The Blind Men And The Elephant: Seeing The Whole French Picture.

Even though we are being treated to an over abundance of pundits who are not in France at the moment telling us what is happening in France at the moment, I am inclined to give more weight to people who, you know, are. The problem with so much of big-time punditry is that just about every talkin' noggin feels the need to have an opinion on everything, even (or maybe especially) when the true picture is particularly mirky.

Yesterday, I linked three separate, though not entirely disagreeable posts about the French situation and while I have vowed to withhold judgement for lack of a clear picture, it still appears that this story is a lot like the joke about the blind men describing an elephant. Depending on one's perspective, the story is likely to be vastly different from another's.

Yet, while I am never shy about criticism the influence of radical Islam where I see it, it still strikes me that the danger that this influence represents is not in cause but in exploitation. As that has not been illustrated yet, it's merely a warning and in no way a proven point.

So I am inclined to follow what Jack Grant and Richard Chesnoff tell me about the riots, as their accounts have been free of ideology and rooted in a desire to tell the truth.

Jack has a post at The Moderate Voice that is worth a read. (a full list of his posts are here). The only quibble I have with Jack here, and I would welcome his insight, is his sentence, "It is not about Islam unless we force it to be." I'm not quite sure I understand what he means by this. To me that veers a little too close to putting the onus completely on the West. My fear is that Islamists will seize on legitimate grievances and use them to incite a full-blown insurection. I allow for the possibility that I'm full of merde, but there you have it. In other words, is it only up to us? And if so, why?

I had been waiting for the International Playboy to raise his head, and he has:

Radical Islam is a particularly acute problem in France and the phenomenon may be significantly affected by the events of the last few days. It has become a powerful organizing force in parts of French society. But the riots are not part of the war on terrorism.

It is way too far of a stretch to link every last rioter with Osama bin Laden. But seeing videos of youths torching cars and yelling Allahu Akbar,  and reading stories of the religious overtones of some of the riots, basically serves to confuse those inclined to want one and only one answer for every question. I suspect, with out any hard evidence, that much like the riots of the late sixties here, we are witnessing the congregation of various elements: the truly disenfranchised, the happy trouble makers, the social changers and the radical neos. It's also not that hard to imagine that there may be more than one reason (NOT excuse) to riot.

Just as in the anti-war movement here, there are all levels of participant, ranging from those who have a principled opposition to the war and those who just want to break things to those who want to bring down the government. But too many opponents of the anti-war crowd (a group I find myself in more often than not) just want to have one reason, one overarching meme that they can grasp and blare on talk radio, much in the same way that the WMD argument has been demagogued into the national spotlight.

We all want a simple explanation to every problem and we will argue until, if ever, we are finally hit in the face with the entire picture. It is our failing that we demand to have answers that mesh only with our prejudices and refuse to allow that we only see part of the story.

So oft in theologic wars,

The disputants, I ween,

Rail on in utter ignorance

Of what each other mean,

And prate about an Elephant

Not one of them has seen!

Comments

[Douglas]

Indeed, I had been staring at my shoes for long enough.