Are humans to be doomed to this phenomenon until the end of time? Is there to be no golden moment in which mainstream societies will be able to overcome their pathological fear of the Other?
And are Others doomed to huddle in our ghettos, paralyzed with our own fear of the Man? And why does he get to be the Man? Are we not men? It would appear that we are indeed Devo, devolving as opposed to evolving.
If there is anything that the Man, for want of a better appellation, fears more than the Other, it may be being reminded of his fear.
It should be pointed out that Otherness has not always been confined, as many may assume, to non-whites.
There was a time when it was common in the city of Boston to see signs in windows looking for employees that said at the bottom “No Irish Need Apply.”
Now the Irish, as Irish, have pretty thoroughly assimilated themselves, as was their right and their choice, and have now become the Man – with the exeption of their Catholicism.
As recently as 1960, when JFK ran for President, he was considered, as a Catholic, Other enough so that there was lively debate on the question of whether his religious affiliation might be an impediment to his serving as President. And even in 2004 there were similar murmurings over one of the Democratic Party millionaires with wonderful hair and outstanding suits.
In the US, legalized racial apartheid was not ended until the 1960s, and as Jimmy Carter pointed out in his remarks at Coretta King’s funeral, if one doubts that there is still much work to be done on the task of achieving Dr. King’s dream, one need only remember the color of the faces of the people in New Orleans during Operation Crescent Cleansing. Of course Carter did not call it that, but he was roundly scolded for having had the temerity to say such impolite things in front of America’s Dear Leader.
Nor is this a uniquely American practice. When disenfranchised, marginalized, poverty-stricken youths were burning cars in France, naturally there was a great effort made by the American media to relate this somehow to
“Al Qaeda,” this kind of thing was even seen on the “progressive” blogs, including this one, though even if one accepts all the Washington orthodoxy of the Great Muslim Conspiracy, these particular youths were about as far from religious fundamentalists as one can get, they were burning cars to protest lack of jobs, decent housing, and ghettoization of their immigrant communities.
France has even gone so far as to ban hijab in its public schools, in an attempt to cut down on visible Muslims in the streets, and in Russia, Germany, and England, roving bands of “neo-Nazis” seek out and beat up any Others who may have been unwise enough to stray from their ghettos and cross the paths of these shaven-headed self-appointed protectors of their respective Fatherlands.
Anti-Muslim sentiment has reached such mouth-foaming frenzy in the US that even to question it is to risk any and everything from social ostracization to job loss to physical violence. Not since the anti-Jewish sentiment encouraged by Hitler in Germany has a cultural group been so intensely and proudly reviled.
Even Europe, with its neo-Nazi gangs and its own systematic ghettoization of minorites, has not, to Washington’s dismay, been able to work up sufficient anti-Arab frothiness to expedite America’s imminent crusade expansion.
Rarely does a week go by without at a police beating, or shooting, “caught on tape” in the US, and if any of these incidents have featured white victims, I am not aware of it. The most recent involved a Hispanic man, returned from Iraq. Even offering up one’s life and doing God knows what to stuff the Man’s pockets at the expense of one’s own soul is not enough. No matter how much homage he may receive from crusade fans who will call him a hero and thank him for his service, once he takes off that uniform, he is still just another Other.
Naturally, this does not exactly inspire minority communities to trust and snuggle up to the Man, or as so many appear to wish, attempt to make themselves into him, in hopes of becoming an acceptable Token Other, like Barak Obama, as opposed to an uppity, unacceptable Other like Al Sharpton. It does not matter that Al is in his own way, just as much of a playa as Barak. And it certainly does not matter that he is about twelve times as smart. Al is just too black, too uppity.
Others are expected to be a bit humble, and obsessively and fanatically imitative of every aspect of the mainstream culture, from dress to speech to attitudes, and are never, ever supposed to complain about anti-Other-ism. That is just being arrogant and judgmental and playing the race card.
Today, we can chalk a lot of it up to changing global demographics, and the desperation of the 14% or so and dropping of the world’s people, who own something like 85% of the world’s resources realizing that their predominance, like their recessive blue eyes, are not sustainable.
But the history goes back even farther, even before the Irish were Other, before slavery, back to when European invaders encountered the Americas presumptuously and provocatively chock-a-block with Other, and set about exterminating as many of them as possible.
Could it be that those invaders had read Mendel? Could do math?
Or could it be that for all the advances and enlightenment that has supposedly been accomplished by mankind since cave days, that we are doomed to go to our extinction trapped in the darkness of tribal warfare?
Eloquently put. One of the great unanswered questions of human history for sure. Perhaps (with apologies to FDR) our only hope is hope itself: despite the darkness, some people of all races, sexes and creeds still reach out to join hands, in the hope that the grim pessimism of the story you present might yet be overcome. Thank you for sharing this with us, my friend.
You have a way with words, I salute you for continuing to engage debate on these issues.
it goes back before recorded history. & goes on & on & on . . .
Fortunately, there are some counter-examples. Tribal, individual. Cross cultural pollination. The paradoxical unity of love.
as well as your articulate plea.
George Oppen, in “of Being Numerous”:
Obsessed, bewildered
By the shipwreck
Of the singular
We have chosen the meaning
Of being numerous.
[http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/01-29-2006/0004269732&
;EDATE=]
.
Hamas reached a majority in free democratic elections, that demands responsibility and engagement in a peace process.
Only Russia will engage in dialog with Hamas. Israel has called the political statement by Putin a stab in the back and a treacherous act. Laudable effort by Putin, although it is part of his power play for ME influence and its natural and economic resources.
PS 78 million Egyptians are not concerned about Danish cartoons tonight!
“But I will not let myself be reduced to silence.”
▼ ▼ ▼ MY DIARY
http://www.familytreedna.com/
http://www.oxfordancestors.com/
http://www.africanancestry.com/
http://www.tracegenetics.com/
One world: [http://jrb.typepad.com/personalgenome/2005/04/the_genographic.html]
[https://www3.nationalgeographic.com/genographic/index.html]
The story of our collective journeys is so much more interesting than what separates us. But unfortunately it seems we are hard wired for self preservation which I think leads us to reject the other. The only thing I can think of that might bring us all back together as brothers and sisters is the story of our evolution and disseminate….the story we can all relate to.
I suspect that the human species has reached the last lap of a grand race to at long last feel at home in the universe. We came so close — you have only to look at the way technology is literally fulfilling old dreams of magic to grasp what a near thing it’s been. Tragedians, who are no longer of interest in current cultures, always knew about the fatal flaw that hid like a slow virus, waiting to confound and destroy the most arrogant and hopeful works of mankind. I think that’s the real fear that we cannot face, and so turn on the other to scapegoat, over and over again.
You point out, DF, that otherness has not been confined to non-whites. I think we could go much further examining the real qualifications that determine otherness, but that’s too hard and long an investigation to take on right here and now.
I must point out in turn, DF, that attackers of Others have also not been confined to one origin or culture. The Ottomans, for example, were no slouches when it came to annhiliating other views as they rampaged over much of Asia and their spiritual heirs today continue the work in Somalia and elsewhere in bleeding Africa. I have no large disagreement with your conclusions except that they rest on false assumptions about who makes up the entire cast of characters in the epic.
The mechanism of the slaughter and enslavement of the Other is fairly simple, it seems to me: we find something to believe in and decide that that faith gives us special rights over the very lives of Others. The hard part lies in rooting out this belief in ourselves first, and somehow stifling it in others — all without becoming them. Maybe that’s just more than we’re capable of accomplishing. Maybe nothing has ever really changed.
That western “civilization” is somehow not superior to all others, which is going to make a lot of folks very mad.
As far as I can tell, the cast of characters includes the entire human race, I could have used examples of minority tribes in China, in India, or Indonesia, but I deliberately chose western examples because I thought those would be more accessible on this particular blog.
And whether you like it or not, superior or not, it is the antics of the west that are impacting most on people everywhere.
We’re pretty good at the self-abnegation pose. The only ones who get mad at suggestions that western civ is not better than all the rest are those who haven’t the remotest clue as to what western civ is, and has been.
There’s no question that the actions of the west are impacting most at the moment. But your implication that stopping the west would somehow lead to long-term improvement worldwide just doesn’t square with history. It’s kinda like we all know that in the US right now, the GOP is the primary engine of evil. But at the same time we also know that replacing them with Dems is not going to make everything all better.
It seems likely to me that Bush & Gang have pushed the US off the cliff when it comes to worldwide power and influence and we just don’t know we’re falling yet. There will no doubt be some satisfaction in watching that realization finally take place. But it would be naive and even dishonest in the extreme to imagine that our replacement by regimes in Beijing or Teheran or Moscow or Tokyo or Capetown or whereever will make the slightest improvement in either the world’s virtue or human survival. We’d have to, together, discover and apply something far more fundamental for that to happen.
I can find after searching through several millennia is that most countries now torture people behind closed doors, as opposed to making it a public spectacular the whole family can enjoy.
And that is an improvement, you have to grant, in the same way that Holocaust denial is a step up from Holocaust approval.
Now the entire west, I don’t know, but removing, or disarming the US would not only increase the chances for human survival, it is in fact the only chance for survival that humans have.
It is my fervent hope that, imperfect as we are, that we are not yet so completely abnegated as a species that we are willing to forego the chance for our annihilation simply to generate additional revenues for a handful of rich Americans with bunker access.
I have great hope for the homogenizing power of covert adultery.
While not ovulating, women respond most farourably to familial antigens, that is men who smell like her community group. However, ovulation turns on a preference for complimentary histocompatability, that is guys who smell like strangers.
When women work their way out of the shackles, we’ll all be a lovely brown.
as an honorary great-granddaughter yet, please consider all applicable papers signed.
I am laughing too hard to type now, and will have to go and celebrate this moment with something especially decadent, like 4 ounces of orange juice in a claret glass.
If we were having this conversation in Africa, I’d pipe in here and say:
isn’t that kind of like taking a second wife?
But we’re not, so I won’t.
But does that make me and susanw sisters, or cousins?
😉
are allowed an unlimited number of honorary great-grand descendants, and yes, it makes you and susanw and katiebird and catnip and I better stop because I will leave out a dozen or two who will pelt me with cupcakes for leaving them out, but anyway, it makes you all cousins, and therefore obligated to share useful tips on eyeliner, auto maintenance, accessories and anthropology, among other interesting subjects, with each other.
My dear Ductape, I gladly accept the post as honourary older sister, since I’m almost 2 weeks older than Lilith.
very pretty little girl, and grew into such a lovely and charming woman.
Good morning, honorary great granddaughter! 😀
The Trojan women proposed to end war by withholding it. Your plan is to spread it around. Your plan is better.
All I can say is “whoah.” This is the second I’ve been off for a while (maybe lurking for a hot second on the front page for headlines but not having time to do more) and things have blown up in a sense.
So I made my way through the very long diary that I started this morning b/4 I left and finished tonight when I got home. I have to go back out again in a few.
But real quick–I’m glad to see you’re staying, Ductape. FWIW, I agree with what you said. How do we get to the grandmothers and mothers to stop this?
Side note: A few days ago, I watched Real Women Have Curves. The story line included a brilliant young woman who has the chance to go to Columbia on scholarship, but is told BY HER MOTHER that she can’t go because she has to work. And why? Because that’s what SHE did. That she could have a better life didn’t seem to sink in. Which isn’t to say that she didn’t love her in her own way, which you saw portrayed in the film. It’s just that you wanted to shake the mother character.
I hate this mutilation of young women. It’s all about control. But I’m not so stupid to think that just because I say it’s wrong that they will stop. It’s the way it’s always been done and all that other bullshit that they’ve been conditioned to believe. But unless we’re going to adopt all the daughters who are threatened with this barbaric practice, we have to think short and long term.
Anyway, I’m all OT. Sorry. My $.02 FWIW. Will try to be more engaged tomorrow.
I was privileged to watch it in a group that included several beautiful ladies, and when the ladies in the factory took off their clothes, every lady in the room, from early teens to never you mind, stood up and clapped and cheered.
And then so did all of us gentlemen. 🙂
I have not seen such a reaction to a movie scene before or since.
To answer your question, I will try to do another diary on the solutions aspect at a future date. So soon after that one, I am afraid that we would get the same, either no interest solutions, or the ever-popular “lock them up.”
The gap is wide, my sister, very wide…
was in no way “lewd” or “provocative,” while the main actress in the movie is a very pretty little girl, her stature and figure are very typical Meso-American, which is to say, Paris Hilton’s clothes would not fit her. I cannot call her fat, or even plump. I can say she is not skinny. She has, well, curves.
And the other ladies in this scene were, as all ladies are, beautiful in their own way, but no one should go and see this movie and wait with tongue hanging out for a bevy of Sports Illustrated models to bare all.
For one, the ladies do not “bare all” in the scene, and their beauty lies in the fact that they do not resemble in the least anyone ever pictured in the Sports Illustrated swimsuit shots.
I liked it that scene, too, if for no other reason than I was jealous of her bravery. There are many hot days when I wish I could just whip off a shirt, other folks’ reaction be damned. And they were beautiful.
I thought about her character while reading thru that diary. Her mother kept calling her a gordita and such, obsessing over her marriage prospects, when she could do well to have her own degree and her career. The mothers and grandmothers who countenance mutilation are much the same, and it’s that mindset that much change.
Even though I’m sure they love their daughters, I still think it’s abuse. The trick is to convince THEM that it’s abuse, that there is a better way of rites of passage, that they are not raising prostitutes by refusing to allow another generation of girls to suffer like this.
OK, end my .02. I’ll get back on topic. :<)
whether they disfigure the body or the soul is irrelevant. Which, as you are able to see, is another point of the diary.
And you are on topic, the topic is otherness, and as you have just pointed out, the mainstream has more in common with the Others than they would ever guess.
Oh, absolutely. I can’t believe I’m going to tell on myself, but when I was younger, I both longed for women’s rights and bigger “friends.” All of my friends were popping out, and I only pooped, I suppose. I kept waiting, wanting desperately to look like a “real” woman, until one day I announced to my Mom that I’d get an implant when I was 18.
Now understand: I openly questioned why men were head of the household. My Mom called me a “womenlibber” with a strange mix of resignation and pride. My parents probably thought I’d never get married. And yet, I was talking about some ‘ol implant nonsense! Even though I was questioning, I wasn’t immune to those cultural messages.
Luckily, by the time I turned 18, it was the last thing I’d ever consider. And when I read more about it…read that the surgery could decrease sensation, I thought Well, why the fuck do it if you can’t feel anything?!
And of course, that’s the point. It ain’t about you. It’s about making some random man feel good. And that’s bullshit.
We still talk of “virtuous” women, “saving” themselves so that they can “give themselves” to somebody. Bleh. How ’bout I ain’t giving you shit, because I’m not a friggin’ object to be owned. (There’s a 13th amendment and everything!) I’m sharing, contingent upon the respect and dignity that I am owed as a human being.
That mindset is changing, but is it ever slow. But see, you say that in the wrong way, it’s like you’re advocating promiscuity. And so folks will cling to their “values” even harder. Sound familiar?
(((Sigh)))
That makes me think of a recent function I attended. Among the guests was a young lady, blond, mainstream long legged fresh-faced sylph, she could easily get work as a fashion model. For all I know she may be one.
Yet all the attention was focused on a plump, you could say dumpy lady comfortably past the half century mark who was neither blond (far from it, in fact) nor long legged nor fresh-faced, but something about her made every person there, male and female, want to talk to her. For one thing, she was very funny. Her conversation was brilliant, she could, and did, hold forth on a variety of subjects, but her charm was some indefinable magic thing that I neither can nor will try to explain, except that she radiated something, and that something had the young men wishing they were twenty years older and that she was single, and the older men vying with each other to be the next recipient of her twinkling smile and casting “you lucky bastard” looks at her husband.
Meanwhile, the blond goddess moved awkwardly through the crowd, trying vainly to find someone there who would not require of her more personality than she had lived enough years to develop, you could almost hear her wondering what went wrong, she had the “right” clothes, the perfect makeup, her blondness was enhanced with elegant precision, happily, she finally found companionship in the person of a young man similarly afflicted, and they mumbled self-consciously to each other the names of popular musical groups, but I was struck by the illustration of the old saying that a woman is as beautiful and alluring as she sincerely believes herself to be – for what she is, as opposed to how she looks.
In the simplest way I can think of saying it, I think that to the extent that collective,( or in the author’s words “mainstream”) societies fail to define, unite, and deliver benefit to their populations, it’s pretty much inevitable that they’ll fail under the weight of their own dysfunctionality.
Historically, this same dynamic seems to apply across the board to tribal societies and cultures as well, just as the concept of the “other” was also quite central with regard to defining, or at least distinguishing, tribal identities.
To the extent that a tribe/society/religion chooses to identify an “other”, and on the basis of “otherness” to exclude that “other” from being deserving of respect, that represents the degree of dysfunction in that group and further evidences the odds it will fail to sustain itself over time. Wherever tribe or collective society or culture or religion or nationaistic movement derives it’s identity and elevates it’s own importance and authority through the devices of instilling fear of or denigration of “others”, that society/culture/organization carries within it the seeds of it’s own demise.
As far as I can tell, this has always been so.
Being mostly one who thinks of how children fare in this world, I could not stomach much beyond reading the conflicts of the past two days, herein noted.
Having seen and held a child who could not walk, having been “made clean” as “little girls should”; having spoken to a child still frozen in fear because he had seen his father and mother killed by a tank bursting through the wall of his house; having known a young teen still fearful of men after being gang-raped by the killers of her father and brother because her family was of the wrong religious sect; having shaken the arm stump of a young man whose hand was hacked off as a boy “to teach you who God loves”. . .
I find it good to see how little children view “The Other”. Mostly, they are quite comfortable with visible differences, asking questions freely. Deeper questions of otherness don’t seem important, until adults tell them they are:
Can I feel your hair? Your skin looks like hot cocoa! How come you have no eyebrows? Why isn’t your hair curly like mine? Do you have a really dark suntan? Are you having a bad hair day? Is that why your head is covered? Why do you put that red on your lips? Why is your tummy showing, did you forget your dress? You are really fat!
Those are all things I’ve heard little children (preschoolers) say about Otherness. And then they forget it when it comes to the important stuff:
I lost my tooth! Can you help me? Let’s build something! Vamanos! Gordita had puppies! Deseas verlos(want to see them)? I love you!
Like Rogers & Hammerstein said:
I defy any adult to watch and listen to a group of little children work and play together over the space of several days, weeks, and months, and fail to notice something. They like each other, sing, teach, hold hands, laugh, hug, cry, argue, explore, chase, worry, sympathize, and help each other without much if any of the divisions that divide other from other from other.
If they do act differently separating their companions by religion, ethnicity, color, costume; if they hate and fight and group each other as we do, someone has taught them this. Shall we look in the mirror?
It seems that people will always find a way to set themselves apart from others and put themselves in a separate and superior group. Is it human nature of some deep-seated need? If it isn’t skin color it would be religion or the car one drives or brand of jeans one wears.
I am reminded of the old Star Trek episode where an alien race was composed of individuals that were half black and half white. But some were white on the right side of their bodies (and black on the left) and others were white on the left side (and black on the right). The two groups were feuding. Or, Dr.Seuss’s sneetches. (But you get the idea.)
Or bloggers on one blog vs. bloggers on another. But perhaps I shouldn’t go there. 😉
has scientifically established that the difference between any human being and a banana is something like 2%, if it is human nature, it does not speak well for humans. And it will have to take its place in the long list of things that do not speak well for humans.
Have you ever seen young people play that game, “what would be the most embarrassing thing that could possibly happen to you?”
If I were to play that game, when it was my turn to tell, I would have to say finding myself in the company of intelligent beings from other locations in the universe, and when asked to tell about myself, being obliged to confess, “I am a human being from earth.”
And for me it would be being caught wearing white after labor day. 😉
It seems that people will always find a way to set themselves apart from others and put themselves in a separate and superior group. Is it human nature of some deep-seated need? If it isn’t skin color it would be religion or the car one drives or brand of jeans one wears.
I am reminded of the old Star Trek episode where an alien race was composed of individuals that were half black and half white. But some were white on the right side of their bodies (and black on the left) and others were white on the left side (and black on the right). The two groups were feuding. Or, Dr.Seuss’s sneetches. (But you get the idea.)
Or bloggers on one blog vs. bloggers on another. But perhaps I shouldn’t go there. 😉
Hi Ductape, I was wondering what you thought of the recent calls to boycott all Danish products, thereby demonizing and harming all Danes for the transgressions of a few.
Thanks for staying.
It’s not quite that simple
Although I would have to take issue with calling it demonizing. The newspaper and the Danish government have made their choices freely, as do we all when we choose which products we wish to purchase.
Thanks for the link. I missed reading that one.
I do not agree that every Danish citizen should be punished for the sins of some. If you do that, you do it at the peril of harming Danish allies and enemies alike. I don’t think that’s very effective. I guess I just never learned a single lesson from a teacher who punished my whole class for the transgressions of a few students, or even a majority of students. Instead of teaching me a lesson, it made me bitter that the teacher didn’t give enough of a damn about me or the rest of the class to do the work of punishing the wrong-doers appropriately.
I do think that I have a responsibility to attempt to instruct the speaker of hate-speech that it is not OK. TARGETED boycotts ARE fair game. But I don’t think it is OK to attempt to punish abhorrent speech with reverse indiscriminate judgment against everyone who happened to be standing close by when someone said the abhorrent things.
I would not buy or read anything that had to do with the newspaper that originally published the cartoons or any paper that re-published the cartoons. I would even go so far as to boycott all advertisers who continue to advertise in the newspaper that originally published them and those papers that reprinted them. If I were Danish, I would vote against the bastards in government who refuse to repudiate the cartoons.
I wonder what the response would be if I casually posted an image of the flag of the state of Mississippi (where I live) in a diary in which I expressed my positive feelings about some few aspects of life here in this state. The Mississippi state flag contains the rebel flag in the upper left hand corner, a well-known symbol of the KKK. It was voted on a couple of years ago and the citizens who could vote (and who bothered to vote) on that low-turnout ‘special election’ day, voted to keep it the way it is.
If you are offended by that flag would you actively and totally boycott everything about the state of Mississippi, punishing everyone here for the will of the majority of a subset of voters? Will you stop driving Nissan autos made in Mississippi, eating pecans and soy products and rice grown in Mississippi (much of which is grown by the minorities who are offended by the same flag)? Will you stop buying cotton clothing if a thread of it was grown in Mississippi? Would you swear off purchasing the music of B.B. King and viewing the movies in which Morgan Freeman acts? Would you not buy a book of poetry which included the poems of Langston Hughes or the prose of William Faulkner or Eudora Welty? Would you not attend a performance of a play written by (the so-called) ‘Tennessee’ Williams? Would you go so far as to withhold Katrina-relief from the state until the flag is changed? Personally, I only boycott businesses which display the state flag or the confederate flag.
I’m just wondering…. Where WOULD YOU draw the line?
I don’t think it’s simple at all to conduct a targeted boycott, I think it’s very hard to do it. On the other hand, it is very simple to smear everyone with the transgressions of some.
When the cartoons were first published, back in the fall, that would have been the time, if the Danish government had chosen to reconsider its foreign policy, especially its decision to supply the US with expendables for its crusade, to say, OK maybe we are sending a message we don’t want to send, maybe defining ourselves as a nation in a way we don’t want to be defined, and at that time, taken actions appropriate to Danish law, the entire operation would not have been as effective.
However, a different decision was made, and so the cartoons were available when it became apparent to Washington that persuading other European countries to become allies as substantially key as Denmark for the expansion of the crusade to Iran.
It is possible that the operation planners did not forsee where things might go a bit awry, though I doubt that the effect on Denmark was a high priority.
At any rate, once the operation was underway, and began to take on a life of its own, Denmark had another opportunity to re-evaluate its policies, and decided they were pleased with things as they were, and not to enforce their laws regarding such material in this case.
If there have been large demonstrations of outrage by the general population in Denmark, demanding a change in policy, demanding that the newspaper be held accountable to the law, if there had been a surge of protest by Danish companies, expressing opposition to Danish participation in the crusade and loudly and publicly disassociating itself both from that policy and the newspaper’s editorial policy, then I think you would be right.
However, none of that has happened, and if you look at it from another perspective, would it not be insulting to Danish companies to put them in a position of accepting money from people they despise, people who their military, who does their bidding, are killing?
What product to purchase is an individual decision, even in US client states ruled by very strict native overseers. Should the US force people in Pakistan, or Iran, to purchase the products they specify?
If Iran invaded England, and Indonesia sent gunmen to aid in murdering English people who were suspected of objecting to the invasion, would you be inclined to purchase products from Indonesia?
I will grant that there might be a small minority of Indonesians who oppose Iran invading England in the first place, and disagree with their government’s decision, and the will of the majority of the Indonesian people, much as in the US there is a small minority who oppose the crusade, and in any such situation, yes, the consequences of the decision of the majority can unjustly impact the minority who oppose it, and I am all in favor of that minority making itself known, as best and as discreetly as is prudent, and doing whatever it can, in this case, that would involve Indonesians covertly assisting the English Resistance.
If there are any Danish companies known to be assisting the Iraqi Resistance, for example, I would oppose boycotting that company’s products.
Yes, I might be inclined to purchase products from indonesia under those circumstances. If I were able to determine that the profits went to folks who were against the bad actions, for example.
To not do so would be to demonize the entire indonesian people as if they were all guilty of the crimes of the rulers. It seems to me that you are entirely too willing to demonize large groups of people according to a national slur by which you categorize them.
Danish companies who use part of their products to aid the Iraqi Resistance to make that known.
What actions do you think the US should take to force individuals in the Middle East to purchase Danish products?
How should those individuals who choose a non-Danish product be punished?
in the first sentence
Your hyperbole/misdirection would be amusing if this were a less serious topic. How about my original suggestion of just punishing the specific wrong-doers by directly boycotting the specific products of those specific wrong-doers and the idiots who support the wrong-doers? How about buying products from companies/individuals who renounce the specific wrong-doing and work within their own local society to fix the problems? Your additional requirement of direct aid to Iraqis does not address the specific wrong-doing and is still smearing the whole of a people for the wrongdoing of a subset.
None. This is a nonsequitur. Is it placed merely for the purpose of extremifying your original slur and extending it to me personally? I never proposed such a thing.
Not at all, people are certainly free to do as they will. If they wish to amplify and extend the hatred that tribalism and group hate-mongering brings with it, they are free to do so. I just don’t want to encourage it. Again, I never proposed such a thing and if you think I did you are very very wrong. Your escalation of hyperbole does not do your argument one iota of good.
I understand that when people are in the throes of hatred and anger that they want this sort of eye for an eye ‘justice’. “All of ‘you people’ hate me so I’ll hate all of ‘your people’ back.” This type of emotional response is awfully enticing – tribal revenge is a very powerful concept. It starts blood feuds and wars.
My objective is to separate wrong-doers from the general population, not to smear whole populations with the wrong-doings of some among them.
victims of US war crimes should assist in funding those atrocities by patronizing businesses of the US and other countries who choose to participate.
What I am saying is that I don’t think it is reasonable to expect either the victims of overt operations, or those who live in client states to agree with that.
You had said to my “what if Indonesia” question that you would purchase Indonesian products if you knew that the companies who made those products were opposed to Indonesia’s decision to send gunmen to aid Iran in murdering English people.
I think that is a valid point, and would think it extraordinarily brave of any Danish company to stand up and identify itself as opposed to the decisions of the Danish government. Of course part of their revenues would still be going to that government, to fund those activities it opposes, but as a symbolic gesture, I would applaud it.
However, this is merely a hypothetical, and to my knowledge, no Danish company has taken such steps.
Nor is it a slur to ask what those opposed to crusade victims who prefer not to pay for their torture would suggest as a remedy. The United States, if I am not mistaken has laws prohibiting boycotting nations it specifies, and there are indeed penalties for violating this, as there are with any other law.
Because the nations in question are US client states, it is a perfectly reasonable question to pose to the anti-boycott sector: What measures should US take to punish those who do not purchase products from crusader nations?
Your inference that victims who do not only meekly submit to US aggression, but who do not actively seek to fund it are “amlifying hatred” is in accordance with US policy, which is that any opposition or resistance to US policies is in fact, hatred and terrorism.
And I understand that this is a very cherished belief, I am simply saying that no matter how deeply held, it has simply not caught on outside the US, and I do not think that the chances of it gaining in popularity in the rest of the world are good.
In fact, though this would certainly be considered a terrorist view by loyal Americans, it could be suggested that the US has a terrific opportunity to cease amplifying hatred and tribalism by ceasing to torture, slaughter, kidnap and maim the men, women and children in many countries.
I think….
You rightly point out that if I were to purchase a Danish product, even if it were from a hypothetical company that used its profits to pay reparations to middle eastern countries, a portion of the purchase price would be carved out by the Danish government in the form of taxes. I ‘get’ that. And it is understandable that those who are wronged would object to purchasing any product that the offensive government levied taxes against. I can see that in some respects this is a ‘targeted’ boycott, as I have defined it in this thread.
I see your point, I just disagree with it. I don’t disagree with your goal in the slightest, I just think there is a better way.
I think a more specifically targeted boycott is better, because if you choose to boycott all Danish products you will indeed be demonizing members of that broad group of individuals known as Danes. If you cripple all Danes, including the good, you risk escalating the conflict further. These things do feed on themselves.
I think it is more effective, all things considered, to support those who work within a country to change it rather than to abandon them. I think you would get quicker results by supporting the good Danes in their efforts to replace the bad government than if you simply force the bad government to borrow quickly printed up U.S. Dollars to buy more guns.
What I object to strongly is the implication that I am some kind of ‘insensitive westerner’ who thinks that victims should fund perpetrators, or that I hold some kind of “cherished belief” about specific policies of the U.S. government. My opinion is not primarily based on any policy or law in any country, it is simply the product of the best thinking I have yet done. I believe that my conslusions about this matter are based first and foremost on how to stop the wrong-doers as quickly as possible, secondly on how to prevent escalations of wrong-doing, and thirdly on the reality of the laws that exist in different countries and the effects such laws have on their citizens.
First and foremost, I think a specifically targeted boycott against the wrong-doers is the quickest way to stop the bad behavior, secondly, that highly specific targeting is least likely to cause an escalation, and thirdly, that good and bad Danes will pay taxes to keep from going to jail. I also think that some good Danes are working to change the government and its policies.
as I do the Americans, for making the choices that they feel are in their best interests.
I may disagree with the view that the choices are in their best interests, but these are both countries that claim to be democracies, and these are both populations of intelligent, educated people, and if they day ever comes that their governments, and their militaries, are not carrying out the will of the people, then I am confident that both populations are up to the task of changing that.
Any time the decision is made to engage in military aggression and crimes against humanity, there are going to be risks. There is the most obvious and direct risk that the survivors of the attacks, the families and friends of the victims, will disagree with the activities and resist and oppose them. There is also the risk that there may be a lessening of enthusiasm for patronizing businesses in the participating entities, or nations, as the case may be.
What may be considered “wrong-doing” by the victims is the official policy of some nations, and Denmark being one of those nations, this boycott is “targetted.”
Remember people are not protesting the cartoons, a few may be, but most are protesting US crimes against humanity in the region.
This particular aspect of boycott may be getting a lot of “look at the savage Muslims!” media coverage in the US right now, but the fact is that there has been a very steady and consistent trend in both Asia and the Middle East to purchase local and regional products for some time.
In fact, don’t even think of it as a boycott. Think of it as new and improved opportunities for regional businesses.
I don’t know what country you are living in at the moment, but I live in the U.S. I’m not proud of, nor do I agree with the long-standing policies of my government toward the middle east, or lots of other places, including inside the U.S. for that matter. I am actively working toward trying to change those policies. But, by logical extension of your broad-brush accusations, I am evil and must be resisted because of where I happen to be on the planet. You smear me with all the wrong-doing of my government, and claim that they are doing my bidding, and that I deserve to punished for their sins. Just like you think all Danes are in cahoots with their government.
You are wrong. And no amount of smearing all Americans or all Danes will change that. The fact is that we are all repressed by the same global regime in various ways: economically, psychologically, physically, and probably some other ways I haven’t thought of yet. The ruling class is made up of less than ten percent of the worldwide population, probably something more like 1 percent or even less. That we have not defeated them yet is the problem of the whole planet. Attitudes like yours that blame the unpowerful by breaking us up into further tribalisms do not help. We must begin to think as individuals and as citizens of the world.
In your book, it is better for Saudi’s to purchase locally, and support their own repressive regime rather than supporting someone else’s repressive regime. I say that is folly. The rich and powerful are going to do whatever it takes, wherever it takes them. The answer does not lie in trading one repressive taxation scheme for another. The only answer is to be found in treating one another as brothers and sisters and trying to do the least egregious thing possible when spending our money. The Danish and U.S governments will get funded regardless of hate-based wars, physical or economic. The global regime will gladly lend the U.S. or Denmark enough U.S. Dollars to support the war machine. They will collect the taxes in Saudi Arabia or Iraq, or Syria, or wherever they need to in order to accomplish that.
I will target my tiny little amounts of spending by trying to reward companies and individuals who agree with progressive policies, wherever they are, and under whichever local variant of the global taxation scheme they happen to have to live and work.
‘logical’ should be in scare quotes, to make the snark more clear
in my opinion. I don’t think it is possible to overpraise their courage, and I will presume to say that the French of the 1940s felt much the same admiration for Germans who opposed the policies of their government.
Nor do I mean to suggest that tribalism has no role in the policies of the US today, especially in the aspect of the support of the majority enjoyed by Washington.
In fact, without tribalism, it is unlikely that any such policies, throughout history, would have been possible to implement. Like religion, tribalism is a valuable tool in this regard.
But neither am I deceived that were the sand under which lies the oil that US views as its own trodd by Christian feet as white as snow, that the greed of the warlords would be lessened, nor their brutality.
People will resist invasions, and the popularity of colonialism has historically been greater among the population of the colonizers as opposed to that of the colonized.
It is also my fervent hope that one day we will all see and treat each other as the brothers that we are, and work together to effect controls and checks on the demon Greed, which is the greatest single factor in all the harm and suffering that exists on the planet.
In fact, don’t even think of it as a boycott. Think of it as new and improved opportunities for regional businesses.
Think Mercosur!
The point that can’t be hammered home enough is this:
Remember people are not protesting the cartoons, a few may be, but most are protesting US crimes against humanity in the region.
Cuz the media & all the attention on free speech & boycotts are very effectively obscuring this uncomfortable fact.
DTF’s recent post with commentary. If you read carefully you will see that every sentence contains a sly contradiction.
Yes they took it down after several people, (4.00 / 3)
including me, made a fuss. In my opinion, that wasn’t necessary. Whatever your beliefs are, no one should feel they have to make excuses for them. Defend them. If you find them embarrassing or indefensible, then maybe some introspection is in order, but no one should have to apologize for what is in their heart.
The reproduction of the offensive cartoon was not only taken down. It was acknowleged that the image was not studied, the diarist did not know that it was one of the 12 infamous cartoons. There was regret expressed and an apology. But DTF still insists that it was “in their heart.”
Yes, it was very painful to me to learn of the strengths of the beliefs, and I did consider leaving, because my presence is discourteous to those beliefs, and discourteous to myself.
There has been no intolerance towards Muslims on this blog especially from our hosts so “strengths of their beliefs” is a false charge.
However, on reflection, I realized that the Palestinians have not yet exited the Levant, the Iraqi Resistance has yet to hie itself to Provence, and so I decided it would be a greater discourtesy to the Global Resistance to shirk my savage Mujahid duty to occupy the place, even though I can no longer consider it my home, which was an error on my part.
We are all guests in the home of BooMan and Susan, or you all are. I am, as previously stated, now an occupier, who happens to find the company of many of the guests exceptionally agreeable. ;->
only for myself, while the image was removed, there was never any disavowal of the championing of Dan Savage, Andrew Sullivan, the rightwing muslim cnn/fox commentator (who I heard again on Chris Matthews avow that the Danish paper published the cartoons to promote cultural understanding!!!), overall viewing the issue solely as one of free speech, to the exclusion of all others. Had there been, I would have a enormous respect for the original poster (OP). Learning in public takes enormous courage & humility.
There wasn’t any retraction, so we’re left to believe that the OP still stands by those words. No one would suggest that they should be removed, nor that the OP didn’t have a right to publish them, but personally, I was very disappointed to read those opinions on a liberal blog & learned something I probably knew but didn’t want to learn from them. Then again, I hardly expect to agree with everything anyone says here, & my estimation of the OP hasn’t been diminished.
‘freedom of the press.’
overall viewing the issue solely as one of free speech
What other issues do you want viewed? Do you want all religions to be protected from disparaging cartoons or speech?
Speaking as an ex-Catholic, I guess it’s okay to cartoon the pope and to discriminate against all Catholic priests as pedophiles.
You do?
protests by Catholics over the defamation of their religion in the press, in cartoons, on late-night talk shows, in comedy routines?
did you?
“Speaking as an ex-Catholic, I guess it’s okay to cartoon the pope and to discriminate against all Catholic priests as pedophiles.”
This is I-R-O-N-Y.
If it is an outrage to defame images of Islam, then it is also an outrage to defame the Catholic religion and the Buddhist religion.
or is only Islam protected from defamation?
you can defame a religion through the use of irony?
“I guess it’s okay”
is the ironic part.
but if it has to be explained it means you don’t get it.
If you don’t get it, just ignore, carry on…
I asked another question
who does not get your one line cryptic questions or your point in asking them.
Dialogue. Do you think you can defame a religion through the use of irony?
Sorry again, but
“Can you? Did you?” does not constitute dialogue.
Can I personally defame a religion through the use of irony? Probably, but why would I want to?
Don’t answer.
This “dialogue” is over.
I prefer not to assume I always know where a commenter is coming from when entering a serious thread. So before I jump to any conclusions I try to simply ask the person the questions that are in my mind about them and their post. I asked you two questions. You answered one. I agree that you don’t seem to want real dialogue and it is better to end this conversation.
Do you want all religions to be protected from disparaging cartoons or speech?
Sorry, but I’m not up for strawman arguments today. FWIW, I have a major problem with the European anti-hate speech laws & would consider any such proposal here to be downright un-american.
Viewing this story as one of free speech only obscures the other, to my mind, more important & illuminating story lines. If you don’t see any other stories here, well . . . that only demonstrates my point.
There are many others, here & elsewhere, much more talented than I, who have laid out in detail what those Other(‘s) story lines entail. America, and its liberals in particluar, would be wise to listen up.
Actually, a number of responsible journalists have refused to frame this as a free speech issue, Robert Fisk among them.
One of the things I’ve read that has kept a bit of hope alive is Howard Zinn, he writes of how much effort and how many laws had to be enacted to keep black and white slaves and indentured servants from banding together. There was finally a bit more given to the servants, a bit more given to the poor white farmers etc., enough to keep them “loyal”. I don’t think that turning on each other is necessarily the natural response, if one can get past the manipulations of those in whose interests it is to divide and conquer than great things are possible.
I do think it’s hard and not easy to ignore the ‘leaders’ call to be afraid and to resist the urge to band together against a declared enemy. I have also read that the dominant male in a group of baboons will ocasionally give an alarm call to alert the group to the presence of a predator when there is no predator. It rallies the group around him and reinforces his leadership…so perhaps we need to evolve a bit more and learn to look around more carefully and ask, “What leopard?”
Just a quick thanks for another great diary, DTF. You made me think about some Edward Said stuff I haven’t read for many years … ever dabble in his writings perhaps? Spot on, Mr. Sticky.