… did not happen in Paris on Friday, despite the fact that it was a horrific incident. Yet, though 129 people have been confirmed dead by French authorities – and presumably more will die in the coming days and weeks from the wounds they suffered – the Paris attacks don’t even come close to being the worst terrorist incident this year. It only seems like the worst.
However, in January of this year, over a four day period, a terrorist organization likely slaughtered 2,000 people (no precise count was ever taken), dwarfing the casualties in Paris, and, to be honest, every other terrorist attack that happened in the world this year.
Yet, I’ll bet few people remember this mass murder of innocent civilians because it was committed by Boko Haram, an Islamist organization committed to using violence to establish an Islamic state, that began January 3rd and ended on January 7th in an isolated area of rural Nigeria near the border with Chad.
District head Baba Abba Hassan said most victims are children, women and elderly people who could not run fast enough when insurgents drove into Baga, firing rocket-propelled grenades and assault rifles on town residents.
“The human carnage perpetrated by Boko Haram terrorists in Baga was enormous,” Muhammad Abba Gava, a spokesman for poorly armed civilians in a defence group that fights Boko Haram, told the Associated Press.
An additional 20,000 to 35,000 thousand people fled the area during Boko Haram’s assault. Satellite imagery revealed the destruction of 57% of the town of Doko Gowan, the site of a Nigerian military base that was the focus of the initial assault. Of course, this was only the worst of a number of murderous attacks on the Nigerian people by Boko Haram over the course of 2015. In February they were responsible for the deaths of 41 more people in two separate incidents. In March, another 61 people died at their hands. In July, another 145 people were killed. Indeed, it would be easier to list the months in which a terrorist attack attributed to Boko Haram by news reports did not occur – only May and August. The Council on Foreign Relations estimates that over 14,000 have been killed by Boko Haram violence since May, 2011, but that is a conservative estimate. The likely number is much higher. And Boko Haram has made a point of targeting children, and killing large numbers of them, often by burning students while they were trapped in their schools and dormitories.
Yet, no one in Europe or America was calling for an international force to root out and destroy Boko Haram. No air assault is ongoing by the US military and its allies to take out Boko Haram’s command and control centers to “decapitate” their leadership. The deaths of all those people in Nigeria did not move the needle of public opinion one iota in the western democracies. Oh the United States “boosted” its military aid to the Nigerian government, and in October we deployed a small force to neighboring Cameroon to provide “surveillance and reconnaissance” operations (but not for the purpose of combat). But that’s a drop in the ocean compared to the military and economic resources we have employed to strike at the Islamic State, even before Paris.
However, the same could be said about the constant slaughter of innocents in Afghanistan, Iraq, Lebanon, Pakistan, India, the Philippines, and so, so many other countries. Obviously, there are a number of possible reasons why the deaths in Paris matter so much more to us than those who died elsewhere. But one does have to ask the question as to why the victims of the Paris attacks arouse our sympathies so much more than the people who die everyday at the hands of terrorists all over the globe that do not live in Europe or the Americas?
We held no candlelight vigils or church services for the victims of Boko Haram. Our college and professional athletes did not enter our sporting arenas before their games this weekend (or any weekend) carrying the flag of Lebanon to honor the victims of Beirut, as they did with the French tricolor. No one claimed to stand in solidarity with the victims of those massacres. No, their deaths did not arouse in us that same level of anguish and outrage, as did the victims in Paris. The US media certainly spent far less time covering those tragedies, and indeed far less time collectively covering all the other terror attacks worldwide, than it spent this past weekend with its round the clock attention tom the events in Paris.
I leave it to you to consider what that means about our society and its moral values.
Two reasons, rooted in basic human psychology
Also note that France has long had boots on the ground against Boko Haram, much more than its commitment to Syria.
http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN0M71Y920150311
Yes. I think what it says, mostly, is that we’re all too human.
France = white people
Nigeria = not white people
To be completely fair, as Obama pointed out, France was our ally in our War against the Brits for Independence. So there is that.
But mostly, imo, it’s about skin color & long-standing agreements.
We acknowledge other deaths elsewhere, such as the terrorist bombing(? think it was that) of a temple in Thailand somewhat recently, but we don’t go “all out” in our mourning for that event.
But also: great PR to push for unfettered WAR, INC ag ME. Plus now I’m hearing chatter about how ISIS has similar plans for ever exceptional USA! USA! USA!
So France is useful grist for the MIC gaping maw of gimme moar moar moar money.
Am I cynical enough?
Every time the US makes a move in the area — special forces to Gabon and Cameroon, reconnaissance aircraft to Mali or Chad — my internet lights up with pieces about the latest US invasion, our imperialist designs on the region, the evils of American hegemony, etc. etc.
I don’t know where I got the idea that the preferred response, per the progressive community, from the West in general, and the US particular, is ‘feel bad, and do nothing’.
We will overreact to the events in Paris. More guns and money and possibly ground troops will be sent to the Middle east. Conversely, we will continue to ignore terrorist attacks on anyone who does not live in Europe, the US or other predominately white countries.
So, the plan is to mourn more, and deploy less?
You’re putting words in my mouth.
At this point I highly doubt any tactic in the short term will be productive, especially military tactics. Our overreaction to 9/11 sealed our fate to a large extent, and that was a consequence of our meddling in the region that goes as far back as the fifties, if not earlier. Our alliances in the region and our support for the most extreme elements of Islam created this monster.
I haven’t heard anyone suggest a viable strategy to deal with the threat of Islamic terrorists, but obviously war, whether a ground war or an air war, hasn’t been terribly effective now has it.
Is gravamen of your complaint that the force deployed to Cameroon was too small, or that troops were deployed at all?
do you believe we have an obligation to try to provide order everywhere in the world?
do you believe we have the capacity, if we did want to?
do you believe this is a good use of US armed forces and US money?
are you going to call me an isolationist and a pacifist for asking these questions?
Is the Westphalian nation-state model where what happens in
VegasDarfur stays in VegasBosniagoing to be normative forever because the US has screwed up before?Is sovereignty an unpiercable veil, regardless of what violence is being visited, and upon whom, behind it?
I don’t think this failure is racism or anything else. It’s got a lot to do with the less complete news media in that part of Africa.
Boco Haram is a dreadful organization, however, and I appreciate this entry. They keep kidnapping young women, and selling them into slavery. That’s dreadful as well.
I disagree. I believe the race of the victims does play a role in who we respond both as a society and at the governmental level.
No doubt it plays a role, but so do all the other factors mentioned in the various comments.
Here’s another one: The Nigerian government itself, for a long time, did fuck all about Boko Haram.
If reports are to be believed, since the time Booman writes about, they finally got off their asses and, in coalition with Chad, Niger and Cameroon, have considerably weakened Boko Haram. This was published just yesterday:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/16/world/africa/boko-haram-attacks-persist-but-nigerian-officials-say
-group-is-losing-ground.html
It’s annoying that at the heart everything appears to be “racism”. That’s crap, really.
Of Americans who have passports, probably 50-60% have gone to Paris. Probably 2% have gone to Nigeria.
Of all Americans, some small percentage have French ancestry. I would bet that percentage is higher than Americans with Nigerian ancestry. And of all black Americans, probably a lot do not know their roots.
We have a long history with France, and almost no history with Nigeria.
I wonder if any news outlet has a “Nigerian” correspondent, or even a central African one. If any correspondent is there, it is for all of Africa, which is not enough.
I agree that we should have more dealings with Africa. Because the Chinese, our enemy, do deal with Africa, and have a lot of Chinese agents, buying up raw material, buying farm land, etc. Of course, since we don’t make anything anymore, I’m not sure what we would do with raw material, but we could at least keep it from the Chinese.
There is an international force in Africa fighting BH. We are supporting it.
Correct. See link I posted just above.
This post is pretty standard material, perfected best by the sanctimonious writers at Salon.
The standard formula is:
For some authors, it’s so hard to resist the sweet narcotic of sanctimony, sitting on high, casting judgments on others for not suitably responding to Group Z.
And the fact is … there is some truth to this ole bit, as is true of most ole bits. That’s why they’re ole. There are atrocities that occur literally every day on this planet, and even the peddlers of sanctimony can’t possibly express outrage at all of them. So we’re all exposed to charges of hypocrisy.
But the fact is … we tend to focus more on those things that affect us and our group … and the sanctimonious are not immune. I noticed that this author has been selective in the news he comments on as well. Why does he write about some atrocities but not others? Doesn’t everyone deserve the exact amount of time?
What action? Any action would be just be ham-handed Western imperialism imposed from without, insensitive to the uniqueness of indigenous people.
It’s not 100% race in this particular case–we’ve also paid little attention to the 224 innocent Russians blown up in the air over Sinai compared to what we’ve given to France. And I’m not apologizing for the way I feel about France personally, which is completely distinct from the way I feel about white people.
But neglect of nonwhite peoples or treating their suffering as somehow not as serious is endemic among us, and we all need to be reminded, especially about this Nigerian case just now, so thanks.
Yesterday’s Times:
in collaboration with Chad, Niger, and Cameroon and I believe with $5 billion from the US, plus:
So it is going on, though without much publicity, and it doesn’t sound so ham-handed: the US seems to be showing an unusually healthy awareness of what it doesn’t know.