So the Georgia women’s beach volleyball team beat the Russian women’s beach volleyball team. And all i could think was, wouldn’t it have been interesting if the leaders of the respective countries (whose names I’m too lazy to spell) had staked the resolution of their disputes on the outcome.
In fact, even better: rather than rolling in tanks and blowing up terrified citizens, have the Russian and Georgia presidents square off in the wrestling ring. Settle this BS like men.
PAD
• 
Obviously, I dont speak for the entire spanish people. We have our share of racists and bigots here, and many (me included) wouldnt have done that photo… But it was done. So some people was offended? all right, sorry you were, it wasnt our intention, the gesture does not have a meaning so loaded in the spanish context (and note that I refere to context, wich include culture but also many other things)… But then for some its not enough.
And those “some” are neither the spanish chinese community (very vocal as I said) nor the chinese goverment, not even the chinese public (who cheered Spain on the maych against Germany. The ones who seem to have a problem with that are american and british journalists and, in chain, their readers. Both UK and the USA have a history with people of races other than white, of an oppresion that was perpetuated in the media. So you have your taboos. The N-word, Black Face and many other subjects that you cant touch with a teen foot pole. Its now part of the context to be taken into account. But it is not ours.
You say “I think that how such incidents are adjudicated should be determined by some consensus on how reasonable the stated offense is.” But precisely what I am adressing here is that the american media and public, in general, seem to think the consensus your society determined is the right one, period. And that I find unnaceptable.
First, because thats not the context in wich the message was emmited nor pretended to be received. And second, because nothing makes your context more valid than ours. Of course, you can dismiss the spanish people (massively supporting the spanish team…of course not all for the same reasons) as racists and ignorants. Many people here do the same with americans. I, for one, dont, because I try to understand a culture before judging whatever comes from it.
“And there are comparable slurs against spaniards. We’ve been until 30+ years ago a country of emigrants, pretty much despised by other european countries because… well, because we were poorer, shorter, hairier… There were signs saying “No Dogs or spaniards allowed” in many british pubs, french said “Africa begins in the Pirinees” and so recently as in the early nineties, spanish students could get beaten in england just because.”
I think you may be mistaken about British Pubs, during extensive research undertaken in London over the last 35 years, I’ve never seen a “No Dogs or spaniards allowed” sign. Although during the 60’s – slightly before my time – there were No dogs no Irish” signs
The main spanish emigration waves took place in the fifties and sixties… then the tourism indutry took off and the migratory flow redirected itself towards our own coasts rather than the rest of Europe. But Ive seen the signs printed somewhere…tho a fruitless internet search makes me think it might be something more anecdotical than I thought.
Ironic headline of the day, from the AP:
“Bush accuses Russia of bullying, intimidation against Georgia”
This still lags behind on the ironimeter with John McCains’s statement on Russia/Georgia:
McCain: “In The 21st Century Nations Don’t Invade Other Nations”
If sheltering intolerance is a point of pride for you, that isn’t my doing.
I never denied anyone’s account of what they’re going through, and nothing I’ve said depends on it.
Why do you allow an audience a say in what’s beautiful, but deny them a say in what’s offensive?
Western fencing is just better than Asian forms of swordsmanship, or African, or whatever, obviously.
I, for one, would welcome the addition of the katana to the Olympics. Gonna be a bìŧçh to keep the floor clean, though.
Back in the cold war the USA had many allies bordering the URSS… Turkey, Persia (with the Sha, after the coup) or Finland come to mind… The USA had planes flying out Turkey and into the URSS on a regular basis. Yet, the URSS never felt confident or cocky enough to exert direct force against anyone under the USA’s umbrella.
Georgia used to be a part of the Soviet Union. It isn’t any shock to me that Putin wants to send a message to any such breakaway republic that their autonomy depends on Russia’s whim. I don’t see that as a sign of strength though.
When Dubya looked into Putin’s eyes and got a feel for his soul, did he decide (as Decider in Chief) that actually, I dunno, maybe actually READING UP ON THE GUY, was redundant?
I’m not necessarily agreeing with Hombre Malo, but it’s true that Americans and British have some strong racial taboos that other countries don’t share.
We Brazilians, that had miscigenation from Day 1, are not as hang up on race and race politics as Americans. No forbidden words for us, and here “Negão” (that is ņìggër for us), can be a word of endearment as well as slur, depending on context, intent, inflection, circunstance, etc.
It’s not like in the US, where a white person using the word is automatically a pariah.
Race here is simply not as charged a subject.
Bill said “would welcome the addition of the katana to the Olympics. Gonna be a bìŧçh to keep the floor clean, though”
It would be a weird sport, since the silver medalist could never try for the gold again in the next games… But seriously, there’s Kendo, that have quite a following in countries like mine. They included BMX bikes in Beijing games and theres talk to include skateboard in London 2012… For 2016 (hopefully in Madrid) we might even see a hopscotch competition (its almost as universal as soccer).
Just today I found this article (Its in spanish but the important thing is the photo)
http://www.20minutos.es/noticia/405998/0/racismo/eeuu/espana/
Basically, the american team saluted like this when they received the bronze medal in the world championship in Japan. And some japanese felt offended, linking the military salute with WWII and with the presence of american military bases in japanese territory.
It is indeed a weird way to listen to your national anthem, at least in many countries… since, well, its a military salute. I realize it’s not so uncommon in other places (obviously it musnt be in the USA). Would I feel offended if done in my country? probably not. I understand many americans are very proud of their military, beyond what would be normal in my country, so I would take the gesture as a reflection of that and dismiss any other reading since I can’t know what their intention was. But still, some people got offended…does that make the gesture offensive?
But more important to my point is… were those players punished, like so many american journalists (and players like Jason Kidd) demand for the spaniards? Or is it only worth of outrage when it is an offense by american standarts?
So patriotism is demonstrated in Spain by the pulling of eyelids? The pulling of eyelids has a general meaning in Spain that doesn’t refer to Asians?
while what I say is that for a gesture to be offensive, there must be an intention to offend or mock. There is no such thing as a quintaesentially offensive gesture or word… everything depends on context and intention.
Uhm…yeah. How about Spain hosts an art exhibit called “The Life of Muhammad” which is nothing but pictures of Muhammad. And assure any radical Muslims who insist that their prophet must never be visually depicted that, hey, there is no intention to offend or mock, but instead simply to reverently and accurately depict the life of a major historical figure.
Be sure to tell me how that works out for ya.
PAD
El hombre Malo – I, for one, understand what you’re saying, and feel that you’re making the most sense of anyone in this conversation. (Which, of course, isn’t to say that the eye-pulling should be repeated now that the photographers and players know that it’s offensive… that is, if anyone in China actually was offended, rather than just western juornalists and pundits taking offense on their behalf.)
Mike… are you saying that since the american team geasture had to do with patriotism, it’s shielded from beign offensive? The spanish sign has nothing to do with patriotism, but neither was meant to be offensive. Again, you miss my point, I think intentionally… I talk about the attitudes and narrow mind showed by the american media regarding the whole incident, refusing to aknowledge intent
PAD: since the Muhammad portrayal taboo is well known and documented in Spain, I dare to say whoever hosted an exhibit like that would know he’d offend many (and not only radicals, but also moderates who wouldnt think of placing a bomb). So, he would be offensive by knowingly choosing to ignore muslim sensitivities (both extremist andmoderate alike).
In the (unlikely) case someone hosted that exhibit and didnt know at all about what that would mean to muslims, and excused afterwards… I am sure the extremists would still seek to punish him. Are you comparing the american media to muslim extremists here? because I wouldnt go that far…
does that make the gesture offensive?
No. A military salute for any country on earth today should not be viewed as offensive. I’m sure there were people in this country offended simply on the grounds that they don’t like the military. It can also be viewed as making the Games political with such a salute.
They shouldn’t have done it – none of them have been in the military anyways – but you’re trying to compare it to a racial slur, and the two situations do not compare.
Luke: people in china havent pay much attention to the wholse issue, as far as Ive been able to find. No mention of the incident in Japan Today, China daily or The korea Times… So did we offend Asians or did we offend asians from a culture in wich that gesture is considered offensive?
Craig: I compare them on two grounds… First, to ilustrate yet again how a gesture not inteded to be offensive in one context can be taken as such in other context(you dont find a military salute offensive or threatening… some do).
And second because that incident received little to no coverage in american media. And no one demanded the players to be punished. Because, like for you, the american media doesnt raise an eyebrow when seeing a military salute.
Lets compare both gestures… the spanish one was childlish and silly. You say its a racial slur and I say before reading it that way you have to consider intent first. I of course understand that such a gesture shouldnt ever be addressed to an american audience but… it wasnt. It was meant for the spanish context.
The american gesture, on the other hand, took place in Japan, before a huge crowd of japanese spectators and beign covered live by japanese TV. Japan beign a country in wich a big part of the population is publicy fed up with the presence of american military presence. A Country with whom the USA has a military history. And they do a military salute on a sports award ceremony… Again, I dont think there was an intention to offend, but in this case they didnt even asked for excuses.
Maybe because since the american media didnt bother to cover the offense, they didnt even knew they offended anyone. And thats where I see the double standarts.
I didn’t deny the account of those who took offense at the US athletes’ salute. The truth of what I’ve been saying doesn’t depend on denying anyone’s sincerity.
There’s a commercial policy that’s become common to say in the US: you break it, you buy it. You not understanding the Spanish team broke it, they bought it, is niño-like.
You asked if the US athletes and the Spanish athletes shouldn’t share in the same punishment. The eyelid-pulling has no virtue other than ridicule. So the answer to that question is no.
The American incident and the Spanish incident are dissimilar in that:
1) There was no cultural misunderstanding in the Spanish case. The gesture is not unique to Spain and its meaning is pretty much the same — a joking reference to slanted eyes. The difference is only in the perceived severity of the joke.
In the American case a positive sign in American society, the salute, was perceived as negative in a specific Japanese context.
2) In the Spanish case it should have been more easy to expect the possibilty of insult, since the meaning of the gesture is rather clear, and because in the global society we live today people should be more aware of the possibility of offence.
3) The American case was the result of a cultural misunderstanding about saluting, but since the Americans were visiting Japan perhaps more sensitivity was in order. In the Spanish case there was less of a cultural misunderstanding, but the commercial was intended for internal Spanish consumption, so this is a little bit of an excuse for Spain.
The two incidents are similar in that:
1) The people involved were not acting out of malice.
2) If anything they were guilty of being a little ignorant to possible sensitivities, and a little silly.
3) The incidents did not merit much more than a simple apology — no need for punishment; no need to inflate the issue.
4) It is necessary to distinguish between the possible minor insult and the attempt by interested parties to score points and elevate themselves by castagating others for being supposedly racist.
El Hombre Malo: “Yet they figure their pedestal high enough to pass judgement”
Yes, don’t you hate that. Its always easier to point to others than to try to fix the faults in one’s own society.
I suspect (but don’t know) that the Spanish incident did not draw attention in China or Japan because politically and culturaly speaking, Spain is not that immportant to China or Japan. If Americans or British had made the same gesture, the Chinese or Japanese media would have had a greater incentive to point to white racism, because of the political position of the US and historical reasons. On the other hand, the British media had an incentive to react because of internal European relationships.
That Chinese living in Spain did not find it offensive, or did not remark on it, might tell something about their position in Spanish society, but I don’t know what.
For the record, more than once I felt that my countrymen were being insensitive toward other countries because of provincial ignorance. In these cases I think it is right to point out the possible offence, but I wouldn’t appreciate other countries castagating us for it. In other cases the perceived insult is the result of a cultural misunderstanding (like the American-Japanese case, but not the Spanish case).
About intent: I agree that intent is not everything. If person A unintentionally says or does something that person B finds offensive, we would expect person A to apologize, and we would expect person B to accept the apology knowing that the offense was not intended. Both the offence and the intent matter.
PAD: since the Muhammad portrayal taboo is well known and documented in Spain, I dare to say whoever hosted an exhibit like that would know he’d offend many (and not only radicals, but also moderates who wouldnt think of placing a bomb). So, he would be offensive by knowingly choosing to ignore muslim sensitivities (both extremist and moderate alike).
Except why should the Muslim taboo be upon those who are not Muslim? It can be argued that they have no more right to take offense over someone else’s portrayal of Muhammad than Jews do over a cheeseburger-eating contest. The argument would be very simple: “We have no intention of offending everyone. We simply wish to put forward what we feel will be an important artistic achievement. If any Muslims feel they will find it offensive, then they shouldn’t come to the museum.”
PAD
Micha: I did find the gesture childlike myself. but they apologized… to whoever they felt they should apologize; asians who felt offended. My entire point is the portrayal of the incident in British and american media, where commentators choose not to accept the excuses and demand for punishment.
PAD: we spaniards are usually seen as a catholic country, but here is not uncommon to hear some people shout “me cago en Dios” (I šhìŧ on God) or more elaborate and crude blasphemies. Polite people choose not to use that kind of expressions at all, or at least mind their audience. I would never say that unless I was sure no one would bother… or unless I tried to offend someone who I know would feel offended.
So even if I am not muslim, I owe those muslim/jew/christians living around me the same respect I like for myself. And by the same civic rules, if I mistakenly offend them, I will apologize, but they should react to my intentions and not my ignorance. See, someone too prone to feel offended by this or that are not beign civic themselves.
You’ve gotta love it when the politically correct left rush out to defend someone from a slight or offense that the supposedly slighted or offended says didn’t bother them. I have a friend who’s daughter suffers from Cerebral Palsy. And, not being particularly politically correct, that (“suffers from”) is how I tend to say it.
My friend doesn’t take offense to this. His wife doesn’t take offense to this. And, most importantly, their daughter doesn’t take offense to this. I’ve had my ear chewed off before by people who have been offended by that phrasing though. The funny bit is that they don’t know them and, many times when the “conversation” gets to that point, it turns out that they don’t have any family or close friends who suffer from Cerebral Palsy. But it’s wrong to say that someone is “suffering from” something like that. They’re not “suffering” and to say that they are is demeaning.
Yadda, yadda, yadda…
Same thing here. This is a nothing story. The Chinese have stated that they took no offense, the team has said that they meant no offense and that should be the end of it. But the PC Police have to get their pound of flesh…
El Hombre Malo: Since the Muhammad portrayal taboo is well known and documented in Spain, I dare to say whoever hosted an exhibit like that would know he’d offend many. So, he would be offensive by knowingly choosing to ignore muslim sensitivities.
Luigi Novi: Knowing you’re going to offend someone is not the same thing as intending to.
One can know that something they’re going to do or say will offend someone of a particular sensitivity, while simultaneously believing that that level of sensitivity is wrong, because the statement/act is should not be offensive, and choose to engage in it for that very reason.
Under Taliban-ruled Afghanistan, if I created a sculpture, drew a portrait or played music, under your theory, I was deliberately intending to offend the Taliban, which is stupid.
El Hombre Malo: See, someone too prone to feel offended by this or that are not beign civic themselves.
Luigi Novi: Uh-huh. And who exactly gets to decide what constitutes being “too prone” to offense? You might be surprised to find out that individuals have the tendency to disagree on that. To continue the hypothetical example I used above, under your theory, the Taliban would have no basis for punishing me for creating art, because I had no intention to offend. To paraphrase Peter, how do you think that might work out for me? Do you think they’d leave me alone for that reason, or that I’d have my head separated from my shoulders?
“Under Taliban-ruled Afghanistan, if I created a sculpture, drew a portrait or played music, under your theory, I was deliberately intending to offend the Taliban, which is stupid.”
I disagree. If you decided to do something that you knew would offend the Taliban then you were intending to offend the Taliban. You just thought that that consideration was outweighed by others. For example: gays know that the gay pride parade offends ultra-religious people. They decide to do it anyway, partially because they want to defy the notion that being gay in public is offensive. Therefore they deliberately offend.
“under your theory, the Taliban would have no basis for punishing me for creating art, because I had no intention to offend.”
Both in Afghanistan and the US you might be condemned for doing something that is perceived by people as offensive. But in the US — in principal — you could choose to do something offensive without fearing for your life. In the US it is also believed that the consideration of offending someone is sometimes outweighed by other considerations — like in the gay pride parade example.
“Except why should the Muslim taboo be upon those who are not Muslim? It can be argued that they have no more right to take offense over someone else’s portrayal of Muhammad than Jews do over a cheeseburger-eating contest.”
The analogy doesn’t work. Muslims are offended by depictions of the Prophet because there is a taboo against depicting the prophet. Jews are not offended by cheeseburgers, since the Jewish taboo is not against cheeseburgers but against Jews eating cheeseburgers. Ultra-religious Jews are offended by Jews eating cheeseburgers, but in most cases they learned to live with the offense. Jews sometimes get offended by other things close to their hearts, though threats of violence when offended are a little less common than when Muslims take offense.
I don’t understand this conversation at all. Every culture has different taboos. Nobody expects everyon in every culture to check everything they might do against every other culture before they do it.
Why is this such an extended debate? This really doesn’t seem that complicated.
Because, like for you, the american media doesnt raise an eyebrow when seeing a military salute.
Again, you’re trying to compare a military salute to a racial slur. There is no comparison. The only time I think any reasonable person would think a military salute is inherently offensive is if it were a Nazi salute.
There is certainly something to be said about making something out of nothing – this is generally where you can apply the line of thought that anything you say or do will offend somebody somewhere. Right now, I’m probably pìššìņg somebody off on Fiji. Can’t do much about it though.
And maybe this will shock you to the core of your being, but I’m not asking for the Spanish basketball players to be published.
I find the whole thing as silly as I do offensive, and I agree with US basketball player Jason Kidd that there’s a double standard at play. If an American did this, the uproar would be well beyond the attention the Spanish have received. But I’m not calling for those Spanish players who play in the NBA to be suspended or anything.
But as I’ve said from the start, trying to apply your own standards to something much of the rest of the world views as offensive as a defense to say you did nothing wrong isn’t going to work. The world knows that the gesture is a racial slur; why doesn’t Spain?
Craig, how do you know that “The world knows that the gesture is a racial slur”?
Do you know that it is a slur in Egypt? How about France, Russia, Iraq, and Fiji? Have you seen evidence that this is considered to be a slur in Brazil, Panama, Korea, and Chad? Even in Chile, Denmark, Sweden, and Greece?
It seems to me that you’re just assuming the rest of the world agrees with you.
Craig, you’re telling him not to apply his own standards to other people, but you’re applying your standards to other people. Spaniards made a gesture in a Spanish newspaper. That’s not a case of Spanish people applying their standards to others.
Let me put this another way. Can you tell me why this movie poster should not be used in America?
http://members.tripod.com/makeitsomarketing/PICKUNGFUPANDAFORBLOG.jpg
Micha: I disagree. If you decided to do something that you knew would offend the Taliban then you were intending to offend the Taliban.
Luigi Novi: No.
You do not know what my motives or intents are.
I say I simply wanted to enjoy some music or draw. Drawing is what I love to do, after all. If I’m drawing because I feel I have the right to, and anyone who’s so unreasonable to be offended by it should simply mind their own business, that is not an “intention” to offend.
Micha: For example: gays know that the gay pride parade offends ultra-religious people. They decide to do it anyway, partially because they want to defy the notion that being gay in public is offensive. Therefore they deliberately offend.
Luigi Novi: Wrong again. Gays are too numerous for you to be able to arbitrarily declare what the mindset of each and every one of them is. People are diverse, and have diverse reasons for doing things like this. Sure, some may want to offend. Many others may simply see that as a demonstration of pride.
Conclusions in matters of fact are based on evidence. You have no evidence what my or gays’ motives are for doing things, but simply arbitrarily declare by fiat what their motives are based on your own whims.
Craig: “But as I’ve said from the start, trying to apply your own standards to something much of the rest of the world views as offensive as a defense to say you did nothing wrong isn’t going to work. The world knows that the gesture is a racial slur; why doesn’t Spain?”
Well… in Spain is not a racial slur. Neither in China, Japan or Korea, given the attention their media devoted to the issue. So far only british and american media (and public, I guess) find it offensive… And thats my point from the beggining: American media has thought from the beggining to assume their standarts are the world’s. And it seems you too.
And I never tried to apply my standarts, I just wanted for others not to shove theirs down my troath. Lets remember we are talking about something done by spaniards for a spanish company and was published in a spanish newspaper. Why is american media (and you) insisting your standarts are the only ones mattering?
Craig: “The only time I think any reasonable person would think a military salute is inherently offensive is if it were a Nazi salute.”
Well, maybe the people from a country defeated by arms and with foreign military troops in their soil can feel offended. There are countries where any kind of military reference in a public, civilian event is due to irate a percetange of the population… like in mine. See, context is inportant.
Luigi: “who exactly gets to decide what constitutes being “too prone” to offense?”
If someone finds offense in acts or words not meant to be offenssive and pursue punishment after excuses have been given, thats uncivic behavior or, at least, bad manners. At least I was raised that way.
In the Taliban example… you have a people who have replaced all manners of civic behaviour by strict interpretation of religious law by a few selected individuals. They dont even stop to be offended, because they pursue perceived offenses to God itself (as if). I dont see how is it a valid paralelism.
Unless, as you say, you traveled there with the purpose of doing something their laws forbid. As stupid their laws were, your act would be ilegal, and your attitude would be deliberatly offensive to them because… you said it, you were behaving as if their laws/sensibility dont matter. I would probably back you if you did that, it would be a suicidal yet brave gesture…because there is much to be said about the value of deliberate offense in political discourse. But then thats entirely another discussion.
I think in the gay pride parades the right world might be “challenge” instead of “offend”.
And regarding drawing and the Taliban, Luigi… if you took a plane to Kabul with the intention of drawing a portrait (its human and animal figure they forbid to prevent idolatry… landscapes, dead natures or geometric patterns are fine) youd be challenging their laws and status quo. If you simply started to draw because you didnt knew what their laws were, there wouldnt be any challenge. In both cases some people would feel offended. But I am guessing the first case would offend more people, because of a perceived sense of superiority in a foreigner who decides to “teach” them a lesson. Still, as I said earlier, there are many lessons worth teaching.
El Hombre Malo: Unless, as you say, you traveled there with the purpose of doing something their laws forbid. As stupid their laws were, your act would be ilegal, and your attitude would be deliberatly offensive to them because… you said it, you were behaving as if their laws/sensibility dont matter.
Luigi Novi: Wrong. Engaging in an act that one knows by rights should not be offensive, but which would be taken as offensive by someone, does not constitute a deliberate intent to offend. To argue this is a non sequitur. Such an act could simply constitute an act of protest.
Again. I make a movie without any intention on my part to offend, but which I know will be seen by some as offensive. Under your logic, this is a deliberate intention on my part to offend, because, as you reason, mere knowledge that someone else finds it offensive constitutes intent to do so on my part, which, I’m sorry, does not logically follow.
Luigi, I’m afraid I haven’t made myself clear, and you completely misunderstood my position. But you are not being completely logical either.
1) You talk as if there is an objective criteria of what is offensive
2) If you do something that you know will offend someone, than you choose to offend, and then how can you claim that you did not intend to offend?
3) I think the crucial point is this distinction:
Sometimes people do something they know might offend someone for the purpose of provoking or challenging the offended party. That is, they use the sense of offence for a purpose. They definitely intend to offend.
At other times people might do something they know is offensive to some people, not because they seek to provoke them, but because of another consideration, for example, for the enjoyment of another group of people who are not offended. In this case we would say that their promary intention was not to offend, but that they chose to do it despite being aware that others might be offended.
The gay pride parade is at the same time a (effective and justified in my opinion) challenge to those who view homosexuality as offensive, and a form of entertainment for many homosexuals and heterosexuals who don’t find it offensive at all. In eithe case, people in democratic societies assume (rightfully in my opinion) that the right of gays to hold the parade outweighs any offense others might feel. However, although we personally find their sense of offence unjustified, and would hope it will disappear, there is no denying that people do feel offended.
I don’t agree that the gesture made by the Spanish players has different meaning in Spain than it does in the US. I do think people in the US — for internal political and cultural reasons — feel the need to be more cautious about this kind of possible offense. I also think that if the same gesture was made by americans there would have been greater condemnation . I think if Spain would have been more vocal on Tibet or had colonial history in the far east (beyond the philipines), then there would have been more outrage from Chinese spokespeople.
All right, that is true. If you are an afghan and draw a portrait under taliban rule you are not trying to offend but either exercising what you think are your rights or even challenging the status quo.
But that still doesnt apply in the exhibit example (from wich this weird spinoff derived).
Assumed a complete freedom of speech (there are some nebulous laws about blasphemy in Spain but last year I saw a publicy funded photo exhibit with photos of Jesus beign gáņg báņgëd by roman leggionaries and things like that… oh boy did that offend some here), there is still the fact that Muhammad is a sacred figure for every muslim, extremist and moderate. A public use of his figure in a way they deem unproper is offensive if done with the intent to challenge their religious status quo. There is room to argue wether such challenge is meaningful enough to be worthy but I personally prefer to touch other people dogma and symbols from a teen foot pole unless they affect the whole of my society. IE: I would challenge catholic idea of marriage as they try to impose it as the only one, but I would never bother to desecrate the holy form like PZ Myers did in Minnesotta, because their belief in transubstation doesnt affect society.
The taboo regarding portrayals of Muhammad is not worth a challenge (in my oppinion) because, by its mere futility it can be clearly seen as an atack towards muslims not for what they do or how they interact with the rest of society, but simply for beign muslims. And I can udnerstand why many can feel offended, extremists andmoderates. That doesnt mean I would support any kind of ban or punishment for that kind of expressions.
“Engaging in an act that one knows by rights should not be offensive”
But isn’t this culturally mediated?
Take the slang word “Fanny” – it has a different meaning here, than it does in the USA. Use it here in the wrong company (eg in front of your Nanna and you’ll likely be in trouble).
El Hombre Malo: You talk as if there is an objective criteria of what is offensive
Luigi Novi: I do not.
El Hombre Malo: If you do something that you know will offend someone, than you choose to offend, and then how can you claim that you did not intend to offend?
Luigi Novi: I just answered this question above.
Doing something that you know will offend someone does NOT mean that you “intend” to offend, and I explained the flaw in this idea above.
El Hombre Malo: At other times people might do something they know is offensive to some people, not because they seek to provoke them, but because of another consideration, for example, for the enjoyment of another group of people who are not offended. In this case we would say that their promary intention was not to offend, but that they chose to do it despite being aware that others might be offended.
Luigi Novi: You would say that that is not their “primary” intention. I would say that we do not know if it is their intention at all.
The main difference being that I can be assured that my statement is correct, if for no other reason that it is a Socratic admission that I do not claim to have knowledge that I do not actually have, whereas you continue to pretend that you can read people’s minds by mere fiat.
You are awnsering Micha, not me.
And I dont think I (or Micha) ever suggested we can read people’s mind. Every example I’ve given I have either thought the best of every one’s intention or (if fictional) provided those intentions as part of the example.
Regarding the primitive case at hand (the spanish team gesture) I cant read anyone’s mind, but I think neither the company (Seur, who actually delivers in China too) nor the advertisement company had beign offensive among their goals when they devised that ad. And the team basically did what their sponsor asked them to do. Of course, since I cant read mind, there might be a chance that this was all a big scheme to publicy mock asians around the world, devised by evil masterminds and perpetrated by a team of very tall evil doers…
…but beign the happy, naive person that I am, I choose to thing better of everyone until proven wrong.
Or until I get my mind reading powers back.
Dude, do you even know any Chinese people? Are you under the impression the Chinese government speaks for all the Chinese people everyone reading this knows? Because that’s what you’re saying.
And your friend Bill Mulligan claimed to take offense for homophobia no gay reader here backed him up on. Why the selective application of principle?
Luigi,
1) I don’t really understand the hostile tone of your posts.
2) In order to read minds I use a very simple tool used by humans since the beginning of time — I look at their actions. In this case the act of doing something which is known to be offensive indicates either that the person in question intends to offend or that he does not care enough not to offend (perhaps for good reason).
3) Ultimately we are dealing here with semantics:
is knowingly choosing to offend equal to intending to offend.
You say that it does not equal, since, although you knowingly chose to offend, this was not the actual purpose of your act.
I have no problem with that. But I do think a person who offend in this way should own up to the conscious choice to offend. A person who knowingly offends cannot claim the ignorance that the Spanish and American athletes can, even if he did not ‘intend’ to offend in the sense you present, and even if we would say that the offended party is wrong to be offended.
Luigi,
1) I don’t really understand the hostile tone of your posts.
2) In order to read minds I use a very simple tool used by humans since the beginning of time — I look at their actions. In this case the act of doing something which is known to be offensive indicates either that the person in question intends to offend or that he does not care enough not to offend (perhaps for good reason).
3) Ultimately we are dealing here with semantics:
is knowingly choosing to offend equal to intending to offend.
You say that it does not equal, since, although you knowingly chose to offend, this was not the actual purpose of your act.
I have no problem with that. But I do think a person who offend in this way should own up to the conscious choice to offend. A person who knowingly offends cannot claim the ignorance that the Spanish and American athletes can, even if he did not ‘intend’ to offend in the sense you present, and even if we would say that the offended party is wrong to be offended.
So… you aren’t taking Euros from anyone? Holding out against the new continental standard, are you?
…funny.
That standart was’nt imposed. A proof of that is that not all EU countries changed their currency to Euros, just the ones who wanted.
Ok.
So as far as we know Spain resists all imposed standards. Fine. I understand that now.
Well, the foreign journalists are simply following your example, living by their own standards, and advocating everyone associated with the photo be denied international privileges.
But no one is threatening to invade Spain to impose a new standard on you. What do you want other than for things to be the way they already are now?
“Dude, do you even know any Chinese people? Are you under the impression the Chinese government speaks for all the Chinese people everyone reading this knows? Because that’s what you’re saying.”
As far as the Chinese government speaking for all Chinese national citizens, actually I do think the government does speak for them. Or at least, that’s what the government would say. This is the same government that just impounded 300 Christian Bibles, so controlling what it’s citizens think and say is something that’s pretty much documented fact at this point.
I wouldnt talk about Spain, but about myself, Mike… And I do bend to standarts I dont share on a multitude of situations, as I am sure you do.
But this case is not about spanish resisting an international standart… because American and british media are not “the world”. Is that the problem for you, Mike? that we dont share your standarts?
The fact is you are probably oblivious to many gestures, words or cliches in your media that would be deemed offensive by other foreign countries if people were to apply only their own standarts. Like you do. Fortunately, most people is not like that.
It seems to me that you’re just assuming the rest of the world agrees with you.
You’re right, I am, and I shouldn’t. But on the other hand, Malo also shouldn’t assume there’s some grand conspiracy by the media against Spain, either.
In the end, if an American soccer player went to play for a Spanish soccer club, knew some phrase was offensive to the Spanish, and then came back to the States and used that phrase knowing the consequences, then a backlash shouldn’t surprise anybody. And that’s what you end up with with those Spanish basketball players that play in the NBA. So, imo, there’s plenty of double standards at play here.
“In the end, if an American soccer player went to play for a Spanish soccer club, knew some phrase was offensive to the Spanish, and then came back to the States and used that phrase knowing the consequences, then a backlash shouldn’t surprise anybody.”
When has that ever happened? You say it like it is established fact, but when has that ever happened? Coming up with a hypothetical situation where things work out as you expect is not the same thing proving your point.
Again, look at this poster.
http://members.tripod.com/makeitsomarketing/PICKUNGFUPANDAFORBLOG.jpg
There’s something in that poster that’s offensive to a significant portion of people in the world. Movie makers know it is offensive to them because another poster with the same thing got in a lot of trouble when it was used in another country. There was no trouble with that earlier poster in America, though, and there was no trouble with this one in America, either.
Americans do things that would be offensive to people in other countries *constantly*. They’re even done by people who’ve been to those other countries and know that those other peoples would have a problem with it, but they still do it here and there’s no outcry.
I dont assume a conspiracy… I talk about the portrayal I’ve seen. Most media simply reproduce the Associated Press texts, wich is pretty neutral, but sport and general columnists in NY Times, LA Times or The Huffingtong Post (or the ones in Yahoo.com olimpic coverage) showed pretty much a position I also found here.
If I believed in a conspiracy I would have mentioned Chicago and Madrid are competing to host the 2016 Games (like some spanish columnists have done, erroneously in my opinion). I believe, instead, in a tentendcy to consider the USA as the center of the world (and in some ways, it is), and to consider American values and sensitivities as the norm others have to adapt to.
Regarding the spanish players in the NBA… those players were in Spain posing for a spanish audience. Even if they knew certain gestures are seen as rude in the USA or Canada, they were in a spanish context. They were not trying to offend anyone, and the gesture is innocent here. In your example… if that american player uses a phrase he learned to be offensive in Spain but that holds a different meaning in the USA, he wouldnt be offending anyone if he uses it in an american context.
What you suggest is that, since they learned about the insulting meaning the sign carries in your context, they can never use it again in the spanish context (and since you say it, I will assume its the kind of thing you talk about often in the USA… I lived for some time in Los Angeles, fostered by a Japanese-American family, and it was never mentioned). In other words, your context comes first, in any place of the world.
There is the issue of the leonine contracts players sign with NBA, but that has nothing to do with actual offense and much more with the letter of the law. If the NBA has to punish them becaus ethe statutes say so, so be it… they knew what they were signing. But that doesnt make the gesture offensive, just against the norms of the bussines they work for.
I think people really don’t realize what they’re suggesting here.
We’ve got people arguing that all the taboos in America are known throughout the world and should be honored throughout the world.
Then we’ve got some people who are slightly more reasonable. They’re arguing that if someone spends a few years in America, then he definitely knows all the American taboos and should abide by them even when he leaves America.
That’s actually what’s being suggested. But I don’t think anyone here actually believes that. I think people started off laughing at or annoyed with the Spanish players, which is reasonable if you don’t know the context. Then they found out the context, but felt like they had to justify their earlier opinions.
So the war of semantics started. People tried to pick out every little bit of difference between words like “offence” and “protest” while others set up hypothetical situations about different taboos, situations that were so different they didn’t even have a clear message about this situation. Proving some kind of point became more important than actually saying anything about morality.
Half of the arguments I’ve read against El hombre Malo actually sound like they’re supporting his position. That’s how confusing this has gotten.
I say this conversation is a lost cause.
El Hombre Malo: You are awnsering Micha, not me.
Luigi Novi: Sorry about that.
El Hombre Malo: And I dont think I (or Micha) ever suggested we can read people’s mind.
Luigi Novi: Of course you didn’t explicitly suggest that you could read people’s minds. No one ever explicitly suggests ridiculous ideas that are inherent to flawed arguments; It is that these are the ideas that are inferred from them, which is why people like me point them out. To argue that you can gauge someone’s intent from a mere act (or even from the combination of that act and the knowledge that they knew that some would find it offensive) implies either that human being’s thought processes are so rigid so as to be that predictable and easily categorizable, or that you can read people’s minds. Both notions are ridiculous, but only when you spell it out as such. People typically don’t do so when they express them implicitly.
El Hombre Malo: …but beign the happy, naive person that I am, I choose to thing better of everyone until proven wrong.
Luigi Novi: Declaring, arbitrarily, by mere fiat, that someone intends to be offensive merely if they know that someone will be offended by something they do—as if there aren’t other possible motives on their part for doing it aside from this—is hardly thinking better of someone until proven wrong.
Micha: Luigi, I don’t really understand the hostile tone of your posts.
Luigi Novi: Sorry, I didn’t intend to convey one, or realize that they exhibited one.
Micha: In order to read minds I use a very simple tool used by humans since the beginning of time — I look at their actions.
Luigi Novi: But the problem with your “looking” is that you arbitrarily glom onto one specific motive/intent, one that is casts the communicator in an inherently malicious light, to the exclusion of any other possible intents, as if there aren’t any. Are you seriously arguing that if you have merely two criteria—the commission of an act that someone finds offensive, and the knowledge beforehand on the part of the communicator that someone may or would find it as such—that you can therefore conclude a deliberate intent to offend, and that no other possible intentions exist? If so, then perhaps you lack a sense or imagination, or suffer from the human tendency to sometimes jump to judgments, an act that says a lot more about your own state of mind than it does about the hypothetical communicator that you’re judging.
If I’m wrong in this regard, then why have you or El Hombre Malo not responded to the alternative motives that I suggested above, if only to explain to me why they’re not valid as possibilities? Perhaps you didn’t read my posts carefully enough or something, and since I sometimes make such mistakes, I’ll cut you some slack. (Hëll, I attributed your statements to El Hombre in my last post above, so mea culpas all around.) So what I’ll do know is repeat one of my examples:
Kevin Smith makes a film called Dogma. It is religious-themed, and is filled with adult language, themes, and potty humor. He knows some people will be offended by it. He knows that many people who constitute his audience will not. Sure enough, his fans like it, but others protest it. He did not intend to offend those protestors, but figured that they could simply opt not to go see it. Nonetheless, that doesn’t satisfy them, because those prone to censor, in their zeal, object to the mere existence of something that they don’t like. So in this scenario, we have both criteria: An act that offended, and the knowledge on the part of the communicator that some indeed would be. But at the same time, we can accept as reasonable Smith’s assertion that it was not his intention to offend; He simply didn’t make the movie for them, and can’t help it if they insist on being offended anyway instead of just ignoring the film.
Thus, your theory that a deliberate intent to offend must be present where those two criteria are present is proven false.
Micha: Ultimately we are dealing here with semantics: is knowingly choosing to offend equal to intending to offend. You say that it does not equal, since, although you knowingly chose to offend, this was not the actual purpose of your act.
Luigi Novi: Micha, the only person who has brought up this notion of whether “knowingly choosing” and “intending” are the same thing is you. The two phrases are indeed identical, and nowhere in my prior posts did I ever mention them as distinct. My point has been that knowing that you’re going to offend does not equate with intending to do so, because one may have other, completely separate motives apart from this, and the offense, therefore, may be an emergent by-product of the act.
I really don’t think this has anything to do with American or Spanish taboos.
The spanish athletes did something which at worst was potentially slightly insensitive toward oriental people (is that the PC term). They didn’t do it out of malice, they just didn’t consider the possibility. They apologized and this should have been the end of it. The rest is not really about the actual event, and more about other non-related issues.