![[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.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2006-02-08 11:42 am (UTC)Imagine that you're in a bar and some drunken bully starts pushing you around. Being a manly man, you agree to take the argument outside. When you get outside, the guy rushes you, and you slap him in the face. Do you think that the bully is going to learn his lesson, calm down, and act responsibly? Probably not. Much more likely, the bully is going to be even more angry, and rush you again.
If you're going to go outside, you've got to be willing to take the guy down. And that's not something that we're willing to do today. We want to go to war, but we don't want to be the bad guys. We only want to hurt the people who deserve it, and then as little as possible.
That's a nice notion - but it's no way to win a war.
I don't think we should have gone to war with Iraq. I think there was a diplomatic solution, and it would have started with treating Iraq with respect, even if they are a smaller country, and even if we didn't like the dictator. But once we did go to war, we should have played hardball. Instead, we've made a half-hearted commitment. We don't have the troops, the armour, the funding, or the heart to make a real difference. Instead, we've sent out an invitation to insurgents, and they're not turning it down. We've turned a bad situation into chaos, and then washed our hands of the problem. But hey, we're training Iraqi troops, that should be enough responsibility!
Bah, I say, bah!
no subject
Date: 2006-02-08 11:50 am (UTC)Mostly anyway - I don't think it was unreasonable to intervene in Iraq, but as you say, half hearted has turned it from a bit of an oppressed populace, to suicide bomber anarchy. Having a ... well rather unpleasant dictator in power wasn't a good thing for the world as a whole. Especially given our real dependance on oil. The rhetoric and spinning is just pointless game playing - if the 'general order' had been that "we need to secure those oil reserves to avoid real problems in the future. Saddam does horrible things. We're going to invade, occupy and then withdraw, don't get in our way" then it'd probably have had a lot more support.
Problem is unless you've got a specific 'target' there's not much even the best soldier in the world can do.
The "War on Terror" can never be a military campaign. You can't fight an idea with bullets. Ideas are faced by other ideas. But it's also the case that an idea alone won't win - if they're prepared to use violence and you're not, then you can be compelled.
no subject
Date: 2006-02-08 11:55 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-02-08 11:59 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-02-08 12:01 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-02-08 12:23 pm (UTC)I completely agree. If you force your views down someone's throat, all they will do is choke on them.
You do have to lay the smack down on the bastards of the world though. We have an obligation to protect those who cannot protect themselves, but we need to be clear and honest about it. None of this WMD bullshit. If we decide that physical action is needed, don't lie to us or them about it, and make sure they have had every opportunity change before that action is needed.
no subject
Date: 2006-02-08 01:54 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-02-08 05:30 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-02-08 05:47 pm (UTC)Perhaps we should. Maybe people would start giving us some respect.
Maybe by shouting histrionically, burning flags half a world away, writing indignant letters, accusing people of being devils and making death threats can make a difference to the people who are doing these horrific things.
/superheavyirony off
Or we can just chuckle at Hislop's increasing desperation with that gag every year. Whatever works.
no subject
Date: 2006-02-08 06:22 pm (UTC)http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4692518.stm
i would have thought that people on the net would be better informed. Therefore i assume that these people were in fact punishing the many for the perceived crimes of the one.
Also why is it the Europeans that have to be humble and show the respect that the followers of Mohammed think they deserve if they clearly show no consideration for our sensibilities in their responses and try to impose their views on us, and punish accordingly.
Given this general attitude, and you can't tell me its that small a minority, because it really seems like it isn't, this whole freakish religious uproar has successfully lowered my opinion of that category of people. Obviously personal aquantances as they may appear will be judged at face value, but the group as a whole i think can go and **** itself.
no subject
Date: 2006-02-08 08:56 pm (UTC).. oh and did I see the 'i'country ...
.. what else can we come up with beginning with 'i' ...
no subject
Date: 2006-02-09 08:28 am (UTC)icon - religion for TV executives (enough with the I wanna make you a star already!)...
irony - already did it but it bears repeating now...
italy
india
ireland
The list goes on. And on. Like this post. :)
no subject
Date: 2006-02-10 04:00 am (UTC)You may wish to read this to understand why it's such a touchy subject.
It's not just Islam, either. Judaism and Christianity have concerns about images: see here for a good starting-point in examining the issues.
no subject
Date: 2006-02-10 04:21 am (UTC)As I point out in my comment below, Islam isn't peculiar in finding certain uses of imagery problematic. Judaism and Christianity have similar concerns, even if current exegetic trends in those religions are focussed more on the intent behind the image, rather than on the image itself.
Take a look at Wikipedia's articles on aniconism and iconoclasm.
no subject
Date: 2006-02-10 09:40 am (UTC)The simple case is, that whilst it wasn't especially _polite_ the Danish newspaper in question broke no laws in doing so. (Although arguably in this country we could maybe pin 'inciting religious hatred').
Incidentally, I don't like the 'anti-incitement' laws either, because they're the start of a slippery slope. But that's perhaps another rant.
no subject
Date: 2006-02-10 09:58 am (UTC)Someone should bring out an Islam for Dummies. There's way too much ignorance out there about what Islam is and isn't.
no subject
Date: 2006-02-10 10:10 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-02-13 11:03 am (UTC)