Much has been said about the shoe that Bush was the target.
Why Western journalists do they take so much to dissect and analyze the gestures and words perfectly explicit and universally comprehensible to an Iraqi journalist?
" Throwing shoes at someone is considered an insult and a serious lack of respect in the Arab world ," writes the erudite New York Times (December 16, 2008). " Throwing shoes at someone is considered the ultimate insult in the Arab world and dogs are perceived as dirty and disgusting ," resumed the learned Washington Post (December 17, 2008).
If an American reporter was fun to throw a pair of shoes in front of President Bush in the middle a press conference, how would it have been considered? As a mere jest? If this same journalist exclaimed, throwing all his strength one projectile at its disposal, namely his shoes: "is the farewell of the American people, kind of dog! For all the widows and orphans of soldiers killed in Iraq ... " How would it have been perceived? As an affectionate joke? Why
Western journalists in general and Americans in particular, do they take so much to explain, dissect, analyze and act on the words perfectly explicit and universally understandable to an Iraqi journalist? Why this obsession to spend the shoe scanner and the dog culture? It is not an article on the topic of "shoe-thrower" in the American press, which picks up the little phrase explaining to readers who do not already have read that when Arab launches his shoe on someone c is that the situation is serious, or to explain that calling someone a "dog" among Arabs and most intolerable of insults.
The American press is not alone the rest, many European newspapers that have taken over the mail telling AFP the incident publish the same sentence over and over again. Thus, writes The Guardian (17 décembre 2008): " Throwing shoes is a deep insult in the Arab world ", ou encore El Pais (16 décembre 2008): " Throwing shoes at someone is considered a grave insult in the Arab world, while dogs are seen as dirty and unpleasant . " Sans oublier où la presse française Libération (16 juin 2008) par example differs in make mettant la même dans la bouche d'un anonyme "Iraqi chercheur spécialiste des médias arabes": " Le 'C'est le coup des pire des chaussures affronts that faire dans l'on peut la culture arabe. C'est l'équivalent de 'chien' quand on insults', souligne you chercheur même! "Insists to provide content specifically cultural or religious (eg recalling certain items that Muslims remove their shoes before entering a mosque), an act that the world immediately recognized for what it is, can be explained by a mania of journalists wanting to demonstrate expertise and erudition even when they do not. But that's not all. It's also a way of distancing the other, underline the differences, reducing a fluid gesture in a clear and abstruse cultural practice specific to the Arab world, the other by decrypting it has more dissimilar. The lock in its otherness.
Slate, a prestigious U.S. magazine analyzes and reviews (December 15, 2008) went so far as to melt an article under enigmatic - "They vote with their feet" - on the question of the meaning of the foot and Footwear in Arab-Muslim world. "What is there so insulting in shoes and feet to the Iraqis? (...) The degree of offense seems to be an idiosyncratic cultural development and not be derived from textual sources clear. It does There is no specific mention in the Koran or the hadiths of jet shoes or debasement of the enemies by exposing the feet. And the historical origins of the tradition are not easily identifiable. In all cases, regardless of the manner in which it started, the Arabs - and perhaps especially the Iraqis - throw their shoes to indicate that the target is not worth more than dirt. Muslims, Buddhists and Hindus are required to remove their shoes before entering their temples
(...)" This is how experts in grass not fearing ridicule are looking into an incident in the news world to try to "read" in light of the Quran, Hadith and the imperatives of "Muslim temples" (sic and re-sic). culturalism, racism and essentialism caricature happily flirt in this article that ends with a very odd conclusion: "Christians believe that Jesus wanted to show humility and servitude to his disciples when he washed their feet, which may also explain why the global aversion to shoes and feet has less control in the Christian world. "
The problem in all this is well understood that the shoe has no special significance among the Arabs, nor foot, nor the dog elsewhere. Should explain again and again that if we take off our shoes at the entrance to mosques because those who pray and lay prostrate on their foreheads to the ground?
"Dog" is as much an insult in French in English or Arabic. It is an insult which has the advantage of not being "obscene", uttered in the presence of an audience, it offends than it is. However, for those who insist on knowing what is the "ultimate insult" to the Arabs, there is one that, curiously, not due to any verse of the Koran, but may seem outrageously familiar to Western ears all nationalities combined. That "son of p ...".
Daikh Dridi ( Babelmed )
0 comments:
Post a Comment