Why am I ignoring Nigeria?

By Seth Studer

I take a little exception to the smarminess of certain media’s response to the Charlie Hebdo murders. Last week, they inform us, we witnessed two horrific massacres: the murder of 12 satirists in Paris and the murder of roughly 2,000 civilians in Baga (that’s in Borno, Nigeria). But, they continue, judging from CNN, Fox, and your Facebook feed, only one of these terrible crimes got any coverage. To ask the question “which one: the 12 Europeans or the 2,000 Africans?” is to answer it. While the loss of 12 innocent lives and an implied assault on Free Speech (which doesn’t really exist per se in France) rallies millions across the Great White West, virtually no one is speaking for what Teju Cole calls “unmournable bodies” (an eloquent phrase, although the critical theorist’s habit of saying body when you mean person upsets his essay’s thesis). Cole’s essay in the New Yorker (linked above) is intelligent and passionately argued, and he handles his argument’s underlying ethos – the aforementioned smarminess – with more grace than others (the latter article incorrectly states that Nigeria is south of the equator, a reminder that the many truths revealed by postcolonial theory – e.g., global North vs. global South – do not always square with geographical reality). But in general, I felt scolded for paying more attention to France than Nigeria.

And I probably deserve a scolding. Did mainstream news outlets focus on France over Nigeria as the consequence of a bias toward white Europeans? Absolutely! Was the attack on Charlie Hebdo more frightening and noteworthy to Western audiences than the massacre in Baga because the former represents an attack on the imagined “center” of Western civilization rather than its “periphery”? You bet!

So should 2,000 murder victims be more “newsworthy” than 12 murder victims? I think it depends on the circumstances. 

Anyone who hasn’t been following Boko Haram over the past many months is an irresponsible consumer of world news. The mass violence last week represents the terrifying apex of an ongoing story. We spent much of 2014 preoccupied with the horrors inflicted upon the Nigerian people by this radical group (even Michelle Obama got involved, which got American conservative media involved, etc., etc.). The Charlie Hedbo massacre, meanwhile, fell out of a clear blue sky. Both discrimination against Muslims and Muslim unrest in France are ongoing, but nothing concrete or obvious precipitated this attack. These murders arrived on our screens demanding a context. Hence, the intense coverage.

And for me, intense coverage of the Charlie Hebdo massacre is essential not merely because it reinforces Western commitments to free speech (commitments that tend to get waylaid when they’re needed most). Coverage is essential because France is an important European nation in the grips of a major rightward political and cultural shift, one that could potentially turn more strident, more xenophobic, and more violent. After a half century on the fringes (and apparent defeat in the face of European unification), Europe’s right-wing parties (as opposed to its right-of-center parties) are, ahem, on the march. In the United States, extreme right-wing rhetoric has benefited from decades in the mainstream: a speaker’s racism or xenophobia can be carefully coded and embedded in speeches about tax policy. In Europe, the far right has been far wilder and wilier. They’ve retained their ugliness and wear it explicitly on the surface. (Whenever one of my liberal friends unfavorably compares America’s conservative politics with Europe’s socialist policies, I remind them, “Yes, you like their left wing, but you don’t want their right wing.”) Meanwhile, since the 2007/08 global banking crisis, nationalism in Europe – both right-wing and left-wing – has resurged to levels not seen in decades. Because of their knotted political and economic ties to Germany (or Russia), the peoples of Europe are seeking social and cultural distinction. Secession movements have gained renewed traction in the geographical and political expanse between Scotland and Crimea. Consequently, Germans and Russians are also asserting their national character in ways that, twenty years ago, would have seemed taboo.

This, for me, is the context of the Charlie Hebdo attack, far removed from the bloodshed in Nigeria (admittedly, all things connect in our post-post-colonial world, as African expats like Cole convincingly demonstrate). Note that the above paragraph doesn’t include the word “Islam.” I don’t think you need to dwell much on radical Islam to understand the socio-cultural dynamic that drives millions of French residents into the streets. From a French perspective, however, immigration from the Muslim world underscores every aspect of the current national identity crisis. Thus, when an event like the attack on Charlie Hebdo occurs, you get 3.7 million people in the streets and attacks on Muslims.

This, to me, is a very big story indeed.

Two thousand people died in Nigeria last week, it’s true, but 3.7 million people marched throughout France yesterday – roughly one million in Paris alone. What do those one million want? What do they represent? Many of them are doubtless sympathetic with France’s Muslim minorities. Few among them are likely to be extreme French nationalists (though more of them are sympathetic with French nationalism than Western liberals would like to imagine). Whatever their motives, this represents a good moment to take France’s cultural temperature. The context demands it. Your first response to Charlie Hebdo should be an unequivocal condemnation of the murders and support for free speech. But your second response, given the atmosphere in Europe, should be concern for liberalism in France. Because, contrary to what the news coverage is telling you, continental Europe is not historically an easy or natural home to liberal values. And because a march can be a mob by another name.

3 thoughts on “Why am I ignoring Nigeria?”

  1. I liked the post, and am not sure what David L Dusenbury’s complaints are. It seems to be getting unnecessarily defensive over quite minute points, though I agree the ‘mob’ comment is a little off base. Of course a ‘march can be a mob by another name’, but in this case it wasn’t (although, for other reasons, i dont think responding to mass murder with mass marches is the best idea)

    Graham Peterson – is that really never said ? That some things are better in the US, some in Europe ? (for a wide definition of Europe, for the minute) Ive only lived in the US for one 6 month stint so cant really speak to it, but some things that seem better; US commitment to free speech, both culturally and legally, to my mind (although I couldnt speak to the specifics) seems preferable to what generally exists on continental Europe. I think the US does a better job of assimilating immigrants, although dont know what any of the evidence says on this (or even if it could be judged empirically, as it’s basically a normative preference afaict) Dealing with government bureaucracies on the continent can be extremely tedious. I guess this varies state to state in the US, but even doing very basic things (renting, opening bank accounts, paying bills etc) can be pretty difficult. Not to be sneezed at, those little things add up. European governments *are* annoyingly intrusive. Things that are preferable in ‘Europe’; better public services, functioning health care systems, less insanely harsh criminal justice systems. Of course these are just my impressions, comparativists/experts can correct me on the specifics.

    Anyway, I just came to say (before getting sidetracked) that i think the question on the far right is interesting, though I think there’s another way of looking at it rather than arguing over ‘who has the worse.’ European parliamentary systems better suit extremists. It is much easier to get heard (and to build a base, exaggerate how much support you have, influence policy) in a fragmented system rather than the US binary. Afaict, in the US extremists tend to just become sidelined in the larger party, or isolated at the state level, whereas in Europe they can become meaningful political actors. But does Europe have the same issue with far right political violence ? I wouldnt have thought so. It could be argued that by allowing a political space for the far right you disincetiviuse them from violence. Anyway, im not sure how easily these things can be compared. (this is largely someone elses argument that Im working from, but I think it’s convincing. To a point)


  2. DLD: “…the orgy of post-colonial immigration over the last half-century fueled by neo-liberal economics…”

    I can think of a lot of ways to describe French political economy since the 1960s, but in thrall to neoliberal economics would certainly not be one of them. Post-colonial? Sure. Neo-colonial? Perhaps. But not neoliberal, at least not the way that word is commonly used.

    I generally agree with Seth’s point: The French response to MENA immigration has been problematic in a number of ways, and the response to these attacks should be understood within the historical and present-day context. There’s nothing unique about this; one could say the same about the UK w/r/t South Asia and the US w/r/t Latin American, and many have. But the sympathy for France comes in a variety of flavors. Some are liberal, others are not. Some are concerned about political violence under the guise of Islamism, others are concerned about the presence of Muslims full stop. There *is* a need to distinguish between these things, particularly at a time when the West is rightly demanding that Muslim-majority countries do the same.

    Given the continent’s historical/contemporaneous illiberalism towards the Semitic, the rise of the nationalist right in France and elsewhere is concerning on its own and the fact is that right can and will use events like these for illiberal purposes. It may be possible for anti-immigrant policies to be liberal if deployed by a liberal, but Le Pen is no liberal.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s