So what did Kyle actually say?
See, in watching the 201st episode of “South Park,” I just figured the over-the-top use of bleeping out dialogue, up to and including Kyle’s lengthy “I learned something today” speech, was a brilliant meta-commentary by the “South Park” creators on the nature of censorship run amok. Turns out, no, it actually WAS censorship run amok. Kyle delivered an entire summary of what he had learned regarding the nature of hatred and intolerance, and the entire thing really was censored by Comedy Central even though it made no mention of any inflammatory names.
So I’m really curious to know what he said.
PAD
• 
That’s the curious byproduct of censorship; just what WAS said? Just what WAS so bad? Often it’s nothing quite as bad as our imaginations make it out to be.
Cartoon Network used to play with this by censoring various verbs and nouns from old Super Friends animations, and thus, making them sound very raunchy and filthy.
(worth stating that it was the “Adult swim” segment of Cartoon Network)
As does the the YouTube hit “The Count Censored”.
Look it up. You’ll never look at Count von Count the same.
Hëll, South Park did that joke themselves back in the first episode, when Kyle rips into the aliens after his “I’ve learned something today” speech fails to convince them to give back Ike. About a full minute of completely *bleeped* speech.
Matt and Trey said that Comedy Central won’t even allow them to show the original on their own website (where all other SP episodes are shown), so it wouldn’t surprise me if Comedy Central was throwing their weight around to point of threatening Matt and Trey if they even discuss the deleted content in detail. Comedy Central really seems scared over this. This may have reached a crisis point; I wouldn’t be completely surprised if South Park goes web-only at some point, or if they abandon it for a web-only project. Then they’ll be in a position to say to any networks that are interested, “You want it? Take it as is or not at all.”
.
I’d actually like to see a “That’s My Bush” style series featuring Mohammed (“That’s My Mohammed”?). I can definitely see them doing a series like that as a huge middle finger to the extremists.
.
And I was very disappointed when I told one of my friends about the whole Theo Van Gogh thing, and then the South Park episode, and her reaction was “Why would they make that episode if they knew someone already got killed over this sort of thing?” I really hope that isn’t the sentiment in the country at large; I hope we haven’t gotten so cowardly that we’ve forgotten the meaning of the words “Give me liberty or give me death.”
I don’t see Matt and Trey doing anything to suspend South Park. They’ve never had significant outside of that show. After one of their movies didn’t do very well, they said that people just want to see Stan, Kyle, Kenny, and Cartman, not them. So they know that South Park is probably the best job they’ll ever have. I’d expect Comedy Central to have all kinds of contracts to keep them from shopping it elsewhere.
.
I also doubt that Matt and Trey are going to react too harshly over this. The last time this happened was with the Family Guy episode about Mohamed. They said that they understood Comedy Central’s position on censoring the image of him. I doubt they liked it, but they said they understood.
That’s not the tone they’re taking this time. Their statement:
.
“In the 14 years we’ve been doing South Park we have never done a show that we couldn’t stand behind. We delivered our version of the show to Comedy Central and they made a determination to alter the episode. It wasn’t some meta-joke on our part. Comedy Central added the bleeps. In fact, Kyle’s customary final speech was about intimidation and fear. It didn’t mention Muhammad at all but it got bleeped too. We’ll be back next week with a whole new show about something completely different and we’ll see what happens to it.”
Actually Matt, that statement doesn’t seem all that different.
.
We know what these guys sound like when they’re pìššëd, and it’s not nearly that cordial. They’re making it clear that Comedy Central made the changes, but they’re not insulting them for it or anything.
.
At the end of their statement they say they’ll be back next week and they’ll see what happens from there. So they’re not making any promises, but it seems extremely likely that the next episode will air without problems and everything will go back to normal.
.
The truth is, Comedy Central has given these guys a ridiculous amount of leeway over the years. Who is going to give them more, HBO? Since this wasn’t even a sensitivity concern, but a safety concern from the network, it’s not guaranteed that even HBO would have acted differently. When people are making veiled threats and advertising the addresses of their employees, that can make anyone nervous.
.
There’s no real advantage in Matt and Trey bolting from Comedy Central. They have very little odds of finding a network that will be as good to them and they understand that.
Actually, I don’t we ever have seen them pìššëd; we’ve seen them mocking lots of times, but that’s different. This is the first time I’ve seen them deadly serious, without a trace of humor.
I’ve seen them pìššëd in interviews. This isn’t what it sounds like.
.
They’re serious because it’s a serious subject. The important thing is that they’re not saying anything bad about Comedy Central, they’re not even saying that CC was wrong to do what they did. They’re saying that they made the show they wanted to make and CC is responsible for the changes, but they didn’t say that CC shouldn’t have done that.
.
If they were angry enough about what had happened to do something like leave the network, there wouldn’t be any discussion, we’d all know it.
I’d put money on it that when the time comes to renew their contract, they won’t. But we shall see.
if you attempt to view the video for Episode 200 (the first part) on Southparkstudios.com it says something about contractual obligations, and the show won’t be available until May 15th. I’m hoping that means both parts becomes available, as the second part was almost unwatchable with all the bleeps.
Unfortunately, no, that’s not what it means. They had the original version up, but then they had to yank it because Comedy Central made the changes. When they get it back up it will be the version that aired with the additional bleeps.
Well, this is the first I’ve heard about any of this. (I have no cable.) It’s hard to imagine what South Park could’ve done to be censored this severely. (One might think after seeing the NAMBLA episode that they could get away with anything.)
I really want to see this now.
.
Apparently the flap, in the short version, is that the gags centered around Mohammed being depicted and that they would show Mohammed in a bear suit on the show. A radical group’s website declared that Matt and Trey would meet the same fate as Theo Van Gogh who was murdered back in 2004 for much the same thing.
.
See here.
.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yh4mi2Ea_7o
This whole thing just puts a huge point on why this crap over Mohammed is so effing absurd.
.
They show a bear suit and *claim* that Mohammed is inside… and there are death threats as a result.
.
Is it any wonder that many people consider Islam a religion of violence and hatred?
I would point out that Theo Van Gogh wasn’t murdered for depicting the Prophet Muhammad, like in the Danish editorial cartoons incident, where a Danish newspaper printed twelve editorial cartoon depicting Mohammad.
Van Gogh’s “crime” against Islam, as it were, was in making the film Submission, about the role of women in Muslim society and the violence against them that is sanctioned by the Qu’ran. Qu’ranic verses are written on women in the film; Muslims would find this offensive because the verses are being taken out of what they consider to be the proper context.
Muslims take the Qu’ran very seriously. It’s not just a holy book, it is literally the word of god. Translations of the Qu’ran are no longer the Qu’ran. God can only be understood through the ancient Arabic that is the language of the Qu’ran. The textual criticism that Christians take for granted in approaching the Bible simply isn’t permitted with the Qu’ran; to even suggest that the Qu’ran isn’t the word of god given to Muhammad is blasphemy.
In that respect, Revolution Muslim was incorrect to equate South Park with Van Gogh’s Submission. Matt and Trey weren’t misappropriating the Qu’ran (as video games Kakuto Chojin and Little Big Planet did by incorporating Qu’ranic verses into background music). They were, instead, mocking depictions of the Prophet Muhammad, which is more in line with what the Danish editorial cartoonists did.
They were, instead, mocking depictions of the Prophet Muhammad,
.
It’s not just mocking depictions, *any* visual depiction of Muhammad is prohibited. No cartoons, paintings, sculptures, anything. That’s part of why South Park showed other deities snorting coke and watching internet pørņ, they wanted to point out that a perfectly nice depiction of Muhammad was considered massively worse than a terrible depiction of other religious icons.
.
Here’s the fun part: The prohibition on visual depictions isn’t even in the Qur’an. It’s not even prohibited by all Muslims, Shi’a generally accept respectful depictions of Muhammed.
.
So this isn’t even a sin, abstaining from it is just a tradition practiced by *some* Muslims.
Allyn–
Perhaps you should meet many of the Christians around here. To even suggest that the Bible isn’t the literal Word of God is blasphemy to them, as well. (The only difference is that many believe the translations are the direct word as well, at least the translations they like.)
Grats Comedy Central, on handing the terrorists yet another victory.
Of course, on the other hand, if terrorists then blow up Comedy Central HQ or gun down Jon Stewart or Stephen Colbert, people would excoriate Comedy Central for “allowing” people to die just to put on a cartoon.
.
PAD
Yeah.
.
Just heard on NPR that tech people from some airlines (Virgin is the one i recall) and other aviation experts are now saying that the EU needlessly grounded all or most of the flights that were grounded over the volcano; that it was Perfectly Safe.
.
Wonder what the same people would be saying if the EU hadn’t grounded everything and even just one jet had fallen out of the sky…
…but that would be “censorship, pure and simple.”, right?
May 20th is “Everybody Draw Mohammed Day”. C’mon! If we ALL do it there will be too many of us to kill! It doesn’t have to be anything offensive–you don’t have to show him having sex with a 9 year old or anything.
.
Otherwise…how long before other groups figure out that the easiest way to get what you want is to just kill a few people and make a few threats? Too many corporations will bow to the pressure, too many artists will chicken out (and go after targets that don’t punch back with knives, while congratulating themselves on their edginess), too many pundits will blame the victims for bringing it on themselves. We have the numbers, lets use it.
I agree. It makes me sad and pìššëd øff. If you value the dignity of a dámņ old book more than the lives of two human beings, you’re barbaric scum.
Obviously it’s not just fear of reprisal. It’s fear of appearing racist and “imperialistic.” Moral cowardice is stronger that physical cowardice.
To me, it should have nothing to do with raceo or imperialism. People shouldn’t tolerate any of this crazy authoritarian crap disguised as religion. From anyone. Whether it is a Catholic Church shielding pedophiles for decades to protect the Church’s good name or Islamists threatening to kill people to protect the Prophet’s good name or whatever. All the same to me.
Individual lives are more important than your faith’s good name, dámņìŧ! It’s disgusting how crazy people can be and how ethically bankrupt individuals can hid behind faith to justify any monstrosity.
I was on the fence about France’s renewed efforts to banish the burka. My libertarian leanings telling me people should be allowed to wear what they want, my secular and feminist leanings telling me it’s intimidation and male hypocrisy that females should bear the burden of covering themselves to avoid “tempting” males. But you know what, I’m starting to believe the French got it right.
The “Prime Directive” be dámņëd. Basic human rights trumps respect for other people’s cultures.
” But you know what, I’m starting to believe the French got it right.”
.
The french got it all wrong. Its one thing to forbid full veils, wich can be a security cocern, and something very different to go against the hiyab. The hiyab (that is the head cover) the french laws forbid in any public institution is much less a matter of religion and more of a modesty one. Less than 50 years ago, women in many christian mediterranean countries would wear the same garments. Many womenin rural areas of Spain, Italy, Greece still do… For them is just a matter of modesty, of proper attire. As education and industrialization spread, modesty standarts relax. You can see a lot of women without hiyab on moroccan, egyptian or argelian TV, and as far as Ive been told, that applies to major cities. But inmigrants usually come from rural areas where the hiyab is simply “the proper way to dress”. Once in europe, many women stop wearing it while other still feel unconfortable without covering their heads.
.
And thats the key… their disconfort might come from a social construct with no meaning for me or you, but it is still real disconfort. It is the same as me demanding a woman from the bible belt to expose her breasts if she is in an spanish beach. Me demanding you to remove a piece of clothing is paternalistic (I am trying to “save” that woman from her modesty standarts) and an infringement on her personal liberties. It is a blunt statement of my assumed moral superiority.
.
In the last local ellections in France there was a Troskist candidate that was an educated, independent woman of moroccan descent who also wore an hiyab as an identitarian garment. Who am I, or anyone, to demand her to remove it and how does that improve in any way the situation of muslim women. Much to the contrary, it equate them with infants unable to decide how they should dress.
I was refering to the burka, of course. The the head-to-toe cover thingie.
What are your thoughts on the burka?
Another question: would you consider a husband physically striking his wife for showing disrespect to him a social construct that you can’t demand a stop to for fear of being paternalistic?
What are the limits between freely-chosen identitarian statements and outright oppression by males enforced by social ostracizing and – in many cases – physical intimidation?
Another question: would you consider a husband physically striking his wife for showing disrespect to him a social construct that you can’t demand a stop to for fear of being paternalistic?
.
I don’t think there’s any use in comparing those two things. A piece of clothing and an act of violence are too different to be judged by the same standards.
I dont like the burka, and as I said, I think it can be regulated on security concerns alone. In many countries there were laws about covering your face in public much prior to migration beign an issue of consideration. But burkas are not the issue in France, the hiyab is. And the hiyab is a head scarf that totally or partially (because that’s a-la-mode) covers the woman’s hair. Much like my grand-aunt in rural southeastern Spain wore until she died. Out of modesty. And 15 years after she died, you wont find any woman under 60 wearing it in that very same town. Now, my Chacha wasnt even a religious woman, beign married to my Chache, a communist who fought in the civil war and spat every time a certain priest walked around the corner. But she dressed the way women dressed in that time and place, and she would have felt unconfortable in any other clothes. And why should have her.
.
The first thing most christians did whenever on a foreign land was to demand everyone to adapt to their level of modesty. Up to the XX century, christian misionaries have been demanding women in africa or the amazonian forest to cover their breasts. It’s breast-covering a religious mandate? Should I free women from that chauvinistic, relligiously driven imposition on their attires? Or is it maybe just a modesty standart that religious zealots try to impose on others? If no one demands that southern baptist Mrs. Thompson bare her breasts when she visit Cannes’ beach, why is it admisible to exclude from public life any women that covers her head? (and not just any cover but any cover that we find too exotic and foreign). Even more important… how does exclusion from public life help muslim women to integrate in western societies? Doesnt that make them more dependent on their husbands/fathers/brothers?
.
Regarding domestic abuse… well, there you have laws that apply to everyone and doesnt specifically target any group. It is illegal to beat your wife/husband/daughter/son. Period. It applies to christians, muslims, zoroastrian… It’s not an identitarian issue. And the more independent women become, through free access to education and work, the easier for them to denounce and have their aggressors punished. Now tell me, how do you think preventing hiyab wearing girls from attending school help them achieve economic and moral independence?
.
The whole hiyab issue in France, very much like the minarets in switzerland, is more a problem of tolerance for the foreign elements in our societies than real concern for progress or personal rights. Its simple xenophobia from the extreme right that have hijacked feminist/liberal discourse for their own ends. Very succesfully I might add. In the end it all comes down to this question; Have I the right to go to a woman and tell her to show me her hair?
.
If the awnser is “yes”, where does that right ends?
In my area there are Christians who wear the hijab, although they don’t call it that. I’m not certain what Church they belong to; I think it’s some variation of Mennonite. But all females, young and old, wear long dresses, long sleeves, and white scarves covering their hair. The males dress conservatively, but not in any distinctive way. I often see them when I go to town.
Would you ban their scarves, Rene? Or are they different somehow?
What about nuns? In some states in Germany, the hajib is banned in all schools, and the primary excuse is that schools are a branch of the Government and that permitting a distinctive religious form of dress would amount to a tacit Government promotion of that religion, particularly in the case of teachers, who are state employees. Yet, in Catholic schools (which are approved and funded by the state, as is standard in Europe) many classes are taught by nuns, in full headdress, and sometimes a full-body habit. As teachers in state-funded schools, they are considered state employees, and yet, nobody objects to their distinctive religious dress.
I cannot help but feel that, no matter how they may justify it, the recent laws regarding clothing (and minarets in Switzerland, where nobody objects to church steeples) are nothing more than harassment of a hated minority. Sheer bigotry, nothing more.
.
How would feel if a significant number of traditional Tuareg immigrated to your area? They’re a Muslim tribe from the Sahel, and the men traditional wear blue robes covering their entire bodies, including a veil over the face, while the women normally have bare faces, arms, and at least until recently, breasts. Would you object to their mode of dress as well, or would it be less offensive since the females are not the ones ‘bearing the burden’ as you said.
I was just wondering.
How would feel if a significant number of traditional Tuareg immigrated to your area? They’re a Muslim tribe from the Sahel, and the men traditional wear blue robes covering their entire bodies, including a veil over the face, while the women normally have bare faces, arms, and at least until recently, breasts. Would you object to their mode of dress as well, or would it be less offensive since the females are not the ones ‘bearing the burden’ as you said.
.
I think there’s plenty of areas of New York and New Jersey that would welcome bare-breasted women with open arms.
First, I didn’t know the French wanted to ban what amount to a scarf. Scarfs are cool. I’ve read an article on a Brazilian site that discussed the polemics of banning the burka, and I had thought that was what the French thing was all about.
I’m no fan of Christian missionaries either. All the same death-worship, patriarc crap to me. But let me correct something I said earlier, in the heat of discussion:
I don’t think we should force conservative women (of any religious persuasion) to wear less clothing. But we should do our best to create social conditions that make it completely permissible for women to bare their breats on a beach if they want to do so. With no fear of reprisals, attacks, or intimidation of any kind.
I suppose my view of the hiyab would be the same. If it were in my power, I’d not forbid it, but make sure that it’s use is completely voluntary.
But now we enter into another sticky territory. It’s very hard to determine what is voluntary. I don’t like it when children are raised in ultra-conservative religions. An adult want to join? Excellent! A little boy or girl being taught ultra-conservative tenets by family? I just hate it, you know? I can’t help myself in that.
But let’s not derail the discussion into debating free will.
Pretty much my feelings too, Rene. While I dislike excesive modesty and would prefer children get every chance possible to make their minds without indoctrination, it all amounts to a matter of personal and parenting rights.
.
That is the reason I find the whole french law so sad and worrying (conservative regional goverments in other countries like my own in Madrid are trying to enforce similar rules). Worrying because it pervert feminist principles for the political gain of parties much contrary to the essence of feminism when it comes to core values (most extreme right parties are fundamentally anti feminist, tho they’ve learnt to hide it over the years). And sad because it deprives of educational oportunities many girls who could greatly benefit from them, given many come from rural minded poor families.
.
Maybe since it’s not such a hot topic there, you havent read the personal experiences of some of these girls. There are many brave, independent minded girls who don the hiyab simply because they dont acept society has any right to demonize their identity. Some come from laicist families with no pressure in that direction whatsoever and still decide to protest by calling on the paternalistic, chauvinistic people that seem to think theyknow better and can decide for them. And that’s as feminist as you can get in my book.
You are right.
I have to admit something. We don’t have much experience with religious fanaticism here in Brazil. Our immigrants are very integrated. Most Muslims I know of are middle class, involved in commerce, and not particularly conservative.
The closest we get to violent extremism here are the new breed Evangelicals, but even the most extreme of them never gets violent. Their worst offense has been defacing the icons of Afro-Brazilian religions.
When I read of religious extremism in other countries, it looks like some hideous, big, monstrous, scary thing to me, because it’s so unfamiliar. I have to watch out, because I have a tendency to demonize them. I forget that it is likely that any religious group has a majority of moderates.
But the moderates don’t appear in the news that reach me.
El Hombre Malo wrote:”The hiyab (that is the head cover) the french laws forbid in any public institution is much less a matter of religion and more of a modesty one.”
The french law does not forbid the hiyab in particular, but it does forbid any openly visible religious signs in public institutions.
The thing is that, behind all the talks about equality of treatment by public officials unhindered by personal religious beliefs, and the importance of the separation of church and state (I mean like not swearing on a bible in a court, not mentioning God in official texts or on our money), the true problem laid with the growing percentage of teenage girls of north-african muslim origin being socially pressured to wear the hiyab to school, in fear of being called names, or spat on, or even beaten up in some cases.
I’m not saying it was a perfect solution, which it obviously is not, but it did offer some reprieve to a few of those girls.
As for humble women, should they be pious or not, they can still wear the hiyab in their everyday life, unless they are still going to public school, or are working in a public institution (any public servant you could think of). Of course they’re free to wear the hiyab as soon as they’re off school, or off work. Should your grandmother live in France today, she would be free to wear anything she’d like, especially since she wouldn’t work anymore as we’re able to retire at 60.
“I dont like the burka, and as I said, I think it can be regulated on security concerns alone.[…]But burkas are not the issue in France, the hiyab is. The hiyab (that is the head cover) the french laws forbid in any public institution is much less a matter of religion and more of a modesty one.”
The thing i, the burka is actually an issue (if not the issue), as the french government is actually devising a law to limit, if not forbid it.
Bill Mulligan: If we ALL do it there will be too many of us to kill!
Luigi Novi: There’s too many Americans to kill all of them, but that didn’t stop them from murdering close to 3,000 of them on 9/11. They don’t feel they have to kill us all. Just enough to scare the rest of us into…well, submission.
Cowardice is the word you meant, not submission.
Wait a minute! I just remembered that South Park has already shown Mohammed. He was one of the Super Best Friends, along with Jesus, Moses, Lao-zi, Joseph Smith, Buddha, and of course, Sea Man. They showed him back then without any problems. They even showed it in syndication (which is where I saw it), even though several other episodes were missing from the syndication package (or at least weren’t shown on the station I watched).
Why would they be so panicky now if they got away with it back then?
“Super Best Friends” was an episode aired in those legendary pre-9/11 days.
July 4, 2001. I checked on Wikipedia.
Short answer: nobody noticed.
.
That episode happened before the mess with the Danish newspaper printing cartoons of Mohamed. That was pretty much the point where the extremists decided they could push people around on this subject.
.
The funny thing is, South Park’s depiction of Mohamed from that episode actually stayed in the opening title sequence of South Park for years after the Danish Newspaper mess. It was even there after the Family Guy parody that Comedy Central made them censor. Plus, that full episode continued being available online and in syndication. I saw it a couple weeks ago.
.
Nobody noticed.
.
Unfortunately, that episode has been pulled from online and from syndication because of the current controversy. It will probably return soon.
Mary, “Super Best Friends” first aired July 4, 2001 — which, by my calculations, was about 2 months before 9/11. A lot of people hadn’t quite cottoned to the notion that there are a lot of crazy-ášš Muslims out there who are just begging for the chance to kill infidels.
.
It’s worth noting that that episode is no longer available for streaming on Comedy Central’s web site.
.
The message is clear: if you want your religion or other group to be respected, kill some people and threaten to kill more. That’s the quickest and simplest way to achieve it. It’s efficacy is utterly indisputable.
.
J.
We can’t access episodes on South Park’s web site from Canada – it redirects to the Comedy Network (the Canadian version of Comedy Central) and both episode 200 and the original Super Best Friends episode are available and uncensored there. The latest episode (201) isn’t up yet, as it hasn’t aired yet here (we get the new episodes on Sundays).
I’m curious to see if the episode will air with the same censoring here.
I’ll DVR it – if it’s uncensored, I’ll transcribe the “I learned somthing today” speech here.
It’s on now. So far it has any mention of Mohammed’s name bleeped out, so I don’t hold much hope that the end speech is untouched.
Yeah – it was bleeped. I don’t know if Comedy Network did the bleeping, or if Comedy Central supplied it to them pre-censored.
Now that I’ve seen it, I have a strong suspicion that despite their claims to the contrary, Trey and Matt did the censoring themselves as a meta-joke, and Comedy Central’s in on the gag.
Matt and Trey weren’t in on it. There was an uncensored version online that got taken down soon after the airing.
I love SP and since I depend on their website to get my dose (there is no one carrying it Spain right now), I was pretty bummed whith this whole fiasco.
.
But while I fully support Parker&Stone posture and message I can understand CC too (even if the way they managed it was less than ellegant). After all, its one thing to be an author and face any consequence for your work, and something different to be an employee of the company. Bravery and courage is something to celebrate but never to demand from others. It is still a pity.
.
Moreso, the portrayal of Muhammad both in “Superfriends” and in the 200 episode (I cant judge 201 so far) was a possitive one. While defending the right of any creator to express their views, the danish cartoon charade was an direct equation of Islam with terrorism, wich (and I am not condoning violence here) could not only be seen as offensive by muslims of any persuasion but was actually meant as an offense. I can understand the outrage when some responded with violence and demands of censorship, but I cant understand why many conservative pundits in the western worlds expressed dismay too at the peaceful anger of moderate muslims.
.
Its worth to notice, too. that partial portrayal of Muhammad is not forbidden in most branches of Islam, just in salafi/wahabbist sunni islam. This very recent branch, less than 150 years old, was despised among most muslims for their attempts to destroy Muhammad tomb in late XIX/Early XX. Their rigurous view on idolatry were far from mainstream then and still are, and its rapid spread we suffer now is a consequence of the wahabbist saudi regime. They have hijacked our perception of Islam thanks to their economic influence and convenient anti-communism/panarabism.
While defending the right of any creator to express their views, the danish cartoon charade was an direct equation of Islam with terrorism,
.
Except it wasn’t. It was not intended to be that far reaching. What it was saying was that there were people who were engaging in violence in the name of Muhammad, which is true. It was showing the stark contrast between the prophet and the way he was being twisted into a symbol to endorse violence. It wasn’t as simple as that all followers of Islam are terrorists.
.
PAD
I disagree. While not all of the cartoons were offensive and I remember some adressed precisely the issue of the banning, some were blunt equations of islam with terrorism. I fail to see how Kurt Westergaard’s, the one in wich Muhammad turban with a verse of the Coran morphed into a light fuse bomb was anything else than that. And I fully support his right to draw and publish it, and I expect western societies defend his life and well beign from extremist’s threats. But at the same time I can say his cartoon was simplistic, manicheistic and offensive to muslims. Mostly offensive to the many muslims who arent violent nor extremists and are actually the prime victims of the ones who are.
But at the same time I can say his cartoon was simplistic, manicheistic and offensive to muslims.
.
I don’t mean to sound callous, but…so what? Most political cartoons are offensive to someone. The problem is that there are Muslims who are basically saying, “No. You don’t get to offend us. If you offend us, we will kill you.”
.
Conservatives get offended at cartoons that tweak GOP sensibilities. Liberals get annoyed with cartoons that make fun of Democrats. I doubt the countless cartoons commenting on the recent child-abusing priest scandals were heartily embraced by the Catholic church. I’ve seen plenty of cartoons making fun of Jews. Indeed, the Daily Show did a whole segment on all the various religious groups they’ve satirized. But we’re all supposed to put on our “don’t hurt their sensibilities” pants for Muslims? They’re supposed to get a free pass because they’re better than us? More holy? No: Because certain factions seem more prone to violence. Which is what the cartoon was satirizing in the first place.
.
Mostly offensive to the many muslims who aren’t violent nor extremists and are actually the prime victims of the ones who are.
.
Well, I would hope that they would realize that it was meant to be critical of those who are extremists. And I would hope that they are as offended at those who would use holy scriptures to justify mass murder as anyone else.
.
PAD
“I don’t mean to sound callous, but…so what? Most political cartoons are offensive to someone. The problem is that there are Muslims who are basically saying, “No. You don’t get to offend us. If you offend us, we will kill you.””
Of course, the main problem is whoever issue death threats against anyone enganged in the exercise of free speech, on that we agree. But at the same time I can see Westergaard’s cartoon as a problem too. Less of a problem, of course, the necesary evil that comes from free speech and that we are happy to endure. You may think that particular cartoon was poignant satire that should make muslims think. I think it’s not, that it is xenophobic, offensive and counterproductive, as many moderate muslims stated cartoons like that only helped extremists reinforce their hold on the less educated masses.
.
And most muslims did only that, voice their offense in a civil way, yet media prefered to show extremist demonstrations and violence, that by definition was the doing of a minority. Again, hijacking our perception of what the muslim world is.
.
If one’s intention is to make its ideological opponent think about the error of his ways, not caring about offending him seems to me one of the least effective ways to achieve that goal. I for one care little about the oppinion and ideas of anyone who respect me so little he offends me because he thinks he has the higher moral ground. While there are many fine examples of intelligent satire that can make you think, Westergaard (and many others) are simply preaching to the choir of the already xenophobic.
.
When I visited Prague, there was a great exhibition in the Spanish Sinagoge on the subject of antisemitism, that included many cartoons demonicing jews. I think we can agree those pieces werent meant to make jews change their ways but rather to offend and make fun of them for the enjoyment of already antisemitic people.
When I visited Prague, there was a great exhibition in the Spanish Sinagoge on the subject of antisemitism, that included many cartoons demonicing jews. I think we can agree those pieces werent meant to make jews change their ways but rather to offend and make fun of them for the enjoyment of already antisemitic people.
.
I’ve no doubt you saw such things in synagogues exhibits. And you can also see them throughout newspapers in the Muslim world where political cartoonists have zero trouble demonizing Jews. Or the United States. Or Spain, I would fancy. And they do it with impunity because they know that there aren’t terrorists who are going to seek out the guys who drew the cartoons, or for that innocent Muslims at random to try and kill them. But oh lordy, let’s take the Muslim extremists out for an ice cream cone the next time their precious sensibilities might be offended.
.
Sorry. Not buying it.
.
PAD
No one is selling it, PAD, since that’s not what Hombre said.
.
Nobody is suggesting that we be all sweet and nice and treat all the crazies with kid gloves. He’s saying that demonizing them doesn’t help.
.
It’s a fair point and I think it is a correct one. No conflict has ever gotten better because of one side antagonizing the other. Come on, PAD, there have been times when you said that someone had a right to free speech, but should also have the sense not to say certain things. That’s what we’re talking about here. El Hombre Malo hasn’t tried to create an equivalence between the violence against the Danish newspaper and the cartoons they published. He’s been clear about how bad the violence is. All he’s saying is that some of the cartoons went over the line and were purely insulting. That is, to put it mildly, unhelpful.
My point was; there is political satire aimed at making people see the ridicule in a particular point of view or stance and then there is the one that simply preach to the choir by ridiculing the contrary or an scapegoat. SP usually (and specially in this last case) falls on the first category, while Westegaard’s cartoon falls on the second. That is, of course, open to interpretation.
.
And its not a matter of appeasement. In both cases I expect western societies to extend the same level of protection for the free speech of the authors. But at the same time I feel completely entitled to voice my oppinion against pieces like Westegaard’s. Him beign targeted by extremists doesnt make him any more right than a cartoonist who picked a non threatening subject to demonice.
.
I realize I usually play the devil’s advocate in this blog but that’s because I find people I usually perceive as moderate and reasonable on other subjects to become a bit too sanguine whenever it comes to the muslim world. Too many apriorisms that should’nt be taken for granted seem to frame the picture most americans have about the muslim world. And Ive watched enough american media (and I dont mean just Fox News) to understand why is that. So I step in to try temper the general tone, wich is never a bad thing. So frankly, your ice cream cone comment was a bit of ad hominem I find uncalled for.
Nobody is suggesting that we be all sweet and nice and treat all the crazies with kid gloves. He’s saying that demonizing them doesn’t help.
.
I didn’t see it as demonizing Muslims, but merely commenting on how some radicals are twisting the teachings of Muhammed. And the response is, “No, no, we mustn’t do that! It could upset them!” It’s like saying you must never do, for instance, a cartoon featuring the KKK burning a cross in front of the White House because it’s going to offend Christians.
.
PAD
And its not a matter of appeasement. In both cases I expect western societies to extend the same level of protection for the free speech of the authors.
.
Unfortunately Muslim extremists don’t believe in extending any protection for free speech, but instead want to kill people who are saying things they don’t like or making satiric points they are offended by. And my point is that I don’t see people arguing that cartoonist should worry about sparing the sensibilities of Christians or Jews or any other group except radical Muslims, with the insinuation being that there’s something wrong with the commentators for being insensitive.
.
But at the same time I feel completely entitled to voice my oppinion against pieces like Westegaard’s.
.
Which would be remotely relevant if someone were claiming you were not entitled to do so. So I’m not sure why you felt the need to make that clear, but if it makes you feel good, go ahead.
.
I realize I usually play the devil’s advocate in this blog but that’s because I find people I usually perceive as moderate and reasonable on other subjects to become a bit too sanguine whenever it comes to the muslim world. Too many apriorisms that should’nt be taken for granted seem to frame the picture most americans have about the muslim world.
.
I haven’t done any polling numbers. My guess is that “most” Americans automatically get nervous about Muslims because they blew up the World Trade Center and they don’t know which ones to trust. My personal perception is that most Muslims are law-abiding citizens who are appalled by the actions of terrorists, just as most Christians are law-abiding citizens who wouldn’t dream of throwing a white sheet over their heads and lynching blacks people. None of which changes my opinion that editorial cartoonists shouldn’t be condemned for holding the actions of Muslim radicals tot he same level of editorial scrutiny that they would hold the extreme representatives of any other group.
.
So frankly, your ice cream cone comment was a bit of ad hominem I find uncalled for.
.
It was actually a paraphrase from “The West Wing.” In case you’re interested, the full quote goes as follows:
.
“Well, how about when we, instead of blowing Iraq back to the 7th century for harboring terrorists and trying to develop nuclear weapons, we just imposed economic sanctions and were reviled by the Arab world for not giving them a global charge card and a free trade treaty? How about when we pushed Israel to give up land for peace? How about when we sent American soldiers to protect Saudi Arabia and the Arab World told us we were desecrating their Holy Land while ignoring the fact that we were invited? How about two weeks ago, in the State of the Union, when the President praised the Islamic people as “faithful” and “hard-working” only to be denounced in the Arab press as knowing nothing about Islam, but none of that is the point… I don’t remember having to explain to Italians that our problem wasn’t with them, but with Mussolini. Why does the US have to take every Arab country out for an ice cream cone? They’ll like us when we win! Thousands of madrasas teaching children nothing, nothing, nothing but the Koran and to hate America. Who do we see about that? Do I want to preach America or Judeo-Christianity? No. If their religion forbids them from playing the trumpet, so be it. But I want those kids to… look at a globe. Be exposed to social sciences, history, some literature. They’ll like us when we win.”
.
Ad hominem means “to the man.” Call me crazy, but I think threatening to kill Parker and Stone is way more ad hominem than anything we’ve seen here.
.
PAD
Many moderate and peaceful muslims saw it differently. And some of those were not only offended by it but also for the boost it gave to radicals within their communities. The very same radicals they have to endure and fight on a daily basis. It’s important that, as much as many pundits in western countries insist on demanding “moderate muslims to step up”, moderate muslim have been “stepping up” decades before fundamentalist muslim extremists were a problem for us.
.
From political movements like panarabism to religious traditions like sufism to cultural movements like räis music. All present a different, more liberal side of the muslim world, consistent with tradition and with popular roots. And its them who suffer the wrath of the extremists on a daily basis. Its them who see their elbow room get thinner every day. They get killed and have been getting killed for decades as they watched their goverments cave in to extremists with the economic backing of Saudi arabian wahabbists.
.
If these guys, who actually are what every ill-informed pundit in the media has been demanding and ignoring at the same time, feel offended at some of those cartoons, telling them “well, you should feel more offended by the extremists on YOUR side” is as misguided as I can think of.
.
These (and similar) cartoons have since become like a flag for every extreme right group and party in Europe. From simply xenophobic populist formations to good ol’ neo-nazis. And if your average skinhead can see it as blunt enough to use it as propaganda. maybe the subleptly of their targeted criticism toward violent extremism and ONLY violent extremism is so subtle it doesnt reach the depositary of the message. And a message that fails to get through is a failed message. A mistake.
And if I were of a mind to, I could cite you chapter and verse as to why it’s grossly unfair/unwise/insensitive/inadvisable that cartoonists produce cartoons lampooning Israel. Or Jews in general. Or Christians. Or Buddhists. Or any other group, denomination, race, color or creed that you would care to name. Everyone has their own deal, everyone has issues, and everyone feels that their particular ox should not be gored.
.
But apparently extremist Muslims are the ones who matter the most.
.
PAD
“And my point is that I don’t see people arguing that cartoonist should worry about sparing the sensibilities of Christians or Jews or any other group except radical Muslims, with the insinuation being that there’s something wrong with the commentators for being insensitive.”
.
Well, I do. If you participate in enough left leaning forums and debates, you see people accusing you of everything from blasphemy to baby killing. Conservative media accuse liberals of insensitivity for their religious feelings all the time. There in the USA you have that “war on christmas” charade by O’Reilly and his ilk. During my not so long lifetime Ive known of two terrorist attacks (both bombs) against a satirical magazine (El Papus) and a satiric theatre play (by the italian Leo Bassi), both conducted by fundamentalist christian groups, both in Madrid. So it happens, and it can get nasty.
.
And still, when Prof.Myers from Minessota wrote about his plans to publicy desecrate the eaucharist (the holy form…or the cracker as he called it) on Alternet, I wrote like I did here, that while I might support his right to express his feelings towards the catholic church, I considered him a jerk and an inconsiderate fool, willing to offend not only the people he disagreed with but every catholic, as a collateral.
.
“…editorial cartoonists shouldn’t be condemned for holding the actions of Muslim radicals tot he same level of editorial scrutiny that they would hold the extreme representatives of any other group.”
.
Of course they should’nt. Not even when they sloppily paint well beyond the line and smear not just extremists but every muslim. But that’s open to interpretation. I mean, Muhammad head morphing into a light fuse bomb with a shura written on it must be interpreted as a comentary on extremism, not as an statement of Islam inevitably bringing violence. Its not like anyone said that recently on western media, lest internet forums.
.
Regarding the West Wing reference… I didnt get it. I did my best to catch that show but they kept changing the day it aired (and allways around 1.00am) and I only watched like half a season. Been meaning to correct that but right now I am enjoying the fruits of the soft pound by submerging into british comedy. I highly recomend “Yes Minister”, by the way. And now about the quote: I am sure it made for a great passionate speech on screen and realize its based partially on a fictional situation (even if inspired in the real world) but I find it historically short sighted and a bit paternalistic.
.
“Call me crazy, but I think threatening to kill Parker and Stone is way more ad hominem than anything we’ve seen here.”
.
Agreed, but then I did’nt threaten to kill them. I mistook your WW reference for an accusation of appeasement, wich I took personally. Mistery solved.
Calling Pan-Arabists moderates for being better than Islamic extremists is a little like calling Franco a moderate for being better than Hitler.
“Well, I do. If you participate in enough left leaning forums and debates, you see people accusing you of everything from blasphemy to baby killing. Conservative media accuse liberals of insensitivity for their religious feelings all the time.”
That’s not the question. People offend and get offended all the time, rightly or wrongly on both. The problem is when either side has to fear violent reprisal for being offensive or offended.
“During my not so long lifetime Ive known of two terrorist attacks (both bombs) against a satirical magazine (El Papus) and a satiric theatre play (by the italian Leo Bassi), both conducted by fundamentalist christian groups, both in Madrid. So it happens, and it can get nasty.”
Congratulations. There is no denying that most religions have their share of violent fanatics. But that does not mean that what is happening in the Muslim world is identical to what is happening elsewhere. It’s wrong to do so for the sake of political correctness.
Micha: despite it’s role in the opposition to the state of Israel and the ill use of it’s principles in some countries, I still believe secular, left leaning pan-arabism was a positive ideology wich offered an alternative to the caliphate. More importantly, it was a self generated alternative, not something imposed or sponsored from abroad. Compared to wahabbism or salafism, I think we can call them moderates, specially when it comes to religion, wich is the subject at hand. So moderate arab christians had an important role in the founding of many panarabic parties and movements.
.
“Congratulations. There is no denying that most religions have their share of violent fanatics. But that does not mean that what is happening in the Muslim world is identical to what is happening elsewhere. It’s wrong to do so for the sake of political correctness.”
.
Congratulations?
.
I did’nt say it is identical. But PAD said ” I don’t see people arguing that cartoonist should worry about sparing the sensibilities of Christians or Jews or any other group except radical Muslims” and I think that’s not true and it has nothing to do with political correcness. Many european countries still have anti-blasphemy laws that can get you in jail and your message silenced. Philippe Vuillemin and Jean Marie Gourio had their comic Hitler=SS forbidden in France, Italy and Spain. “Blasphemous” and “insensitive” authors get death threats from many different groups on a daily basis. Sometimes even get attacked.
.
Is that the same than getting actually targeted by organized extremism like the case at hand? Of course not, but sometimes it gets very close. Westergaard so far only had a crazy somali trying to get to his house with an axe and Leo Bassi actually got an incendiary bomb in the theatre where he staged his play. And there were mainstream media that actually said Bassi should be more mindfull of christian sensitivities.
“Micha: despite it’s role in the opposition to the state of Israel and the ill use of it’s principles in some countries, I still believe secular, left leaning pan-arabism was a positive ideology wich offered an alternative to the caliphate. More importantly, it was a self generated alternative, not something imposed or sponsored from abroad. Compared to wahabbism or salafism, I think we can call them moderates, specially when it comes to religion, wich is the subject at hand. So moderate arab christians had an important role in the founding of many panarabic parties and movements.”
.
That’s absurd.
1) Fascism was also moderate from the point of view of religion. That’s not a measure to anything. Pan-Arabism was a totalitarian, Arab-nationalistic ideology, Islamism is a totalitarian Muslim-nationalistic ideology. should I prefer one to the other because it paid lip service to secularism or socialism, or treated Christians like a tolerated minority? So they didn’t like Kurds because of their national aspirations despite the shared religion butt they liked Christian so long as they knew their place.
2) I don’t know of anywhere where it was not ill-used.
3) Both modern nationalism, secularism and socialism are external to the middle east, and none has been very successful.
Nobody is suggesting that we be all sweet and nice and treat all the crazies with kid gloves. He’s saying that demonizing them doesn’t help.
.
I didn’t see it as demonizing Muslims, but merely commenting on how some radicals are twisting the teachings of Muhammed. And the response is, “No, no, we mustn’t do that! It could upset them!” It’s like saying you must never do, for instance, a cartoon featuring the KKK burning a cross in front of the White House because it’s going to offend Christians.
.
PAD
.
.
I would think a better example would be a cartoon with a Catholic Priest burning a cross on the White House lawn. This would be (in my only little worldview, at least) a better comparison. If KKK is to Christianity what Muslim Extremists are to Islam, we should flipp the protagonists in the hypothetical cartoon, too
Thank you for pointing out that it is only the extremist Salafi school of Islam that makes these demands. I’ve actually seen old depictions of Muhammad in books (it was a series of mediaeval paintings of his visit to Heaven– I believe the pictures were from a Persian text). To be accurate, I believe some other versions of Islam also object to pictures of the Prophet, but are less fanatical about it. Some only insist that his face not be shown.
Unfortunately, in recent decades the fanatical Salafi form of Islam has spread well outside of Arabia, primarily because of missionaries funded by the Saudi Government. Muslims in several countries have been complaining for some time now about the Saudi takeover of their schools and mosques.
And most muslims did only that, voice their offense in a civil way, yet media prefered to show extremist demonstrations and violence, that by definition was the doing of a minority. Again, hijacking our perception of what the muslim world is.
.
I don’t see that as a hijacking of our perceptions but, rather, a justified viewing of how the Muslim world has been hijacked by the extremists. Yes, the violence is from a minority within the majority. Christians have them too. The difference is that you will have far far fewer non-violent Christians defending or at least trying to rationalize the extremists than I have seen among far too many sane Mislims. It could be fear and I can certainly understand that. But if a Muslim sees someone who is angered and disgusted by how Islamic extremists are shaming one of the world’s great religions and responds by focusing more on the victims and not on the extremists…they are part of the problem.
.
People will continue to have a problem with Islam as long as good members of that religion are willing to tolerate and rationalize the actions of murderers and blackmailers. Muslims need to really step up the purge of these people from their ranks or they will be dragged down with them.
.
“Fear not your enemies, for they can only kill you; fear not your friends, for they can only betray you; fear only the indifferent who permit killers and betrayers to walk safely on the Earth.”— Edward Yashinsky
All he’s saying is that some of the cartoons went over the line and were purely insulting. That is, to put it mildly, unhelpful.
.
I disagree. I don’t think the cartoons in question were deliberately insulting to moderate Muslims…or at least, it can be reasonably argued that this was the case.
.
At any rate, the offense of the radicals is so vastly worse than the offense of the cartoonist, (if indeed he has any offense at all) that to even bring it up risks looking like you are drawing some kind of equivalence, regardless of whether or not that is your intention.
.
If a woman is married to an abusive short tempered man and she openly mocks him in front of people and he responds by knocking her teeth out one could indeed argue that “she was not helping things” or something similar. You’d have to be a real jerk to do that though, because again, his offense dwarfs hers into insignificance. And sure, it’s a bad analogy but only because the situation with the cartoons is even more disparate between the ‘offense” of the cartoonists and the crimes of their persecutors.
.
Of course, the main problem is whoever issue death threats against anyone enganged in the exercise of free speech, on that we agree. But at the same time I can see Westergaard’s cartoon as a problem too.
.
I do not see the ability of someone to speak their mind as a problem. If it is it is a problem that is infinitesimally small compared to the problem of people who will riot and kill based on the existence of people who speak their mind. And of the possible solutions to both problems–either prohibit such expressions or condemn and punish those who would do violence–for me it’s a no-brainer over which one I would choose. Especially since history shows that it is impossible to fully control people’s thoughts but one can limit organized thuggery, if one has a mind to do so.
.
Nobody is suggesting that we be all sweet and nice and treat all the crazies with kid gloves. He’s saying that demonizing them doesn’t help.
.
Isn’t calling them “crazies” kind of demonizing them? Not that I disagree with the evaluation.
.
No conflict has ever gotten better because of one side antagonizing the other.
.
But when one side “antagonizes” the other just by existing and being true to our principles…For example, if they start issuing Fatwas against supporters of gay marriages (a completely plausible possibility) should we back off on gay rights, maybe encourage people to go back in the closet, expunge all gay characters from our media, etc? I imagine few things antagonize some of our crazier fundamentalist brethren than the sight of gay role models in movies and TV. Why take the risk?
.
But at the same time I feel completely entitled to voice my oppinion against pieces like Westegaard’s. Him beign targeted by extremists doesnt make him any more right than a cartoonist who picked a non threatening subject to demonice.
.
true and I hope I do not seem in any way trying to shut you up or tell you that my interpretation of the cartoon is inherently more correct than your own. But such arguments are pretty small potatoes compared to the greater issue of violence against Mr Westegaard. It is no great feat to defend art of speech one agrees with. It’s self defense in a way. Defending those we don’t agree with is the difference between convenience and conviction. I think mocking people’s religion is in poor taste at best and evidence of general jerkdom, but if someone does it and is threatened with violence I hope I can put aside my own feelings and stand with them. And I’d probably feel compelled to dwell on the jerkness of the artists for fear of giving comfort to the thought-police.
.
So frankly, your ice cream cone comment was a bit of ad hominem I find uncalled for.
.
I thought the ice cream comment was about the case recently where Burger king had to apologize for an ad that had an ice cream cone with a swirl on it that one guy decided was similar to Arab writing and yadda yadda. I mean, we have our loons too, like Christians who see the face of Jesus in a burned taco but you don’t see the makers of tacos feeling obligated to change their formulas or something. The appeasement to the Islamic crazies is far more damaging to Muslims than anything an editorial cartoonist could do–it makes them seem like superstitious adolescents with rocket launchers, who must be coddled and have their every whim supported, lest they have a temper tantrum.
.
My experience with Muslims–and I’ve had plenty–is that they respect strength and have contempt for weakness and will be happy to take any advantage offered to them. In other words–they are exactly and precisely like every other group of humans on Earth. So treat them as such.
And I’d probably feel compelled to dwell on the jerkness of the artists for fear of giving comfort to the thought-police.
.
Should have been “compelled to not dwell on the jerkness” which, though still fraught with grammatical errors, at least would make some sense.
“If a woman is married to an abusive short tempered man…”
.
That analogy is tricky. Let me use a different one. Many text aimed at young gay people adress the issue of coming out when living with close minded or possibly bigoted parents. Those texts reccomend caution and taking as much time as its needed to do it if one perceives there is a possibility of a violent reaction or beign ostracised. Even to wait until one is away for college if that date is close enough. Ive seen at least one video adressing the same issue for atheists living in conservative christian enviroments, seemed a bit far fetched and I really hope it is.
.
Such advices dont imply that the gay teen is wrong or that violence in such cases is in any way excused. It adresses the importance of pondering when is it worth it to be blunt and direct and when it wont advance your cause (your well beign) but rather the contrary.
.
“I do not see the ability of someone to speak their mind as a problem”
.
Neither do I. The problem with that particular cartoon is that while you (and PAD and other people) say it adressed not Islam but only radical violent islamists, many others see it as a simplistic and deliberatly offense against a group of people, the good and the bad ones. I think I am a very candid person at times, trying to see the good in everyone, so I sometimes trust the judgement of people more versed in evil than me. Since certified bad people, most european neonazi groups, are using that cartoon or variations of it… I kind of suspect it is kind of a very blunt offense.
.
And that does’nt mean I want it to be forbidden, but that I think its important that more constructive messages get out there.
.
“Isn’t calling them “crazies” kind of demonizing them?”
.
Actually, its just labeling them. Call it “giving an amateur diagnostic on their mental stability”. And its an exclusive term, it adresses some muslims in this case, the “crazy” ones while implicitly putting aside sane muslims, wich is actually the opposite of demonizing.
.
The West Wing quote of yesterday mentioned WWII italians and that made me think. What about the japanese? While ridiculing the enemy was commonplace back then, the japanese were depicted as subhuman. It is well documented how that imaginery influenced american troops to conduct in a way they did’nt when fighting italians or germans. These were seen as enemies but ultimately just soldiers of an opposing army while the japanese were demonized, dehumanized and thus not entitled to be treated as a soldier but rather a beast. I dont subscribe to many theories about the H Bombs of Hiroshima and Nagasaki beign racially motivated, but Curtis-Lemay tactic of fire raids against Tokyo was a consequence of the demonization of the japanese as a whole.
.
In the last few years Ive seen many americans saying or holding signs saying “nuke Mecca”. I realize those are the minority, the “crazy”. But also that there would be much less of that if there was no demonization of muslims on western media. The very same can be said about arab press demonizing us, but you can’t be against one and not the other.
.
“My experience with Muslims–and I’ve had plenty–is that they respect strength and have contempt for weakness and will be happy to take any advantage offered to them”
.
I have had plenty too, having worked at building sites with a large percentage of magrebi in the crews. And my experience is that rather than strength, they respect politeness and respond better if they feel valued than threatened. Much like we spaniards were supposed to be, they quit the job rather than stomach abuse or an unfair treatment, and give a lot back to you if they feel appreciated. How finely tuned their perception of offense is… that’s a whole different matter, of course.
.
But then, if you applied your definition of “every other group of humans on Earth” on your dealings with me, you would very soon be looking at my ášš as I walk away.
I appreciate the reply and while I have used you as a springboard for my own views I greatly appreciate your contribution here.
.
That analogy is tricky. Let me use a different one. Many text aimed at young gay people adress the issue of coming out when living with close minded or possibly bigoted parents. Those texts reccomend caution and taking as much time as its needed to do it if one perceives there is a possibility of a violent reaction or beign ostracised.
.
But my analogy was more to the circumstance here. The deed was done and violence was the result. If a gay teen comes out and is beaten the time for discussion of whether or not he should have been more careful is over. The point is moot and bringing it up seems a lot like blaming the victim.
.
Look, I am with you on the jerkness of deliberately offending people for no other reason than to offend them. I’m not going to have a pork barbeque just to honk off my Jewish neighbor. Though, if he DEMANDED I give up pork and threatened my family etc I would pretty much be full throttle determined to have a roasted boar on a spit in my front yard.
.
The Catholic church is being clobbered by comedians, cartoonists, etc, for the child molesting scandal. fair to the majority of priests? Well, probably not, but them’s the breaks. Fair to the members of the church who by about 99% to 1% are horrified and appalled by it? And offer no excuses? Again, them’s the breaks. You sigh, carry on and try to keep that from ever happening again.
.
or you could march in the streets demanding that all mention of the scandal be balanced by as many portrayals of the good things done by the church. And maybe execute a few cartoonists just so they know we mean business.
.
Obviously, option one is the correct and smart one. option two will get you a few minor tactical victories and a long term reputation as a bunch of bullying cranks.
.
Since certified bad people, most european neonazi groups, are using that cartoon or variations of it… I kind of suspect it is kind of a very blunt offense.
.
Well, since some Muslims have made it clear that these cartoons will drive them to violence what better way to help with the idea that Muslims are violent than to try to provoke them? that doesn’t really say much about the cartoon though. Some Jews have bad associations with Wagner, so neo-Nazis love to play him. Doesn’t really make the music inherently evil though.
.
Curtis-Lemay tactic of fire raids against Tokyo was a consequence of the demonization of the Japanese as a whole.
.
that’s an interesting possibility–there is no doubt that it was easier for Roosevelt to take away the rights of Japanese Americans than would have been ever attempted for Americans of German or Italian descent. Though it’s also true that we bombed Germany to rubble as well. Was Dresden motivated by racism?
.
But I have no doubt that racism on both sides–many Japanese leaders thought Caucasians had little belly for battle and their contempt for other Asians was painfully obvious–made that war far worse than it would have been otherwise. I do wonder though if the single biggest factor in a lot of the Pacific war was the belief that the Japanese would, if possible, literally fight to the last man, necessitating a policy of incredible destruction. Whether or not that was an accurate POV is open for debate.
.
And my experience is that rather than strength, they respect politeness and respond better if they feel valued than threatened.
.
Are the two mutually exclusive? Why shouldn’t people respect strength? By strength I do not mean the power to dominate or bully people into submission. That sort of thing is usually born of a lack of confidence–weakness, really.
.
Indeed, which is more threatening–having a strong vibrant country at your border or having a weak, unstable one that feels threatened?
.
Respecting strength and having contempt for weakness seems a completely rational way to conduct ones self and certainly a wise way to run a country. Note that by strength I do not mean belligerence and by weakness I do not mean peacefulness.
.
I would not feel comfortable making broad generalizations of Muslims since my experience with them has been almost entirely Arabs and Persians but I would rate those I have known as unusually generous and accommodating to strangers. I’ve said it before: I think I’d be far far better off waking up alone, broke and stranded in an Arab village than in lots of the inner cities of the USA. They are devoted to family. They have a cultural history to be justifiably proud of.
.
So I have no intention of seeing all that good swallowed up by crazies. And in my opinion, we have gone to far in the direction of accommodating the crazies and it has only emboldened them.
.
so–on Draw Mohammad Day I’m going to post on facebook some classic Persian art portraying the prophet. fair warning to any who follow the by no means universal belief among Muslims that such portrayals are wrong–don’t go on my page. There is no intention to offend but no guarantees against offense being taken–part of what happens in a free society. i would suggest that anyone who is so blinded by the very idea of Mohammad being drawn that they would consider violence should ponder whether they have done exactly and precisely what Mohammad warned against–turned him into an idol.
There are many paths to dehumanization.
Demonization is one of them, obviously.
But I’ve met many well-intentioned people who made a variety of excuses for ANY regretable action taken by Muslim Extremists. Far more than they would make for any other group of human beings.
They always blame the US, Israel, the West, cultural differences, economic factors, anything, except a Muslim.
In effect, they don’t treat Muslims as moral actors. It’s as if Muslims were children that are never responsible for their actions and that aren’t held to the same standards as “ordinary human beings.”
Making them immune to criticism is another way to dehumanize Muslims. Because, if they are human beings, then they must be held as accountable as any other human.
Not necessarily saying that El Hombre Malo is doing this, though.
“I appreciate the reply and while I have used you as a springboard for my own views I greatly appreciate your contribution here.”
And I enjoy commenting here. Ive been reading PAD’s blog for years because I am a fan of his work and his BID, but I’ve also found the usual contributors constitute a rather excepcionally civil and informed forum. I just fear my own contributions (usually about international issues since I dont have that much to contribute on many other subjects) might get on some people nerves. It might be because I usually play devil’s advocate, but also because I must read like that Family Guy cliché; the foreigners that speaks english fluently but chooses the weirdest words.
.
“The Catholic church is being clobbered by comedians, cartoonists, etc, for the child molesting scandal. fair to the majority of priests? Well, probably not, but them’s the breaks. Fair to the members of the church who by about 99% to 1% are horrified and appalled by it? And offer no excuses? Again, them’s the breaks. You sigh, carry on and try to keep that from ever happening again.”
.
See, the thing is I am an atheist, from an atheist family, that grew up on a country where the catholic church still had a lot of power and privileges (it still does). And lately Ive found myself at odds with people very close to my ideological position because they choosed to generalize and paint with a thick brush the catholic church. And in the USA catholics might have not threatened or engaged in uncivil behavior, but here they do (as I said somewhere else on this thread). The closest thing to Fox News we have here is a comunication group actually owned by the Spanish Catholic church and they have been fanning the flames of sentiments much like the ones prior to the Civil War ever since the actual president became elected.
.
And still I argue against generalizations and demonizations even when it supposedly favour causes I believe in. Because, ultimatelly, I dont think it amounts to a “us against them” scenario, but rather about making as many in the opposite field come to ours. The rest is preaching to the choir or cheerleading.
.
“But I have no doubt that racism on both sides made that war far worse than it would have been otherwise”
.
Of course. The japanese war machine was one of the most cruel and despicable in history and nothing excuses their crimes. But the idea of them never surrendering has been in doubt for many years, as testimonies of veterans surface. And sure, they fought to their last breath much more often than germans (and lets not speak of the italians), but those who surrendered soon wished they didnt. And those same veterans describe a generalized sentiment among american troops that went beyond the usual hatred of the enemy.
.
“And in my opinion, we have gone to far in the direction of accommodating the crazies and it has only emboldened them.”
.
I agree, but by emboldening I understand the business and military cozyness we made with the worst kind of Islam possible (we as in the western world, not just the USA). Had’dnt be for our relationship with them, wahabbist and salafist would still be the backyard straydogs they were before. This does’nt excuse the perpetrators and ideologes of violence. But it give us little right to demand moderate arabs to “step up”. Mostly because they can say “we do step up but please stop arming them”. And arm them we do, logistically, economically and (with irresponsible or ill conceived media) ideologically.
.
And Rene:
I agree. Many in the left interpretate a rather complex situation in the simplest way possible. They just look for a scapegoat and conveniently excuse palestinians in a weird neo colonialist paternalism. Many in the right do the same. The oversimplification of the issue is very convenient when you try to inflame a crowd. This might sound elitist but chewing a subject ike we do here dont usually keep the interest of most people and much less drive audiences to a new’s program. So the media keep it simple, they decide whose side are they on (or wich one is economically a better choice) and stick to the formula. Then, you have crowds in Teheran chanting against the great Satan and people holding signs in Boise, Idaho, demanding a nice nuclear mushroom over Mecca. And people get rich in the process.
Just to point out one thing: everybody asserts racist motives for french authorities to ban the hijab in the classrooms (but not in the streets). However, some muslim countries have had similar laws and rules for far longer than France, and for similar motives (religion has no place in public classrooms). Among them, Tunisia and Turkey (since the 1920’s, under the rule of Kemal Ataturk). Far from me to see those countries as role models (especially Turkey, as this week proved it). But I find it curious that France is said to be anti-muslim when muslim countries have similar laws (and when according to the law, other open symbols, like kippas and crosses worn over the clothes, are similarly banned). As for me, I’m against the burqua, but not against minarets (churches have steeples, I don’t see why mosques can’t have minarets).
Even Ataturk didnt go as far as outright prohibition of the veil. He actually lured society into not wearing it by making it mandatory for prostitutes to don it, effectively reframing the veil, from modesty clothing to vanity and lubric. Still, it wasnt as much religiously motivated as an attempt to mimetize Europe. He also moved from arabic writing to latin alphabet (not even cirilyc like most european Turkey neighbours) because he set his model in Germany.
The case of Tunisia has to do with arbitrary imposition of rules by a socialist dictatorship. Its pretty much like that Woody Allen movie (Banana’s?) where a revolutionary leader, once he reaches power, make it mandatory to wear your undies over the trousers. I havent been to Tunis myself but my flatmate was two years ago, and she tells me most women outside touristic venues wore the hiyab.
I don’t have much to add to the debate, but that solution from Ataturk was brilliant.
I just came across a news story today about a lady in France who was arrested for driving while wearing a veil some months ago. It said that Sarkozy has been pushing for a law to ban veils entirely.
And now the husband of this woman is in trouble for having three additional wives. According to the article, this is not technically illegal in France, as long as only one marriage is registered under French law, which seems to be the case. But apparently the authorities are trying to prosecute him anyway.
(Maybe we shouldn’t get into the polygamy issue too much. People get very passionate about that. I was ready to declare war on Texas back when they raided the FDLS.)
By the way, according to Wikipedia, Kosher and Halal slaughter are illegal in several European countries. Does anybody know anything about that? It said that Switzerland even bans the importation of Kosher meat from other countries.
I was really shocked that I’d never heard of this before.
This story has nothing to do with censorship or about religion. It’s about people who are using the ability they have to frighten people with credible threats of violence in order to gain and wield power for their own political ends. The whole point is to show that hey have power through intimidation. And they obviously do. Terrorism works.
———
The bans on burkhas or minarets are a wrong reaction to a real problem. Certain European countries opened their borders to immigrants, specifically from Muslim countries. They were unprepared for the consequences this would have on their societies, and now they are reacting by lashing out.
I think that, in this case, the terrorists won. Terrorism is, by definition, using the threat of violence to make people act a certain way — and that’s exactly what happened here. PAD may wonder about what would have happened if th eepisode and then Comedy Central got bombed — but what now? Does every entertainer check this group’s website before releasing something to make sure it’s acceptable? Do we, as a nation, proudly stand up against terrorism — unless they might do something bad, in which case we assume the worst and let it slide? Does this mean the NYC police (not to mention FBI) can’t protect its citizens from a very thinly-veiled threat? And what if other fundamentalist branches of religions pick up on this and start their own threatened bombings?
Parker and Stone knew the risks and the threat and were willing to go ahead with it. And, in the true definition of irony, not only was every *mention* of Muhammed deleted from “201” but the speeches at the end about not being intimidated by threats and bullies were bleeped out — because of intimidation by threats from bullies.
So lemme get this straight: Mohamed is the new F-word?
.
Someone needs to revive George Carlin and let him know his list of words you can’t say on television needs updating.
I have been PHENOMENALLY infuriated about this whole situation since it happened. Angry at the @#$%ers that made the threats, but even more so at CC for folding to them. There are some ideals that you should not compromise.
I’ve been seriously considering starting a website devoted entirely to artists’ pictures depicting Muhammad in the most vile circumstances imaginable. Anyone who wishes to contribute must post their name and address as well. Sort of a “Screw you, come and get us!” challenge at people who would use freedom of speech to issue death threats meant to oppress freedom of speech.
But then, I’m a s#!+ stirrer. I’d rather die than bend on the matter. And of course, I imagine no one else would have the guts to join me. And I doubt anyone would be willing to host me.
Ideals are a great thing to have and to unphold. And a nasty one to impose on others. CC is entitled to their own ideals and the people on Top might even agree with you but…
.
…are they entitled to decide for everyone working for them? As some have said on this thread, does CC have the right to put the life of every particular worker on the line? Are they going to grant the same security measures to the people in the mail room than the people at the top who actually made the decission to uphold those ideals?
.
And your website idea… you are entitled to it, but that “screw you” would’nt just affect the one issuing the threats (and who actually feed on that kind of discourse, pretty much like internet trolls) but anyone who proffesses Islam. Making you a jerk and a pretty despicable person. A part of the problem. A smaller part than the ones that issued the threat, mind you, but a part of it still.
You sir are a coward, and you make my point for me exactly.
You’re absolutely right, the “screw you” wouldn’t affect only the people issuing the threat. But see, here’s the thing . . . THAT’S WHAT FREE SPEECH IS ALL A-F@#$ING-BOUT. You’re allowed to badmouth anyone, anywhere, regardless of their feelings, and not have to worry about people making threats against your life. That’s the line. That’s what it’s all about. “OOO, you’re a horrible person!” Yes, because I’m ALLOWED TO BE. That’s the very ESSENCE of the freedom of speech: to say something nasty (say, “you’re an oppressive, over-taxing tyrant”) about someone you don’t like (say, King George of England), and not be killed for it (say, by a bunch of British troops). That’s EXACTLY why we wrote it. Does it make me a jerk? Yes. “Dispicable?” That’s a little harsh, and rather ignorant and short-sighted, but HEY, that’s the beauty of it . . . I’m not going to KILL YOU for saying it!
And as for hurting people’s feelings . . . I expect Muslims to have the exact same tolerance for hate-speech that EVERY OTHER RELIGION ON EARTH has. People are RIGHT NOW ripping the Catholics a new @$$hole for raping children. Mocked and ridiculed and insulted and hated. Who have they threatened to kill for it? Muslim nations are abusive and oppressive to women and many commit horrible acts of violence and terrorism on a daily basis. Mock that and they threaten people’s lives, set bombs, and knife them in the street. NO ONE is above a dressing-down.
As for CC endangering the lives of every employee for the company? Short answer: yes. Companies make risk-return judgments every day. Company policies are enacted that are wildly unpopular and potentially dangerous every second. And the employees ALWAYS have a choice: stick around and accept the risk, or leave. Yeah, no one wants to lose a job. But if you’re so frightened of something bad happening, or if a company’s decision is counter to your own ideals, no one is forcing you to stay. You walk out and find another way. And lest you want to play the “that’s easy for you to say” card, yes, I HAVE walked on a job to an uncertain future because I felt the need to uphold my principles.
I will HAPPILY write a disclaimer saying that I apologize for offending any non-extremist of ANY faith that I insult EVER. I don’t hate rational, reasonable, decent people. I hate extremists of ANY variety. Republicans, Democrats, Christian fundies, Muslims. I don’t want to offend the middle ground. But I’m not going to bite my tongue to avoid some bruised egos. And I refuse to cower in the face of threats. And nor should anyone else.
I think the point could be made that as you say, being insensitive toward Muslims gives the extremists ammunition…but being insensitive toward our freedoms gives the anti-Islamics ammunition as well. If someone espouses the view that Islam is a backward religion that appeals to violent intolerant thugs, the reactions to that statement are quite likely to make it harder for those of us who disagree with it to do so.
.
Not to totally derail the topic but this ties into one of the problems we will have in seeking peace for the middle east. We have totally different standards of acceptable conduct for the Israelis and Palestinians. Most of the two state solutions I’ve seen seem to envision one state (Israel) where Jews and non-jews can be citizens and have voting rights…and another state where, like Jordon, selling land to a Jew is punishable by death. The expectation is that when the state is formed all Jews will be relocated, something that would be condemned (rightly so) if the Israelis did it.
.
And this disparity is not simple anti-Jewish prejudice–quite the opposite. It’s that we expect the Palestinians are far too backward to expect anything better of them. That may seem to give them an advantage but it really doesn’t, not in the long run. Nobody will plan on long term treaties and such with a country they consider little more than a collection of superstitious rabble and expecting that result can be a self fulfilling prophecy..
“Not to totally derail the topic but this ties into one of the problems we will have in seeking peace for the middle east. We have totally different standards of acceptable conduct for the Israelis and Palestinians. Most of the two state solutions I’ve seen seem to envision one state (Israel) where Jews and non-jews can be citizens and have voting rights…and another state where, like Jordon, selling land to a Jew is punishable by death. The expectation is that when the state is formed all Jews will be relocated, something that would be condemned (rightly so) if the Israelis did it.”
You’re right in principle. But it’s a little more complicated than that. From my point of view removing Jewish settlers is right (a) Because Israel shouldn’t have built them in the first place, so it’s hard to defend their existence; (b) like you said, they will be in danger if Israel withdraws and leaves them there, so practicality trumps fairness; (c) (most importantly) it goes together with our adamant refusal to let Palestinan refugees ‘return’ to Israel.
You see, the fact that Jews won’t be able to live in a Palestinian state is the least of our problems. The bigger problem is the demand that, after the withdrawal, Israel take into its borders millions of Palestinian refugees. So at the end what you’ll have is not one Jewish state with an arab minority and one arab state with no Jews. What you’ll have is one arab state with no Jews and one arab state with a large jewish minority. Obviously most Israelis won’t accept that. The reason many Israelis have given up on the idea of peace is because they think (possibly correctly) that the only peace the Palestinians are willing to make is one that includes ‘return’ of refugees, which pretty much negates the whole two states for two nations concept. The 2nd reason is because they don’t trust that another withdrawal will not result in Hamas taking over (again) and rockets fired into Israel. Peace has become a very hard sell, even to people who used to support it.
Since I’ve chosen to issue my statements so I can say I mean everything I say, I am a coward. Since you celebrate the right to say anything you want by deliberatly offending people who might actually be on your side (that is, muslim moderates) you envision yourself a freedom fighter.
.
To put it another way… While I cherish and fight to defend the very same rights you say you celebrate, I also choose to exercise my rights with responsability and think before I open my mouth. Your take on the right of free speech eludes responsability, and you would only fight to keep that right because you want to be able to say whatever you want, not because you feel socially responsible.
.
So, Sir, you can call me coward as soon as you admit you are a lazy, irresponsible loudmouth.
You are mistaking responsibility for guilt or shame. And you further mistake my motivations for thoughtless glorification of insults and propaganda. Nothing could be further from the truth, and I thank you to not put words in my mouth.
I think carefully and deliberately before every word I speak and type. Consider, if you will, how many times I’ve avoided calling YOU a disparaging name (despite sorely wanting to) in the past paragraph. It’s because I exercise my right of freedom of speech as responsibly as anyone else around me, specifically YOU. Note: you fired with the name calling first (“jerk” and “despicable person”) and I only responded in kind (coward) after that. And I’ve since not done so because I realize it will ultimately be pointless. It serves NO purpose. And yet you INSIST that I have to consider people’s feelings before I say something nasty aimed at them, and to be “responsible” (translation: I should feel GUILTY about it, so I shouldn’t say it). Meanwhile, you obviously DIDN’T do the same when you decided to start labeling me a “lazy, irresponsible loudmouth.” So, you can add “hypocrite” to coward, I suppose.
In point of fact I VERY CAREFULLY consider my words and ideas before voicing them on the subject of my reaction to the deplorable behavior of Revolution Muslim and other extremists. Again, note: I don’t go around telling Muslim jokes and cursing “towel-heads” at random any more than I make cruel remarks about black people or latinos or asians or any other race or religion. In fact, I think that’s the first time I’ve ever said “towel-head” in my life. I only feel it necessary to do so when such behavior has been displayed within my sphere of observation (admittedly, not directly to me, but I’m the chivalrous type . . . I’ll jump in to defend anyone’s honor), and I don’t do it JUST to attack the attackers. I have a VERY considered reason for doing so. Not that you bothered to consider I might have motivations beyond “I’m an angry @$$hole.”
As for “exercising your rights responsibly and thinking before you open your mouth,” tell me: did Matt and Trey do that? Or were they just poking fun at a group of nut-jobs? Because that’s more or less what you’re saying here. It’s their fault because they were irresponsible loudmouths. They should have considered their words first. Blame the victim. Do you also think women should consider what they’re wearing first so they don’t accidentally entice rapists?
Exercising a right is the SUREST way of defending it. And while it’s unfortunate that some people may be insulted in the crossfire (which I regret, really, but it happens), when you’re dealing with extremists of any flavor, often, only ONE form of communication is recognized. If calling for peace stopped these psychos, they’d have gone away a long time ago. Unfortunately, we seem to have only one way of drawing a reaction, and that’s through visceral insults. As I pointed out before, it’s a legal reaction that we use against every other faith in existence. By your logic, no one should ever make fun of the Catholic Church or Scientologists or Hindus or Mormons or any other cult or fanatic in existence, because it’s not “socially responsible.” Because someone’s feelings might get hurt. Well, you know what they say about sticks and stones. And if you think it’s socially irresponsible because you’re afraid people will get killed because some Muslims were insulted? Then that’s the very DEFINITION of cowardice, isn’t it?
Loudmouth? You bet. Irresponsible? Maybe. By your definition, I suppose so. Lazy? Not sure where you got that, but fine. So, yeah, I’ll admit all that. Which, by your own final word, gives me justification to say it: you’re still a coward.
Read again my awnser to your first comment. “Jerk” and “despicable” were adjetives included in the conditional of you actually creating that website. Now breathe.
.
Better?
.
Now, freedom of speech is a key element of any democracy. By responsability towards it I dont meant “guilt” (…wtf?) but rather the reason why is so important. That is our task as citizens to try make things a little better every day. Better for us as individuals and as a society. Without that, societies stagnate and wrongs cannot be adressed if whoever is in power chooses not to.
.
Choosing to use freedom of speech in a responsable way means to think “is what I am going to say/write/draw constructive or will it rather antagonize the parts even more?”. As I said before in this thread (if you even care), SP creators seem to me very conscious of their responsability. They are abrasive but their message is constructive. And they are brave because they are actually trying to reason with the insanity.
.
Now, about the rest of what you said… you can read my take on most of those issues in this very same thread.
Conditional adjectives, huh? And I suppose lazy, irresponsible loudmouth was a compliment on my carefree lifestyle and ability to vocally project. Whatever, backpedal all you want. You want people to consider their words before insulting others, do it better yourself, then you can take the higher ground.
I do indeed strongly consider the constructiveness of making a website such as I’ve already described. Yes, the primary goal is to infuriate the initial aggressors in the matter, but it has other, constructive means. See, my anger is as much directed at CC as it is against the RM website. To put it simply, I seek to demonstrate that ridiculing and belittling a religion is both HARMLESS and, relatively speaking, SAFE. If enough people were to say, “No, screw the nutjobs, we’re going to make fun of Muhammad as much as we make fun of Jesus and Buddha and everyone else,” and subsequently NOTHING HAPPENS TO US, it would demonstrate, clearly and concisely, that not only are these extremists impotent, but the original censorship was pointless and ignorant. It’s a direct, blunt way of accomplishing the goal, and may rub people the wrong way, but it is ÐÃMN well constructive if it gets the message across.
And, assuming there ARE violent repercussions against me – which I, for one, welcome . . . not because I think I can take them, but because I’m not afraid of the consequences – it serves an equally constructive purpose by bringing said lunatics to the public eye and getting them hunted down and arrested. Above all else, I find it appalling that criminals warp and hide behind the very rights that are designed to protect them from unjust oppression. Forcing their hands to violence strips them of that protection of their own volition (after all, they don’t HAVE to behave like animals, they choose to) and brings their threats to an end, at least for a time. In my eyes, that’s a wonderfully constructive purpose.
Show the world there’s no threat, or provoke the threat into destroying itself. I’ll happily be a target, though I doubt my voice is loud enough. Obviously, even Matt and Trey’s voices weren’t.
BTW, this is what Bart Simpson kept writing on the chalkboard during the opening of THE SIMPSONS:
“South Park — We’d stand by you if we weren’t so scared.”
We saw that too but I swear they went by it faster because we had to go back and take a look at it. Love that DVR.
Umm this is Kath not Peter. Apparently the fix I did didn’t stay so it is posting me as Peter and I assure you that I am not Peter but I am married to him.
Rene,
“The “Prime Directive” be dámņëd. Basic human rights trumps respect for other people’s cultures.”
.
Except that is a very simplistic solution to a complex problem – and arrogant to boot.
.
For one thing, “basic human rights ” can be judged by different people to mean vastly different things.
.
In this case, banning the wear of Muslim garb is just as intrusive on someone’s rights as mandating it.
But Jerome, human rights become meaningless if we buy into the moral/cultural relativism paradigm. That is why human rights were turned into such a mockery into the UN, because the states with the worst records on it are the ones to defend the cultural relativism flag to excuse any atrocity.
But I gotta be honest. The burka isn’t the worst offense by far. And Muslins are persecuted by hypocrites who don’t give a fig for feminism. But if we buy inyo moral relativism, then we’d have to excuse genital mutilation and caste systems as “different people judging things differently.”
I will not do that. I’d rather be arrogant, than swallow my empathy for the suffering of others in the name of cultural relativism.
But I gotta be honest. The burka isn’t the worst offense by far. And Muslins are persecuted by hypocrites who don’t give a fig for feminism. But if we buy inyo moral relativism, then we’d have to excuse genital mutilation and caste systems as “different people judging things differently.”
.
I didn’t see Jerome arguing that we need to buy into moral relativism. Just saying that different people will judge things to mean different things doesn’t mean we have to stand by, shrug our shoulders and say, “Well, different strokes for different folks.” If something’s wrong, particularly if people are being hurt, we say it’s wrong, and if necessary we roll up our sleeves and get involved.
.
PAD
Perhaps. I just think a part of the Left seems all too ready to ignore libertarian ideals in the name of respect for other cultures, and I don’t like that.
Basic human rights: that everyone is equal, that women and men should have the same basic rights. If you’re a defender of those tenets, then how can you agree that a woman should be made to go covered head-to-toe in public at all times, just because her culture demands so?
It’s like… White Man has done horrible things to destroy entire aboriginal cultures in the past. The weight of those past sins, and the hypocrisy of the Right always ready to condemn what is different, made us all hesitant and uncertain when a situation truly demands action. And that is a shame.
But I was angry because of the South Park situation when I wrote my first post. Seduction is always better than force. I’ve read the second Freakanomics book, and they mention how several areas in India have a lot less violence against women. And they’ve correlated that to access to Western television in such areas.
European countries should use economic incentives to integrate immigrants, fight prejudice and help them to be prosperous. The more integrated they are, the more they’ll be open to influence Western culture. It worked here in Latin America, it can work in Europe.
(Looking forward to an argument often made by defenders of cultural relativism: Yeah, I think Native American tribes where women go bare-breasted are more culturally advanced than us in such an area. We’re good, but we’re not the best)
I meant, the more they will be open to the influence of Western culture. Though it works both ways, and they’ll no doubt influence Western culture in return.
Basic human rights: that everyone is equal, that women and men should have the same basic rights. If you’re a defender of those tenets, then how can you agree that a woman should be made to go covered head-to-toe in public at all times, just because her culture demands so?
.
Do *I* think she should have to? No. But it could also be argued that no one should be “made” to eat a wafer and pretend it’s someone’s flesh. Or that no one should be “made” to keep meat and dairy plates separate. A woman’s culture, and a man’s for that matter, is what they were raised to believe, and typically they’re comfortable with that, or at least used to it and don’t question. So go tell a Catholic they can no longer take communion and they’re upset. Tell Jews that they are now going to be compelled to mix meat and dairy and they’ll rebel against the notion.
.
If there’s going to be rebellion against cultural strictures, it has to come from within, not without. Whether I think women should be forced to be covered head to toe is irrelevant; they’re the ones who need to rebel against it.
.
And by the way, I think conflating dress codes with genital mutilation is something that should be avoided in this discussion. Dress codes are malleable; body parts can’t be regenerated unless you’re a Time Lord.
.
PAD
If you’re a defender of those tenets, then how can you agree that a woman should be made to go covered head-to-toe in public at all times, just because her culture demands so?
.
No, but the french law is the opposite–she can’t do that even if it IS what she wants.
.
Obviously, I would be against any law that would MANDATE the burka and I look forward to the day when a certain segment of Saudi culture is lined up against the wall and Pop! goes the weasel. But I am reluctant to impose my ideals on people over something like dress. Mutilating kids, yeah, no problem telling them they can’t do that and if they insist on it they can go back to whatever hellhole country allows that practice. But dress? No, that’s their choice. And if Dad and Mom are making them wear it, it’s also their choice to comply.
.
The french have allowed certain sections of their country to become racial ghettos where french law takes a backseat to tribal customs, and their typical overreaction is to flail out at easy targets like women in burkas.
You guys are no doubt right.
I just think what would it be like to have to cover yourself completely whenever you’re in the company of a male not your relative.
I wonder how is the day-to-day life of these women and the effects on the psyche of never showing your face and body in public.
Friend of mine made a joke that at least these women don’t have to worry so much about keeping in shape…
Here’s one American cartoonist with guts: http://www.daybydaycartoon.com/2010/04/25/
.
Though the bit about the highchair is cutting it close..oh well, if the shoe fits…
I’m wondering how, if in the film “Hamlet 2” the song had been, “Rock me, Sexy Prophet,” how that would have gone over.
.
PAD
The guy has some major balls, to joke about the prophet’s kid wife.
PAD,
I’m a big fan of Matt and Stone and am with them 100%. I have a question, though: would you ever include an image of Mohammed in one of your comics? Would Marvel support you, even if it was referential?
I don’t know.
.
PAD
There is no way in Hëll Marvel would do that. And if I am wrong…there is still no way in Hëll Disney would let them.
Bill,
.
Well, depending on who you ask, Mickey is either an enemy of Islam:
.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/saudiarabia/2963744/Mickey-Mouse-must-die-says-Saudi-Arabian-cleric.html
.
Or a martyr for their cause:
.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TrieBhaGgHM
.
That second link actually makes me ill.
Oh, and there are is also the largest Muslim group that sees Mickey as a cartoon mouse… But I guess they don’t get a funny internet link and loads of publicity (because they’re SANE).
.
I offer Matt and Trey’s interpretation instead:
.
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x8ng5a_mickey-mouse-makes-fun-of-christian_shortfilms
We should do a Top 10 of tasteless, controversial Marvel/DC stories involving Mohammed. Here are some ideas:
1 – Batman goes insane (or is being written by Frank Miller, and that is about the same as going insane) and uses a time machine to get back to year 571 to kill Mohammed as a little kid, to stop 9/11 from ever happening. Now it’s up to Booster Gold to stop him, but Booster is torn between his role as time guardian and his time as Reaganomics own superhero.
2 – In one of those typically convoluted X-Men storylines, it’s reveleaded that the immortal Apocalypse, who is also a shapechanger who took many roles throughout history, was actually Mohammed, founding a major religion to compete with Christianity to see who was stronger. Apocalypse/Mohammed brainwashes Psylocke and makes her use the burka, depriving horny teenage X-fans everywhere of much needed release. It’s up to the X-Men to stop such travesty.
3 – The Time Trapper is assassinating major historical figures in order to alter the future and wipe out the Legion of Super-Heroes. The Legion teams-up with Mohammed to stop the Trapper. Mohammed is charmed by Supergirl and invites her to be one of his wives. Brainiac 5 says, “back off, dude, she is only 17.” Mohammed is shocked, because he thought Supergirl was younger.
4 – When Steve Rogers pulls off the mask of the latest Supreme HYDRA, he gets the shock of his life. After the current revelations that both HYDRA and SHIELD are age-old secret societies, it’s revealed that Mohammed was the secret founder of HYDRA. Using a variant of the Infinity Formula, he is alive to this day (though he has those gray stripes at his temples).
5 – Norman Osborn’s latest scheme to destroy Spider-Man: he reveals that Peter Parker is actually a clone of Mohammed. The world reacts in horror that Tobey Maguire actualy played the Prophet in three major movies. Muslims everywhere demans all Spider-Man comics and merchandise to be destroyed, as it retroactively depicts Mohammed. Marvel tries to fix the mistake but makes it worse as Peter/Mohammed makes a deal with Mephisto to erase the clone stuff from continuity.
So, anyone up to create 5 more?
Honestly, I think there could be a good Marvel comic storyline involving Mohammed, terrorism and the effect it has on the good, law abiding people that make up the majority of the Muslim world.
.
Kyle and Yost gave Dust a few good pages regarding her heritage but beyond that her faith hasn’t been delved into very much. Mutants could be a good parallel to the Muslim community. They have always stood for oppressed and misunderstood people. You could easily compare situations like the response to Magneto’s attacks post New X-Men to concerns over profiling post 9/11 (or the post-Ultimatum Mutant crackdown). I don’t think any of these stories have made it a center point, however. That’s a real shame, as it’s a great opportunity to engage young readers.
.
I’d personally like to see a storyline following Dust dealing with oppression in the Middle East. What would a woman do in a Taliban-occupied Afghanistan village when she is suddenly empowered and made virtually immortal? Moreover, what would she do when she arrives in the United States and finds her Muslim identity subverted by her Mutant identity?
.
If it were a MAX-style mini-series it could provide a realistic look at Dust as a Muslim woman. The first section could focus on her empowerment and subsequent departure to America. The second part could focus on her encountering the diverse X-Men cast (which includes homosexuals, Jewish people and a variety of other people that even an open-minded person who has grown up in a village might have issues associating with at first). The final part could involve Dust dealing with Magneto or another villain, initially being tempted by them and then rejecting their ways as being another form of zealotry.
.
It’s fertile ground, even if it were a subplot in a larger story. It’d actually be something I’d love to read or even write but I’ve only written film-scripts (just got one into development – woooooo).
Congratulations on the script!
Andrew Sullivan has the bleeped speech, as translated from the Chinese subtitles.
According to that link, all the Chinese subtitles are are an explanation as to why the entire thing was bleeped, and not the speech itself.
.
PAD
Hmm, I’m a little late on this one, but I just sat down a bit ago to watch last week’s episode of South Park, along with last night’s.
.
Only, instead of Pt 2 from last week, I got a repeat of Scrotie McBoogerballs on Dish Network. But my guide still gave me the information for Episode 201.
.
Did CC yank the episode for the West Coast?
Interestingly, it was just inferred on CNN (as a longshot possibility) that the recent car bomb scare in NYC might have been in reaction to the South Park episode as the bomb was found close to the Viacom building.
A number of political cartoonists including Gary Trudeau have signed a letter condemning the threats:
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/comic-riffs/2010/04/17_pulitzer-winning_cartoonist.html