It seems to me that in the authors' desire to make the facts fit their thesis they have taken some liberties. The Right may be at fault for conflating "Islamist" with "Islamic" and immigration with illegal immigration, but that's rather a quibble when compared with the Left's narrative of racism and oppression.
On-the-other-hand, the Right's explanation can be said to "confirm[...] the jihadist narrative that the religion demands bloodshed and that the Western world is forcing this upon Muslims," whereas the Left's reaction-to-racism-and-poverty explanation cannot.
I agree that both left- and right-wing American interpretations of violent Islamist extremist attacks demonstrate motivated thinking that reflects US ideological positions. In Terror and Liberalism, Paul Berman makes the case that American liberals are blind to the ideology that motivates such attacks, preferring to read the attackers' motivations in ways that exculpate them. I guess my question for Micheron and Haykel is: besides taking into account these most recent attacks in France, how is your analysis different than Berman's?
I agree that left and right mischaracterize jihadism, but the left's dishonesty is much more problematic IMO. I say this as a left-of-center person myself. The message I'm getting from this piece is that if you're American, you don't have a right to an opinion on France's Islamist problem. Talk about a lazy argument! To be fair, it's extremely hard to criticize religion and particularly Islam in a head-on, direct way. But I think this is what we have to do to build a better world. We can't just say that jihadism is "complicated" and try to change the subject. I suggest this movie "Islam and Future of Tolerance" as a way into this conversation. https://islamandthefutureoftolerance.com
We must all be personally diligent in our tendency to try to place situations/issues/tragedies in convenient preconceived boxes. When we do so useful critical thought suffers and thoughtful solutions are missed leading to the item being wrongly represented and the situation behind it exacerbated.
Glad we agree on something! Yes, there is a law but I do not know the reference. But when I gave a lecture to a French University class on Race in the United States, the professor wrote the law on the blackboard and explained to her students that because of my status I was exempt!
It is important to look at the facts of the situation. President Macron claims that the French have a "right" to their cartoons. But this is totally hypocritical. It is forbidden in France to publish an anti-semitic cartoon with the caption "The Jewish Race" and of course no teacher would ever display such a cartoon. The violence must be soundly condemned but France must also examine her own hypocritical position.
It seems to me that in the authors' desire to make the facts fit their thesis they have taken some liberties. The Right may be at fault for conflating "Islamist" with "Islamic" and immigration with illegal immigration, but that's rather a quibble when compared with the Left's narrative of racism and oppression.
On-the-other-hand, the Right's explanation can be said to "confirm[...] the jihadist narrative that the religion demands bloodshed and that the Western world is forcing this upon Muslims," whereas the Left's reaction-to-racism-and-poverty explanation cannot.
I agree that both left- and right-wing American interpretations of violent Islamist extremist attacks demonstrate motivated thinking that reflects US ideological positions. In Terror and Liberalism, Paul Berman makes the case that American liberals are blind to the ideology that motivates such attacks, preferring to read the attackers' motivations in ways that exculpate them. I guess my question for Micheron and Haykel is: besides taking into account these most recent attacks in France, how is your analysis different than Berman's?
I agree that left and right mischaracterize jihadism, but the left's dishonesty is much more problematic IMO. I say this as a left-of-center person myself. The message I'm getting from this piece is that if you're American, you don't have a right to an opinion on France's Islamist problem. Talk about a lazy argument! To be fair, it's extremely hard to criticize religion and particularly Islam in a head-on, direct way. But I think this is what we have to do to build a better world. We can't just say that jihadism is "complicated" and try to change the subject. I suggest this movie "Islam and Future of Tolerance" as a way into this conversation. https://islamandthefutureoftolerance.com
We must all be personally diligent in our tendency to try to place situations/issues/tragedies in convenient preconceived boxes. When we do so useful critical thought suffers and thoughtful solutions are missed leading to the item being wrongly represented and the situation behind it exacerbated.
Glad we agree on something! Yes, there is a law but I do not know the reference. But when I gave a lecture to a French University class on Race in the United States, the professor wrote the law on the blackboard and explained to her students that because of my status I was exempt!
It is important to look at the facts of the situation. President Macron claims that the French have a "right" to their cartoons. But this is totally hypocritical. It is forbidden in France to publish an anti-semitic cartoon with the caption "The Jewish Race" and of course no teacher would ever display such a cartoon. The violence must be soundly condemned but France must also examine her own hypocritical position.