Out of all of the books we have read this semester, I have had the hardest time trying to think of a blog topic for The Stranger. I thought about maybe writing about Meursault's lack of emotion in the first half or his relationship with Marie. As I was going through ideas, I heard my dad listening to a YouTube video in the background. I couldn't tell exactly what it was about, but it was something concerning ISIS, and they mentioned the words Arab and Muslim. Immediately, the perfect idea came to mind.
During a panel presentation or discussion this week, we debated whether or not the novel was racist. Within that, we went over Meursault as a character and how the justice system ignored his murdering the Arab and focused more on his "murdering" his mother. When I think about racism in The Stranger, one thing comes to mind. Would the trial have been different if Meursault had shot a French man, rather than an Arab one? If so, is that not caused by racism?
This week, a man drove his vehicle into pedestrians in Manhattan, killing at least 8 people and injuring at least 13. Something Trevor Noah said I think perfectly explains the reason why I am quoting this now. Noah said, "When it was a Nazi, Trump needed more facts. When it was a Muslim, that was the only fact he needed." During the trial, the court focuses almost entirely on Meursault's attitude concerning his mother's death and very little on the actual murder in question. So imagine Meursault had killed someone else. What would have been different?
When it was an Arab, the court focused on a separate topic. If it was a Frenchman, that would be the only fact they'd need.
I'm not exactly sure what you are arguing here, but I think that I agree with the basic fact that the court case was definitely racist towards the Arab. However, I am still unsure of what that means in terms of intention of the author as I felt like Camus was using the absurdism in the novel to critique how Arabs were being in Algiers with how the court case was handled in the novel.
ReplyDeleteI think you are definitely right as the story takes place in Colonial Algeria. The society there oppressed the indigenous populations and as such it makes total sense that the all white court wouldn't give two cents to the Arab. I'm sure that if it was a white man killed, then Meursault's case would be more concrete and more serious.
ReplyDeleteI think I understand what you're getting at. I agree that it's very possible that once the court found out that the victim was an Arab, the actual murder was less of an issue than Meursault's frustrating personality. As we talked about in class, the Arab character remains nameless-- we never see his family after the scene on the beach. However, if the victim was a Frenchman, I suspect the prosecution would focus a lot more on the actual murder and the tragedy of the victim himself. That might play a much larger role than Meursault's personality disorder.
ReplyDeleteI think that Camus used the fact that the Arab victim was never named or given attention in court to highlight how little the whites cared for the Arabs, but rather the fact that the murder had happened. It's like the repeated instances of officials refusing to call white people who shoot up churches full of people of color terrorists.
ReplyDeleteWow, that last sentence was powerful. I think, central to the critique of the justice system integral to part two is how racist it is, and that's important to Camus' absurdism in the novel. Connecting it to contemporary tragedies like the one in New York seems appropriate in the kind of absurd (&somewhat revolutionary) time we live in, analogous to late-colonial North Africa. This is starting to seem like a blog post I could write...
ReplyDeleteI definitely see what you’re saying as to how the courts seem very racist in not caring about the Arab. In general, the whole idea of the Arabs – basically wordless, shapeless, nameless figures – is really racist. Their lack of character is incredibly dehumanizing towards the Arabs, and they are portrayed as a sort of “flock”, with no human traits or personality, with literally the only character description we get about them being that they are Arab. I just wonder if Camus intended this depiction to be a critique, or if it just reflects on racist attitudes of the time.
ReplyDeleteJess, Kat, and I talked a little bit about this in our own Panel Presentation. The author of our article thought that the reason Camus had Meursault kill an Arab was because he knew that readers at the time would focus less on that murder if it was not a Frenchman, the purpose of this (according to the author of our article) was so that Camus could direct the reader's attention to the unfairness of the judicial system and criticize the death penalty. I think that if Camus had had Meursault kill someone else then the readers and the court in the book would have focused on that murder, which shows a lot about the people at the time Camus wrote the Stranger and also our world now.
ReplyDeleteWe've already established that Meursault's trial examined his character and ability to fit into society rather than his crime itself. In doing so, I believe that the court is implying that the Arab is less than human- they operate almost as if Meursault killed an animal, while being far more concerned with his interaction with white people. I'm sure the (presumably white) man accused of parricide will be far more analyzed based on the nature of his crime, not only because it's a more heinous crime, but also because he killed a man that the court can assign a human role to. Really interesting idea; good post!
ReplyDeleteI think this was the main topic in the panel presentation class. The article we discussed was trying to prove that the main point of The Stranger was to criticize the treatment of Arabs. One of the points of the article was that Camus used the courtroom scene to give an example of how the Arabs are overlooked.
ReplyDelete