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?

TALKING TO THE ENEMY HOW ELSE CAN YOU UNDERSTAND THEM?

The author Scott Atran is an anthropologist and like most of us has heard descriptions of terrorists as religious or political fanatics.  What surprised him is that other factors turned out to be more critical.  If we start with wrong assumptions it will be more difficult to find a solution.

Evolution theory has focused on individual traits, but lately more attention is being paid to group dynamics--how did one group survive?  Co-operation and sacrifice for the common good has played a role.  In the early stages of human development relatively we had weak bodies, but big brains and a tendency to be gregarious.

In fact ideology and religion are forces that unite groups even as each believer may have different degrees of faith.  Trusting strangers is a very necessary factor for civilizations to develop.  Even so we are suspicious of people who do not look like us, do not express themselves the same way or who do not respect our sacred values.  We can affiliate with "strangers" more readily if they share some of our values.

Sacred values are personal and group priorities that we can identify (sometimes with help), but we don't always understand the sacred values of others.  Sacred values are often so strong with a group that they cannot be pushed away by mere material considerations.  One example might be Palestinians feel they have a right to the same land that some Jews feel they have a right to.  Offering cash and like considerations while ignoring their attachments to the values is an insult and can actually harden feelings.

Scott noticed that many of the terrorists went to the same school or played soccer together.  In some groups the heroes were sports celebrities and in others terrorists.  Some were admired and aspired to, not necessarily because of religious beliefs but because they stood up for the group.  What gives some of them meaning is publicity which he feels our media is complicit in giving them.  Publicity makes heroes.

What turns many people to terrorism (or sympathy for terrorists) is unemployment, poor schooling, and political marginalization.  He cites African Americans in the United States and Muslims in Europe.

In passing  there was an interesting quote from Andre Malraux as follows:  "The greatest mystery is not that we have been flung at random among the profusion of the earth and the galaxies, but that in this prism we can fashion images sufficiently powerful to deny our nothingness."  Realistic, but hopeful that there is some meaning in life.

A lot of critics of terrorism point out the religious content and wondering how the perpetrators could be so misled.  Scott contends that the critics are overlooking the social content.  Most religions, including Christianity have violence in their messages.  Again religion unites people.  The author is an atheist and thinks of religions as belief in the absurd, but points out that rituals that indicate our acceptance of the absurd bonds people together.

Terrorism should not be the priority it is because the average person has many more likely life threatening concerns (that they mostly ignore).  We need to get beyond the stereotypes and learn the root causes.  Many feel the outside world is against them.  In truth we do not understand a lot of foreign customs.  The author suggested one Afghan custom was underestimated and that is the importance they place on treating guests even if they do not see eye to eye with them.

Another recommendation from Fareed Zakaria.