Dear Media: Radovan Karadzic is a European Christian
Radovan Karadzic has been found guilty of genocide for the 1995 Srebrenica massacre and was sentenced to 40 years in prison. That's Radovan Karadzic: Bosnian Serb leader, Bosnian Serb politician, Bosnian Serb war criminal, Bosnian Serb. But that's not, if you have followed the past 20 years of international media coverage, Radovan Karadzic...European Christian.
Radovan Karadzic has been found guilty of genocide for the 1995 Srebrenica massacre and was sentenced to 40 years in prison. That's Radovan Karadzic: Bosnian Serb leader, Bosnian Serb politician, Bosnian Serb war criminal, Bosnian Serb. But that's not, if you have followed the past 20 years of international media coverage, Radovan Karadzic...European Christian.
I'm not going to go into Karadzic's religious history and beliefs here, but suffice it to say that this was a man who in 2010 described the viscous bloodbath he oversaw as "just and holy." Muslims were systematically slaughtered. Mosques were blown up. The overtones of the Crusades were obvious.
Yet the European and US media, for the most part, did not (and do not) wish to define Karadzic in terms of his religious affiliation. Many of his victims, however, were certainly framed in that way -- they were "Bosnian Muslims." But the aggressors were usually identified by region and nationality, not religion. This allowed those who live in Europe, or the world, who are not Serbian or Bosnian Serbs to distance themselves. "That's got nothing to do with me..." is the obvious reaction for those of us from another country or region.
When, however, we define people such as Karadzic as "Christian" (and do so on a consistent basis) we enter into an entirely new realm of identity. Any notion of personal connection or collective responsibility moves from region or nation-state to a much broader disapora of peoples linked simply by their religious faith. Of course, a natural reaction on the part of Christians globally would be to distance themselves from Karadzic, and to claim that his actions have nothing to do with "real" Christians or Christianity.
In other words, Christians would get uncomfortable -- or even offended -- by the suggestion that they are in any way represented by a monster like Karadzic .
In much the same way, I would imagine that the vast majority of Muslims get uncomfortable -- or even offended -- by the way in which mainstream media outlets de facto link their Muslim faith to the actions of ISIS. In much the same way, I would imagine, that the vast majority of Muslims get uncomfortable -- or even offended -- with being asked by the media to "condemn" the actions of violent madmen in Paris or Brussels with whom they feel no spiritual or personal connection. In much the same way, I would imagine, that the vast majority of Muslims get uncomfortable -- or even offended -- by the proposal that they be banned from a country simply on the basis of their religion.
This is the power of language: the power of a single word to alter how we understand and react to news. If the media will not define Karadzic as a "Christian" out to kill Muslims, we should ask why. Or, inversely, if they are willing to define a perpetrator in religious terms only if he/she is Muslim, we should ask why. Ultimately, the Karadzic story reveals a clear, self-serving ethnocentrism in European and US media.
This isn't about moral relativism. This isn't about political correctness. This is about the basic concepts of professional and intellectual consistency.
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Radovan Karadzic has been found guilty of genocide for the 1995 Srebrenica massacre and was sentenced to 40 years in prison. That's Radovan Karadzic: Bosnian Serb leader, Bosnian Serb politician, Bosnian Serb war criminal, Bosnian Serb. But that's not, if you have followed the past 20 years of international media coverage, Radovan Karadzic...European Christian.
I'm not going to go into Karadzic's religious history and beliefs here, but suffice it to say that this was a man who in 2010 described the viscous bloodbath he oversaw as "just and holy." Muslims were systematically slaughtered. Mosques were blown up. The overtones of the Crusades were obvious.
Yet the European and US media, for the most part, did not (and do not) wish to define Karadzic in terms of his religious affiliation. Many of his victims, however, were certainly framed in that way -- they were "Bosnian Muslims." But the aggressors were usually identified by region and nationality, not religion. This allowed those who live in Europe, or the world, who are not Serbian or Bosnian Serbs to distance themselves. "That's got nothing to do with me..." is the obvious reaction for those of us from another country or region.
When, however, we define people such as Karadzic as "Christian" (and do so on a consistent basis) we enter into an entirely new realm of identity. Any notion of personal connection or collective responsibility moves from region or nation-state to a much broader disapora of peoples linked simply by their religious faith. Of course, a natural reaction on the part of Christians globally would be to distance themselves from Karadzic, and to claim that his actions have nothing to do with "real" Christians or Christianity.
In other words, Christians would get uncomfortable -- or even offended -- by the suggestion that they are in any way represented by a monster like Karadzic .
In much the same way, I would imagine that the vast majority of Muslims get uncomfortable -- or even offended -- by the way in which mainstream media outlets de facto link their Muslim faith to the actions of ISIS. In much the same way, I would imagine, that the vast majority of Muslims get uncomfortable -- or even offended -- with being asked by the media to "condemn" the actions of violent madmen in Paris or Brussels with whom they feel no spiritual or personal connection. In much the same way, I would imagine, that the vast majority of Muslims get uncomfortable -- or even offended -- by the proposal that they be banned from a country simply on the basis of their religion.
This is the power of language: the power of a single word to alter how we understand and react to news. If the media will not define Karadzic as a "Christian" out to kill Muslims, we should ask why. Or, inversely, if they are willing to define a perpetrator in religious terms only if he/she is Muslim, we should ask why. Ultimately, the Karadzic story reveals a clear, self-serving ethnocentrism in European and US media.
This isn't about moral relativism. This isn't about political correctness. This is about the basic concepts of professional and intellectual consistency.
Radovan Karadzic has been found guilty of genocide for the 1995 Srebrenica massacre and was sentenced to 40 years in prison. That's Radovan Karadzic: Bosnian Serb leader, Bosnian Serb politician, Bosnian Serb war criminal, Bosnian Serb. But that's not, if you have followed the past 20 years of international media coverage, Radovan Karadzic...European Christian.
I'm not going to go into Karadzic's religious history and beliefs here, but suffice it to say that this was a man who in 2010 described the viscous bloodbath he oversaw as "just and holy." Muslims were systematically slaughtered. Mosques were blown up. The overtones of the Crusades were obvious.
Yet the European and US media, for the most part, did not (and do not) wish to define Karadzic in terms of his religious affiliation. Many of his victims, however, were certainly framed in that way -- they were "Bosnian Muslims." But the aggressors were usually identified by region and nationality, not religion. This allowed those who live in Europe, or the world, who are not Serbian or Bosnian Serbs to distance themselves. "That's got nothing to do with me..." is the obvious reaction for those of us from another country or region.
When, however, we define people such as Karadzic as "Christian" (and do so on a consistent basis) we enter into an entirely new realm of identity. Any notion of personal connection or collective responsibility moves from region or nation-state to a much broader disapora of peoples linked simply by their religious faith. Of course, a natural reaction on the part of Christians globally would be to distance themselves from Karadzic, and to claim that his actions have nothing to do with "real" Christians or Christianity.
In other words, Christians would get uncomfortable -- or even offended -- by the suggestion that they are in any way represented by a monster like Karadzic .
In much the same way, I would imagine that the vast majority of Muslims get uncomfortable -- or even offended -- by the way in which mainstream media outlets de facto link their Muslim faith to the actions of ISIS. In much the same way, I would imagine, that the vast majority of Muslims get uncomfortable -- or even offended -- with being asked by the media to "condemn" the actions of violent madmen in Paris or Brussels with whom they feel no spiritual or personal connection. In much the same way, I would imagine, that the vast majority of Muslims get uncomfortable -- or even offended -- by the proposal that they be banned from a country simply on the basis of their religion.
This is the power of language: the power of a single word to alter how we understand and react to news. If the media will not define Karadzic as a "Christian" out to kill Muslims, we should ask why. Or, inversely, if they are willing to define a perpetrator in religious terms only if he/she is Muslim, we should ask why. Ultimately, the Karadzic story reveals a clear, self-serving ethnocentrism in European and US media.
This isn't about moral relativism. This isn't about political correctness. This is about the basic concepts of professional and intellectual consistency.