The U.N. talks a good game on human rights, especially when Israel is involved. And even Canada, UN human rights report shows that Canada is failing Indigenous peoples. But when Indonesia, other Muslim majority lands, Myanmar, etc., not so much.
Indonesia has much wild, inaccessible terrain where the outside invasions of, in order, Buddhism, Christianity and Islam have not taken hold. These people, “known generally as aliran kepercayaan,” suffer discrimination of varying severity. But like the Yazidis in Iraq: ‘The genocide is ongoing’ when the discriminators are Muslims, not a peep from the U.N., or most of the world’s media. This is a rare and refreshing piece for the N.Y. Times.
Picture caption: A Baduy tribesman in Banten, Indonesia, in 2015. The Baduy follow one of Indonesia’s hundreds of traditional beliefs systems, known generally as aliran kepercayaan.
Seriously, the OP seems muddled to me. How powerful do you think the UN is, and how easy do you think they find it to intervene in a country, especially one as enormous as Indonesia?
UN? Do me a favour. The UN provides a fictitious and bogus ‘legal’ framework for validating the actions of five nations who won a war 70 years ago, and who desperately seek for that world order to not change.
That was also my best guess at a takeaway from the confusing post. Apparently, “media darlings” refers to Muslim countries (as if the OP has been living under a rock since 2001.) I admit I have not heard much of the genocide referred to in the OP, but the Yazidis? Of course I’ve heard of that, it was all over the news.
I didn’t see any reference to ‘genocide’ in the article.
I think Indonesia’s laws about monotheism are kind of silly (well, very silly), but let’s not exaggerate the scope of the problem. And also, did you get the part where the article said that the courts found in favour of the animists?
It may not count as American mainstream media but Rev. Jeremiah Wright and Ward Churchill both made comments along the lines of “chickens coming home to roost” in reference to 9/11. Churchill was on Bill Maher’s show around the same time defending his viewpoint. I saw this sentiment echoed in a few Salon.com editorial and I’d guarantee it showed up elsewhere.
You’ve already answered your own objection. Jeremiah Wright and Ward Churchill do not count as the media by any standard other than “I want to be outraged at the media so I’m going to find something outrageous that I will blame on the media.”
Also, it’s absurd to suggest that pointing out a retaliatory aspect of terrorist attacks is the same thing as “justifying” them.
If I rear-end some guy’s car and he gets steamed about it and pulls a gun from the glove compartment and blows my head off, saying that he shot me because he was angry about the rear-ending is not in any way “justifying” his murderous actions.
