Back on Valentine’s Day in 1989 the Ayatollah Khomeini issued his famous fatwa:
The publication of The Satanic Verses in September 1988 caused immediate controversy in the Islamic world due to its irreverent depiction of the prophet Muhammad. The book describes a prophet of God named “Mahound” who mixes “Satanic verses with the divine” (hence the title of the novel). India banned the book on October 5; South Africa banned it on November 24; and Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Somalia, Bangladesh, Sudan, Malaysia, Indonesia, and Qatar followed within weeks. On January 14, 1989 the novel was the subject of a book burning event in Bradford, England. On February 12, five people were shot and killed by the police during a protest in Islamabad.
On February 14, 1989, a fatwa requiring Rushdie’s execution was proclaimed on Radio Tehran by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the leader of Iran, calling the book “blasphemous against Islam.” As the novel also suggested that Rushdie no longer believed in Islam, Khomeini also condemned him for apostasy, which according to the Hadith is punishable by death. Khomeini indicated that it was the responsibility of all “zealous Muslims” to execute Rushdie and the publishers who were aware of its concepts:
In the name of God Almighty. There is only one God, to whom we shall all return. I would like to inform all intrepid Muslims in the world that the author of the book entitled The Satanic Verses, which has been compiled, printed, and published in opposition to Islam, the Prophet, and the Qur’an, as well as those publishers who were aware of its contents, have been sentenced to death. I call on all zealous Muslims to execute them quickly, wherever they find them, so that no one will dare insult the Islamic sanctities. Whoever is killed on this path will be regarded as a martyr, God willing. In addition, anyone who has access to the author of the book, but does not possess the power to execute him, should refer him to the people so that he may be punished for his actions. May God’s blessing be on you all. Ruhollah Musavi Khomeini.
On February 24 1989, Khomeini offered a U.S.$ 3 million bounty for the death of Rushdie, who was then forced to live for a time under British-financed security.
The controversy split the left-wing intelligentsia. While most writers, and anyone with an ounce of compassion, rallied to Rushdie’s defense, many suggested that Rushdie deserved to have a three million dollar bounty put on his head by a religious leader. The famous spy novelist John Le Carre suggested that Rushdie should have know better.
I wrote that there is no absolute standard of free speech in any society. I wrote that tolerance does not come at the same time, and in the same form, to all religions and cultures, and that Christian society too, until very recently, defined the limits of freedom by what was sacred…
My purpose was not to justify the persecution of Rushdie, which, like any decent person, I deplore, but to sound less arrogant, less colonialist, and less self-righteous note than we were hearing from the safety of his admirers’ camp.
Others went further.
It would be good to be able to report that all British writers have rallied round Rushdie on principle, the principle of freedom of expression, but in a society still beset by class snobbery, racism and petty political squabbles that was perhaps too much to expect.
The novelist Auberon Waugh, son of Evelyn and editor of the eccentric magazine the Literary Review, has asked whether it isn’t about time the British government stopped paying for Rushdie’s protection. Lord Dacre, better known as the historian Hugh Trevor-Roper, has said that Rushdie deserves whatever’s coming to him for publishing so disgraceful a book. The former singer Cat Stevens, a Moslem convert, said much the same on television. Roald Dahl, meanwhile, wrote to the Times to describe Rushdie as a “dangerous opportunist.”
What does the Satanic Verses controversy have in common with the cartoon controversy? In both cases arguments were made (from the left) that a willingness to artistically offend Muslims displayed a lack of cultural sensitivity, that it was arrogant, even colonialist. In both cases, Muslims appeared on the streets in Europe and elsewhere to protest. In both cases there were episodes of violence. And in both cases the issue caused strong divisions of the left and was used to demonize Muslims by the right.
There are important differences. Salman Rushdie is an immensely talented novelist and Satanic Verses is much better as a book than any of the Danish cartoons are as illustrations. The novel had a lot more to offer than stereotyping and mockery. Moreover, Rushdie was at least nominally a Muslim (a fact that did not work in his favor).
Yet, the two controversies have enough comparability for us to place them together. At bottom, both controversies present the left with two conflicting bedrock principles. The first is the principle of freedom of expression, which is more absolute in America than it is in Canada or Europe. And the second is the principle of cultural sensitivity.
Without bogging down this essay with an overly long depiction of what cultural sensitivity is, I’ll just characterize it as a mode of thought that places great weight on respecting how other people from other cultures feel and that eschews critiquing the validity of those feelings. It is not for Anglo-Saxons to question the reasoning behind the cartoons or Rushdie’s novel causing offense, it is enough that they do in fact cause offense. And to lament this fact, or to argue against it is to display arrogance, insensitivity, and a colonialist mindset.
Taken to its extreme, this mode of thinking can justify a three million dollar bounty on the head of another human being. But in less extreme guises it merely shrugs off such things and explains that the victim is really the perpetrator and they should have known better than to mock Islam.
Despite some of the problems with the cultural sensitivity argument, it is not without merit. And the merits are much clearer in the case of the cartoons than in the case of Salman Rushdie.
This is especially true because there are Danish laws that prohibit degrading people on account of their religion. These laws were undoubtedly drawn up to protect against anti-Semitism and they would likely have been invoked if the cartoons had been aimed at Jews. The laws were not invoked to protect Muslims.
Personally, I find the laws as offensive as the cartoons, if not more so. I have been questioning my feelings about this after reading Catnip’s Canadian take on hate speech and the observations of many of the people at European Tribune. Perhaps it is my American upbringing but I can’t countenence laws banning the printing of speech, hateful or otherwise. I understand people that feel differently, and I see merit in their arguments, but ultimately I don’t think the greater good lies with censorship and fines.
Yet, I am not Danish. And the Danes should enforce their laws equitably or they should revoke them. If they say that religion should not be mocked in the press that is their business. But Muslims expect and deserve equal treatment under the law.
Here in America, the protectors of free speech know full well that the only speech that needs protecting is speech that is controversial and offensive in some way. Most often the liberals that are most committed to free speech will find the speech they are called to defend to be odious, perhaps extremely odious. And that is the case with the Danish cartoons.
How does one defend, not Denmark’s papers, but America’s papers right to print these images without appearing to support the images? How can one defend the display of something that is deeply hurtful to people without appearing to be insensitive to and dismissive of the pain the images cause? Should we put the images on telephone polls and use them as an example of free speech?
That is one way to show solidarity with the people that have the thankless job of defending the indefensible. And in certain circumstances it might be appropriate. The reason I do not think it is appropriate in the case of the cartoons is because of the larger climate of fear and intimidation that Muslims are living with in this country post-9/11. Everyday I see right-wing articles that attack Islam and call it a violent religion. In this atmosphere I think it is prudent to find other ways to make one’s point than by doing flyers that will not only offend but may intimidate. But what should we do instead? How do we defend the right to free speech without falling into a trap?
It’s not an easy question to answer. Some people think hate speech should not be protected in the first place. Since they don’t agree with the premise that the right to print the cartoons must be protected they probably are not going to agree on a solution.
And can we successfully defend the right to print the cartoons if no one will, in fact, print them?
The one thing I am sure of is that these difficult and conflicting issues will always split the left whenever they come up. Maybe if we could respect each other’s differences we could accept that some people come down on different sides of these issues. We all mean well. None of us wants more hate speech, none of us wants to offend others and cause pain. And none of us wants an unfree press. Not really.
Catnip did not speak for Canadians and her invocation of our Hate Crime Legislation in relation to the free speech debate on this blog was incorrect.
The hate speech that most concerned Sven Robinson, who introduced the bill, was that which incited violence against the groups mentioned above.
I didn’t mean to suggest that Catnip spoke for all Canadians and I was unaware of any inaccuracies in her essay. But, her diary did cause me to question and to somewhat modify how I feel about these issues.
It was a self-righteous attack diary in my opinion.
Yes, that’s right. I’m a “self-righteous attack” diarist.
By the way, why are you self-righteously attacking me after I’ve been long gone? You can answer that at my blog, btw.
Gone and yet here…
This sounds like a Zen koan to me.
I gave an opinion on your diary. If merely giving an opinion is being self-righteous, then welcome to the club.
Why don’t you debate me on the Canadian Hate Crime Law instead?
As for your ‘gracious’ invitiation to your blog, I must decline, I might dare to give my opinion and you would consider it a personal attack.
meow back atcha
“I didn’t attack you but if I did so did you so whatever…”
Make up your mind, sybil. You labeled me as being “self-righteous”. That is a personal attack.
All I said about Canada’s hate speech laws in my diary (which, btw, I have quoted over at my blog) is this:
That requires “debate” somehow?
As for your ‘gracious’ invitiation to your blog, I must decline, I might dare to give my opinion and you would consider it a personal attack.
That’s my turf and I don’t give a crap about attacks – personal or otherwise. I don’t have a ratings system. I don’t delete anyone’s comments. People are free to say whatever they want and I’m free to respond. So, what’s stopping you really?
As for posting your personal attacks here – when you knew I was no longer around and, as I pointed out at my place, you didn’t claim my diary was self-righteous at all when I posted it, not to me or anyone else – I think it’s only fair that you read what I wrote at my blog and defend your new position there.
Booman has often said that if you have a problem with someone, take it up with them personally or post your concerns at their blog. You have done neither. I have posted my response to your statements and have invited everyone over to discuss it. It seems to me that if you decline that invitation, there is no reason for you to continue to your criticism of me or my diary here.
it was a self-righteous attack diary in my opinion.
From that one liner you are explode with words?
You seem unable to separate yourself from your diary. An opinion on your diary is not an attack on you personally.
From that one liner you now describe plural “personal attacks?”
when you knew I was no longer around But here you are as I quite expected. This is a public blog after all.
Booman has often said that if you have a problem with someone, take it up with them personally or post your concerns at their blog. You have done neither.
I posted a one-line comment on your diary, not you.
Now if you have a personal problem with me, you should take BooMan up on his suggestion.
What is stopping me from reading your blog is your writing. Now that is not a personal attack, it is my opinion of your writing. Try to see the difference.
As for your ‘gracious’ invitiation to your blog, I must decline, I might dare to give my opinion and you would consider it a personal attack.
So now it’s my writing? As I said: make up your mind, sybil.
It’s your word-explosion writing that I do not care for.
But I wish you the best. Your writing appeals to a lot of people and your blog should do very well.
Better that than an exploding head.
Attention! All word-explosion fans head over to my blog for a big party tonite. Bring your own cheesecake. Caution: there will be wildy uncontrollable phrases exploding without warning. Bring those hardhats.
Gotta watch those exploding words. Stepped into some of those one time. Next thing ya know, I’m stuck in some hospital with surgeons working furiously to get out all the pixels and occasional letters that had been lodged into my legs and internal organs. I still set off security devices at airports.
From the movie “The American President”.
This says it better than I could….
This is why America is different, still, for today at least. With the exception of within a mile of any official thuglican gatherings, and barring threats of bodily harm, we can still say whatever we want… any idiot can speak his/her mind (or lack thereof).
Perhaps this is opinion is uniquely American. If so, it is because some of us still take the Bill of Rights seriously.
Yes, I think it sums it up nicely.
If your talking about acceptance and being polite, civil….that isn’t really related to free speech or freedom. I like civility, but I don’t think it’s always healthy. People need to bust through in order to make a point. Swearing can be a very good use of speech.
Freedom can only be measure by the existence of extremes.
We don’t have free speech in the U.S. …it’s a perverse manipulative speech, intended to coerce a person toward a postion. An example from the right, center and left might be by the use of words like “our brave fighting men and women”, “The American people” . “support the troops”. I like to say “to hell with the troops” bring them home they are useless and being used. Some people don’t like that.
An example from the left is always some kind of maudlin sappy appeal to help those illiterate people who are by implication inferior and poor in those other countries due to lack of education.
I have no problem with people who are rascists. If that’s what you believe you are supposed to be able to say it and act on it in a passive rather than active way. An individual person may have what they consider legitimate reasons for being a rascist.
I have no problem with religous extremists and no problem with the people who oppose them.
As long as it’s just words. At least you know where you stand.
One involves a character in a work of fiction, while the other involves a “statement” made by a newspaper.
In my opinion, issuing a fatwa calling for the execution of a novelist, no matter what the novel contains, is as stupid as Jerry Falwell ascribing sexual preference to a plush cartoon character with no genitals.
It does not matter what one’s religious beliefs are, or one’s opinion of the novel or the plush cartoon character, here one enters the realm of absurdity.
In the case of the cartoons, while any newspaper in the US or anywhere else might have the right to publish a cartoon depicting someone urinating on a Torah scroll, for example, just to show solidarity with the cartoonist, whether that would be the right thing to do is a different question.
In cases where laws would prohibit, for example, publishing anti-Semitic or other “hate material,” I agree that the law should be enforced equitably or stricken from the books.
Yes Ductape, but I think you are boiling it down too fast.
In my opinion someone has to defend the right of papers to print such images. In this case, because of the Danish laws it was a flawed case. On that we agree. But let us say for the sake of argument that the cartoons had originally appeared in the Washington Times. In that case any effort to proscribe or fine the paper would require a strong opposition. And in that case, showing solidarity with, not the idiots who printed it, but the people that are defending the right is a perfectly correct thing to do (provided you agree with our current laws as enshrined in the constitution and case law).
How to show solidarity without appearing to be an asshole is the question, and it is not easy. Especially since too many people fail to make these distinctions.
a debate on the state of free-speech of this blog.
The self-righteous attack diary of Catnip sure did put a chill on the place.
that diary. Are you objecting to what she wrote or the fact that she wrote it? Because I assure you that if her diary wasn’t there that day, I would’ve written something similar.
to express her opinion. There was insinuation that the diary that offended her would be a hate crime in Canada which was hyperbole.
If she wants to come on like Michael Moore instead of George Clooney, that’s fine. Clooney is more effective in the long run.
I don’t know enough to about Canadian law to answer your concern wrt that, but she didn’t come off like an extremist to those of us who agreed with her position. Perhaps instead of casting out her perceptions as “Michael Moore-like”, you can try to understand why she and I held those perceptions.
And is Michael Moore a negative force of liberalism? I’m starting to think that perhaps the man was more of a genius than extremist.
“And is Michael Moore a negative force of liberalism?”
That’s the second time you twisted my words and you are asking for understanding from me?
we’re miscommunicating. No one is trying to twist your words, but when you first call catnip’s diary a self-righteous attack, and then equate her with Michael Moore, I assumed you had a negative view of him.
What I am pointing out is the different approach of Michael Moore and George Clooney. Moore hits hard and loud and doesn’t have finesse. Clooney’s movies will be classics and can be interpreted on many levels because they are sophisticated and subtle. Both get their point across and both are on my side of the political fence but Clooney is more effective.
we agree, Clooney has a great way of getting his message out to the masses while Moore goes for the shock value. I’m a glutton for punishment, so that’s why I’m starting to view him as a genius. 🙂
Michael Moore’s my man! Then again, I’m a middle-aged former punker who appreciates well-done efforts to shock an audience into awareness. Moore’s going at enlightening his audience Rinzai style. Some folks prefer the Soto-school flavor of a cat like Clooney. Either way, if the end result is satori, it’s all good.
Hmmm. I wonder if there’s a difference in genre here? Like, has Clooney made any documentaries?
At any rate, I’m starting to wonder, too, how Michael Moore suddenly became a “bad guy” for so many liberals.
I tried to tell him: hey, bro, you should just keep wearing that damn tailored suit you put on for Leno! Gotta give the public eye candy or they will trash you, eventually.
(Make no mistake: I love Clooney, and have seriously suggested that he should run for office: the Hollywood Ticket!, but I don’t see the point in pitting Clooney against Moore and taking sides, claiming one is “better” or “more effective” than the other. This business of personality cults, and of pitting two very different personalities working in two very different genres against one another is just silly and a major part of what keeps the whole left end of the spectrum at odds with itself.)
Wasn’t there something somewhere in the liberal doctrine about diversity, or was that notion of “diversity” restricted to skin color, religious belief, etc.?
offer any opinions on Catnip’s diary.
I am not looking to take sides in disputes or to characterize other’s intent.
I think we can and should have a debate about this because it’s apparent that otherwise friendly people have hurt feelings. I’d like to have some reconciliation, if at all possible.
catnip visited the site. She saw a diary that she disagreed with. In fact, she found it offensive.
She said so. Some people agreed with her, some didn’t.
Some disagreed with the opinion expressed in the diary but did not find it offensive.
Some people expressed their emotional reactioons also.
I did that, and now regret it, but the point is that free speech was expressed. Differing views, different opinions.
In my opinion, catnip’s diary was a much more worthy exercise of free speech than a call for dissemination of ethnic caricatures of any kind.
But I admit a bias, I am not an enthusiast of that sort of thing to begin with. At the same time, I respect the right of those who don’t share my opinion to express theirs.
Yes, I fully support the right of any newspaper to publish cartoons depicting the desectation of Torah scrolls, acts of pedophilia.
Whether this is how those newspapers choose to define themselves, given the choice of writing an editorial about free speech, for example, or reprinting the cartoons as a “statement,” whether this would be, again, the right thing to do would not be, could not be, a one size fits all answer.
It might be the right thing to do for some papers, and not right for others, again, depending on several factors, including, but not limited to, their individual editorial policy, the image they wish to portray, the message they wish to send, the demographic they wish to attract to their readership, or discourage from joining it, also because news is a business, which advertisers they wish to attract and/or keep, and which they would prefer to see take their business elsewhere.
Free speech, even where (ostensibly) protected by law, as in the US, like all freedom, comes with reciprocal responsibilites, and can frequently involve questions of ethics, as well as those mentioned above.
For some papers, blogs, etc. might think it over and in the case of the Torah desecration, decide that publishing the cartoon might not be the right thing to do for them, wishing to avoid even the appearance of anti-Semitism, or even the slightest hint that they might be encouraging or appearing to encourage anti-Semitism, or manifestations thereof that could harm people, but come to a different conclusion about a cartoon of the Prophet with a bomb on his head, for example.
And they would be exercising their right to free speech, and their right to portray themselves in the way they felt was in their best interest, and also as honestly and accurately as they can.
in most countries of the world. Watch your hyperbole there.
in some countries. In fact, Denmark has laws prohibiting such material regarding any religion.
In this case, the prosecutor decided that the law did not apply in the case of the Danish newspaper.
My statement is that because I support free speech, if I support the right of the Danish newspaper to publish the cartoon of the Prophet, I must also support the right to publish a cartoon of desecrating a Torah, or pedophilia.
Please understand that this is my personal view of free speech. I fully understand that there are people who would make distinctions.
For example, I think it would be very unlikely that many of the papers and blogs in the US who published the cartoon of the Prophet would publish a cartoon of someone desecrating a Torah.
Interestingly, I don’t know of any major US papers that published the Danish cartoons. I recall that one or two did, but I don’t remember the names. The LA Times, NYT, WaPo, Miami Herald and Boston Globe didn’t, as far as I can recall. Either did Salon, though they did provide a link to the material.
Did I miss something?
Just doing a very admittedly cursory google news search (using merely the search term “danish cartoons”) comes up with some indication that US college newspapers were printing them. I also noticed that the SF Gate did reproduce one of the offending cartoons in another article. As for the other “papers of record” I cannot comment, as I do not know. I’m sure those better versed in the fine art of search terms and who have sufficient time to devote could be better positioned to comment. 🙂
Here’s one more that lists the names of a few of the US papers that ran the cartoons (or some portion thereof):
Again, this is merely from a very cursory search.
There was a very good LA Times article by Tim Ruttan about this subject, in which he basically said most papers of record did not print the images. I’ll see if it’s still an active link.
My criteria is, is it a news-worthy event? Does showing us the cartoons add to our understanding of the controversy?
If you’ll recall, a lot of US papers wouldn’t show the photos of the burnt, desecrated bodies of those US contractors (mercenaries, if you prefer) who died in Falluja. The LA Times did, on interior pages, with a warning on the front page that the photos were graphic and disturbing and might offend some.
I think this is a pretty good way to handle such things.
Maybe I’m being simple-minded about this, but I think we’re talking about two different things:
Yes, that sort of is my way of thinking too. I am not sure how any of this is a free speech, freedom of the press issue if it’s not the govt attempting to repress speech. Even with the Danish papers, as far as I know, the government has said they have absolutely no say in the matter. (Which may or may not be true, according to whatever the laws are, as mentioned, and all that, but still).
When one has the ability to publish something, but chooses not to for whatever reason – even if that reason is fear of reprisal from individuals – I am not sure where that is any more or less an editorial decision than deciding not to print gory pictures of war, or of people falling off buildings or things deemed no longer acceptable (even if still able to be printed) such as racist type stuff.
Your #2. is impossible but I admire your idealism. I maintain that it is impossible to interact with people without people hurting each other intentionally or otherwise. It is human nature. As for reading the newspapers and blogs, at times they fill me with pain.
So you can’t have it both ways.
I agree that it is idealistic. Maybe I wasn’t being clear that I was just trying to lay out the two different principles. Because actually, #1 as I stated it here is idealistic as well. After all, we have laws against libel and such things.
But I would still maintain that there’s a difference between what we can legally say and what we should say. And as Nanette has pointed out – newspapers and other media regularly decide that words and images should not be printed because of their desire to be sensitive to the audience.
That’s the basic scenario, but it gets very complicated when confronted with these conflicts.
Here is how I see it. If the Nazis want to have a parade and are denied a permit, I do not think it is a good idea to go around defending the first amendment by stapling swastikas to bulletin boards. And part of the disconnect here is a failure for some to internalize, actually to really accept, the parallels between how a Jew feels when he sees a swastika and how a Muslim feels when Mohammed is merely depicted (forget the bomb in the turban for a moment). So, from that standpoint it can be argued that Muslim’s concerns as not taken as rational, that they lack validity, that they display an oversensitivity. That is where the strength of the argument for cultural sensitivity lies.
But on the other side are two points:
So, these things are very complicated once you start to delve into them.
Maybe my naivete and idealism are getting the best of me, but I don’t get how its necessary to use a swastika to defend the free speech of Nazi’s. Certainly Nazi’s might do so, but the ACLU has successfully defended their right to hold public demonstrations without using it.
And of course the reaction to these insults to Islam have been indefensible. Just as the attempts by so many in this country to demonize Islam (heard Bill Bennett lately?) are indefensible.
Finally, I do get that there could be times when the media might need to print things because there is no other way of telling the news. This is always going to be a fine line to walk. For example, I know some of the more recent pictures from Abu Ghraib fall in this area.
Newspapers, blogs, and friends are three very different kinds of critter. Groups of friends, and some blogs, are personal and set their own standards. Newspapers (and presumably you’d have to include all the other big media) are supposed to be venues for diverse views. Those views will invariably “hurt” those who are ready to take offense at every opportunity. IMO, so what? The other day somebody was ranting about how a bright green house on the block was “offensive”. It’s time to retire that weapon.
Good points. Although, frankly, I wouldn’t compare a blog like this to a newspaper or an unorganized group of friends. It provides a forum where everyone can express their views and those views may be supported or refuted by others. In some ways it is most similar to a university and universities have been struggling with this issue for years. I would hope that the persons operating a blog would, like those operating a university, attempt to foster tolerance and mutual respect among the members and try to create an environment in which the members may exercise their right to express their opinion without fear of discrimination or harassment. And I think that BooMan, with this post, is attempting that.
Nice well-balanced presentation of the issues, Boo.
I haven’t tried to research the Danish laws. You characterize them in two, not necessarily compatible, ways: they forbid “degrading people on account of their religion”, or they “say that religion should not be mocked in the press”. Those are very different standards. The first would seem to cover stuff like “Christians/Jews/Muslims drink the blood of Muslim/Jewish/Christian babies” — slanderous hate speech directed at individual adherents to a religion or culture. This is the one that takes a big painful swallow to defend.
The second, OTOH, is just too absurd on the face of it to deserve discussion. To claim that religion has some special privilege denied to other beliefs is absurd and unworkable. Saying, for example, that “Buddhism is evil and stupid”, for example is not hate speech any more than saying “Hunting is evil and stupid”, or “Liberalism is evil and stupid”. Any society that tries to prohibit open discussion of religious belief has no claim to being either free or democratic. Such a society would fall well within the definition of a tyranny. So the first task would be to establish what Danish law really says.
At a more general level, I think there are a lot of liberals/lefties who allow themselves to be misled by “underdog” sentimentality and as a result excuse all bad things Islamic (as the current fashion dictates — for quite a while the beneficiary of this blindspot was Judaism). How many times do we see someone on the liberal blogs and media equating criticism of religion with racism, as if “faith” were something you were born with and can’t change. I think this has a lot to do with the tin-eared humorlessness of way too much of the left, and its kneejerk solution of siccing the law on anyone who “offends” instead of resisting with counter-argument, humor, or simple lack of attention.
Whenever political junkies interact, it’s inevitable that pretty much any discussion where a belief (religious or otherwise) is questioned will soon degenerate into an argument over whether so-and-so has a right to hold that belief, even though no one has claimed otherwise. In this case, the discussion is properly about the quality and content of the cartoons, not the right of a free press to publish them. Personally, I think it’s too bad that something so crude and dumb had to become the poster child for the basic right to free speech, but that seems to be the way it works more often than not.
I have no problem with the offended Muslims demonstrating, boycotting, hurling insults of their own, whatever. But when they try to pressure governments to shut down the right to publish opinions, they simply demean themselves more than any cartoon could hope to.
Look, I absolutely support the right for the cartoons to be printed. I may deplore what they depict, but I support their right to exist.
I probably would not have had a problem with the image if it would’ve been placed in the context of a conversation on the balance between free spreech and sensitivity. The angered response was from the call to arms that the image be spread and hoisted up on the flag of free-speech. I was being asked to support that image’s promulgation, and I don’t, for reasons explained in other threads.
In my brain, if you support the spreading of the image, you support the message it sends. That is different than supporting the right for someone to create such an image. Perhaps that’s too simplistic, but that is why I’ve had such a heated response to all of this.
The reason I felt like I had entered the twilight zone was because I know that is not the case with Susan (that she supports the xenophobia behind the image). Whether it was a mistake, fever, whatever, it was handled badly. I’m sorry if she feels like I’m ignoring the “good” in her and her advocacy, but that is not the case. We all have emotions, and they are all valid if we are in fact a community, and for some of us, those emotions were cast aside as being thin-skinned and too politically-correct. Talk about making someone feel like a stranger in their own house.
And for what it’s worth, I think you’re navigating those choppy waters just fine.
the error was admitted and regretted. The diary in question was more about the ‘free speech’ text below the image. The diarist had no idea it was one of the infamous cartoons. The persistent refusal by many to accept that this was a mistake, that there was no evil intent, baffles me.
lies in our perceptions, sybil. For you, the focus was on the text. For me, I saw the image and the text together and was appalled. What baffles me is that you would characterize my right to talk this out as baffling.
I wrote:
“refusal by many to accept that this was a mistake”
Your interpretation:
“my right to talk this out”
That’s not what I said or meant. You have every right to talk this out, my comment was not aimed at you in particular.
If you read the thread yesterday on Expression: 1966-1967, you’ll see that I have felt that this situation has been inflamed by usage of broad terms like “many” or referring to “people” or “lots of people” without directly addressing them. While you weren’t directing your comment at me, I felt you did because it wasn’t specific. So who are you aiming at specifically? (Do you see my point)
The same situation has happened repeatedly since the original cartoon diary. There have been mention of nebulous groups of “people” who are PC Policing, or calling for censorship here at BooTrib, and since it wasn’t mentioning anyone directly, I have taken it personally because I felt it was directed at me. It isn’t productive to put everyone on notice when you can simply type the person’s name whom you disagree with and try to resolve it directly.
Just check the comments and the ratings. I am not going to give specific names, then I would have to find the quotes. This is not a court of law, it’s an informal debate.
Thanks for your participation by the way.
but do you see how those broad statements (especially on the frontpage) read to those who may or may not be the intended target?
Man Eegee, I for one am glad that you are trying hard to talk this out. I have great respect for you and have appreciated your contributions to the community here. As best I can, I feel your pain. You have laid it our for us and it is up to us and to you to work it out. Please talk to us. I agree that you have every right to be offended, and share your feeling. I did not like the original diary either.
I particularly appreciated your recent comment in which you actually showed us another bad cartoon and helped us to understand how deeply these things can hurt. Please educate us by sharing your thoughts and feelings. I welcome all of your comments.
I ask you to please accept the apologies of the diarist, even though you have a right not to. If you won’t or can’t accept the apologies, or choose to forgive the transgression outright, I understand that, too. In supersoling’s diary, What’s Love Got To Do With It, I left a hopeful plea that was intended for you and others who have been hurt here.
is characterizing someone’s expression of their opinion as a “transgression” or a “mistake” while at the same time talking about freedom of speech.
Freedom of speech means that you have the right to express your opinion, and just because someone disagreees with it, finds it offensive, or it hurts someone’s feelings, does not matter. It is your (using the general you here) opinion, and no one should call it a mistake or a transgression, and you should not feel that you have to recant it, or worse, in the situation we are discussing, claim that you did not read the words you wrote.
Whatever your opinion is, defend it, stand by it, and if you are shamed to do that, then maybe you have a talk with yourself, that is your own private business, but do not insult the intelligence of people who respect you, and most of all do not insult yourself, by saying you wrote it but didn’t read it.
I used the term transgression because I, personally, feel that the diarist recognized it as such. It is not a value judgment on my part other than to accept susan at her word.
Her word is that she did not read what she wrote.
This would strain credibility, for me, anyway, no matter who said it, but here we are talking about someone who is noted for her meticulousness and thoroughness.
Yet she posts a diary which expresses a very definite opinion, as is her right, and when some people express disagreement, and others express various emotions, she says that she did not see the image, an image that had been posted and discussed ad nauseam, all over the internets and in the media for days, but she did not recognize it.
Now that is a stretch, but let’s take her at her word that she was not feeling well, so although it is rare that a duck shits in Zanzibar that she cannot tell you on whose petunia it shat before the odor hits the kitchen window, she had seen no TV nor read any news sites because she was not feeling well, so she just happened to visit this one, and liked it, and added the image that she did not know what it was, and added her own commentary, which she did without reading what she wrote.
It is difficult to take anyone at their word who says that, and I cannot claim to do so.
Maybe Larry posted and forgot to log back out as Susan.
😀
I want to echo what DF says, although not quite as poetically.
As far as I was concerned when I read that diary, I didn’t really have a dog in the fight. I could see both sides.
When Susan offered her explanation of the poor monitor and she didn’t really know what she was posting, it just didn’t ring true to me. No one knows but Susan what is true and what is not. To me it felt made up.
But in the very next comment someone pointed out that if she indeed didn’t know what the picture was, she could take it down now. Then Susan said something that convinced me (and this is just my opinion) that her excuse wasn’t legitimate. She said she’d have to think about whether to take it down or not because she believed in free speech.
To me, if she posted the offensive cartoon by mistake she would have immediately removed it instead of waiting some hours.
the reason that the cartoon was left up was because people coming into the dispute fresh benefitted from seeing what all the hubbub was about. I didn’t have any part in erasing it, but I think there was a defensible case for not erasing it.
The issue is not whether there is a defense out there somewhere for what was actually done. The issue is what would have been the right thing to do under the circumstances at the time.
I’m not attacking Susan. I take her at her word that she was sick and I’m sure that affected her judgment.
But she claims the posting was a mistake, she could see that the mistake created fury (it was more than a hubbub)and yet, in the face of that fury, she refused to take it down. The forseeable result was that keeping it up would only increase the “hubbub” as more people came into the discussion, leading to more fury.
Posting something that creates a furor in a diary is one thing. This was on the front page. It couldn’t be avoided by simply not opening a diary.
That’s the key here. It was SUSAN who did it, not just some diarist. And it was on the front page, not in a diary.
It’s the difference between some Harvard student making an inane statement about women and science and Larry Summers making the same statement. There is a difference.
I think she did the right thing. She left it up until most everyone had had a chance to see it and judge it for themselves and then she erased it. I didn’t tell her what to do, but I think she did it right. Did that decision makes things worse? Maybe. It is hard to say. But at least people didn’t have to judge a picture they couldn’t see.
Then we’re going to have to disagree on this. I don’t. I think she had other, better, options.
I did not recognize the image either because I had not seen the infamous cartoons before. I heard that they were very offensive so I did not seek them out. So don’t believe me.
An example of extreme racism against the Iraqi people yesterday: FOX news is broadcasting that civil war in Iraq could be a good thing. The thought Iraqi women and children hiding in their homes, while blood runs in the streets makes me come undone. I’m sorry if I missed your comment of outrage on that racist issue.
Let’s have some balance, some proportion here.
Susan is a good person.
not anywhere, has called Susan a “bad” person. That is a mischaracterization of our right to point out some valid concerns.
No one?
It’s like the speech from Julius Caesar, dripping with sarcasm:
“but Brutus is an honourable man.”
Read between the lines.
The problem is that is contains a host of inaccuracies.
First of all, I haven’t seen the cartoons except in a Wikipedia entry that is intentionally useless for detail to abide by copyright law.
And I didn’t see that until after this controversy broke out. I knew one of the cartoons allegedly had a bomb in Mohammed’s turban and I still didn’t notice that in the cartoon printed here. Plus, she never once said that she didn’t read what she wrote, she said she didn’t have a good view of the poster before she posted it and she didn’t look at it closely after she posted it.
Frankly, Ductape made up his mind about this and also made a bunch or erroneous assumptions about me before I was even aware there was an issue. For example, he said I must fully support the cartoon being on the front-page because I left it up. First of all, I don’t go around telling other people what to post, secondly, I don’t erase other people’s stuff, third of all, I only realized there was an issue when I saw Ductape’s diary the next day and reexamined the original diary and thread, fourth of all, I thought it should remain up so it could be discussed, fifth of all, I did not make any recommendation one way or the other, and lastly, Ductape has no idea how I feel about it or whether I have any especial desire to become an unwitting target for unwelcome fatwas.
I have tried to be meticulously fair to Ductape, Catnip, Man Eegee and the others that have been hurt in this, but Ductape is not reciprocating my efforts. I am going to forcefully defend Susan against this characterization.
We all know her better than that. She deserves better that this.
Me too.
DTF also refused to accept her apology because he claims he knew ‘what was in her heart.’
Seriously, how judgmental is that?
therefore there is no need for her to offer one.
In my opinion, as I just stated in my reply to BooMan, the only “should” I have expressed regarding this matter is that no one should feel the need to apologize, make excuses for, their opinions or beliefs – what is in their heart.
This does not mean that I presume to know what is in anyone’s heart, yours, susan’s or Dick Cheney’s.
But I will acknowledge having expressed another “should”
Whatever is there, in my opinion, people should defend. Just because I might disagree with your view on something does not obligate you to apologize, dissimulate, or say you didn’t know what view you expressed.
If susan, you, or anyone else has and/or expresses opinions that they do not feel inclined to defend, that shame them, that is the private business of that person, there is still no obligation or need to dissimulate etc etc.
I would like to make sure there is no mistake about my opinion on this matter:
I was in a hurry, and hastily made a statement to the effect that I had a right to express disagreement with the views expressed in a diary. That is an inaccuracy. This is your site, and expressing any view is a privilege that you accord to me, and all who participate.
I also apologize for expressing emotions at the time of the diary. I was wrong to do that, and I think that it may have caused you to confuse my disagreement with the opinion expressed in the diary, as well as the emotions I expressed, with the question of free speech, which if you or someone with good search skills will search back, I have consistently said that susan had the right to express her opinion.
What “should” or “should not” be on the site is up to you and susan, not me.
Referring again to the distinction between “the right to do it” and the question of whether it is “the right thing to do,” while I can and will support and defend susan’s right to “do it,” whether it is the “right thing to do” is not something on which I can opine, with regards to susan, you or anyone other than myself, and if anything that I have said has been so poorly expressed as to give you any other impression, I am grateful for the opportunity to clear that up.
The only “shoulds” and “should nots” that I have expressed are that neither susan, nor anyone else, should feel any need to remove material or say that they did not know what the material was because I or anyone else says it hurts their feelings and/or they disagree with the opinion expressed.
I don’t know what assumptions you think I have made about you. The only thing that I can recall is saying that since it is your site, if there was something on the front page that you didn’t want there that you would remove it. I believe that is a fair assumption.
Again I think you are confusing my emotions about something and/or my disagreement with an opinion expressed, with my firm belief that both you and susan, as the site administrators have every right to post anything you want, wherever and whenever you want.
I would like to make sure that there is no misunderstanding about this: Whether I disagree, or whether my feelings are hurt has absolutely NO bearing on my support of susan’s right to express her views.
And I also believe that she had the right to say she did not read what she wrote.
Which is something that she did say, and because I would like to see someone defend her, I will also defend her right to say that.
It is not incumbent upon susan you, or anyone else to post things that I will agree with, or feel are convincing, or will not hurt my feelings.
Just because I do not find it convincing does not mean she does not have the right to say it, and I support and will defend her right to say it, and I support your right to say that she didn’t say it.
According to ManEegee, her remarks about not knowing what the material was referred only to the image, and not the text.
Although I am certain that I recall a post to the effect of that she was feeling very ill and posted the diary unaware of what it said.
I do not remember which thread it was in, and I cannot open the big one.
If my recollection is in error, and the fact that the text calling for the dissemination of the image is still there would tend to support that, then I most sincerely apologize.
However, I still believe she has the right to deny knowing what either said, just as she has the right to post them in the first place, and in my opinion, here is another “should” for you, she should not feel any need to apologize or as someone put it in some thread “justify herself.”
And I will exercise my privilege to disagree with the view that the cartoon of the Prophet, or even cartoons of funny looking Arabs or Jews with big hooked noses should be posted in lots of public places.
At the same time, I support the right of anyone to call for and/or engage in this behavior. That is free speech.
Also, in my opinion, free speech comes with reciprocal responsibilities, but whether someone wishes to consider that, or incorporate it into the expression of free speech is right for them, is a question of each person’s personal opinions, values, and beliefs, and I am answerable and able to apply “shoulds” only according to my own.
Thank you for your apology which I accept.
Manny is correct. Susan said that she read an article that talked about the posters and she liked the idea because she felt people were knuckling under to intimidation (the riots) and that someone needed to stand up for free speech. She said that the graphic was smaller on that site and she couldn’t see it very clearly. And she said that after she posted the story she didn’t revisit the the diary text or photo and examine them. That is not the same as saying she didn’t know what she wrote. She was trying to explain why she didn’t notice the bomb, not express amnesia regarding her writing.
You say that I would erase something I didn’t want on the front-page. That is a type of argument you often make that is way too binary. I had all kinds of reasons not to exercise that kind of control in this case. Respect and deference to Susan and, a desire to inform the readers what we were talking about rather than have them guess were the main reasons I left it up.
I think the point I would like to make is that you and Susan disagree about the appropriateness of using posters of Arab men to make a point about free speech. I wrote this diary to lay out the issues as best as I can and show what I think the real debate is about and what principles Susan was trying to stand up for. She never meant to hurt you and trust me, if she had presented an accurate account of her views there would still have been disagreement but much less offense.
When Susan said she would quit writing if all she got was grief and mistrust out of it, she didn’t say it as a threat, or to send a chill, or to make people feel sorry for her. She told the truth. Why would anyone do something that makes them unhappy if they have a choice in the matter.
You can only imagine how hard it is to have people that you thought were your friends and you thought you had a track record with, call you a bullshitter and question your heart.
Remember back when the Pie Wars started and I initially defended Markos? That was because every front-pager is always at risk of getting a 101 fever and posting something sloppy that pisses off half the community. We need people to reach out to Susan now and show her the love and caring that she has spread around this place for a year.
is Susan now? I thought it was in everyone’s best interests that I lay out my exact concerns, which I’ve done over the past two and a half days. Did I enjoy it? Fuck no, I hate this. Nothing would bring me greater joy than to see this resolved. But there has to be a two-way street, as she acknowledged on Saturday, and her voice is missing from this thread.
You can only imagine how hard it is to have people that you thought were your friends and you thought you had a track record with, call you a bullshitter and question your heart.
Since we’re talking about “people” again, I’m going to assume that I am one of them. Does it compare to having to deal with an entire community that you thought you knew all of a sudden going deaf to your concerns as they relate to something on the frontpage? Because I got my share of that pain two and a half weeks ago. I am not discounting Susan’s feelings in this, but she is not the only one with them either, and how can I attend to her needs when she refuses to answer back?
You know, this is beginning to seem like it’s not worth it. After reading what I considered a direct jab in my direction on Saturday wrt “generational differences”, I decided to spell out exactly what has been bothering me.
I guess now those concerns can be relegated to the “I expect too much” file and we can all move on.
ManE — You have done everything you can, you have a lot more patience than I do with all of this and, in the long run, it is my opinion that your time is best spent elsewhere (your blog has a lot going for it, as do you).
supersoling laid things out very well in his diary yesterday, but there is a limit to what you can do when communication is not forthcoming, and when the “some pigs are more equal than others” structure is already in place.
You have spoken you mind and heart and spoken it well and clearly, you have opened channels and provided opportunities — that is where your responsibility ends. I am just happy to see in this instance, that your ability to post was not cut off (as was mine when I tried to do the same).
Just wanted to voice my support for you. And let you know that I hear you.
There were several comments that she made that I interpreted as her having not been aware of what the text said:
I now understand that she was merely expressing approval for the idea of disseminating an ethnic caricature of a Muslim Imam, as I do not mean to suggest that she would disapprove of disseminating a caricature of a Rabbi, for instance, or a priest.
You are correct that she and I disagree on this point. As I acknowledged to another poster, I have a bias, as I am not an enthusiast of that sort of behavior.
That does not mean that I do not recognize the right of someone to do it, and whether to consider the responsibility that comes with free speech, or the possible unintended consequences of disseminating such material, is a question of individual values and opinions, and only the individual can make the choice that is right for him or her.
I support her right to stand up for her principles, whether they are ones that I or anyone else agrees with or not, or whether they hurt someone’s feelings.
I also feel that I have been somewhat culturally insensitive with regard to the emotional need some Americans have for unity as events unfold, even though they may not be in total agreement on some other issues.
It is perfectly believable to me that susan is opposed to torture, of people of any ethnicity, and I have stated on several occasions that this is, in my opinion, a courageous stance to take in the current climate, and I acknowledge that just because someone opposes torture does not mean they will also necessarily oppose disseminating ethnic caricatures.
I will also have to disagree with your assertion that I cannot imagine thinking of someone as friends and being disappointed. However, as I said in my apology, I was wrong to express these emotions.
My interpretation of the quotes above was aided, I believe, by her apparent reluctance to defend her beliefs, and I wrongly suggested that she might be ashamed of them. For that also, I apologize, and acknowledge that just as she has the right to defend her opinion, she also has the right not to.
higher expectations of susan than of Fox news, then I guess I am so busted. Guilty as charged.
While I will repeat again, I support susan’s right to her opinion, I was surprised to see both the image and the call to disseminate it.
I was not surprised by the remarks on Fox News.
I suggest your attention and your anger are misdirected.
But you used my words to be flippant and ‘witty’ so obviously you are not willing to let go of your anger. You seem more interested in playing to the crowd.
You state that you were surprised to see the image, yes because it was uncharacteristic of Susan. It was uncharacteristic of Susan because it was a mistake (which she explained in detail).
You ask for forgiveness for yourself but you deny understanding or forgiveness to another.
You have certainly have got a lot of mileage out of this issue, so carry on.
How are you defending susan’s opinion that ethnic caricatures should be widely disseminated?
You have said that you intended to “strongly defend” her, but I am not understanding how merely expressing your displeasure with what I write, or with what catnip writes, as defending susan’s opinion.
Yes, I admit I have expressed the view that I would like to see her defend it herself, but I have also acknowledged that just as she has the right to hold the view, she also has the right to defend it or decline to defend it, according to her own wishes.
Now it is true that both catnip and I have expressed disagreement with this view. But if you wish to defend susan, would it, in your opinion, be more helpful to her to use your talents to argue her side as opposed to just saying you don’t like the writing styles of a couple of people who disagree with her?
I have no problem expressing my “side” of this argument. I have said, I believe people have the right to post caricatures of Rabbis with large noses, etc. both on and offline, if that is how they wish to exercise their right to free speech. But I will have to agree with Arcturus that the examples he listed are much more worthy of the free speech exercise talents of both you and susan. And I’m sure that both of you could add to his list.
Again, I admit I do have a bias against the posting of ethnic caricatures. That does not mean that I will not defend your right to post cartoons of Jemima and Sambo-type figures anywhere you want to tack them up, in your own community or someone else’s. There are many activities that I believe should be protected free speech that I personally consider to be distasteful and not the way I would want to spend my time.
This is not a new argument to me, I have heard this behavior advocated other places, both online and off, generally proponents appear to be motivated by a desire to “send a message” to the reviled group. They believe that this will provide them with a psychological benefit, and encourage the reviled groups to go elsewhere.
I cannot claim to know if that is susan’s reasoning behind her position, or yours.
So far, no one seems to want to share their thoughts, to make others understand their point of view. Nor are they (or you) under any obligation to do so.
But since you have expressed the intention to strongly defend susan, I can think of no better way to do that than to help me, and others who might have questions, understand why you favor disseminating ethnic caricatures.
this is exactly why I think Susan was correct to leave the image up for a while. You say the image had a big nose or whatever. I’d like to look at it again to judge for myself, but it is gone.
And I think what is most hurtful, Ductape, is that you would even suggest that Susan might agree with intimidating a target audience.
You see that as the primary motivation for anyone who might want to put up a poster of this type, but that is manifestly not true in Susan’s case and you almost have to know.
If anything, it is a side effect that should be weighed when deciding the merits.
BooMan, he did not say the image had a big nose. He was speaking to the stereotypical cartoon images of Jews…in the same vein as the Jemima and Sambo images.
is making this false accusation:
why you favor disseminating ethnic caricatures..
except there is no proof whatsoever to his charge.
He has conducted a ‘Dixie-Chicks’ agitprop campaign against Susan and now he makes this baseless charge against me.
who in a previous post pointed out that susan and I disagree on the question of whether such material should be disseminated.
He very concisely, in my opinion, correctly identified the real issue, the point of disagreement.
While I have certainly done my part to cloud the whole discussion, especially in the beginning, with inappropriate expressions of how something “made me feel,” I think BooMan has done a good job of reminding me, and anyone else who might have gotten side-tracked with their own feelings about one poster or another, etc. that none of that is relevant to the simple argument of disseminating the material: good idea or not, why or why not.
People having a different opinion on something is hardly unique to this particular subject, they give their views, they discuss why they hold that opinion, and so does the other person.
Maybe they can come to an agreement, maybe not. But at the very least, there is an opportunity to understand why someone has the opinion that they do.
that I cannot claim that susan or anyone else who might agree with her position would have such a motivation.
In my opinion, rather than expressing anger or hurt feelings, as I have done, and for which I have apologized, or “fussing” about this or that, discussion of the actual view expressed would be more productive.
I do not know the motivations, or the reasons why advocates, susan included, think spreading such cartoons is a good idea.
This should not be interpreted as saying that anyone who holds any view is under any obligation to share with me or anyone else their thoughts, their reasoning, why they hold that view.
However, I do think that a discussion of that actual topic would be a discussion more helpful and productive than what has transpired so far.
Maybe it wouldn’t be a good idea. I never said it was a good idea. But defending the freedom of expression is a good idea and not backing down to people that burn embassies over cartoon is a good idea, and telling the press not to hide the source of an international uprising from their viewers is certainly a valid idea, and standing up for what you believe is a good idea, and having Susan write for this site is a good idea, and making her feel unwelcome and unappreciated is a really bad idea.
I thought we stood for more than winning arguments and scoring points around here. I thought we stood for biing a support to each other. When you were hurt people raced to your side, as they should have. Where is the reciprocation?
arguments. I see it as understanding where somebody else is “coming from.”
And I don’t think that susan has had that chance. I think that there has been more discussion about hurt feelings than there has about the fundamental disagreement that you summarized so well: whether such material should be disseminated or not.
I agree that standing up for what you believe is a good idea, and I think that the discussion up to now has not included susan’s “side,” of that fundamental disagreement as you stated it, and for which I thank you, because understanding someone’s point of view is preferable, in my opinion, and more likely to be productive, than merely expressing how something makes me feel, which as I said, was inappropriate, and I will apologize for it again.
why you are apologizing for having feelings or for expressing your feelings.
If you really are worried about where Susan is coming from maybe you should consider not where she was coming from two weeks ago but what her prolonged silence here might mean about where she is coming from right now.
I think you’ve made your position clear about what you think about the advisability of using posters depicted Muslims (of whatever type) to defend free speech. Susan apologized for what she felt like apologizing for and she decided not to fight for the parts she doesn’t feel like apologizing for.
What’s to discuss at this point. Do you want her to come around completely to your view? It won’t happen.
If you think she is full of shit and that she doesn’t like Muslims and wants to intimidate them and humiliate them, and that I support doing those things too because I din’t unilaterally erase that cartoon, then you are just badly misjudging us. And I don’t think that you really think that since you are still here engaging us.
But if no one tells her that they believe in her what is she to conclude?
And it was inappropriate for me to express them.
I believe that a discussion of the actual issue, just as there have been discussions of many issues here, would be more productive.
As I said to NiLinStPaul, I have witnessed, and participated in many discussions here, on questions where there were, and still are, differing points of view.
To the best of my knowledge, none of these discussions have ever resulted in anybody coming around completely to my point of view. Maybe there have been instances of people coming around completely to somebody else’s point of view, I don’t know.
But in my opinion, the point of discussing an issue has more to do with learning more about the issue itself, as well as peoples’ opinions on it. I don’t see it as a contest or even particularly adversarial, even though several different points of view may be expressed.
why you favor disseminating ethnic caricatures.
There is no proof for the above false accusation and
I will not defend myself against your neo-McCarthyism.
Have you no decency, sir? at long last, have you no decency?
Ductape, I don’t understand what you mean. This thread has 122 comments; all people sharing their thoughts and/or trying to make others understand their point of view.
IMO people are talking past each other and using sarcasm and condescension to score points. This helps no one, although it might make the poster feel better.
and I can’t find any of them that are defending susan’s position on the actual issue, making arguments for why disseminating the material as suggested in the diary is a good idea.
In my opinion, that would be more productive and helpful not only to susan, but to everybody.
Ductape, you keep saying she has denied reading what she wrote. She didn’t say that. She said she didn’t see the bomb in the turban.
Maybe you don’t care, but if the poster had merely depicted a neutral picture of the Prophet that would be a political statement worthy of Khomeini’s wrath, but not necessarily everyone elses.
It is a distinction that matters to many, if not you.
And for the record, I didn’t see the bomb either. Of course I entered the diary through ‘recent comments’, had just come from DL, and headed out to meet a friend without more than skimming the article.
I think you should be fair here, and I don’t feel like you are being fair.
You keep saying that she expressed her opinion and she should stick with it and not apologize, but what she put up was a distortion of what she believes because she didn’t understand the full context of what was in the diary and the way the cartoon interacted with the text.
I haven’t been running around blindly defending Susan although I kind of feel like I owe that to her. But I have been taking everyone’s feelings here very seriously. And I wish you would present the facts in an accurate way and not portray them in a biased way.
feeling well, that she did not know what the image was, nor what her diary said.
Someone with better skills using the search feature here can go look it up, but that is what she said, and I will support her right to say it, however, I cannot claim to find it convincing.
contrary to what you suggest, I am defending her right to hold her opinion and express it, not blindly, but because I do believe in free speech. And I might add, that I am defending her right to her opinion better than either you or she has done.
And I also support her right to say that she did not read what she wrote, for the same reason, but just as she has a right to say it, I have a right to acknowledge that I cannot claim to find it convincing, and express the opinion that it is an 800 pound gorilla.
went back and re-read that thread. You’re correct, it was the image and not the text that she claimed to not see or study clearly.
I’ll be honest, I thought it was a bunch of utter B.S. when I read it. That may piss some people off, but it’s true. I probably would’ve tried to talk it out with Susan then, but this paragraph was the real chill in the debate for me:
I care deeply for this site and would rather leave it than make a frontpager feel like I’m harrassing them by pointing out a disagreement. She was, and is hurt, but guess what, so were the rest of us. I don’t expect my feelings to be as valid around here as a frontpagers’, but when my emotions and perspectives were dismissed like they were, what could possibly motivate me to stick around?
So why am I here now? I blame supersoling.
remember, to tell the truth, which thread it was in, I was extremely upset, which I was wrong to express, but I am sure that at some point, she said something to the effect that she was feeling very ill, and was not really aware of either image or text.
However, I could be wrong, there were a lot of posts, and maybe that suggestion came from someone else, since the text was left there even after the image was removed, that would tend to support BooMan’s view that she did not say she did not read it.
And thanks for looking up the other thread! 🙂
Ductape insinuated that I supported young African girls having their clitorises cut off with rusty razor blades. I don’t care what kind of rhetorical tricks or dodges he feels like pulling out now, but this is what happened, and I defy anyone to go back and look at the exchange and tell me otherwise. And he has never admitted this or offered one concilliatory word, in spite of the fact that I was personally attacked, really offended and I said so.
And you know what? A lot of us have made mistakes and gotten overwrought in the heat of the moment, and that kind of shit happens. God knows I’ve done the same. And if anyone feels offended by anything I’ve written, let me know. I don’t enjoy hurting people, at all.
We do our best to put it behind us and move on. Which because I like Ductape’s writing, I have read some stuff he’s written that is really amazing and has enriched me and I have very much appreciated, okay. I let that go by.
But if he’s not willing to put aside his “fatwah” and make peace as well, I have a really hard time considering his claims seriously.
In fact, I am not aware of having mentioned having any authority to do so.
In the other diary, I wonder if you could be referring to something I said about many westerners opposing anesthesia and sterile conditions for FGM?
You are welcome to revisit that diary, where you will see that I neither “attacked” you nor did I claim to know whether that statement personally reflected your own views.
Maybe you can help me understand what you mean by war or me making claims.
Forgive me for making an assumption here, but I assume you are referring to the fact that I disagreed with the opinions expressed in susan’s diary?
In my view, I was wrong to express emotions associated with my disagreement.
If that has clouded for you, or for anyone else, the fact that I support her right to express her opinion, I am very sorry, however I do not consider it a war, and I have not to my knowledge made any claims.
I did say that I cannot claim to find convincing that she did not know what she wrote, but I also support her right to say that.
Neither she, nor you, are under any obligation to refrain from expressing opinions with which I disagree, that hurt my feelings, or that I do not find convincing.
Ductape, it’s late and I’m going to bed. But in that diary, you basically presented me with a choice: would I rather see little African girls getting their clitorises cut off with rusty razor blades or in sterile hospital conditions. This was a false choice and in my view, extremely manipulative and disengenous, not to mention personally insulting. Whether you intended that or not, this is how I reacted to the exchange.
You can disagree with Susan’s decision. I think we’ve all agreed that it’s fine to disagree. And that it’s valuable to know when somebody does something that crosses someone else’s personal line. Personally, I don’t care about religion or religious expression. It means very little to me whether someone prints an offensive cartoon of the Prophet or depicts Jesus using a flamethrower. I don’t believe in the divinity of either, so it doesn’t resonate for me on an emotional level. I try to keep in mind, however, that these are deeply personal things to others. So, again, if I caused you any offense, I apologize. I’m a person who likes to get along with people.
But you crossed my personal line with your comments in that diary. I felt that you made a lot of assumptions about me. I felt that you insulted me. I felt like I was being guilt-tripped for something I didn’t do. Maybe I am totally, completely wrong about your intentions. But those are my feelings. And rather than ever acknowledging the possibility that you may have offended me, in spite of the fact that I stated clearly how offensive I found your comnents, you continued the insult.
And if you can’t see that, okay. Moving on.
I’m only going to add that you are the guy who put “fatwa” in your handle, and I wrote that comment before your apology to Booman. I’m not sure that it was an actual apology, but like I said, it’s late, I’m tired, and I’m going to bed.
by a Mr. Paulinson, I think is his name, several years ago when he advised Americans to purchase large quantities of plastic sheeting and duct tape in order to protect themselves from “terrorist attacks.”
If I am not mistaken, Mr. Paulinson has now replaced Michael Brown as the head of FEMA.
I am sorry if you find the nickname offensive. I can tell you that you have plenty of company, but generally on the “other side of the aisle,” as it were.
I will have to restate that I made, nor do I now make, any assumptions about you, nor any claims to know what your view is on any subject.
I said that there are some westerners who hold a certain view, and I did not present you with any choices. That is not in my power.
It is true that societal realities present choices to societies, and different people have different views of those choices, and different opinions. I am not able to characterize, or make a value judgment, on whether you consider any or all of those choices to be “false” or not. That also, is not within my power, nor can I tell you which choice would be right for you, know what you think, or see into your heart.
I don’t find your nickname offensive. I think it’s funny. I vividly recall how ductape was going to save us from the terra-rists! I was making a reference to your nickname, which is why I put “fatwa” in quotes. If you had a different handle, I would’ve said something else.
But as has been par for the course in this massive clusterf*ck of a disagreement, it seems to be one thing for you to have been offended by the cartoon being posted and the exchange around that, and entirely another for me to be offended by our exchange. Though it’s difficult for me to parse your langage at times, I think you’re practicing a double-standard.
Well, that’s life. I’m going to drink my cup of coffee and move on.
words, blueneck. I have flip-flopped on this issue so many times. First I was going to talk it out, then I was done with this place, now here I am back again trying to communicate. This has cut deeply, and I know it is affecting Susan too, and I suspect that she thinks I hate her or am out to get her. That is not the case.
The uncomfortable truth is we had a major/fundamental disagreement, and I have pointed out problems I have with the way she responded to the original situation. If I am asking too much for her to stop and see how her words read to other people, then so be it. I am trying here, but she is so-far absent from this thread and hasn’t responded to several of my comments in yesterday’s conversation.
I do not believe she online at this time and I am not sure she has seen this diary yet.
I’m a patient person. And I hope she does re-engage.
Thank YOU…
This is the way I saw it, so take it for whatever it is worth: It was front-paged. It was bad. It was embarassing. It was called out as such. The diarist was stunned and felt bad about it, she changed it and made excuses for not paying careful attention. And, imho, she finally sincerely apologized for it all.
I understand and embrace that you and others may have a different perception of the series of events or the sincerity of the apologies. I think that when one offers excuses, real or not, before apologizing fully one opens oneself to “lack of sincerity” attacks.
However, absent any other statements or incidents that I find objectionable, I have chosen to give Susan the benefit of the doubt. I think that if a person is truly not what they say they are, it will show up in lots of ways, not just in one event. In my personal experience, this has proven to be true. So, I watch out for patterns of behavior, not isolated behaviors. In the past I have rejoined others after isolated problems and I have not usually regretted it.
Again, I totally respect you as a person and I only give my opinions of these matters as an offering to you to do with what you will.
this is so complex is because anyone who didn’t give her the benefit of the doubt was assumed to be making Susan out to a be racist or xenophobe or thin-skinned or sky-God cult worshippers, etc.. There were lots of storylines flying around the various threads and most of it was ugly and hateful.
I have been in your position many times, blueneck. There have been a few moments when I’ve bitten my tongue for what I felt were unfair exchanges between frontpagers and regular members, and the tactics used to deflect blame. This time, I couldn’t keep quiet.
We all eventually reach the point where we call someone out on a pattern we’ve observed. Just because we have a problem with someone’s communication here doesn’t mean we think less of the person behind the keyboard.
Thanks for engaging on this, I appreciate it.
ahhh, I’m learning something here. I did not catch the back-fighting part of it, I guess I just didn’t read the threads after a while. I should have, and if I had, I would have defended your right to engage without having to endure further insult. I agree that you have every right to feel as you do about this whole thing.
I am always up for heated discourse if it is about ideas, not about the person or persons who may be espousing them. Of course, eventually, one may be forced to draw conclusions about a person who dogmatically clings to an untenable or disagreeable position.
I do think that we have a very small number of shit-stirrers around here and you have to watch out for them. I’m not saying that they are trolls or that they are bad people in general, but some people do like to keep a heated shouting match going on. Imho, this is a form of hostile co-dependence, which (according to my unofficial definition) is when people don’t feel comfortable with each other unless they are fighting about something.
I have seen this type of relationship up close and personal and it isn’t pretty, though it does seem to satisfy some people’s needs. People who stay in these types of relationships have usually grown up around people who said that they loved each other, but who fought like cats and dogs all the time. Love becomes equated with tension, fighting, and making up. It’s often a part of a “let’s break up and make up to prove that we love each other” syndrome. A good shouting match releases lots of tensions that are best channeled elsewhere.
Anyway, I hope you continue to express yourself here. And be careful of the shit-stirrers. Every community or family has them.
I see Armando has been telling you our secrets for relationship success.
because he wears pink pantsuits? 😀
bad manny.
I don’t pretend to even have a clue of what you go through as a frontpager with a large audience. On top of having to worry about pissing off people, you also have a slew of readership that have excellent memories and can provide endless roasting material.
Not only excellent memories but digital cameras.
It’s the shoes and the turned up collar.
excellent, excellent post. I am aware of the dynamic and am trying to prevent gasoline being thrown on future situations by the usage of broad generalizations.
I was raised in the exact opposite type of environment that you describe above. My family wins the gold medal in Silent Treatment and passive-agressivism. I fell into that model by staying away for the past couple of weeks, but I reached a boiling point yesterday when I read a frontpage story that read like a direct assault in my direction. I have been trying to talk it out ever since, and have probably already made several missteps in bringing clarity to my argument, but I am trying.
You’re doing fine Manny.
What hit me most about yesterday’s post was the mention of men from Yemen wanting to sit in the middle of a group of naked people. Muslim men’s general beliefs aside, with the recent revelations of female interrogaters wiping fake menstral blood on prisoners in Afghanistan and the rape and sexual humiliation of prisoners at Abu Ghraib I was stunned to see that written. It was as if certain people were being mocked and almost baited.
Sad
you win the gold in Love and Peace Instigation.
oh yes, we all have our coping techniques don’t we? In a perfect world, or a perfect family, or a perfect personal psyche, such techniques have no place. But alas, alack, we are not perfect, not one single one of us. The best we can do is learn to catch ourselves quicker as we risk interaction with others and we gain the wisdom of years.
I encourage your efforts. But perhaps, Man E, you will not prevent broad generalizations. Perhaps you will only be able to point them out when they occur, and others will listen to you or not, as they choose. I fight this fight, too, and only occasionally after long and repeated and humbling attempts have I ever gained a convert. Even one makes all the effort worth it, though.
Susan wasn’t a diarist in this case. She posted on the front page. There is a difference.
And that difference leads to a higher level of responsibility and accountability.
This is an issue that everyone keeps talking around instead of addressing head on.
Sorry, I just don’t buy that.
In the US, people have stolen statues of the Virgin Mary and stations of the cross from Catholic churches. More seriously, people have painted swastikas and written anti-semitic invective on synogogue walls. Still more seriously, people have fire-bombed Baptist churches sometimes killing the occupants, and at least three Muslims were killed and many more assaulted in the backlash to the 9/11 attacks. These are crimes.
If somebody is upset by the cartoons in the Danish press, the appropriate action is to turn the page, write a letter to the editor, or picket the newspaper offices.
Burning down houses and issuing death warrants is barbarism.
I noticed a few odd coincidences, besides the normal neocon oddities, that are worth some serious digging. All things considered, this group is entrenched by working together since the 70s-80s. Nobody can hold any of them to a measure of accountability so they’ve just grown stronger. Poindexter for instance, was found guilty of several felonies as a member of a previous administration. He finally had them overturned but he is the man that’s been in the lead of promoting all the wiretapping/surveillance programs.
Anyway, this crew has manipulated public opinion to inspire negative feelings (at the least) toward Muslims. It’s always been an integral part of their operations. Gaffney was proud to be the one to incite the uproar in the DPW controversy and also took pride in articles where he pushed the outrage and divisive debate of the cartoons. Add the influence of the hardcore Christian right groups to further inflame it.
The reason that’s important is because those two influences, along with other neocons have formed a coalition with several Inds, Dems and Greens. ‘Set America Free’ is an example of this alliance and it shows the complicated future of responsible alternative energy advocacy that can be exploited for negative/prejudice influence. During discussions recently, I noticed some people taking unusual positions concerning common issues. It appeared that there might be another factor influencing their perspective of opinion. Maybe this is something to consider.
I’ll try to express myself again using an example of what life is like in Toronto, one (if not the) most diverse cities in the world.
Each day I leave the house I walk down the street to the subway. I pass by shops run by Ukrainians, Chinese, Korean, Russian, Polish, Filipino, Lebanese, etc. etc. I get on the subway and the ethnicities grow and grow. Italians, Portugese, Jamaican, Bahamian, African, British, Pakistani, Indian, Brazilian, Jewish, Syrian, French, Aboriginal, etc. etc. And we don’t give each other a second look. No weird glances, no fear. Just a bunch of Canadians riding the subway to work. We eat in each others restaurants, have street signs in the native languages in “Little Italy” or “Chinatown”. We celebrate our diversity. We talk to each other.
And we’re getting along pretty good so far. Now how do you think we accomplish this? For one thing we respect that we each are coming at the world from a different cultural background and frame of reference. And that what may seem abnormal, or wrong to me, may be something with deep seated cultural traditions and values. I may try to open up a dialogue with the person next to me at the bar if I have questions about something that pertains to their religious or ethnic beliefs, I may try and get them to see where I’m coming from in a western perspective, but I would certainly not presume to get in their face about something or make harmful generalities about their culture.
All that being said, do you think it would be helpful or hurtful to take a picture of a holy religious figure who is depicted with a bomb in his turban at a time when fears about Muslims and terrorism are rapant, and post it around Toronto? Is that a responsible and respectful use of my right to free speech? Or is that just plain wrong for someone who believes in building bridges and respecting others as human beings?
I support the cartoonist’s right to create it, I don’t respect advocating posting it around town where it could literally cause someone harm. Or at the very least continue to promote the dangerous stereotype that Islam = al Qaeda.
thinking of a quote from the Bible, of all places: “Those who do evil hate the Light.” (It’s somewhere in the Gospel of John, but I’m too lazy to go look it up.)
The more exposure hateful language and expressions are exposed to the light of day, the more chance we have to condemn such speech (and the attitudes behind it), and perhaps change the attitudes of those merely on the fringes of hate. I’d rather have it out in the open where it can be fought, than passed around a small sympatico group of people where it might inspire folks to even worse acts of terror and barbarism…
This is especially true because there are Danish laws that prohibit degrading people on account of their religion. These laws were undoubtedly drawn up to protect against anti-Semitism and they would likely have been invoked if the cartoons had been aimed at Jews. The laws were not invoked to protect Muslims.
There seems to be a misunderstanding here. The Danish laws (anti-Blasphemy laws) you are referring to were not drawn up to protect against anti-Semitism primarily, but to protect all religions against being degraded although they were mostly invoked in defence of Christianity. Those laws haven’t been used for decades just as in Norway and are to be considered “sleeping laws” that are hard to invoke. Christian groups have tried to invoke them in the past, but given up since they would almost certainly loose such a lawsuit. The laws banning anti-Semitism are the same laws that ban discrimination against race or ethnic group in general and are a different set of laws. Before the 19th Century the anti-Blasphemy laws regulated anti-semmittism since discrimination in those days was considered a religious issue, but after 1945 and the Holocaust anti-Semitism is considered to be primarily a racist issue and not a religious issue.
In the cartoon case the question was about religion, to both Muslims and Europeans alike since most Muslims come from different ethnic groups, and not ethnicity. Since racism is considered a more serious offence than discrimination against religion the cartoons case are not directly comparable to anti-Semitic depictions. You are born into an ethnic background and can not escape it even if you wanted to that is not the case with religion. You are free to choose your own religion and there are plenty of cases with people of different ethnicity within Islam and most other religions. Anti-Semitism is not as such a discrimination against religion as it is against Jews as an ethnic group. If you look at near European history you will find secular Jews being discrimination against on the same level as orthodox Jews, thus the discrimination was not about religion, but rather about belonging to a different ethnic background.
thank for clarifying that. It seems that the ethnic/religious aspect of these laws are not calibrated particularly well.
I also found this distinction about the laws extremely helpful. But Boo, I don’t think the problem lies with laws that are not well calibrated. I think its with the whole concept of race. Its a deliniation that was helpful to northern europeans at one point in order to distinguish “us” from “not us” – and has now been stretched to almost beyond the breaking point. How do you make well-calibrated laws around such a unweildly concept. The question of whether being Jewish is a racial or religious category is the perfect example. Throw in that Hispanics come from 22 different countries covering at least 2 continents connected only by language. I’m surprised that since 9/11 no one has brought up the question of what race are Afghans or Iraqis. According to a class I took years ago – they are caucasian. These categories tell us almost nothing about anyone. Its all just a mess.
that’s another way of saying what I was trying to say. I don’t think of Jews as a race. I don’t think laws should be written that do.
Thus, bad calibration.
Well, you’re quite right. Most of these laws are old and are rather driven by precedence than being reformed by Parliament.
That Danish law is similar to Canada’s law, there is a notwithstanding clause regarding religion.
With regard to the cartoons it’s ‘religious discrimination’ rather than racism.
With regard to the ports issue there are accusations of ‘racism’ from the White House of all places.
The more we tiptoe around religion the more we will get run over by the zealots. These religious sensitivities are being used to commit a lot of sins. From the Jews murdering on the West Bank to the Muslims rioting and killing over cartoons. Throw in Pat Robertson and George Bush and you’ve got a lot of crazy religious fuckers that the secular world has to deal with on a daily basis. I’d like to quit tiptoeing around this, call a nut a nut, and maybe save the world from some self-fulfilling endtime religious prophecy.
They have every right to print the cartoons. However, I still condemn the printing of the cartoons. People have the right to do things that they still shouldn’t do. The law should not stop them, but common decency should. And should they choose to ignore common decency, we should condemn them for being assholes.
I doubt I have much more to say on the matter. For one thing, I don’t think it’s a free speech issue, except in those places where government or other powers in authority are actively preventing people for publishing, or jailing those who have already published.
But as I’ve said before… if we are speaking of the recent dustup, it has nothing to with free speech for me (and for others who are maybe not here to speak for themselves).
To me, it’s not a matter of what we can say, in the wider world… it’s a matter of a very tiny world, who we are on this blog. I went back and read the ‘what I am feeling’ post that Man Eegee linked to… I had mercifully forgotten how bad it was.
Even granting bad monitors, flu, misreading (I know even with a head cold I am not as sharp as I should be), good faith posting of something that possibly wasn’t in the best taste, and so on and so forth… even I when I first saw it I was more appalled that all that right wing tripe was being brought over here, with calls for us to make common cause with racist right wingers against muslims in the name of free speech, so that is the first thing I concentrated on.
But then I realized… one old man, who I would have said was a beloved member of this community, was in absolute pain. And was trying to make people see… I know that feeling… “if they could just see, surely they would understand and stop this pain”… but instead, there were lashings back about limiting ‘free speech’ and people have the right to offend, and no one has the right to be free from offense, and we’re not buckling under to tyranny and blah, blah, blah.
This doesn’t speak to free speech, or freedom of expression. It speaks to common decency, and common courtesy and caring for each other. I, and others, found it unconscionable that so many were willing to completely discount the feelings of even one of our community (even tho there were others also who were upset), supposedly in the service of some principle or another.
Not one of the excuses about free speech, bad monitors, or anything else, from the original diarist or others, makes up for that, with me. Sorry.
When we step up into any kind of visible leadership position anywhere, (at work, in politics, or as a front pager on a blog ) certain things automatically go with the job. For one, whatever we say and how we say it, IS given more attention, and more "weight" (in the minds of most). Never mind if this is fair or not, it’s just a flat out fact that cannot be dismissed.
After taking on many leadershp positions along my way, I learned the hard way how heavy a repsonsibility this is. It meant I was exected to perform well whether I felt good or not, was stressed or not, and no matter what was wrong with me. It meant I lost the luxury I had before, of sharing my own emotional reactions or stress "on the job," and had to find alternative plaes for my own support needs. Because if I wanted to lead any thing sucessfully, people had to trust and respect me. (Most of this didn’t come real clear to me until after I’d mucked it all up many times, of course.) This is why you don’t see me running a blog or wanting to be a frontpager anywhere: I am on permanent recess and it’s playtime from now on.
When I read Sue’s painful response, it resonated clear to my toes. Ouch. Been there, more than once. I know how it is when life closes in on all sides, especially when sick oneself, with low reserves to draw on. I know her work well enough to know she would not intentially wish to cause harm to anyone. Not that harm was not caused. It was and it hurt like hell for some, who did not get to hear what they hoped to hear in response to expressing that hurt.
Sue, if you’re reading this, I sure do hope you take enough time me off to take care good of yourself first, before taking care of Boo, OR this blog and here’s why.
You have an important, clear and extremely well informed voice. You have skills I’ll never know for doing this kind of important work. Your strong woman- voice is badly needed on front pages like this. You know this. I think you love this work, too, right?
I also wonder sometimes if a few more front pagers might lessen the load, so you two don’t burn out? (Good Pond Tenders like you two are quite rare, you know?)
As for the rest of all of this, I realy don’t see as a matter of "rights", free speech or any other kind. I see it as a matter of community. How much each member of this community is willing to go to make it work here in the Pond, which is really the only place where we have the power to resolve this in any way at all. How much each is willing to take on, communication wise, (which means not just talking, listening WITH AN INTENT TO UNDERSTAND each other, rather than to gain evidence for debate over who is right and who is not.)
As anywhere else, some will be willing to work on this, and some won’t. It comes down to personal choice then, whether to hang around or not. It’s sad when people we care about feel they have to move on, sure, but people know when they need to. It’s ok. All of life is forever in motion.
Big kudos to all willing to keep on reaching through the fog.
where can we go and how can we go on without forgiveness?
Without bogging down this essay with an overly long depiction of what cultural sensitivity is, I’ll just characterize it as a mode of thought that places great weight on respecting how other people from other cultures feel and that eschews critiquing the validity of those feelings.
The problem is this one cannot know how people feel. One can only know how they claim to feel. And feelings can be manipulated through symbols and imagery–just look at how Americans have be led around by the nose with Bush’s mantra of 9/11, 9/11, 9/11.
The second problem is that the “culturally sensitive” in this sense pick and choose which cultures to be sensitive to. And which cultural practices to be sensitive to. Granting Salman Rushdie the right to free speech is culturally sensitive. Granting an ayatollah the right to order someone’s death, while it might be culturally sensitive, is undesirable for a whole variety of reasons. Granting a Danish paper’s legal right to freedom of the press is one thing. Granting Muslims the right to be offended is another. Granting the right to use this offense as a reason to burn down embassies is undesirable. Cultural sensitivity does not legitimize violence or the threat of violence — but that is just my Western values speaking. See the issue?
Where your really meet this issue is in considering attitudes to cultures within the US. Should one be culturally sensitive to the offense Southerners or Appalachian residents take to the phrase “marrying their cousins”? Or the offense that rural folks take to being seen as rubes? Or city dwellers take to the attitude that cities are criminal and sinful? Or the characterization of cosmopolitan, progressive, learning -respecting culture as “Volvo-driving, latte-drinking liberals”?
Is cultural sensitivity really about “feelings” or “how people feel” or do some peoples’ feelings matter more than others?