American scholar.  You can read my thoughts on it at http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2014/11/talking-to-enemy-how-else-can-you.html

We are all fearful of "the other."  It might be a race or religion we do not understand.  The key thing is we do not understand them and our ignorance magnifies differences and minimizes similarities.  Scott has gone behind the stereotypes to question what drives terrorists and it is not what he originally thought.

Humans have evolved, a dirty word in some circles, but critical to understanding human behaviour) as groups.  An individual could not have survived the dangers inherent in our beginnings, but learned that teaming together helped us overcome many difficulties.  One of the difficulties proved to be other groups (perhaps separated by language, geography, race, culture).  Other groups would inevitably try to encroach on their territory and they would fight back.  The better organized groups prevailed.  Critically the strength of their group increased by their group identification.  Religion proved to be a key element in that identity.

Scott, an atheist would argue that religions have a lot of elements that might be considered" absurd" by outsiders.  But agreement on what absurdities are special or sacred to the group unites the group.  As a "Christian" nation some of us can identify with people in far lands of different races and even different customs as part of the same important group.  We should not be surprised that other religions such as Islam carry a wide identification including many nations and races.  When any of our religious affiliations feels threatened it can result in intolerant, even irrational behavior.

Scott also learned that many terrorists knew each other playing sports or going to the same schools.  These group activities reinforced other group identities, but he found usually these social activities were instrumental in their identity.  Twisted logic can provide an opportunity to demonstrate group loyalty.

In another post I noted Jared Diamond's observations dealing with "primitive" cultures in New Guinea where strangers were scary and coping mechanisms had to be developed;
(http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2013/06/jared-diamond-expanding-our.html Just as we needed to learn to tolerate strangers in small settings we need to better learn how to tolerate a much wider range of strangers for the world to survive with its new set of dangers.

We need to respect other people's beliefs (not necessarily agree with them).  We need to tolerate their ignorance and disrespect of our beliefs.  Provocative behaviour needs to be carefully guarded against.  Understanding needs to be a higher priority.  Yes, Charlie Hebou was provocative and no doubt profited by it, but they also made people think, not necessarily agree.  There are other avenues to address being offended than killing such as boycotts, education, self-examination and even ignoring.  Other Charlie Hebou targets included other religions and many politicians and celebrities.

Free speech suffered a terrible setback and many people all around the globe will be fearful of expressing anything considered controversial.  Muslims will pay a big price for the actions of a few--prejudice, hostility and possibly legislative decisions around the globe.  Ironically European legislatures have been voting on Palestinian efforts to gain more recognition.

When you better understand another person you are less likely to disrespect them.  Many things need to be questioned and sometimes the questions can be offensive to others.  At Charlie Hebou they performed a necessary function in the world by questioning things that are considered too "touchy."

None of us deserve to die for our beliefs or expressions that stop short of killing others.  They say words can kill, but really they only provoke.  For mankind to survive such things as climate change, possible nuclear war, resistant diseases, tribal warfare and other known and unknown potential forces we will need to overcome our prejudices and work with others.  Respect at least enough not to kill others or discriminate unfairly against "the others."  I recognize that we need each other and believe we can each contribute to the betterment of mankind.

Not sure if tolerance is needed for understanding or understanding is needed for tolerance.  If you start with the thought that other human beings have something in common with you, you may find that the differences are more interesting than threatening.  In my 60 plus years  it amazes me how my peers looked down on foreign food, but now many of them now seek it out.  Same goes for all sorts of things and as we soak up more knowledge our lives are enriched.

Each of us as individuals have responsibility to accept other cultures, but those with real power also have responsibility to protect the long term interests of everyone.  The more people standing up for reason and understanding, the more momentum will be developed. I am reminded of still another post regarding Globe and Mail reporter Doug Saunders working from Britain became concerned about the myths about his new Muslim neighbours http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2012/09/the-myth-of-muslim-tide-book-review.html  Really just demonstrates that misinformation is very influential.

When efforts were made to listen for messages from outside earth it was feared the reason we were not able to detect any was that civilizations that could reach the technical ability to send messages were also apt to self-destruct.  In simple forms it often seems that we reached our level of technical expertise in selfish competition and continue to compete when we need to co-operate.  There are many selfish groups (as well as individuals each wanting to take more than they give.

The big question is what can we do as individuals and as society to prevent future occurrences like the one at Charlie Hebou and still enjoy the freedom that prevailed beforehand.  The idea of tolerance and understanding might seem glib or naive to many, but there don't seem to be very many workable alternatives.  Are we up to it?

The Myth of the Muslim Tide

Doug Saunders, a reporter with the Globe and Mail while living in England noticed some changes in his neighborhood.  Muslims were moving in.  Over a period of time he became concerned about prejudice against them that came out in ways that he felt were wrong.  A few prominent American politicians such as Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum were very critical of Muslims.

Violence in the Qu'ran is cited as proof of their violent nature. You could find violence in Jewish, Christian and Islamic holy literature.  Doug studied the issue, not from a scriptural base, but from a social assimilation basis.  He took a number of myths and researched to see if there was any truth.  The myths were false.

One myth was that these newcomers would out breed the natives. It has been found that the birth rate of Muslims in European and English speaking North America gradually converge with the locals.  Overlooked is the fact that many immigrants come from rural areas where birth rates are higher, but when people move to urban areas birth rates decline.  He uncovered studies in France and Germany that demonstrated lowering fertility rates over time.

Muslims supposedly are not willing to integrate.  An American study revealed that 49% of Muslims claimed to be Muslim first and American second, but that evangelicals claimed to be Christians first  at a 70% clip. American Muslims tended towards the American view that negotiations were possible between Israeli and Palestinians although in the Middle East this view was not as common.   One of the strongest indicators of integration is inter-marriage and he found evidence in many countries involving Muslims.

We have a history with "outsiders" that is playing out with Muslims.  Roman Catholics from southern Europe and Jews have gone through a similar route.  They were not accepted and viewed suspiciously for decades.  Jews fled eastern Europe in the 1880's.  In 1909 26% of Jews in United States were illiterate.  There was a lot of fear of radical Jews, but gradually they integrated.  At about the same time a lot of southern European Catholics emigrated to America and were mightily resented.

Are there dangerous people amongst the immigrants and should we be wary?  You can find dangerous people amongst all groups of people.  You have to realize that abuse and isolation sometimes bring out the worst of people.  Terrorists tend to have political motives, not driven by religion.

All immigrants will adjust more easily with more educational support.  And I might add enlightened neighbours.

All immigrants share some of their culture.  Jews fried fish and French Huguenot settlers fried potatoes to make the British staple of Fish and Chips.  Italians have spread pizza around the globe. Middle Eastern Muslims have brought fallafels and hummus.

"The Myth of the Muslim Tide" is not a long or difficult to read book.  It has enough hard data and clear thinking to make all but the hard bigots pause.  Examine your own life and history and you will find that the "outsiders" always seem strange and threatening.  Given enough time any group of people will tend to interact with other groups and have positive effects on one another.