Why is Nigeria getting no news coverage?
- Thread starter Multiply
- Start date
Prometheus Beta
Active member
Inanimated, while we are talking about the religion of peace and its adherents, let me illustrate your astute observation (ok, I interpreted you here as getting somewhere) about human nature with another example.
By far the people who garner the most sympathy from the Muslim population throughout the world are the "Palestinians", at the hands of their Jewish oppressors. No doubt that the Muslims here are all too familiar with the Muslim narrative regarding that conflict. But how many Muslims here do you think is aware of the horrors of the "Bangladesh Liberation War" where when the then "East Pakistan" endeavoured for independence, West Pakistan (which would become the current Pakistan) unleashed a military invasion against the former that killed between 300,000-500,000 Bangladeshis and made refugees of 40+ million. In fact, in that war, most of the Arab states sided with West-Pakistan and condemned the Bangladeshis for their "anti-Islamic nationalism".
As another example, one might think that the "Palestinians", who seem to feel themselves as categorical victims, would sympathize with other victimized peoples. But in 2006, the "Palestinians" were among the few peoples who mourned this man.
This is a man who enacted brutalities on another peoples, the Kurds of Iraq, far more horrific than anything Israel has ever done to the Palestinians on any single occasion. In fact the Kurds, a dispersed peoples divided by several states in their own lands, have been subject to the terror of the Iraqi, Iranian and Turkish states for most of the history of these states as nation-states. And yet, they receive no sympathy from the Arabs, Persians or Turks.
Here are two sad truths of human nature my friends: first, sympathy is often subject to social, economic and political reality, that is, it often serves the self-interests of the sympathizers. Second, sympathy, like most other of the cooperative impulses of man, goes hand in hand with tribalism, that is, it is all too human of a behaviour to easily recognize and inflate the sufferings of your own group (whether ethnic, sectarian, religious etc) and allies, and too ignore and undermine that of others, especially your enemies and rival groups.
Indeed Inanimated, what is truly, as far as the question of human suffering is concerned, the difference between African warlords exploiting children (there is an estimated of over 100,000 child soldiers in Sub-Saharan Africa alone) and what ISIS is doing to the Shiites, Kurds and Yezidis? Why should we stop the later, and not the former?
You see this is why I can never take ethical arguments for military interventionism seriously. The Neocons and liberal interventionists, who are the chief peddlers of this type of propaganda in the media, now want us to bomb and invade Iran (and possibly Iraq again and maybe even Syria) -so that supposedly the Iranians can finally be set free of the yoke of the mullah and no doubt turn Iran into the Hollywood version of America 2.0, as that is exactly what a majority of Iranians secretly want to do (as farcical as this might sound, this is a common thread I read in the Neocon political literature these days, though they will not frame it nearly as bluntly as I).
And don't get me wrong, I am no sanctimonious hypocrite. I am well aware of my own biases (for example, I loathe Islam, and would prefer that we take non-violent measures to reduce the Muslim immigrant population in my own country and in the western world in general), but I think it a wise precept to attempt to see the world as it is.
By far the people who garner the most sympathy from the Muslim population throughout the world are the "Palestinians", at the hands of their Jewish oppressors. No doubt that the Muslims here are all too familiar with the Muslim narrative regarding that conflict. But how many Muslims here do you think is aware of the horrors of the "Bangladesh Liberation War" where when the then "East Pakistan" endeavoured for independence, West Pakistan (which would become the current Pakistan) unleashed a military invasion against the former that killed between 300,000-500,000 Bangladeshis and made refugees of 40+ million. In fact, in that war, most of the Arab states sided with West-Pakistan and condemned the Bangladeshis for their "anti-Islamic nationalism".
You must be registered for see links
You must be registered for see links
As another example, one might think that the "Palestinians", who seem to feel themselves as categorical victims, would sympathize with other victimized peoples. But in 2006, the "Palestinians" were among the few peoples who mourned this man.
You must be registered for see links
This is a man who enacted brutalities on another peoples, the Kurds of Iraq, far more horrific than anything Israel has ever done to the Palestinians on any single occasion. In fact the Kurds, a dispersed peoples divided by several states in their own lands, have been subject to the terror of the Iraqi, Iranian and Turkish states for most of the history of these states as nation-states. And yet, they receive no sympathy from the Arabs, Persians or Turks.
You must be registered for see links
Here are two sad truths of human nature my friends: first, sympathy is often subject to social, economic and political reality, that is, it often serves the self-interests of the sympathizers. Second, sympathy, like most other of the cooperative impulses of man, goes hand in hand with tribalism, that is, it is all too human of a behaviour to easily recognize and inflate the sufferings of your own group (whether ethnic, sectarian, religious etc) and allies, and too ignore and undermine that of others, especially your enemies and rival groups.
Indeed Inanimated, what is truly, as far as the question of human suffering is concerned, the difference between African warlords exploiting children (there is an estimated of over 100,000 child soldiers in Sub-Saharan Africa alone) and what ISIS is doing to the Shiites, Kurds and Yezidis? Why should we stop the later, and not the former?
You see this is why I can never take ethical arguments for military interventionism seriously. The Neocons and liberal interventionists, who are the chief peddlers of this type of propaganda in the media, now want us to bomb and invade Iran (and possibly Iraq again and maybe even Syria) -so that supposedly the Iranians can finally be set free of the yoke of the mullah and no doubt turn Iran into the Hollywood version of America 2.0, as that is exactly what a majority of Iranians secretly want to do (as farcical as this might sound, this is a common thread I read in the Neocon political literature these days, though they will not frame it nearly as bluntly as I).
And don't get me wrong, I am no sanctimonious hypocrite. I am well aware of my own biases (for example, I loathe Islam, and would prefer that we take non-violent measures to reduce the Muslim immigrant population in my own country and in the western world in general), but I think it a wise precept to attempt to see the world as it is.
Jazzy Stardust
Banned
Awards
Maybe- but by extension it would be because those people may have relatives in other countries which would be making the pressure to bring their relatives to safety or make them safe somehow.
People do not care enough about news to act upon it. Why don't you ask your own country where you live, to help out Nigeria against Boko Haram, if you care even worth two pence instead of complaining about media of another country.
Well Nigeria actually has oil - largest reserves in Africa.
so yeah. I was not even serious with Oil comment. But you forgot to tell me why US should be more interested in Nigeria's problems? Shouldn't Nigerian government have to ask for help first? And yet you were the one make such a suggestion and calling it racism if they didn't pay enough attention to it.
I ask again- Why don't you ask your country and your media to get involved instead of questioning others? Do you think your media and government is giving it it's due attention?
(If you are from USA then write a letter to your own media. But I think you aren't. )
It's funny, If anything I find US media highly bigoted and biased when picking news about India so I don't care for US exactly. Let alone, US media, the European media in general seemed to be getting it's knickers in twist that Indian democracy chose a leader they didn't like. They showed little respect for the choice majority made here or the democratic process and made all kind of negative suggestions for the people at large and acted as if they know better about us that millions in this country themselves. Trying to sway the mood here and funding other parties or local NGOs to affect the election process and what not. And it's nothing new either. Their policies of all sorts often affect us negatively.
But there is a difference between genuine criticism of it's policies and random bashing and complaints and bringing in racism in everything. Just because.. Every country and their media works in a way that suits it's own interests or catches it's fancy.
Last edited:
Yes because they can afford that.
I only need to say one thing to counter this; #Kony2012.
Since when has the US waited for people to ask for help?Well Nigeria actually has oil - largest reserves in Africa.
Yes I live in the US of A.
I am in the US so I don't need to really answer this.
I agree 100%, the US media is highly biased and bigoted and in some cases racist. That was the point of this thread tbh.
I do think it's racist as hell that these media outlets won't highlight what is going on in Nigeria, however they will plaster my face with the Hebdo murders. I am saddened by the death of anyone. However such an overwhelming amount of deaths are being looked over simply because the people that are dying aren't worth helping? That is absolutely ridiculous.
Hmm I must be confusing you with some one else- that other guy who has been spamming with racism thread.Yes because they can afford that.
I only need to say one thing to counter this; #Kony2012.
Since when has the US waited for people to ask for help?
Yes I live in the US of A.
I am in the US so I don't need to really answer this.
I agree 100%, the US media is highly biased and bigoted and in some cases racist. That was the point of this thread tbh.
I do think it's racist as hell that these media outlets won't highlight what is going on in Nigeria, however they will plaster my face with the Hebdo murders. I am saddened by the death of anyone. However such an overwhelming amount of deaths are being looked over simply because the people that are dying aren't worth helping? That is absolutely ridiculous.
Anyway, it depends on what kind of news it is. News channels will give news for rating and what they expect to catch attention or in some cases to promote the views and ideologies they are attached with. Like the shooting and killing of cartoonists in Paris. They were part of media. So it's media's own interest which got hit and that's why they showed such a support for their cause where ever they could. Freedom of speech is something they want the most as a group.As for US government- :shrug:. But it's the same for them- about business and personal interests. Tibet got nothing but sympathy. Kashmiri pandits didn't get even that. Your dear government likes to play with Frankenstein monsters a little too much. They create them and then end up fighting them.
There may be problem of racism on individual level or in small groups but it's economic and political interests which guide a country's policy at large. Power. That's what it's always about.
Last edited:
To Whatever
Active member
BTW Have you ever considered that they also maybe avoiding Nigerian news to avoid the more Hebbo cases? You won't see the regular defendants of "freedom of speech" and those who like sharing information from secondary sources in here either.Yes because they can afford that.
I only need to say one thing to counter this; #Kony2012.
Since when has the US waited for people to ask for help?
Yes I live in the US of A.
I am in the US so I don't need to really answer this.
I agree 100%, the US media is highly biased and bigoted and in some cases racist. That was the point of this thread tbh.
I do think it's racist as hell that these media outlets won't highlight what is going on in Nigeria, however they will plaster my face with the Hebdo murders. I am saddened by the death of anyone. However such an overwhelming amount of deaths are being looked over simply because the people that are dying aren't worth helping? That is absolutely ridiculous.
Sometimes flow of information is limited to avoid retaliatory actions by the majority or to keep the communal tensions lower. For a lot of Boko Haram victims are being killed because they are Christians or those who do not want Islamic fanatics to take over. So exactly who is benefiting with less coverage( if that's the case)?
Last edited: