The invisible child

Look at this picture. Look at it. Note Reuters' use of the term "militants" in the caption. Does the Reuters captionist think the children in this picture thought of the men who terrified and slaughtered them as "militants?" I think we can imagine, if we dare, how the children in this picture thought of these men: monsters, demons, bogeymen, horrors. It's all there in that boy's eyes. That description, of course, lacks the "nuance" of the Reuters caption, but a child's imagination, a child's emotions, a child's mind -- these often lack the "sophistication" exhibited in the Reuters caption, even while the child, in the immediacy and intensity of his perceptions, can often get to the heart of things in a way that the "it's-really-a-very-complex-issue"-bots at Reuters never could. The person who wrote that caption looked at the picture and saw "militants." He looked at the gun-brandishing monsters and saw them the way they wanted to be seen. In his nuance, however, he never saw the child at all. We all need to see him, and if we are moved -- as is natural -- to weep with grief at the horror of it, we need to remember -- as is also natural -- to cry out with rage at the child-murderers and their apologists. If you are looking for a way to define those men, look in that child's eyes.