![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
sobriqueI don't think the fact that cartoons are big in the news at the moment will have escaped anyone. The centre of the contraversy is some cartoons depicting the prophed Mohammed.
I've been pondering a little what I think about it. You see, it's not such a simple matter. Outrage at offensive postings is all fair enough. As the saying goes: "I might not agree with what you say, but I will passionately defend your right to say it". Cartoons and caricatures are almost by their nature something that's intended to provoke.
The problem is, that civilisation is build on mutual understanding. Wars start from being able to latch onto something to hate. Be it colour, nationality, religion. If we can draw a division, that allows us to categorise them as 'other'. And then demonise the whole group on the basis of a few. There's almost no groups without a few bad apples out there.
I, and many around me, believe that freedom of the press is the road to democracy. I don't like most of the stuff that the Sun publishes. I don't read it. If there were some scurrilous articles published, then I'd read them, probably get a bit angry, and maybe right a letter if I was really pissed off.
At no point would I consider sacking embassies of the country involved, or calling for the execution of the author an even remotely sane notion.
And that's the real problem. You see, I don't think anyone would deny that there's a prejudice against Arab/Islam building. Suicide bombers in tube stations, World Trade centre planecrashes, and the general self destructive rush to suicide bombing.
And the prejudice _isn't_ about the terrorism. It's about being completely unable to understand the mentality of those involved. Of those that thing that violence will actually change the opinion of those involved. Of those that think that suicide to kill _Other human beings_ is an acceptable choice for what to do with your life.
So I thought I'd dig up something I remember reading once:
"Taken from Quakers Are Funny! by Chuck Fager, Kimo Press, 1987:
One World War II Quaker conscientious objector had been a professional wrestler. Once when he and some other inmates of the Coshocton CPS camp in Ohio made a trip into town, they were hassled about their pacifism by some local youths, who insisted that only force could change the German's views.
In response, the ex-wrestler took off his coat, challenged one of the local boys to a match, and promptly threw the townie across the room. He then asked the youth, "Now do you believe that force won't change people's views?"
"Heck no!" the local boy hollered back.
"That's exactly my point," said the Quaker, who put on his coat and left. "
Terrorism and violence is bullying writ large. It may compel an action, but not willingly. If you _truly_ want to change the world, to convert the infidels to Islam, to bring the word of Christanity, or ... well anything that involves someone to change their opinion, then you can never do so by the sword. Get to know them. Understand them. Build friendships and trust. Sometimes people are offensive. When they are, then talk to them. Point out why. If that doesn't work, well, move on to protesting, but don't try and silence them with threats. All that will net you is defiance.
Time and again, wars are fought. I'm not going to say they don't have a purpose. Sometimes fighting for what you need or believe in is the only option. But make no mistake, that fighting a war whilst you may compel an action, pushes you further away from building common ground and making friends.
I can fully understand that caricatures of Mohammed are offensive to Muslims. I would imagine if what had happened was a protest, a letter or whatever, the situation would quietly disappear. I can also fully understand the various media reproducting the 'offensive' caricatures - people are curious, but more importantly NOT doing so is bending to those who would sack embassies, boycott entire nations, and blow people up for their views.
Giving in to terrorism, is like giving your money to the playground bully. It just guarantees that tomorrow, they'll do it again.
I've been pondering a little what I think about it. You see, it's not such a simple matter. Outrage at offensive postings is all fair enough. As the saying goes: "I might not agree with what you say, but I will passionately defend your right to say it". Cartoons and caricatures are almost by their nature something that's intended to provoke.
The problem is, that civilisation is build on mutual understanding. Wars start from being able to latch onto something to hate. Be it colour, nationality, religion. If we can draw a division, that allows us to categorise them as 'other'. And then demonise the whole group on the basis of a few. There's almost no groups without a few bad apples out there.
I, and many around me, believe that freedom of the press is the road to democracy. I don't like most of the stuff that the Sun publishes. I don't read it. If there were some scurrilous articles published, then I'd read them, probably get a bit angry, and maybe right a letter if I was really pissed off.
At no point would I consider sacking embassies of the country involved, or calling for the execution of the author an even remotely sane notion.
And that's the real problem. You see, I don't think anyone would deny that there's a prejudice against Arab/Islam building. Suicide bombers in tube stations, World Trade centre planecrashes, and the general self destructive rush to suicide bombing.
And the prejudice _isn't_ about the terrorism. It's about being completely unable to understand the mentality of those involved. Of those that thing that violence will actually change the opinion of those involved. Of those that think that suicide to kill _Other human beings_ is an acceptable choice for what to do with your life.
So I thought I'd dig up something I remember reading once:
"Taken from Quakers Are Funny! by Chuck Fager, Kimo Press, 1987:
One World War II Quaker conscientious objector had been a professional wrestler. Once when he and some other inmates of the Coshocton CPS camp in Ohio made a trip into town, they were hassled about their pacifism by some local youths, who insisted that only force could change the German's views.
In response, the ex-wrestler took off his coat, challenged one of the local boys to a match, and promptly threw the townie across the room. He then asked the youth, "Now do you believe that force won't change people's views?"
"Heck no!" the local boy hollered back.
"That's exactly my point," said the Quaker, who put on his coat and left. "
Terrorism and violence is bullying writ large. It may compel an action, but not willingly. If you _truly_ want to change the world, to convert the infidels to Islam, to bring the word of Christanity, or ... well anything that involves someone to change their opinion, then you can never do so by the sword. Get to know them. Understand them. Build friendships and trust. Sometimes people are offensive. When they are, then talk to them. Point out why. If that doesn't work, well, move on to protesting, but don't try and silence them with threats. All that will net you is defiance.
Time and again, wars are fought. I'm not going to say they don't have a purpose. Sometimes fighting for what you need or believe in is the only option. But make no mistake, that fighting a war whilst you may compel an action, pushes you further away from building common ground and making friends.
I can fully understand that caricatures of Mohammed are offensive to Muslims. I would imagine if what had happened was a protest, a letter or whatever, the situation would quietly disappear. I can also fully understand the various media reproducting the 'offensive' caricatures - people are curious, but more importantly NOT doing so is bending to those who would sack embassies, boycott entire nations, and blow people up for their views.
Giving in to terrorism, is like giving your money to the playground bully. It just guarantees that tomorrow, they'll do it again.
