tip off

#BringBackOurGirls a familiar song, but feminist chorus could be lethal

The Western media is finally paying attention to (one sensationalist, emotional story in) Africa. But our focus on #BringBackOurGirls may have got 300 people killed.

The #BringBackOurGirls campaign was still circulating last week when a unit of Boko Haram rode into Gamboru Ngala, a town on the Nigeria-Cameroon border, and — according to various reports — slaughtered 300 people there. The story got a brief mention, but no more.

Meanwhile, American first lady Michelle Obama took the radio slot reserved for the President to make the issue of the kidnapped Nigerian schoolgirls one of unprecedented global focus. Then attention turned to the Eurovision song contest. In three weeks, the issue had gone from an unconscionable lack of attention to a dominance that entirely distorted the wider conflict it was a part of. The emphasis on the core issue as defined by Boko Haram — that girls should not be educated — only served to underscore the symbolic nature of it.

That a social media campaign had sparked a sluggish — and basically racist — Western media into action was widely taken as something to be celebrated, and in some ways it was. But it couldn’t be ignored that the only African story to gain sustained attention for some time was not merely one of oppression, but one of high drama. When word got out that the schoolgirls would be put into forced marriage to Boko Haram members or sold into slavery, also for polygamous marriage, their plight fitted ever more closely with Western obsessions — that of the global sexual trade and women trafficking.

#BringBackOurGirls made that link explicit and was also astoundingly presumptuous. These girls, before they were abducted, lived in a country with a life expectancy of 51 years, and 630 maternal childbirth deaths per 100,000 live births. The latter is the 10th highest in the world. They weren’t “our” girls then. Nor should they have been — Nigeria’s social development is its own affair. They became “our” girls only when their plight matched the worst thing that could happen to a woman in the West — violent abduction, presumed rape.

The #BringBackOurGirls campaign makes visible every contradiction of this sort of activism. The event is an event, and there’s no way to ignore it. Yet on the other hand, the event announces itself not by the degree of its suffering or oppression, but by the quality of its drama, its grotesquerie. One could say that the event gathers some attention because the girls are presumably still alive, but even that does not admit to full logic. Boko Haram units have murdered groups of boys and girls before. Presumably if such a unit has murdered once, it will do so again — so by rights there should have been a #ProtectOurChildren campaign sometime before.

Nor was that the only glaring double standard. Hours after a Twitpic of Michelle Obama displaying the #BringBackOurGirls sign was circulated, it had been altered to reference the children killed by drones fired on the orders of her husband. Had the event occurred in Yemen, it would have been a toss-up as to which posed a greater threat to the girls. The ultimate absurdity occurred when it was suggested that the United States use drone strikes to go after Boko Haram and get the girls back.

The purpose of the international campaign was to put pressure on the Nigerian government to take swift action. The impression conveyed was that the government had been indolent, helped by the alleged actions of the President’s wife, Patience Jonathan, in arresting one of the parents of the girls for allegedly snubbing her at a press event. This part of the campaign had the usual dividend of pleasure of being able to boss black people about, and the volume only increased when there was news that the Nigerian army had advance warning of Boko Haram’s abduction mission.

That part of the campaign got results, and units were dispatched from their job of guarding front-line towns to the hunt for the girls. And that may be the most chilling result of this campaign — for one of those towns was Gamboru Ngala. If the campaign can take credit for spurring action, is it also liable for distorting the defence of a large area, by an overwhelmed national army — with lethal results?

So it would be easy to sneer at #BringBackOurGirls, but also pointless.

It’s a long way from being as crazy as the bizarre “Stop Kony” movement, but it is part of the same temptation. Indeed, it’s a restaging of the “liberal” imperialism that served as a cover for the carve-up of Africa in the 1880s — the widespread idea that occupying the entire continent was in the service of wiping out barbarism. The parallel expression of the new ideological imperialism is the campaign by US evangelicals, determined to institute draconian anti-gay laws in African countries where they can connect with conservative Christian traditions left by the last wave of improvement. They are just as convinced of their ineffable rightness in selectively intervening in African affairs as is the #BringBackOurGirls social media campaign, and just as blundering in their effects.

The anti-Boko Haram campaign may have a more universal aspect — we can all agree that abduction is wrong — but it is the capricious and self-serving way in which it’s applied that does the damage. In this case, it may have helped get several hundred people killed.

But there’s a lot of it about, and there’s going to be more. When the Eurovision song contest aired on the weekend, it was a case of from the malign to the ridiculous, with the popular vote — a relatively recent innovation in Eurovision — turned, apparently, to waging a campaign against Russia. The storming vote for Austrian bearded drag act “Conchita Wurst”, aka Tom Neuwirth, and the song Rise Like A Phoenix, was in part tribute to one of the more striking songs, but it was also aimed squarely at Russia, whose contestants were roundly booed every time they performed or were even mentioned.

The booing was for Putin’s heavy-handed treatment of Ukraine; voting up a drag act was aimed at Russia’s homophobia. The absurdities were multiple. Many seemed to believe that Wurst/Neuwirth was a full-time transvestite or even a transsexual, rather than an Austrian TV act, the complex politics of drag apparently forgotten. The idea that a kitsch talent show should be the focus of an official “five-minute hate” against an entire nation was also uncontroversial.

The last time an Austrian with distinctive facial hair tried to summon up a pan-European hatred of Asiatic Russia — with a notion of a phoenix rising from the ashes, to boot — it didn’t go so well. But whether in Africa or Russia, feminist and sexuality causes seem capable of licensing a chauvinism and xenophobia in 2014 that wouldn’t have been out of place in 1914. The themes change but the process doesn’t change — mobilisation in the service of the West. And the next Boko Haram force is gathering at the border …

25
  • 1
    Posted Monday, 12 May 2014 at 11:05 am | Permalink

    And of course Boko Haram isn’t just a Nigerian problem, it is a problem for all of west Africa.

  • 2
    Hunted Snark
    Posted Monday, 12 May 2014 at 1:20 pm | Permalink

    Thank you Guy. There is indeed a lot of it about.
    Didn’t know about the foreign influences involved in the anti-gay hysteria in Africa. But … hmmm …

    Anyhow, douze points for you.

  • 3
    Posted Monday, 12 May 2014 at 1:25 pm | Permalink

    IMHO, it’s still a worthy cause - likely more célèbre because it’s got “easy” bad guys, seemingly unlike everything else in Africa.

    And speaking of drones, it’s a bit harder to, say, report on Coltan/Tantalum - the stuff in our smart phones - and the UN’s dubious support against the Tutsis:
    http://pando.com/2013/12/12/the-war-nerd-united-drones-of-congo/

  • 4
    laughlovenjoy
    Posted Monday, 12 May 2014 at 1:35 pm | Permalink

    Maybe my reaction to the “racist” Western media campaign about #BringBackOurGirls is naive. But I think columns like Nicholas Kristof’s in the New York Times, which connect it to non-profits working in Africa to educate girls and women, do much more good than harm. (I chose to donate to CAMFED as a result of Kristof’s piece).

    I think #BringBackOurGirls resonates because the horror of imagining one’s own young daughter being randomly abducted feels close to home, in a way that the high mortality rate from childbirth in other countries does not. As Guy points out #BringBackOurGirls is high drama that can focus the West’s attention. Chronic, and chronically sad, events just cannot inspire the same sustained focus.

    Of course it’s complicated. But perhaps the #BringBackOurGirls attention may also increase philanthropy that will help charities working to shore up civil society in Africa.

  • 5
    Hazel
    Posted Monday, 12 May 2014 at 2:35 pm | Permalink

    Typical Guy Rundle. So this is a feminist issue?

  • 6
    j.oneill
    Posted Monday, 12 May 2014 at 2:55 pm | Permalink

    There are other forces at play in Nigeria. That country is one of the world’s largest producers of oil and gas as well as a host of other vital minerals. It is Africa’s most populous country and its GDP has recently passed south Africa to be the continent’s largest.

    The Chinese have been gaining a foothold there, to the chagrin of the Americans. There is now good evidence that Boko Harum are getting their finance from the same Saudi sources that the Americans choose to channel funds to their terrorist group du jour. In addition they are receiving modern armaments from Libyan sources that are also in cahoots with the Americans.

    The current crisis, largely manufactured by a western press that otherwise ignores atrocities around the world, is a godsend for Africom to establish yet another US military base in an oil and mineral rich country. Islamic terrorism is the gift that goes on giving and constant replays of old fashioned 19th century imperialism.

  • 7
    Glen
    Posted Monday, 12 May 2014 at 3:58 pm | Permalink

    Luv it Guy. You’re so much more interesting angry.

  • 8
    Iskandar
    Posted Monday, 12 May 2014 at 4:00 pm | Permalink

    Not to mention that the kidnappings in Nigeria seem conveniently well-timed to divert attention from the appalling mess that the US of A has sparked off in Ukraine, whether from pig-ignorance or imperial expansionary obsession. Perhaps a combination of the two? If Guy is correct about the slaughter being sparked off by the anti-Boko Haram campaign then once again Drone-Striker-in-Chief and his mob stuffed up bigtime.

    As Guy suggests, expect more of the same, and, pardon my cynicism, but I suspect the well-timed booing at Eurovision was by a band of paid vocalisers dispersed throughout the audience. The battle for hearts and minds goes on.

  • 9
    AR
    Posted Monday, 12 May 2014 at 4:28 pm | Permalink

    Agree that angry Grundle is best, another exposition that pays rereading. A good precis and even better placement in the wider context.

  • 10
    64magpies
    Posted Monday, 12 May 2014 at 5:54 pm | Permalink

    Could some please tell me what is worse than violent abduction and rape? For anyone?

  • 11
    Chelmsford Police
    Posted Monday, 12 May 2014 at 7:24 pm | Permalink

    So it would be easy to sneer at #BringBackOurGirls, but also pointless.”

    - after having done that for 8 paragraphs

    Also: “The last time an Austrian with distinctive facial hair tried to summon up a pan-European hatred of Asiatic Russia — with a notion of a phoenix rising from the ashes, to boot — it didn’t go so well.”

    Christ, that’s a stretch and a half.

  • 12
    64magpies
    Posted Monday, 12 May 2014 at 7:24 pm | Permalink

    Child rape and enslavement perhaps?

  • 13
    Madmeg
    Posted Monday, 12 May 2014 at 8:05 pm | Permalink

    I’m glad someone out there give a bugger about these girls but I don’t know that USA are the best ones to be involved. A low key response from specialist negotiators would be better - these guys hate America and may well kill all the girls just to prove a point.

  • 14
    klewso
    Posted Monday, 12 May 2014 at 8:39 pm | Permalink

    I’m a bit nonplussed that it’s only when something like this happens en masse that it rates Western attention?

  • 15
    Ken Lambert
    Posted Monday, 12 May 2014 at 8:56 pm | Permalink

    It certainly would not have happened when the British Imperialists were running Nigeria.

    The trouble is that Goodluck with the hat, has suffered the misfortune (bad luck) to have been dragged into a gunfight without the firepower.

    I was reliably informed by the BBC via the talkative Nigerian minister for missing girls that the Islamic crazies have RPGs and that the very professional Nigerian Army has only strict rules of engagement to counter such weaponry.

    So there you have it - the Nigerian Army is scared of RPGs and only the West’s bleeding hearts give a twopenny about the kidnapped and enslaved girls.

    And Guy is raving on about Mrs Obama’s husband drone striking Islamic crazies and killing innocents instead.

    Quite right Guy, Obama is as guilty as hell, just like every Western leader who has ever sent troops to war.

    So what do we do with the Coco-Bokos? I am sure the CIA with its all seeing eye can come up with something. Maybe ricin laced bananas dropped by drones? Perhaps they could try the old exploding cigar filled with Ebola? Should have perfected it by now - make it a best Cuban in honour of a still breathing Fidel.

  • 16
    Ms_M
    Posted Monday, 12 May 2014 at 11:57 pm | Permalink

    The kidnapping of these kids is abominable, interest In issues anywhere in Africa/the third world is a good thing if the interest and commitment to change is sustained and not led by sensationalism.
    We are made safe by the notion of the other, that this violence and misogyny exists only in these heathen lands whereas we are wading through our Royal Commission into institutionalised childhood sexual abuse that produces more and more horror stories, the torture and abuse of children. And in America, More children and teens died from gunfire in 2008 and 2009 — 5,750 — than the number of U.S. military personnel killed in action in Iraq and Afghanistan.
    We should try to address atrocities wherever and whenever they emerge on the planet but this selective compassion is concerning. I always wonder if its time for the US to invade another country when their focus is on one country while they walk over other continents with terrifying lack of women’s human rights to get there.

  • 17
    Chris Hartwell
    Posted Tuesday, 13 May 2014 at 9:30 am | Permalink

    @Madmeg - by “expert negotiators” you mean DEVGRU or Delta Force, right?

  • 18
    Dixon Vicki
    Posted Tuesday, 13 May 2014 at 11:12 am | Permalink

    Hi Guy
    I think a lot of people have been aware of Boko Haram and their atrocities before this publicised kidnapping and just frustrated to hear that the girl’s parents felt that they were not getting enough help.
    I agree that in difficult and isolated places the army faces challenges and the murder of 300 people may have happened because of troop movements Women have appalling lives because of religious extremism and people everywhere are affected by poverty. Ongoing support for the education of children is probably the best response. Vicki

  • 19
    Lil Z
    Posted Tuesday, 13 May 2014 at 1:35 pm | Permalink

    The headline on this piece is a patriarchal reversal. Male violence, which is the dominant force in ordering the world, is what is lethal.

    When groups of women kidnap young boys to sell them to other women to rape, and armies need to be deployed to guard villages from women who are massacring people in the name of their female supremacist religion, then it will be reasonable to blame feminism for the deaths of such people.

    Not that I disagree with the thrust of the piece. Imperial force is not a tool of women’s liberation, to put it mildly, and campaigns like BringBackOurGirls are easily put to the service of Western imperial interests in Africa.

  • 20
    Irfan Yusuf
    Posted Tuesday, 13 May 2014 at 5:38 pm | Permalink

    I wonder how pointing out indolence and corruption in the Nigerian government and law enforcement represents a Western attempt to hack into black people, especially when the same complaints have been made by Nigerians themselves.

  • 21
    Kevin Herbert
    Posted Tuesday, 13 May 2014 at 7:47 pm | Permalink

    Thanx for the analysis Guy Rundle.

    This whole saga smacks of being more propoganda from NATO aligned State sponsored media globally ie: Fairfax, the ABC, the Guardian and the US MSM who ciruclate this pap as fact.

    More likely the Boko Harum rebels are financed by the CIA via the Saudi Arabian sponsored Wahabi radical Islam movement.

    Just another destabilisation of an authoritarian African country which has substantial oil reserves that the NATO thugs want to get their hands on.

    When the token black US President’s wife is pictured supporting the ‘rescue’, a ruse becomes more likely……shades of her presenting an Academy Award generated by Hollywood Zionists, to the unlikely winner of a movie denigrating Iran.

    Pathetic really that the Aussie media (not Crikey et al) are such lap dogs to the global MSM.

  • 22
    Kevin Herbert
    Posted Tuesday, 13 May 2014 at 7:52 pm | Permalink

    Irfan Yusuf: the Nigerian police are among the most brutal in Africa, and mete out ‘justice’ summarily as they please.

    In effect they are an arm of Nigerian State terror, in a country where the 1%’ers dominate the country’s economy.

    They are hated in the Muslim north where the Boko Haram have taken root among disenfranchised youth…and who can blame them.

  • 23
    Ken Lambert
    Posted Tuesday, 13 May 2014 at 9:48 pm | Permalink

    Kevin Herbert has cracked it.

    I was completely wrong.

    Of course it was the CIA backing the Coco-Boko Islamic crazies through Saudi Arabia - it is so obvious how could we have all missed it?

    The CIA always backs Islamic crazies against onward Christian crazies and Mrs Obama was in there covering up the real story which is that NATO thugs and the likes of the Obamas are really tools of the Hollywood Zionists.

    Bleedingly obvious.

  • 24
    Kevin Herbert
    Posted Wednesday, 14 May 2014 at 4:49 pm | Permalink

    Ken Lambert:

    You are completely wrong..but for reasons that I believe are currently beyond your comprehension.

    Maybe you could save the day by explaining to our fellow Crikey posters the role of the Saudi dictatorship in the export of radical Islam around the globe…and their long term role as agents provocateurs for the US.

    From your above bilge, I reckon you hadn’t heard of it.

  • 25
    Ken Lambert
    Posted Thursday, 15 May 2014 at 10:04 pm | Permalink

    Kevin Herbert

    Kev, I already admitted I was wrong and you were right.

    Your logic is immutable. What a devilish plot by the Hollywood Zionists - clandestinely promote Islamic crazies via the CIA sponsored Saudi Wahabi agents provocateurs, and everyone will feel warmer and closer to Israel!

    And for sure your identification of the Obamas as the latest tools of the Hollywood Zionists is a logical extension of a long line of US Presidencies under orders from both Hollywood and New York Zionists. Bush II, Clinton (and Mrs Clinton), Bush I, Reagan, Carter - all the way back to FDR. Why else would Ms Lewinski entrap Bill Clinton, if not for secret Zionist blackmail?

    Your analysis is brilliant, dare I say incisive.

Womens Agenda

loading...

Smart Company

loading...

StartupSmart

loading...

Property Observer

loading...