The effects of one Danish editor’s decision to solicit and publish 12 cartoons of the Prophet Muhammed continue to have repurcussions around the world –violence, civil disobedience, and economic sanctions. This morning on NPR it was reported that two Danish companies, manufacturers of dairy products — butter and cheeses — have lost their Middle Eastern contracts, almost overnight. The smaller of these two companies faces impending bankruptcy.
Here at Booman Tribune, the bastion of free speech and the most open forum for the news, views, and dialogue, two front page citizen journalists have supported the publication of the most offensive cartoons — the one that depicts the Prophet Mohammed with a bomb for a turban. One journalist supported the right to publish such an image, and another published the image with a free speech message to demonstrate that the image appeared on telephone poles and public places in Seattle. This was accurate reporting, and the image has since been removed. Thank you.
J’ACCUSE
The over-riding editorial policy of Booman Tribune is:
- DON’T BE A PRICK
Might I suggest some other principles and guidelines for this policy that are contained in its meaning, but not yet made explicit?
1) Think about what you are saying and the way you are saying it, to whom you are saying it, and why. Understand and try to make clear your own point of view and values.
Values:
Are you Bob Marley: One World, One Love?
Are you Frederick Nietchze: God Is Dead?
Are you a radical extremist: There is only One Way, That is Our Way, everyone else is screwed, doomed, fucked, will be cleared from our path, denied entry into Heaven, etc. etc.?
Who is your target audience? Those who think like you, those who are open to make up their minds on an issue, those who think exactly opposite from your opinion? Free speech without dialogue is an exercise in futility, it seems to me. Are you opening avenues of dialogue, or stopping all discussion? Are you alienating your target audience?
a) Is it true?
b) Is it a help or a hindrance to community?
c) Is it offensive?
d) Is it inflamatory?
e) Do you accept personal responsibility for the effects of your action/expression?
2) First of all: Do No Harm This guideline is best put in the Hindu rule: First of all, do no harm. Do not incite violence. Have respect for peoples.
This issue is NOT about free speech. This issue is about icons, iconography, iconoclasts, and apostacy..
The over-riding editorial policy of “Don’t Be A Prick” means to me that while I am expressing my point of view don’t devalue peoples. The rule against depiction of the Holiest of Holies is contained in Mosaic Law, in Islamic Law, and is shared by cultures around the world. The admonition against creating a bad environment by your expression is also contained in the old adage, “Don’t shit where you eat.”
JE REFUSE
Of the fifteen cartoonists who were solicted for their cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed, three refused. As always, there’s a story within the story that is the REAL story. I would be very interested in the statement of these three cartoon/journalists. I join with them in this Salon Des Refusees. Did these three cartoonists put their jobs on the line in their refusal?
The powers we are entitled to through the Bill of Rights are:
- Freedom of Speech
- Freedom to peaceably assemble and petition govt for redress of grievances.
- Freedom to Vote.
- Freedom to Boycott, which is an extension of the right to vote.
I, for one, join with the Middle East merchants who refuse to do business with Denmark (yes, the whole country) until the editor Rose of the Danish newspaper apologizes, is fired, and the paper shut down. I for one will not buy any Danish products, just as my forebears refused to buy any coffee makers msnufactured by Krupp. The Second World War was more than 70 years ago, but still we remember “The Arms of Krupp.” And I was taught: “Never forget. Never again.
I for one WILL drink Coca-Cola. Why? Because the number one name of US companies who were represented at Coretta Scott King’s funeral was Coca-Cola. (I don’t care a flying-farthing for what else they may be doing for the moment.) Whenever I fly, I will fly Delta Airlines, for the same reason.
I refuse to buy or watch any of the US news sources who published the 12 cartoons. But I will write to each of them and tell them how very strong is my opposition to what they have done. That’s MY free speech. And you can bet that I will be polite while I’m doing it.
EXPRESSING MYSELF
Suppose I feel like erecting a statue on my front lawn. Two lifesize hooded figures. One is white and one is black. The white hooded robed figure is KKK. The black seraped and hooded is an Iraqi prisoner in Abu Ghraib in a torture position known as “The Vietnam.” I just might make the two link hands and call it “Hands Across The Water.”
Do I have a right to do this? If not, why not?
Is it appropriate? NO.
Is it offensive? YES.
Is it inflammatory? YES.
Could it cause harm to those who are innocent and uninvolved and not responsible for what I do? YES.
As a result of this action, one of my neighbors came to me and said:
“You are impacting negatively on my neighborhood, and this sculpture is degrading my quality of life. There’s a lot of yelling and threats being made and it is upsetting to my children to see this sculpture, and my spouse and I do not feel safe. We want you to remove it immediately or we will report you to the Good Neighbors council, and maybe to the police.”
Another neighbor came to me and said:
“I disagree with the opinions expressed in this sculpture, but I defend your right to make and display it.”
The third neighbor came to me and said:
“Don’t look now but your house has been fire-bombed. If there’s anything or anyone you value in there, you’d better get them out.”
Too bad I wasn’t minding the neighborhood while I was busy expressing myself. Because the fire spread and burnt down my neighbor’s house too. He had no insurance.
IN SUMMATION
For the duration I say Danish Cheese stinks. Booman Tribune is my kind of community.
Why didn’t you check to see if it had been deleted?
This is a lot of effort to lobby for something that was done two days ago.
Sorry Booman, I have edited and corrected to reflect.
I want to be a good community member, here there and everywere. That’s the point of my piece.
I have not had access to the net for the last several days, and this is my first posting from the US. I am open to correction and always willing to edit.
but they were also educational.
When I was a little girl, I would get upset (usually over trivial stuff). My brother always said that he worried more about me when I was quiet than when I was screaming and crying…because when I was quiet, he had no idea what was going on in my mind.
The publication of these cartoons, while horrible, also serves as an indicator. The fact that someone drew these cartoons shows that there are still negative images and impressions of Muslims — and the attitude of our own government and its “Christianity Uber Alles” isn’t helping matters. And if cartoons like these are out in the open, what more horrendous ideas are being discussed in secret? It’s not that far a step from circulating these cartoons to the “Kill them before they kill us” mentality.
It’s like the Klan burning crosses — it’s horrendous, but it’s out in the open…I’d rather see these cartoons than to witness mosques being bombed (which may not be too far in the future)…
with what you’re saying, Cali. But the context that it was posted here was to encourage the readers of this site to join conservatives like Andrew Sullivan to take a hard stand for free speech, not to look with disgust at the xenophobic message it sends. That’s what caused an emotional response, especially from those who could be adversely affected by its spreading.
(not unusual at my age); I thought it was talking about the publication of the cartoons in the Danish newspapers, not the replication here.
I saw the replication of one, and if I had not been told it was supposed to be the Prophet Mohammed, I would not have known; I would have assumed that it was a Muslim with a bomb in his turban, which is still offensive and potentially lethal to other groups. Sikhs in particular have been targeted because their men wear turbans as part of their religious requirements, and there are those who feel that “the only good towel-wearer is a dead towel-wearer.” (The spouse has two co-workers who are Sikh; to the transit district’s credit they are allowed to wear the turban as part of their uniform — or that might have been due to hard work on the part of the union reps.)
I have not seen any of the others; I have had no desire to seek them out. But to have them here, as offensive as they are, I think did serve a purpose. There are many here who took offense at the “pie ad” over at the Orange Empire, and those who thought much ado was made over nothing. To have the cartoon posted here reminds us of how images can hurt people…even if others see nothing wrong with them.
suskind, thank you for articulating the point I was trying to make the other day in a discussion that needs to continue.
I’ve managed to calm down a bit after allowing myself to go to an ugly place, but I am still waiting for a response as to why many members of this community felt that they would rather prove a point that the first amendment was valid, rather than denounce an image that clearly designed to inflame and grease the wheels for the next invasion of a sovereign nation.
Free speech? You betcha, I’m all for it. Using a liberal blog to promote what is arguably the most offensive of the Danish cartoons, that is rank with xenophobia and hatred? that is not something I can support.
This is not about giving a pass to religions for me, as was implied, this is about stopping the spread of hatred regardless if it stems from sexism, racism, or any other type of antiOther-isms.
I have brown skin. I get asked if I’m from the middle east all the time. There have been more moments in the past five years that I have feared for my life, IN THE UNITED STATES, than I can count in the rest of my short time on this earth. Images like the one displayed proudly here only ensures that those numbers of instances increase.
Finally, while I’m sure this will be brought up. The image was finally altered on the front page, but the bitterness that I read about it being suppressed was shocking. I almost allowed myself to feel guilty, that was, until I woke up in the morning and looked myself in the eyes and remembered every time I have been directly and indirectly harassed in society simply because I am a different color than the majority of my peers.
Sorry for the length of this comment, but I needed to say it.
comment was not long enough. 😉
But thank you for it anyway. Most folks these days are either too young to remember Germany in the 30s, or too white to comprehend the US today, or both.
Nobody knows when the ghettoization that saves us now, the luxury some of us have of not having to leave the “safe” hood where the signs are all in Spanish and Korean and Arabic and Urdu and Amharic and Chinese, the folks are friendly and everybody knows your name, and you theirs, even if you share few other words of any common language. The kids can always translate if it’s an important question of time and place of an engagement party, or new baby celebration, nobody knows when these havens will become our deathtraps.
What we do know is, as CaliScribe put it, “there are those who feel that “the only good towel-wearer is a dead towel-wearer.”
and as you point out, the “towel” is actually optional.
All that’s really required is visible, and audible Otherness.
You may have incompletely characterized the role of one of the posters here in the posting of an image. I believe some regret was expressed.
That being said, I agree it was a terrible idea for the Danish newspaper to publish the cartoons. It was offensive in the extreme, but more important, it was entirely unnecessary.
When freedom of the press is under pressure, extreme measures are called for in order to hammer on the limits of freedom. I have read nothing during this episode that indicates that freedom of speech was under attack in Denmark.
Publishing the cartoons was gratuitously offensive, I don’t think it had anything to do with freedom.
I’ll call it on myself (I’m about to leave work, and won’t have a computer for a few days).
There is that law in Denmark with criminal penalties for publishing or allowing to be disseminated material that is offensive on several different bases, including religion. That law limits freedom of the press.
True enough, the publishers could claim to be testing the limits of that law. If so, by offending Muslims, they picked on the very weakest group covered by the law, the group most likely to be overlooked in the application of that law. They can claim minimal courage in such a low risk endeavor.
deosn’t mean you should.
Unlike you, however, I am Voltaireian. Let them publish . . .and perish. Freedom of speech is not without its consequences, especially when dealing with a civilization that does not regard freedom of speech as a legitimate principle. Hence, as I’ve said before it is absurd to defend the cartoons being published as a “free speech” issue when addressing Islamic protestors or their audience.
In a similar vein (that Voltaireian thing) I will defend to the death the Danes’ rights of free speech to any member of Western civilization, and that includes you, suskind. :>)
Hence, I will not support your boycott of all things Danish. And most especially not against their furniture.
.
Just doesn’t seem fair that a boxer with the Ali shuffle steps into the ring tonight, as both of my eyes are still shut from bad beating.
After recovery, I’ll be delighted to go a few rounds with suskind, after I have recovered and the hall is filled with people, ready to engage.
TKOI hope you understand!
“But I will not let myself be reduced to silence.”
▼ ▼ ▼ MY DIARY
including me, made a fuss. In my opinion, that wasn’t necessary. Whatever your beliefs are, no one should feel they have to make excuses for them. Defend them. If you find them embarrassing or indefensible, then maybe some introspection is in order, but no one should have to apologize for what is in their heart.
Yes, it was very painful to me to learn of the strengths of the beliefs, and I did consider leaving, because my presence is discourteous to those beliefs, and discourteous to myself.
However, on reflection, I realized that the Palestinians have not yet exited the Levant, the Iraqi Resistance has yet to hie itself to Provence, and so I decided it would be a greater discourtesy to the Global Resistance to shirk my savage Mujahid duty to occupy the place, even though I can no longer consider it my home, which was an error on my part.
We are all guests in the home of BooMan and Susan, or you all are. I am, as previously stated, now an occupier, who happens to find the company of many of the guests exceptionally agreeable. ;->
all Danish people in the world must now be discriminated against, prejudiced against and punished?
Isn’t discrimination and prejudice against an entire people, Muslims, because of the murderous acts of 19 Muslims on 9/11, the very thing that you are protesting?
And few see the irony here.
I stated in the diary I did on this subject that I felt that the newspaper should be held accountable for the losses incurred by Danish companies who became the target of boycotts due to the irresponsibility of the editor.
And I will stand by that. Rightly or wrongly, once it became known that a mainstream newspaper had published hate material directed toward people who were providing revenues to Denmark, naturally there arose a certain reluctance to continue to provide these revenues.
The Danish government issued one of those politician nonpologies, but did not so much as reprimand the paper’s editor for poor judgment, much less even suggest that the paper be liable for the losses caused by their folly.
Observer has made a diary which quotes the Danish laws on the subject of this sort of material, and while we can be sure that had any Danish paper published anti-Semitic cartoons, they would have found themselves facing charges quicker than you can say “stop the presses,” in this case, the prosecutor declined to take any action against the paper.
There is also the small matter of Danish gunmen currently aiding US in its crusade in Iraq, and murdering Muslims, as Washington will confirm, Denmark has been unfailingly cooperative as its role as a key ally in Amrikas war on terra.
Thus, it is not a matter of a few Danes who did something stupid. It is the fact that those stupid acts are clearly supported by the Danish government.
There is no reason that any Muslim should feel an eagerness to support Danish companies or products under those circumstances.
Now whether the Danish people as a whole agree with their government’s position is a question that only they can answer. Denmark, we are told, is a democracy, so as is the case with the US, we may also assume that the Danish military, as does the US military, serves and carries out the will and desires of the Danish and American people, and that the civilian governments of both nations also act according to the will of the people.
so there is no need for a pedandic rundown.
so as is the case with the US, we may also assume that the Danish military, as does the US military, serves and carries out the will and desires of the Danish and American people, and that the civilian governments of both nations also act according to the will of the people.
36% of the US electorate supports Bush’s policies but you would discriminate against the entire 100% of Americans because of what the US administration is doing. That is called intolerance and discrimination, the very things you are so adamantly protesting.
than I do in polls. The day that the US “government” does something that the mainstream American people find culturally and morally unacceptable, I have every confidence that all you will need to do is turn on CNN and watch the crowds descend on Washington?
For example, what do you think would happen if Bush issued an executive order that all American girls would undergo FGM operations?
Or how about if he issued one saying that $200 billion American tax dollars would immediately be spent to provide all single mothers earning under $80K a year with housing, child care, health care, and job training, with all expenses paid?
You are speaking from both sides of your mouth, pretending that you do not hate the American people while at the same time sarcastically stating that they would only protest their government for extreme self-interest causes. Millions of Americans protested the invasion of Iraq and marched on Washington and you know it. The very existence of this blog is to resist the present US administration.
But carry on with your “mujahid duty” to foment dissent and intolerance here.
what might cause the majority of the American people to flood the mall. I chose two examples that in my opinion, would cause such a reaction, but I chose those because I think they would not be acceptable.
I can’t honestly say that I think the crusade is any less of a case of extreme self-interest, so that is probably not the best criteria to use.
In other words, the interests, the safety, security and well-being are much more endangered by the crusade and crimes against humanity than they would be by providing survival services to single mothers.
To tell you the truth, I think that would be a very good thing for the US to do, and I would applaud such an executive decree.
I have nothing but admiration and praise for the minority of Americans who have courageously expressed opposition to the crusade itself, and not merely to how it is being run.
But I am sure that you know that a couple of million people who give a part of their lives to go and march and demonstrate, though each one is infinitely precious to all men and women of good will, and in my view, each one is a hero, since they are not only sacrificing comfort, money, sleep, time with their families, but putting their own extreme self interest and personal security on the line, in a country of 300 people, that is still a very small minority.
The reality is that the overwhelming majority of Americans with the resources to do so are NOT storming the capital, and as for the political arena, any candidate who called for actual cessation of the crusade, not outsourcing the wetwork, or moving the gunmen to a nearby base for transition to focus on aerial bombardment, would be essentially declaring himself an unelectable fringe wacko.
And shortly you will see them all come more solidly on board for expansion of the crusade to Iran.
And there will probably be a few million people who will protest it, but to stop this kind of juggernaut you need a lot more than a few million sincere and good hearted people.
I’m not clear on the “fomenting dissent and intolerance,” I think I told you last night, I do not have the power to do that, however, neither do I have the power to enable anyone to hide their intolerance, if such is present in their hearts.
As for dissent, as you say yourself, this very blog contains quite a bit of dissent with US policies, that doesn’t appear to need a lot of fomenting. 🙂
Your dismissive ‘couple million people’ is wrong.
10 million people protested the invasion of Iraq in the US. Millions in every major city. I followed it very carefully. I marched in my own city.
to hide their intolerance, if such is present in their hearts.
An apology means that IT WAS NOT IN THEIR HEARTS. But you continue to insist there was intolerance because it helps your cause.
You use enough doublespeak to qualify you for a position in the Bush administration.
I will not continue to read you. Every post you write contains double speak, sly contradictions and always an undercurrent of hatred. I prefer straight talk.
Not total, in many cities. At once, in one place, Washington.
You would need such overwhelming masses of people that it would be impractical to impossible to disperse them without bombing the entire metro area.
And there is simply not the political will for that, among the electorate, nor is there such a will among the politicians to load all the warlords on a plane and send them off to the Hague. That is as straight a talk about revolution that it would be prudent to engage in on a publicly accessible website residing on a US server.
Now I will give you some straight talk about hatred. If I hated the American people, I would support US policies, I would think the crusade was a fine idea.
Because these policies are the greatest threat to the American people that there is.
Do you think that people who oppose these policies, the crimes against humanity, the torture, the kidnappings, maimings, mass slaughter, do you think we oppose these things out of hatred for the American people?
On the contrary, I, and I will venture to say every person who opposes these policies does so out of a desire for the well-being of the American people, the security of the American people, a future for American children, and a sincere desire to see the US modernize, advance and move toward legitimate statehood, and someday, even democracy.
blaming the entire American people for the actions of the illegally appointed Bush administration:
Now whether the Danish people as a whole agree with their government’s position is a question that only they can answer. Denmark, we are told, is a democracy, so as is the case with the US, we may also assume that the Danish military, as does the US military, serves and carries out the will and desires of the Danish and American people, and that the civilian governments of both nations also act according to the will of the people.
That’s your doublespeak, or it can be called ‘burying the lede/lead.’ But your intolerance is there.
And that reality does not lessen, at least in my eyes, the courage and nobility of the minority of Americans who oppose US policies, or the minority of Danes who oppose Danish policies. It does not make their commitment, their work, their sacrifices or the risks they take less valuable.
And yes, I am proud to be intolerant of torture, intolerant of kidnapping, intolerant of mass murder, melting flesh off children, and for that matter, adults. I am intolerant of Operation Crescent Cleansing, where US murdered thousands of its own people, many were slow-cooked alive, including children and elders.
I am intolerant of the policy that it is preferable to spend a dollar to murder someone else’s child than a dime to care for your own.
And I am intolerant of taking that dollar out of the rent money of people who are housing insecure, and could not afford to purchase medical treatment even if they had that dollar and several more, because they have been simply priced out.
I am intolerant of the programs to exterminate American elders, poor, and infirm.
I regret that US did not make different choices, and I regret that the precious minority who heroically oppose these policies is so small.
Did I say that you were intolerant of social justice? No, but what you did in your post was to defend yourself against something that you were not accused of. Right off the rule book of Karl Rove.
I pointed out your intolerance towards Americans, towards Danes and towards the hosts of this site.
The precious minority that you speak of is 64% (and increasing by the minute) of the American people who oppose Bush and his policies. You make little distinction between American people and their administration just as you do not distinguish between the entire Danish population and the few who started the riots. THIS is what I mean by your intolerance.
Let us be clear on that.
64% if you believe the polls. I believe the majority opposition is much, much greater than that (consider, for example, all the homeless or otherwise disenfranchised, debilitated) who are not likely to be included in the polls.
I cannot speak for DF, but my personal beef with the majority in this country is why they are doing so little to oppose what they know to be wrong.
I firmly believe you are correct that even the ELECTORATE (i.e. just over 50% of the actual population) opposes this regime. The election results were clearly overturned, by the SCOTUS in 2000 and by Diebold etal in 2004.
The question is: how do we mobilize the majority? Why is the majority failing to mobilize itself?
That’s where I come to my conclusion that they just don’t care enough. Yet.
I think the institution of a draft might be the one thing that would get them “on the bus”–and it’s precisely why B*shCo is doing everything in its power to avoid taking that step. Like by loosening restrictions on naturalization, recruiting in third-world countries, offering American citizenship in exchange for 2-3 tours of “duty”: if you survive, you get a passport. If not, well, you took your chances. I call it “outsourcing citizenship”. Its purpose is to sustain the military w/o having to introduce a draft.
And I am glad you brought this up. This is obviously the largest “bloc,” and while we can explain away the failure of the political class to “rise up” more easily, some are simply not opposed to the policies. Whether one wishes to ascribe this to FoxNews and the other assorted propaganda, a history of cultural conditioning and what one very wise lady on here calls the “bell jar of privilege,” or simply a paucity of comprehension regarding the urgency of the situation.
Even among those who follow current events beyond a cursory glance or fond hour with Bill O’Reilly and ilk, the events themselves are so far outside their belief about what their country is and does, that it simply does not compute. There must be some reason, if these things are really happening, but it is probably just propaganda, trying to sell newspapers. Americans would never torture people, seize wives and children for “interrogation,” maybe they were going to do another attack, those terrorists, they are just trying to keep us safe, and you know how the news likes to exaggerate anyway. Things have a way of working themselves out, we must all write letters to the politicians, good thing they are having those hearings, did you hear Senator Fulano? He was just great! That is what we need, more like him, I will send him some money.
It is just, to be blunt, a lack of reality contact, and I have heard some very convincing arguments that under the circumstances, one must question at what point those of us who see the situation, um, differently, are ourselves being inhumane when we effectively try to take away the psychological comfort from people who have nothing else, and are clearly a day late and a dollar short when it comes to storming the palace gates.
In the old horror movies, when the monster is at the door, and the mothers cover the children’s eyes, and sing to them lullabies, who would rip the hands away, close the mothers’ mouths?
As US transitions to feudalism, this means that a significant chunk of that “political class,” that “middle class,” defined, by me, anyway, as those who, after providing the basics of survival, have resources of time, energy and money left over, the people who are able to attend parent teacher and town hall meetings, hand out flyers for the local candidate, campaign for a new roof for the courthouse, organize bake sales to raise money for new band uniforms at the local high school, take their kids on family outings, teach them songs and show them pictures of grandma, braid hair and assist with ball throwing skills, help with homework and take a carpool day, those people are having an increasingly difficult time maintaining that status, and as a result, for all that you and I may tell them that this is due to the policies of their government, the fact is that they have just had to take a second job, and thus forfeit some of those middle class privileges, and their scope of interest has narrowed as opposed to widened.
The underclass could tell them a thing or two about narrow view, a bit more politically sophisticated, they are under no illusion that any politician is going to cause them to have sufficient income to stay in housing or purchase health care, and their scope of interest is, like every underclass everywhere, staying alive until tomorrow. And there is also a certain fatalism, while American affluent are so protected from even televised death that the reporter gives a warning before showing the stain on the highway after the truck accident that killed eight people, the poor have a more intimate relationship with death, disease, blood and gore, and again, a more refined level of sophistication. The poor understand that neither party has anything to offer them, that there is no getting ahead, there may be a chance to get over.
Some say, and they may be right, that things have just not gotten bad enough yet for an internal correction to take place. The Medicare death wave may push the situation a bit in that direction, but it may not. We will see what happens when those Americans still clinging to what they perceive as affluence come face to face with the interesting choice of buying grandma’s pills this month or paying the mortgage. Whatever they decide, the results will not be invisible. I will repeat my savvy investor tip: remains disposal. Get in on the ground floor, as terrific opportunities are opening up.
Remember this is a population, that sat in front of their TVs, upper, middle, and underclass alike, and watched their own countrymen cooked alive for five days, and the number of private citizens who made their way to New Orleans were so few that they were easily kept out by only a handful of gunmen.
The Muslims and Mennonites, God bless them, had to sneak in, which they did, and they did what they could. But there were no millions, no vast sea of people sweeping over the state troopers and FEMA goons, disarming them, neutralizing them, and rushing in to do things like we saw in Central America with Hurricane Mitch, where thousands of people, men, women, and children, made human chains and for days without rest, passed water and food, hand to hand, over mountains and down into and up over gorges to keep alive people whose villages were unaccessible.
Changing culture does not happen overnight, and the current situation with regards to the US threat to the rest of the world, well, like the slogan says, The World Can’t Wait.
So US is caught in a sort of pincer. Will the correction come from within? Or from without?
Sybil, whether we like it or not, we are being held accountable for this by much of the international community–not just by DF and by “america-haters”.
This was evident in the many versions “the American people got the gov they deserve” that were printed in foreign papers immediately following the 2004 election. I am constantly discussing these issues with intellectuals, literati, professors, etc. in Europe. Constantly I come up against this argument: you’re the ones who let him take control. You’re the ones who failed your own democracy.
Indeed, what evidence is there to support that this is not the case? How did we go from democracy to dictatorship in about a decade?
I am currently engaged in an effort to encourage well-known foreign authors (primarily Nobel Prize winners such as Günter Grass and Elfriede Jelinek) to endorse the World Can’t Wait campaign.
In correspondence with one of Grass’s translators, that translator said: Grass is likely to see it the same way I do–it is the job of the American people to oust this regime, by voting it out of office. That’s how democracy works.
I wrote back, explaining first of all: yes, you’re right. It’s our own fault. B*shCo was not “appointed” in a vacuum. Several decades of political apathy and “the universe takes care of itself”-indifference led to a situation in which a borderline legal overthrow of government was possible.
Be that as it may: at this point, the american people are so hobbled by the political landscape that emerged from those decades of not giving a damn, of non-participation in the political process, of low voter turnout and general disinterest in national (or even state and local) politics, that we have now lost complete control of the process. We need international support.
Of all the disappointment, dismay, distress and disgust I have experienced in my encounters with my fellow compatriots, the thing that has been most devastating was seeing the lack of public outrage in the aftermath of Katrina, because it said to me: if this mattered enough to the American people, they would have gotten off their asses, raised the ROOF (not the barn). But they didn’t. The only thing I can conclude is that they don’t give enough of a fuck to respond accordingly.
I would be so grateful to anyone anywhere who can provide me with some other plausible explanation because it’s really hard for me to believe that the people of my country have indeed become this callous. It’s hard to believe what I’m seeing, but I can’t pretend it’s not what I’m seeing.
I used to attribute this political apathy to sheer “carelessness” or caprice–a forgivable offence, a moral misdemeanor. But after Katrina, it became to clear to me at least that it is not carelessness, it is callousness. Indifference. The opposite of love.
You express yourself well and without preaching.
I read you carefully and I am with you on everything you write. I too am a radical, who marched against the invasion of Iraq, who become politicized by 9/11. The subsequent bombing of two small Muslim countries was an atrocity.
As for “getting of their asses” – the Bush admin has overwhelmed the populace and the world with one outrage after another. But resistance is happening.
I do not think what happened here on this site is indicative of indifference, it was a mistake, in the confusion of the moment. Specifically, in these discussions, since the posting of that cartoon, I am against fighting intolerance with more intolerance.
The former mormon-housewife turned radical feminist heretic, Sonja Johnson, coined the term “tyranny of tolerance” (yikes, I hope I’m not confusing her with Jan Raymond; it was either Jan Raymond or Sonja Johnson). You may want to track that down as inspiration/food for thought. The tyranny of tolerance: when, in the name of tolerance, even the intolerable is tolerated.
I wish we could all get beyond what happened here on the site, and find some way to make lemonade and silver linings from the debacle.
I love this site, obviously or I wouldn’t spend so much time here. I think Boo and Susan do a wonderful job of not interfering with free speech, even when they disagree with posters (at times adamantly) and of accepting critique, being flexible….this site has many advantages over some other blogs and message boards that take a heavy-handed approach to radically dissenting views.
I do, however, wish there would be more diversity reflected on the front-page because as one poster pointed out a few days ago (maybe it was you?), there is a huge gulf between the diversity of opinion we see in the diaries and what is posted on the front-page.
I am going to once again propose that DuctapeFatwa become a front-page poster.
Talking to myself again here. Did a quick search on this. Apparently, the wingnuts have appropriated this concept.
There was one (subscription only) link that seems to indicate that the term, in its feminist context, was indeed coined by Janice Raymond, not Sonja Johnson.
I do not recall in which of these two works she introduced the concept:
I only know that already in the 80s, I found it useful as an attempt to prod people off their apathetic asses and to look at the world with a more discerning eye.
As I said, from what I can tell from a brief foray into google results, the concept appears to have been appropriated by the right and, since it was pretty obscure even in feminist circles in this country, seems like it’s probably been rendered pretty useless.
I actually think Raymond and Daly were better received, and are to this day better received, in Europe than in the US: largely due to the tyranny of tolerance that would forbid radical feminists from appearing too “rabidly” feminist. It’s so fucking unladylike, ya know? That kind of frothing, polemical, down-and-dirty feminism will get you ostracized, incarcerated or have your tenure terminated in this country: in Europe, it’s the stuff Nobel Prize Laureates are made of [cf. Elfriede Jelinek, Nobel, 2004] 😉
And that is not a B*shCo mandate. That comes directly from the people.
Not to mention that it has never been proven that 9/11 was the act of 19 Muslims.
I regard this image as representative of a far greater tragedy than the one it replaced, however ugly the picture in that former poster might be. The irony alone says it all.
However ugly and disrespectful a picture might be, the abdication of the freedom of speech is something else entirely.
I have a neighbor who looks just like that image (the original one that was there). Well, maybe not just like… his hair is lighter, sort of a tannish gray – but he has the same fierce mustache and bushy eyebrows and stern look and turban (sans bomb). Often we seem to take walks at the same time and I see him striding along, long garments flowing, his ease of movement completely belying what one would guess was his age. I always give him a big smile and a “hi!”, because each time, he glares at me, his eyebrows contracting more and becoming even bushier, his huge mustache with the waxed ends quivers fiercely and then he gives me a sweet smile and a soft “hello”. He’s probably thinking “What a pest!”, but still…
Oh, and he is a Sikh.
That said, though… I sort of agree about the removal of the picture, although not for the same reasons. I think it was probably removed for the wrong reasons, and without a real understanding of what it, especially combined with the text, really signified… even with all the conversation it engendered. There appears to be a fundamental disconnect between those who looked at the original post and saw some sort of free speech issue, and those who looked and saw a call for open season on Muslims or Arabs or those who people think look like one.
And that’s not even touching on all the other issues that were raised, and will continue to be raised. But with the removal of the photo, the general feeling seems to be, okay… all done!
Anyway though, I’m a believer in free speech. Even as a black person, I fully support the right of the Klan (etc.) to have their marches, and give their speeches in various cities… I wouldn’t want to deprive them of that right because who knows who would be next.
BUT… I wouldn’t put up a poster advertising their rally in my window either.
He is probably from Punjab which means he will have very good things for you to eat.
I’m working on it! I’m fairly new to the neighborhood so I’m slowly ingratiating myself ;).
I wouldn’t put up a poster of their agenda either, and in the case of the poster (with the now deleted image), I do not see that poster as having in any way promoted any such similarly offensive agenda. I saw a poster advocating for free speech within the context of a current event. Offensive to some? Certainly. In poor taste? For many, yes. Do I think the intent of this poster was to insult or otherwise disrespect Muslims? No, I don’t believe that was the case at all.
Do I think the image should have been removed because of pressure here to do so? No, but I respect the right of the person who posted it to do so, even though I regard such an action as unfortunate, a signal of failure in our quest toi further strengthen and advance the freedoms that lead toward greater enlightenment.
There, you see? Differences in perception again, possibly due to differences in life experiences.
If approvingly quoting people who advocate putting the poster up on light poles and other places, wanted poster or “have you seen this dog?” style, that is generally offensive to some and deeply offensive to others, whether one thinks it’s an image of Mohammed with a bomb turban – or a generic stereotype of a Muslim – is not done to insult and offend, all in the name of free speech, what is the purpose?
Presumably there are Muslims in the target city (and in other cities) who, as far as I have heard, are not rioting or setting things on fire or doing whatever other stuff is all over the news from various other countries… so what would be the purpose of tacking these things up, even with the little free speech blurb, beyond a wish to say, in effect, ‘nyah, nyah, nyah, so there! look what we can do, what are you going to do about it?’ to an already embattled people who would then no doubt feel quite a bit less safe in their own cities.
I think that there can and should be discussions about free speech, racism, stereotyping, mob joining, psy ops and other things which should be had on liberal blogs, and in communities and so on, but I don’t agree that doing things that offend people because you can, in the name of free speech, is a needed element.
Again tho, I am more of the mind that the image should have stayed up until it was taken down for reasons other than pressure to do so.
Actually I don’t think I made any references to approvals of people putting up these posters in a “have you seen this dog” style, nor, to the best of my recollection, have I indicated in any way that I possess myself or approve in any way the “Nyah nyah nyah” kind of bullying tactic you refer to. I am talking about free speech and saying that in the context of these infantile cartoons and the effect their publication has had thanks to a number of seriously sick people exploiting them, the message about free speech still remains important.
I personally might find the imagery objectionable. I actually know people who still use the word nigger reflexively. Once I hear them use it once, I confront them and let them know that it’s a really ugly word and I’d appreciate them not using it. Some are so embarrassed that someone actually confronted them on it outright that they never say it in my presence again. Some tell me to go fuck myself. and some just continue on and I do whatever I can to reduce my interaction with them. But, I never seek to claim that I have the right to keep them from using that word if they feel they must. I understand I do not have a right to be free from exposure to other peoples ignorance or their animosity.
It’s quite fashionable to deride Alberto Gonzales now by referring to him as “Abu” Gonzales. I find this offensive in the sense that using an Arab-derived name as an epithet of disparagement, as a vehicle of insult, is itself insulting. I think I even used this term once before I realized the implied disrespect attached to it. (As far as I know I’ve seen no one anywhere in the left blogosphere raise this point about “Abu”). But, for me, in the end, preserving the freedom to say these things is far more important, and is separate from whether the terminolgy offends people or not.
And, of course, in the end, words are only words and pictures are only pictures. Sure they can stimulate people to learn to hate and commit violence and do all manner of horrible things, but passing laws against saying the words or drawing the pictures doesn’t remove the impulse and the hatred from people’s hearts and minds in and of itself. Education does, but it takes time. If we want to be on top of things, there’re plenty of real world insults, actual in the flesh atrocities that are happening every minute of every day, and these stupid cartoons or a bunch of ugly hate speech by various lunatics and violent psychopaths pale in their significance by comparison.
Death from poverty and discrimination. The Death and Destruction wrought by the Bush/Cheney monstrosity. Starvation. The absolute and willful failure of our own government in the US to restore New Orleans and the rest of the Gulf Coast and the livlihood of the people there. There’s the looting of the treasury by pols and corporations, the plundering and rampant destruction of the ecosystems that sustain life on the planet. The criminal negligence that is permeating every aspect of government. The list is endless. The cartoons of Muhammad, the editors who may have published them with the intent to incite, the Imams who definitely did further distribute these images with the express intent to incite violence, these are undeniable problems, but they are way down the list. The reservoir of anger and despair, the desperation of the disposessed and the oppressed, these are where the real problems are and the cartoon thing is just being used to exploit that for unscrupulous purposes.
This is why the free speech aspect of this trumps the insult angle. The cartoons are a problem, but they’re really like a mosquito bite sitting next to the bullet wounds we should be attending to. All the weaponized blowhards of the world want their clash of civilizations; they want their armageddon. If they can dupe the rest of us into providing the manpower for it by weaponizing our own ignorance over these stupid cartoons, we’re in worse shape as a species than even I thought.
But, the hate speakers, the secular-based ones and the religious-based ones, (Christian, Muslim and Jew), they are allied against us, the people of this planet who only want to live our lives without seeking strife. We need to unite against them and we can’t even begin to do that if they itimidate us into relinquishing our fundamental right of free expression.
Geez! I thought I was all talked out on this a day or so ago.
I’m sorry, I keep being unclear in my postings. My points about the approval of the posters and the nyah, nyah etc, or about advertising rallies, were not referring to you, but to the topic of the original diary. I understand where you, yourself, are coming from in the terms of free, even if offensive to some, speech overall.
I am uncomfortable with the “Abu” Gonzales terminology too, but I understood it to be an attempt to cement the connection between his legal advice and the atrocities at Abu Ghraib. I don’t use it, though.
As for the rest, including the cartoons themselves, I think there are many issues that are related to that, and that those (including the ones you have brought up) are what should be being discussed – it seems to me that there is a lot more depth to what is going on, that can be approached from any number of directions… and in some cases is, now that the original hysteria is dying down a bit. Although many on the right are trying to keep it at fever pitch.
It’s my hope that continued conversation can not only open up other avenues of thinking about the overall issues, but also bring it more down to a personal level in understanding just why some were very upset with how the matter was presented on this blog.
I share the hopes you speak of, and I only add that it is my basic belief that any diminishment of the ability for us to express ourselves freely is, in my opinion, not a way to bring those hopes closer to reality.
Several weeks ago, after registering my objection previously, the odious racist and compulsively offensive blowhard William Bennett made his debut as an employee of CNN. I switched off CNN and sent off an email to CNN telling them I was now fulfilling the promise I made to them a month or so before that as soon as Bennett appeared on their station, I was abandoning them after 25 years because I regarded their hiring of him as counter to everything I believe a responsible news organization should be doing.
So now I no longer tune in to CNN. I had already stopped watching Matthews on MSNBC, and Fox I don’t bother with at all unless I want to learn exactly whjat the neocons are upto, in which case I tune in to hear what Bill Kristol has to say on the Sunday show.
I’m all for mobilizing against deliberately offensive behavior, but I try to be really specific as to who I take action in opposition to.
I’m pleased we’re having the conversation we’re having here, in he midst of all the other more confrontational, accusatory stuff. I’m hopeful that one day soon more people will recognize that these cartoons themselves are no more important than is the content of hate speech by vicious gasbags like Limbaugh or Malkin. I hope that more people will recognize that in andof themselves these cartoons are nothing, that it is the question of why they seem tohave been able to achieve such influence, just as we should be asking what’s wrong with a society where a shithead lying creep like Bill O’Reilly has the most watched show on cable news tv and a sick and vile creature like Ann Coulter still get’s speaking engagements. Who’s benefitting from all this crap, and why are “we” giving them all that power by playing into their manipulations?
and the intent of the diarist who posted the cartoon here was explained in detail. Regrets were expressed, apologies given, image removed but the goodwill was not accepted by some. Why? I think because their intent is to keep the ‘perception of intolerance’ pot boiling over.
I agree. There are those who seem to almost relish the fact that the “west” can be so easily demonized; those who don’t seem to be able to express a perspective unless it invloves villifying a particular, predictable monolithic adversary.
I’ve had occasion in my life to come to know people engaged in armed revolt, legitimate armed insurrection against a violent, murderous dictatorship. And amongst this group of people, there were a few who, though they primarily had the best intentions, celebrated, revelled, in the fact that they had this enemy to fight; as though they’d be lost and without purpose without this enemy and so behaved, (to a certain degree unconsciously), in such a way as to seek the continued existence of that enemy in order to give their own lives meaning.
I see that sort of sad pathology reflected in many parts of the world on a regular basis, and I’ve perceived it here as well.
“An enemy to fight,” and they look for them even here on Booman Trib. <sigh>
Yes, it seems to me, what you describe is a collective abstract anger looking for a home.
Yes! When fighting for and maintaining the fervor for the “cause” becomes more important than accomplishing what the “cause” has been created to achieve, then this sort of unfounded and irrational anjd broad based fingerpointing takes place.
It’s a big reason why “men with guns” on all sides of any conflict are always so loath to give up the power those guns afford them.
Without the cause, and the guns, (or, for the purpose of our discussion here, the accusatory words), to back it up, they would have to return to their regular, less-powerful-over-others lives, and many just don’t want to lose that sense of self-importance.
My own government, just elected, minority, right-wing hawks. They approve of Bush policies. Will all Canadians be villified now? If our Prime Minister, (I choke on the words) is able to send troops to assist Bush in Iraq or in the next potential target, Iran? will all Canadians be held accountable? It is not that easy to topple a government even in so-called democracies.
I feel very badly about this careen to the right of your government there. I suspect that whatever benefits the vast majority of those who voted for these wingnuts expected to receive will not be forthcoming and that this will become evident fairly soon. The idea that having “better relations” with the regime in the US is going to translate into better economics in Canada is a non-starter, I think. Increased looting of water and timber, (and now the petroleum from the “oil sands” in Western Canada), will generate some money but it will not disperse throughout the broader economy, and especually not if rightwingers are in control. And of course the US is so totally screwed up within itselfthat except for giving weapons to other countries, it’s not in a position to be able to do much for anyone.
Well, see… this is part of the whole disconnect I was speaking of. I agree that intent is everything… but, at least for me, the intent is what is exactly the problem.
I am not Muslim (or religious at all) and I’d never heard of the strictures/traditions against images before this whole thing started, so that it was a picture of Mohammed did not produce the same visceral reactions in me that it did in others. If it had been presented, on the front page, in the context of… “here is an image, let’s discuss it. What is wrong, right, would it be okay without the bomb (as apparently it was first thought it didn’t have one) what about the original 12, is the reaction justified, just who is reacting, and what are the other billion or so of the religion saying/doing, etc, etc” then I would have had wayyy less of a problem with it.
But it was presented in the context of… ‘people are upset about this – screw them, let’s put it everywhere and offend because we can. we can’t let them win against the forces of free speech!’ – and it makes no difference whether the original thought was that it was with or without a bomb, was Mohammed or a generic stereotype of a Muslim. It actually would make no difference who the picture was of… a rabbi, imam, immigrant, willie horton, whatever.
I was more sad than angry, because I could see that it was just buying into the right wing frame of anti muslim hysteria, even if that was not thought of as the intent… and it’s my opinion that when one is operating in a right wing frame, there is no place to go but wrong ;). However, the subsequent lack of understanding of the various views protesting the posting does trouble me, as it seems many are speaking on different planes and failing to connect. Like the continued belief among some that it was all about the picture itself, and not about the context, for some reason.
I am hopeful that continued discussion, instead of just the assumption that all is well, will bring things more into focus for all of us.
As far as I know, I have no “perception of intolerance” pot.
I, for one, join with the Middle East merchants who refuse to do business with Denmark (yes, the whole country) until the editor Rose of the Danish newspaper apologizes, is fired, and the paper shut down.
In one sentence, you refute any attempt to argue that this is not a free speech issue. You want a newspaper shut down because you disagree with its content and you want group punishment of an entire nation. That is, quite simply, disgusting, and it is ample reason to publish such images until no one any longer questions the legitimacy of publishing them.
The rule against depiction of the Holiest of Holies is contained in Mosaic Law, in Islamic Law, and is shared by cultures around the world.
It isn’t shared by mine. There are several images of my religion’s holy of holies in my home. Am I to judge my monotheist neighbors to be vermin, to call for their extermination, and torch their embassies because they do not make images of their gods and burn offerings before them and instead veil them as if they were ashamed of God? Shall I boycott American goods because the President of the United States won’t apologize for Christian publications that condemn my religion as devil worship? Shall I boycott Saudi goods because their newspapers call all of my countrymen sons of pigs and monkeys and dogs?
No, but that is because freedom of expression is for me the dearest and most sacred gift of Man. My forefathers voted for it. I have voted for it. Mosaic and Islamic Law, on the other hand, have never been subject to a referendum of the people and therefore have no legitimate force of law. I am not subject to them, and neither is anyone else unless they choose to be. You can bow before any god you like, but you may not force others to bow before that god.
I am religious, but I am also pragmatic. God is good, but all of the good things in my life come from freedom, not God. And that freedom came from the bloody struggle of men over centuries against self-appointed religious leaders who said you may not say this, you may not depict that. God, if he is as powerful as the monotheists say, can protect himself. God, we are told, is invulnerable, invincible, all-powerful. God does not need the guardians of the faith. Those are for the benefit of people who do not really believe, whose faith is so weak that the mere presence of an unbeliever sends them into paroxysms of impotent rage. Those people’s problem is not an obscure newspaper in Denmark; it is that they do not really believe, and somewhere in their hearts of darkness, they know it.
To censor oneself to avoid offending the faithful is bad enough; to censor oneself to avoid offending faithless hypocrites is terrible.