We could pick it apart, but that’s the point I’m trying to make - it’s not really given to disruptors, it’s given to conformists. It’s not a hands-on thing.
1 Like
Urdu is seldom spoken in Swat too. Urdu is mainly spoken in Karachi and the capital and sparsely in the larger cities. However, in rural areas or northern provinces it is hard to find any fluent speakers at all.
Of course harming anyone for their writings, whether their own or influenced by others, is repugnant and very few will justify those assassins. What I I tried to convey is that the father was using a child when it is clearly safe not to do so, and I have a feeling he is instrumentalizing the poor girl disregarding her safety, specially while living in the SWAT and receiving constant threats.
Therefore I fully agree that there is a considerable size of the Taleban that should or be tolerated in any way. But as any political party, is quite diverse within and there are branches that a negotiation could take place. The trick is how to make everyone feel a winner for it to succeed. This last 10yrs made it very hard now.
Maybe so, but again, remember that this girl is hardly from the lowest social stratum. Indian (Pakistan is India, let’s not split hairs) society works like this. You may not find a high percentage of Urdu speakers in Swat, but among her social circle and peer group, you might find a very high concentration. And the same goes for English.
Urdu and English are languages of prestige - one would expect a middle class family to emphasize that knowledge from a very early age.
From what I understand, they did take precautions at first - including pseudonyms and the rest. However, these things do easily spiral out of control, and that’s apparently what happened.
It’s easy to blame him for not taking more precautions, but with the rock bottom that Swat had reached, there are basically two choices for the man - leave, or stay and fight. By its very nature, the choice is one for his family too. They’re in danger by the very act of staying in Swat; even if he never used her in his activism, she’s in danger from his being an activist. Even if he never took up activism, her life is destroyed by staying in Swat. Once he made that single choice, and there’s no indication that his family was in any disagreement about that decision, there was no way to shelter her anyway.
I grew up with a father who’s very involved in environmental activism; one of my earliest memories is taking part in a protest against a particular piece of development with my parents (very local issue). By the time I was her age, I was deeply embedded in the scene. My first actual trek was at age 10, the first time I participated in a full-fledged ecosystem study was age 11. Not because it was something my parents chose for me, but because that was the environment I grew up in.
To give you another example, Indira Gandhi, as Nehru’s daughter, smuggled important documents (the Purna Swaraj declaration - equivalent to the US Declaration of Independence among others IIRC) out of the family house in her school bag. Was her father putting her in danger by allowing her to do this? Maybe. Was he wrong? Can we even judge the situation from where we are?
The moment they started making death threats, the first action of those whom you’d call moderates within them should have been to ostracize them. Guilt by association. The Talibs are a party that I would consider completely tainted and not worth talking to at this point.
There are such things as human rights that should be non-negotiable. Anyone who’s negotiating with the Taliban are enablers by definition. Sorry, they don’t need to be made to feel like a winner. They need to lose and lose badly!
2 Likes
TL;DR Someone says an uncomfortable truth about the US therefore he/she must be a some planted propaganda shill by the commun… terrorists.
1 Like
I think you’re reading inma wrong. The argument is that it’s a) not “her” fight in that there’s a huge machinery behind her promoting the whole thing (in terms of the BBC and apparently “CIA/NSA/NWO/Illuminati”), and b) her involvement is a kind of cynical use of a very evocative argument by “her” side that ignores the danger she’s placed in by participating.
Inma’s point is that Malala may be on “our” side, but that doesn’t excuse some of the choices that various people have made in using her. Which I totally get. I’m arguing that this doesn’t excuse the Taliban in any way. In my opinion, while not actually victim blaming, inma’s line of argument starts to forgive the Taliban for their actions. No matter who’s funding this girl, and regardless of whether her father made the right choices, the Taliban are the ultimate villains in this.
Anyway, I don’t see too many uncomfortable truths for the US - beyond saying that drone strikes are fuelling terrorism to Obama. Quite the opposite - the US is incidental in her fight. It’s ultimately a local fight between the middle and upper-middle class liberals, and the fundamentalists (who are often from the same classes) of Pakistan. This fight was always going to happen, regardless of whether the US interfered in Afghanistan or Pakistan.
3 Likes
This is contemptable nonsense on two levels: first, there’s no way she said this on her own accord. She’s clearly being spoon-fed politically motivated sound bites by her handlers. Second, she’s in a better position than anyone to know it’s not true. Our sins, such as overuse of drones, provide at best an easy post-hoc justification for terrorists; they certainly are not a primary cause. The real problem, as Malala knows all too well, is religious fundamentalism. I applaud her heroism, and salute her efforts to educate women–but she should start by denouncing greatest enemies of education, women’s rights, and freedom in the world: religion.
1 Like
Interesting stuff there on previous winners and non-winners. Pathetic, but interesting.
What is hard to believe is your use of scare quotes on her story.
1 Like
Not all quotes are scare…
It’s more of a direct quote here.
The word used was “fuelling”, not “creating”. Making matters worse rather than better.
As far as being spoonfed is concerned, why can’t she have that opinion on her own? I think a sixteen-year-old is quite capable of forming her own opinions. Of course, you can question her access to information that led her to form that opinion, but my reading is that she’s holding it legitimately.
2 Likes
I kind of hope her and Malia went off on a tour of the White House later and did girl things together.
2 Likes
Hardly.
Huh?
On the other hand, if he is that brings up an interesting phenomenon; what’s the best way to turn a conservative into a peace-lover? Just have a liberal suggest we go to war.
Xeni should change the headline to:
Malala to Obama: US use of drones is ‘f***ing terrorism’
Whenever there is an article where a young girl speaks out against sexism, there seems to be someone who says “She is just saying that stuff because her parents told her to. Parents should not be pushing their values onto young girls like this.”
2 Likes
Wow … I had no idea!!!
/sarcasm
People also argue that young girls complaining about gendered toys or sexist books are only doing so because their parents have indoctrinated them or forced them to say these things. If young girls are expected to quietly accept sexism when speaking out does not put their lives in danger, then there is no reason to be surprised that people will declare that Malala should never have spoken up.
If Malala had never been in danger from the Taliban, people would still arguing that she is only fighting for a woman’s right to education because her father made her do it.
2 Likes
So…why exactly did Obama get a Peace Nobel prize for? I would really like to know.
For a load of crap which didn’t accomplish anything. Ok, that’s what I thought.
Maybe the Nobel Prize commitee should refrain from giving preemptive Nobel peace prize.
I think the Nobel committee was just so damn excited we didn’t elect another Dubya they went overboard and gave Obama the Nobel Peace Price.
2 Likes
