I would like to suggest a couple of things that I believe would be more helpful than the discussions so far appear to have been.
As you (BooMan) pointed out, susan and I (and I think some others) disagree on the issue of disseminating ethnic caricatures as an exercise in free speech.
Speaking for myself only, I strongly believe that this activity is indeed protected free speech, and I support the right of any person who wishes to engage in this behavior to do so.
The area of disagreement, from my view, is whether this behavior is a good use of peoples’ time and talent, and yes, whether it is the “right thing to do.” I admit that I am biased, as I am not an enthusiast of this sort of behavior, and find it personally distasteful.
As I mentioned in a recent comment in the old thread, Arcturus has posted a list of a number of very “meaty” free speech issues. “Meaty” is my term, and I know it is a subjective one. Why would tacking these ethnic cartoons up here and there be more deserving of peoples’ time and talents than the ones he mentions, and I am sure many people could add to his list.
So far, neither susan nor anyone else has made the effort to help people understand the benefits of spreading ethnic caricatures around their communities, whether of an Imam, a Rabbi, or Little Black Sambo-type figures.
I agree with another thing BooMan said in a previous post, that “susan deserves better.” (than the discussion so far) If for whatever reason, she prefers not to defend her view, as is her right, or if she is stil not feeling well, does she not deserve to have someone or someones who do agree with her to present their arguments in favor of spreading around ethnic caricatures?
What I am saying is, that while I see a lot of support for susan herself, what I am not seeing is any effort being made to step up to the plate and say, “I agree that the cartoons should be spread around because blah blah.
On the other hand, I and several others have not been so reticent about saying why we disagree with her position, even as we defend her right to hold it and express it.
Is there a place, within the context of your view of “reconciliation” for a discussion of the actual pros and cons of disseminating ethnic caricatures as a worthy exercise to show support for free speech?
In my opinion, such a discussion would be very helpful to those of us who do not understand the reasoning and the substance of susan’s opinion, and would also help pave the way for moving on to the second 800 pound gorilla.
if this keeps up we won’t have a blog to discuss any issues on because there will not be anyone to write for it. That is not a threat, it is just the reality of the situation.
Number one: why make your case as “ethnic caricatures”?
I have total sympathy for the pain the original diary caused for you, but you are now beginning to lose my sympathy.
You are simply failing to put the same effort into seeing the other side as has been put into seeing your side.
Susan did not like the idea of putting up posters with a Muslim looking man on them in support of free speech because she wanted to humiliate Muslims, because she considered the picture to be an ugly caricature, to intimidate the Muslim community, or to applaud the decision of the Danish paper to print the cartoon in the first place.
She liked the idea because she considered the rioting to be an overreaction, because she thought the news blackout of the cartoons was a cave-in the extremists that were trying to shut down the free expression of ideas, and because she thought someone needed to fight back in a public way.
And if you can’t see the values behind those sentiments and, knowing Susan and well as you do, get past whatever things she may have failed to observe or take into full consideration when she decided she liked the idea then I don’t know what more to say to you.
You were hurt…she’s hurt worse.
And I am seeing precious little support for her which is starting to really bum me out.
See, that’s the crux of the problem (speaking only for myself), right there.
It seems to me that this is the same root problem that I had with you and Susan back in December — my concerns were dismissed as “less than”, then I was uncermoniously labeled as “in need of a menetal heath hotline”.
When I called BULLSHIT on that and was angry as hell, I was showered with guilt trips: “you made me burn my fingers”, “I have hurt feelings”, there is something “sad and pathetic” going on…and other various and sundry totally uncalled for bullshit.
I was then called out publicly by you for “hijacking” threads whenever I posted in them. When I tried to respond to that, you cut off my posting privledges. Not once, but twice.
I am happy to see that you actually have “allowed” ManE and DTF to express their view in this case, but yeesh, if you’re worried about not having anyone left to write for the blog, why don’t you and Susan try a little introspection and self-examination? Maybe it isn’t always everybody else?
I don’t think Ductape would say that his feelings were dismissed.
And your history of events is very one-sided.
You were extremely angry at that time. I know that I tried my best to address your issues back then. I’m still sorry that we had that falling out. I never wanted that. I know I could have done a better job. I think you could have too.
I said I was only speaking for me.
And if you think my “history of events” is one-sided, please share yours. Seriously. Being called “sad and tragic and pathetic” was waay out of line and she flat out LIED about “numerous email being sent” to me — flat out LIED.
Of course I was angry, keyboard psychiatry is bound to piss people off!
I don’t want to relive it Brinnainne. I am willing to apologize for my part in it, and to admit that I didn’t handle your anger well.
Ok, I can respect that. But the point is that you WILL relieve it, whether you want to or not, over and over again in one form or another if there isn’t some serious work done and/or a change in atmosphere of your site.
I do just have to say that the way in which you come stampeding to Susan’s defense without having the full picture, hearing only one side (hers) of the story through backend emails or phone calls or whatever AND bringing the full wieght of your status as the site owner to bear, in my case, at least, just did not sit well.
I have done a lot of work in online facilitation and community-building (hell, it is even the subject of my dissertation!) and I see a pattern/dynamic emerging after being here for 9 months — and it isn’t a healthy one. But you didn’t ask for my advice so I will just stop now.
Oh, and I can apologize for my “fuck you” comment last week as well, your “whatever” just pissed me off all over again.
I appluad ManE for having the fortitude to put this all out there publicly — even though most on this site don’t want to hear it.
and SHOVE IT!
What the fuck are you sup[posed to be warning me about here, anyway?? HAve we ever even engaged in a coversation before??
If you have something to say in response to what I wrote– great, I’d love to hear it, if not, that’s great too. But your attack-dog, pit-bull act is getting EXTREMELY tiresome!!
And as usual, because this “2” was handed out presumable in “defense” of BooMan (I am not balming your here), the rest of the community just lets it slide….except maybe for poco who at least gave me a rating.
IF you have an issue with me — out with it. I really could give a rat’s ASS about your petty ratings bullshit, but I would sincerely like to know what you issue is. I am NOT a troll, unless it is possible to be a trusted user and a troll simultaneously.
Are you trying to start a ratings war?? Guess what? I won’t bite, but I WILL continue to ask you to COMMUNICATE you issue or to cease and desist with the downrating.
what you are “warning” me about as well.
What?
Issue? Problem? Let’s hear it — if you aren’t willing to go there, then get off your damned “2”.
I do not think that the discussion has been fair to susan, and I accept my full share of the blame for that.
It seems to me that instead of discussing a question, a point of disagreement, and giving susan and/or any other advocates of her position a chance to discuss it, and yes, giving me and anyone else who might disagree a chance to understand her views on the question, that there has been far too much discussion, and most of it by me, on the subject of my feelings, and really none on the question itself, which I think is a valid one.
Now that is my fault. It was inappropriate for me to express those feelings, and very unfair to susan, to you, to everybody else, including anybody who might have hoped to have a useful and informative discussion of the question itself, to gain a better understanding of susan’s position, or mine, or yours, or anybody’s, and learn from it.
I appreciate you saying that.
This is just an observation…it’s got nuttin to do with this subject, but, damn Ductape!..you have a way of adding many, many extra words to something that on the face of it should be really simple to understand, and by the end I’m scratching my head and going “huh?”
This is obviously due to some shortcoming on my part, possibly having to do with being taught by nuns.
Really trying hard to.
word-impaired, I’ll know where to borrow some.
When you say the discussion has not been fair, do you mean the thread here in your diary? Elsewhere? What isn’t fair about it? I don’t get it.
who might have an interest in discussing the question itself, as opposed to reading about my feelings.
is this your question?
“So far, neither susan nor anyone else has made the effort to help people understand the benefits of spreading ethnic caricatures around their communities, whether of an Imam, a Rabbi, or Little Black Sambo-type figures.”
if this is your question then the short answer is “they arent trying to help people understand the benefits of spreading ethnic cariacatures around their communities.”
that was the short answer.
The question I see DT asking is:
What is the benefit of spreading ethnic caricatures around communities?
From what I can tell, this is basically what the original diary by Susan was advocating, i.e. spreading ethnic caricatures around the community (and to me it seems rather irrelevant whether the caricature includes a turban-bomb on the head of the figure or not).
Your “short answer” actually goes to the heart of the “problem” here: NO, “they” aren’t trying to help people understand the benefits of spreading ethnic caricatures around their communities.
But precisely THAT (i.e. spreading ethnic caricatures around the community) is what the original diary advocated.
I do not think it unreasonable to ask, in light of that, what the benefit of such an action would be.
Maybe DTF is right: if this question were addressed: what is the benefit of spreading ethnic caricatures in your community?, then the issue could be resolved. But no one is really addressing that issue head-on.
Not, “why did SusanHu advocate this”, not “why did Booman Tribune advocate this” but simply
What is the benefit of spreading ethnic caricatures around your community, any community, whatever community?
Correct me if I’m wrong (this is all rather confusing), but that looks like the question to me. And I don’t see any answers to it here.
No one is answering that question because no one was advocating that position. It only seemed that way.
Well then I guess the only way to get to the bottom of it is to go back to the original post and determine what it was that made it seem that way to at least several people (Suskind, DTF, Manny, who else?).
Again, I think that question goes beyond what the actual image was….I don’t have the link to the original post, but as i recall, it did include a call to post images around town.
If that was a misunderstanding, then figure out what linguistic quirk or rhetorical misstep led to the misunderstanding….only way I see of resolving the conflict.
I’ll take a thousand body blows over this if I have to.
You are making me opt for a false choice.
The position that Susan was advocating was as follows:
With Muslims in the streets all across the globe and with embassies on fire and with the United States press afraid to post the pictures even just so we could see what all the fuss was about, she felt it was time to stand up and fight back. That was her emotion, that was her logic.
The poster in question was of a Muslim. It said something about the importance of free speech. It was not her intent to promote the caricature aspect of the poster or the bomb in the turban part of the poster. It was her intent to promote the “Hey Muslims in the streets burning stuff, we have our beliefs too” attitude.
So, when you beat the living crap out of her for it it would be better if you understood that she might not have realized that it was Mohammed, or that it has a bomb, or that some might consider it an unflattering caricature. And nothing in her history should lead anyone to think her intent was to humiliate or intimidate Muslim as a whole. She wanted to stick up for free speech.
So when you ask her or me to defend the idea of putting up offensive caricatures it seems like an attempt to win an argument that was basically conceded and apologized for over a week ago.
I’m trying to be fair to all sides. But I have to stick up for Susan here. And myself.
That is the attitude I take objection to–as I’ve said–to me, what particular image was being used is rather irrelevant.
But I can take objection to that attitude without needing to crucify Susan for holding it.
Do I wish NO ONE in this country would have an attitude like that? Of course I do, because I consider it just one more index of the (unintentional) arrogance and hubris characterizing this country’s whole perception of itself: the rest of the world really doesn’t need any more reminders of the fact that “we” have our beliefs too–“we” have been diligently engaged in the process of shoving those beliefs (and the attendant socio-economic, corporate and military structures) down the throats of the rest of the world at least since WWII.
I still see no benefit in this kind of stance, but neither can I condemn someone for having it. I wish it weren’t so, but if wishes were horses yaknow?
you have every right to feel that way.
As for me, I don’t like religious fanatics in the Middle East any more than I like them in the United States. And when Falwell has his anti-porn rallies I am more than happy to see Larry Flynt take him down a notch or two. I don’t see it as a elitist thing. I see it as a point of basic disagreement. Falwell is flat wrong in my opinion. His followers need not be harrassed or intimidated but they can surely be lampooned.
The disconnect here is in failing to distinguish between everyday Muslims and Muslims that issue death threats and burn embassies of a cartoon. A cartoon, for chrissakes.
I wonder why no one is complaining about Ned Flanders or the way Christianity is portrayed on South Park. Is it because Christians can take it?
If Pat Robertson led a posse of rioting Christians down the Comedy Channel’s headquarters and lit it on fire would you find criticism of them to be “just one more index of…(unintentional) arrogance and hubris”?
You can disagee with Susan for what she actually believes but it is unfair to continue to insist that her intent was to promote the spreading of ugly caricatures. It wasn’t and everyone should know that without it even having to be explained.
More likely because they have been consistently pretty good at dishing it out–to wit: one nation under (someone else’s) God, among other things.
No, I would consider it just one more index of another ‘tradition’ in this country: that of “too little too late” and I would ask myself where all the critics were when posses of Christian missionaries were out trying to “save the man” by killing the “savage”.
From my POV, a huge disconnect was the insistence that this story should be framed as a free speech issue (literally & visually through the poster in this instance). Many objected, argued eloquently, & were attacked for it as being anti-free speech & pro-violence. To my mind that is where the talking past each other began.
It’s disingenous to claim now that it was an attempt to inform us what was out there. The cartoons were already in many US print & int’l online publications & I can point to blogs that did reprint some of those cartoons in a story ‘frame’ that wasn’t offensive at all. Her post clearly intended more: to promote free speech. The insinuations that she is a racist were unfair; the respectful requests that she think through the implications of what she was promoting were legit, to my mind, & largely left unanswered.
While I can & do recognize that Susan was trying to stand up for free speech rights that I think all of us here support in principle, many of us could not disconnect that poster from the FULL context of the story — one which was not acknowledged in the original post nor in the dialogue that ensued. The free speech rights & legitimate complaints of the largely PEACEFUL protestors was totally ignored. What is the proper response to objectionable tho free speech? Protestor’s free speech! One can easily object to the manipulation of the issue by demagogues & the ensuing violence without turning it into a false or misleading issue. In your P Robertson example, I’d condemn his actions & not try to turn it into a free speech issue. I don’t believe that calls for Deborah Howells to be fired, or Chris Matthews to be taken off the air, or for Ward Churchill or John Yoo to be fired are freee speech issues (2 calls I support, 2 I don’t). They are the result of free speech taking place in what’s left of the ‘open market’ of ideas & debate.
For myself, while I disagree with the analysis, and think Susan made a poor judgement, I personally can live with that & don’t need her to ‘come over’ to my POV in order to respect the many important & stimulating things she does bring to my consciosness. I miss her voice her today.
Like I wrote before, who wants to sit up in row taking dictation?
Boo, that is exactly what was being advocated. I quote from the original “I Spy” Post.
Emphasis mine.
Whew! I was starting to think I was struck by the early onset of Alzheimer’s and my memory was failing me.
Yes. whoever posted it has the right to do so.
The question is: what is the benefit of doing so?
And that is a question that can be addressed entirely independent of Susan’s view (which she has every right to hold–she is not alone in holding that view; it’s as “legitimate” a view as any other).
But the question can be addressed “objectively” as a question in its own right:
What is the benefit of posting ethnic caricatures in a community?
And if there is any “benefit” that might come out of this whole ongoing debate for this community, I would suggest that this benefit would be found in a solid discussion of THAT question without reference to the post that provided the impetus for the discussion.
That was what I believe most took offense to (well at least me, Manny & Ductape). There is no benefit. It, imo, would be hurtful rather than helpful to do so as we try to build bridges and better understand ourselves and each other.
I know of many examples where stuff like that incited violence. Germany in the 30’s would be one example. The Deep South any time before, well, okay, it’s still on-going. Etc.
That is what I objected to and that is what is not being discussed.
and where in that does susan show any awareness that the poster is an ugly caricature of a Muslim, or is supposed to be Mohammed, or that he has a bomb in his turban. Where does it say that the intent is to humiliate or intimidate?
It says “We will not be intimidated”.
What you’re doing is asking Susan whether she had taken into consideration how such a poster might be perceived by ordinary Muslims that are not buring embassies. That was not her mindset. She wasn’t considering that. She wanted to fight back and stand up and show that free speech is not the preserve of the right-wing. If anything, knowing Susan, she probably felt that the issue of free speech was being hijacked by Muslim haters and was happy to see liberals joining the fray from a non-hateful perspective.
It’s almost like some people don’t know Susan’s history at all.
It’s almost like some people don’t know Susan’s history at all.
Not only is it ALMOST like that, it IS like that, but really, that is neither here nor there. I don’t think (as much as it would be nice) that we all can be responsible for “knowing each other’s history”, especailly when we are talking about something WRITTEN on the front page, by a front-pager, on this blog.
Like it or not, the medium of the written word (plus images, on the internet), leaves each of us, individually responsible for what we present AND ITS EFFECTS, whether “intended or not intended” — if people share an effect and the response from the author is:
You shouldn’t have that response because I didn’t mean it that way. You have hurt my feeling so now I will quit communicating all together
What does that say?
well we’ve talked about it from one side a lot.
What does it say that people wouldn’t accept her explanation?
That’s the other side. What does that say?
I assume the reaction was shock for people that did know her history. I would think her explanation would resolve the cognitive dissonance. Of course she wasn’t advocating the spreading of ugly caricatures, why would she? It’s totally out of character. But here we are two weeks later blaming her for being hurt.
Like I said, we discussed the other side. How about that side?
I’m going to indulge myself, just this once, and assume that you asked that question wanting an honest and sincere response. So here it is:
I think the answer is (and incidentally, this could be an answer to my version of the question as well) that people feel that they are not being heard, on both “sides”. spiderleaf said it well in this thread and I think maryb did an incredible job of trying to mediate the talking past that was going on — but I think there are some serious blindspots and even her attempts were less than successful.
Also, and this is something that is not exclusive to this particular situation, but as the site OWNER, and that is what you are, you aren’t simply the proprietor or facilitator, you OWN the site, you earn income from it (please correct me if I’m wrong), your role needs to be painstakingly defined.
When I tried to express my dismay at what I saw as double-standards (and I’m perfectly willing to admit that I could have done a better job expressing myself), it was this that I was talking about. Whether you want to or not, you have a unique and much more powerful role than anyone else on this site — if you are going to defend the front pagers come hell or high water (which makes sense from a site owner’s point of view), you should just say so AND at the same time make clear that not everyone is going to get that same support from you, because there are only 24 hours in day…
I think most people can understand that. By the same token, if you want to keep a “community” ideal going, you need to delgate some of the power AND responsibility to others.
A real or percieved slight, attack and/or dismissal from you (or a front-pager) holds a lot more sway and has a lot more wide-ranging effects than one from someone else.
Cutting off someone’s ability to post is not something we all have the option of doing, eh?
I am happy to have the opportunity to respond to a comment from you like this one.
It’s not that I will defend the Fp’ers come hell or high water. I won’t criticize them publicly as a courtesy. If we didn’t have that standard the whole site would flame out. If that is a double standard it is one that is absolutely critical for the health of the site, even if it is easily misunderstood.
In this case, I am defending Susan against what I consider to be unfair attacks. I don’t think I have been a bully about it, I have just been an advocate.
And I think you are right that I have to watch myself because the slightest comment from me can be taken for policy or censorship or chilling or stifling or whatever, when really I was just trying to engage in the threads like anyone else.
I appreciate your effort to talk about this.
And I’m happy that you’re happy! š
And I understand the need for discussion “behind the scenes” with frontpagers. HOWEVER, a front-pager cannot expect, imho, to have any criticism of him/her from the “unwashed masses” come behind the scenes — really, if that is the standard, then the whole reason for the interactive, public part of the site goes away, yes? Similarly, if you have a policy of not criticizing front-pagers publicly, it would be a good idea to apply that to the rest of us as well.
It is a balancing act, no doubt, becuase people will email and will form relationships outside of the “confines” of the public arena, but it should be understood when one becomes a front pager that public criticism is to be expected and part of the responsibility is to deal with it.
I’m not sure what you see as “unfair attacks” on Susan, stepping outside of how well you know Susan, both professionally, and personally, would perhaps enable you to see how/where/why some of what has been said is coming from. As far as not being a bully — you don’t have to MEAN to, or be EXPLICIT about it, you are the site owner, people will always and forever take that into account when they see a post from you — regardelss of where or why it is. In this particular case, if I were you (and, buddy, right now, I’m glad I’m not), I would encourage Susan to engage with the people who have made efforts to engage with her…
There are losts of “tech geek” suggestions I could make, but won’t because most of them are “solutions” to “problems” that human beings can (and usually do) take care of themselves, but I’ll end here:
You may want to think about either taking on two different user names (one for when you are in “site owner/policy maker/laying down the smack” role and one for when you are just “engaging and hanging out and thinking and talking and being” like the rest of us, a pain I know, but it could help to avoid misunderstandings) and/or delgating the “roving state of the site” reporter duty(ies) to members of the community — in a revoling sort of fashion so that no one has to commit to anything they feel uncomfortable with — just thoughts.
Happy to talk with you any time about stuff like this!
It is the “we will not be intimidated” business I take issue with–it smacks of the ‘knee-jerk’, ‘we are the champions’ attitude of American hubris that I find so disappointing in so many of my compatriots.
Stanley Fish, in a NYT article to which I have posted the link several times in threads, speaks very eloquently to what is for me the core issue here:
Conclusion
And what he has to say here goes far beyond the cartoon issue and issues of free speech. It goes to the heart of much of what I have spent a lifetime trying to drum into the heads of people who seem to have a very difficult time stepping out of the framework of a culture that seems to have only a very superficial understanding of what R.E.S.P.E.C.T. actually entails.
I am an agnostic living in America. I cannot even admit that and run for office and you ask me to do more than respect organized religion, but to respect their taboos?
There is a conversation to be had here, but it isn’t about liberals vs. Muslims.
I’ve read Fish’s article at least three times now. I don’t think his point is “liberals vs Muslims”, but if you can glean that from one cursory reading of the text….oh well.
I’m not often this impressed by anything Stanley’s written (he’s not particularly popular in these parts, not anymore anyway, not since people no longer need to pander to him for the sake of their jobs), but this piece has stayed with me, and I think he addresses some very central issues which, of course, will be very uncomfortable for a lot of people.
But wtf, Stanley’s been in the business of making people uncomfortable for many years, and it seems to be “working out very well for him.” š
I would hope that some readers of this site might give this article the attention it is due–this is about the third time I’ve made reference to it. It should probably be diaried, but I don’t have the time for it, and really wouldn’t have anything to add to it. It is thought-provoking in any case. At least it’s had that effect for me.
you know, we might be able to learn a lot from each other. But there is a point here that I want to make.
I may be a white, male, well educated kid from a nice ivy league town, raised by two parents who never missed a doctor’s or dentist’s appointment. But I am a minority too. I am agnostic, which polls below Muslims in this country if I’m not mistaken.
And all of the people of the left feel oppressed right now. People of the mid to far left feel marginalized by our own erstwhile allies.
And when we fight back against what we perceive to be religious fanaticism and get called bigots it is pretty fucking depressing.
And as someone who appears to have had forkfuls of this feeling shoved down you throat your whole life, I would hope you would understand.
Without seeking to resort to the “battle of the most martyred minority” here, I would suggest that being an agnostic actually puts you at an advantage: look at it this way, if you have no sacred sites, that is one less thing that can be taken from you, one less part of your existence that can be desecrated, destroyed, defiled. One less wound you are forced to ‘live with’, ‘get over,’ or ‘see a shrink’ about.
You are at a decided advantage, actually, in the sense that you have no vulnerability on that point: ever think what it must mean for the Lakota people to have the faces of Indian Killers carved (indelibly, flagrantly, monumentously!) on what would be the equivalent of the Vatican or of the Samarra mosque, the ancient Temple? And to have to look at that while at the same time living in the squalor of the poorest county in the nation?
If shrinks were capable of performing geological cosmetic surgery, I can think of any number of people whose ‘problems’ might be solved–or at least diminished in severity. Alas, much of the damage that has been done is de facto PERMANENT.
Winona LaDuke’s most recent work, Recovering the Sacred addresses some of these issues. I’m sure if you read it, you would probably coming away with a sense of understanding just how lucky you are not to have any strong religious convictions that can be so egregiously violated.
besides, if it’s just a matter of running for public office, you do have the option of doing what other politicians do: lie. You could enroll in some church and pretend you belong. You could do that. It wouldn’t be ideal (lying never is), but it is an option.
What was Nader’s religious affiliation, btw? Was it even an issue?
a half measure of snark would you be at all taken aback if I responded to this with accusations of dismissiveness?
Certainly not taken aback, but then I still have a pretty vivid memory of the snarky 1993 (92?) Newsweek article (I believe it was titled st like “falling down”) about the Men’s Movement and the way it was trying to portray middle-to-upper-class white males as the “most persecuted group in North America”.
Fact is, “America” has inflicted a lot of harm on a lot of people–at home and abroad–some more than others.
Comparing your plight as an agnostic who is admittedly in possession of all the remaining trimmings of “normalcy” (i.e. penis, parents, pigmentation, pedigree and pocketbook) to those who have NONE of these and who have furthermore had to witness centuries’ long desecration of EVERYTHING they hold sacred, well….it’s about like comparing a scrape on the knee to a severed limb in a civil suit against a bicycle manufacturer or something.
I’m always amazed at how quickly white privileged males (and females, actually) get their undies in a bundle over sleights and injuries that are actually very minor and from which any well-adjusted human being would recover fairly quickly or find some way to deal with appropriately without too much effort.
Other groups have had to overcome insurmountable difficulties, unsustainable injuries and insults–and many of them have done it with grace, conviction and eloquence–with harm to no one; some have not: some have decided to “push back”, often times using some of the same methods as those that have been used to inflict injuries on them (i.e. with words). No one gives them credit for restricting themselves to words rather than resorting to sticks and stones, (alternately bombs, guns, lynchings, burning and other forms of desecrating sacred sites).
Sometimes I wonder: if white middle class men and women with the means and methods available to them would have been subjected to as much insult, injury and inflicting of wounds as other groups have been, what pray tell would the world look like? I suspect that relatively minor forms of retaliation, such as calling the people in the WTC “little Eichmanns” would look like a party favor by comparison to the way this group of people would have responded to centuries of injustice.
with Michael Douglas — ever seen it?
From my viewpoint, one of the most hilarious satires ever done about the “persecuted American white male”, though to be very honest, I am not sure that they intended it that way at all….I enjoyed the shit out it though.
Yes, and as I recall, the Newsweek article also made reference to the movie.
At the time, I wrote a long polemic on the subject titled “Getting It: A Comment on What the Dominant White Male Is and Is Not Getting,” which was published in a journal I assume is now defunct (Lesbian Contradiction: A Journal of Irreverent Feminism).
Too bad, actually, there might be a reader or two on this site who’d appreciate that little piece of polemics–even today, 15 years after it was first published!
(Sorry, don’t have a copy of it anymore, that was 10 harddrives ago!).
DAMMIT, now you dunnit, Bri… I dug it up.
excerpts from article “Getting It: A Comment on What the Dominant Male is and Is Not Getting” (Lesbian Contradiction, Summer 93)
Sheesh. Give me credit for having “toned it down” in the course of the past 15 yrs!
I can accept that you have merely skinned my knee and that I am not harmed. Not in the big picture.
But I think your attitude is hypocritical. You are very sensitive to dismissiveness toward anyone that has met a certain criteria of abuse, but if I can’t run for office without pretending to be a relgious person then my discrimination is hardly worth mention.
I am trying to open lines of communication here. But I just get the back of the hand.
I think you often make the mistake of taking my statements as a personal attack on you as an individual when I am trying to make arguments based on you as being representative of your class/standing/group and pointing to general tendencies in that group (based of course on my extensive, life-long experience with that group).
I personally am very aware of the fact that, despite what is generally classified as a horrifically “traumatic” childhood, ultimately I was one of the “lucky ones”–my wounds, really, are but cuts and scrapes and bruises compared to what others have suffered (even compared to what my siblings suffered).
In many ways, as I’ve tried to make clear, I am actually also a part of your group inasmuch as I am privileged by heterosexuality, privileged by education, privileged by being in possession of white skin color (incidentally, I cannot ever fail to note that I am the LIGHTEST-skinned of my siblings–the others could not hide their ethnicity, and I am fairly convinced that this is one reason I am sitting here in this privileged position and they are not), privileged by having a fairly substantial (however precarious) income. My suffering has actually been pretty ‘minimal’ by comparison to what so many others have suffered. Really.
Some of these ideas were floating around, too, in my conversatons with NLinSP on how I chose to deal with what were clear cases of what most people would call “reverse racism” (tho I personally don’t believe in “reverse racism”, you might want to call it “retributive” or “retaliatory” racism): my take was basically–look, “these people” have suffered so much more than you (i.e. me) will ever know, more than you will ever suffer, it is really unimaginable what they have suffered and continue to suffer, so if they feel the need to use you as a “stand in” to “get back” even just a little bit at “whites” for all these injuries and insults, fuck it, then suck up and take it because you do know that what you have suffered is really a slap on the wrist by comparison. This has found concrete expression, for example, in standing there and letting some Black woman just totally go off on me, tear into me, rip me to shreds–with no real justification for anything I have done–but just because I was the only ‘white’ person in her reach. My attitude was, hey, you know, if you need to go off on someone, I get it, I really do, so I’m going to stand here today and be that person.
In retrospect, I’m no worse for the wear.
That was, is and remains MY strategy–and it works for me. I do not claim that this is a ‘universal’ patent for everyone, but I would like to see more of it.
Sometimes I’m pretty convinced that the reason more of this does not occur is that we are still to this day hopelessly uninformed about the sufferings, the myriad insults and injuries, that people in these groups of Others sustain on a daily basis, and that is why we cannot see that our wounds, our disadvantages, the ups and downs of life in BushCo, are really, really minor by comparison.
I think there is a decided tendency to MINIMIZE and to downplay the continued and ongoing effects of the racist tradition upon which this country is built.
The left, or what the US has instead of a left, feels oppressed.
Which makes you natural allies of others the warlords are oppressing.
Which makes them nervous. Sounds like a problem that needs to be nipped in the bud, Andy. Now let’s see. What’s something we’ve got that they don’t like, that the Muslims have got, too. Oh, I know – Religion!
And not just any religion, none of that Unitarian wine and cheese or Reduced carb Jews – Old time religion!
Let’s see now….
It makes sense to me, for someone to say, I am not a Muslim, so I am not bound by the Muslim custom of depicting the Prophet.
Someone else might say, that’s right, and so I am going to depict the Prophet just to show those Muslims that their customs don’t apply to me, and take them down a peg or two.
Now I don’t know anything about the Danish author, or her views on all this, all I know is she was writing a childrens’ book about the Prophet. So while on the one hand, it seems reasonable for her to take the position outlined in the first paragraph, as a non-Muslim, I’m writing this book, so I have no obligation, religious or cultural, to avoid depicting his image.
But then I also have to ask, if she was writing a book about Mohammed, had she not done enough research to know of this custom? And which children was she writing this book for? What was the purpose of the book?
Let’s speculate that her intentions were honorable, but she was just a sloppy researcher, and did not know of the custom. When she began her search for an illustrator, and they told her of the custom, how did we get from there to a newspaper editor whose views apparently fell more into the I’ll show them, take em down a peg or two camp.
Maybe it is my own lack of information, but there seem to be some missing pieces here, was the childrens’ book story also part of the psy-op?
And without rushing to condemn the take em down a peg school of thought, what is the goal, in the follower’s mind? Let’s speculate some more and say that the psy-op didn’t start till later, when someone in Washington saw a “great opportunity.”
What did the newspaper editor hope to accomplish? How did he envision that this would improve things in his community?
What vision did he see? Did he think, once these Muslims see this, they will stop this foolish custom?
Did he imagine that Muslims everywhere would be grateful to him?
Thanks, buddy, we really needed to be taken down a peg or two. All those bombs just weren’t getting the message through, but now we see that the west knows best. You won’t be seeing any more Resistance from us now, no sir! We understand that you aren’t accepting any of our primitive customs now, and boy do we ever appreciate you going to all that trouble even after you’d spent your own money to blow my little girl’s feet off. Did I say west is best already? Yes? Well, can’t say it too many times..
I mean, again assuming he had no knowledge of any US psy-op, wouldn’t you like to know how he thought he would be serving his profession? His country? His world?
What if all of that is based on an urban legend (depictions of the Prophet prohibited) that was established through previous propaganda? That changes the entire argument.
I know that some will say, and have a good argument for it, that a lot of religion is propaganda. The whole Christian Trinity thing was basically a political decision, compromise, whatever you want to call it. But no, I will be brief, and I will not go into tangents within tangents.
The prohibition on depicting the Prophet is generally agreed to have come from interpretation of the Jewish sacred texts pertaining to “graven images” or religious “idols,” which in its turn is generally agreed to have come from early struggles between monotheist Jews and older religions.
This whole idol prohibition thing over the centuries has sort of taken on a life of its own, can even be noted today in differing views among modern Christian sects regarding images of saints and/or Mary mother of Jesus. Jesus himself, interestingly, seems to have escaped, and is depicted all over the place, although some sects do use crosses without the “Christus” or the actual body of Jesus depicted.
So what’s that got to do with the Prophet Mohamed specificallly?
One of the differences between Mohammed’s position in Islam and that of Jesus in Chrisitanity is that Christians believe that Jesus is not just a Prophet of God, but an actual manifestation of God. They believe that Jesus is God, divine.
In contrast, Mohammed is seen as a Prophet of God, a messenger of God, but even he had to remind his followers of that sometimes – that he was a mortal man, a servant of God, not a deity to be worshipped. And once he died, as you can imagine if you just think about Elvis for a minute š things got worse in that department.
So add in that graven images thing, and people being human beings, and you get the picture – or the lack of pictures.
And yes, there were people who took that whole thing to extremes, which is why Islamic art from some countries contains depiction of no living thing.
And there are people even today who will not take photos, or have them, or painted portraits of people in their homes.
And in some other places, the whole prohibition didn’t really catch on, which is why you can go into markets in Iran, for instance, and see hangings and urns and everything else with reproductions of classic illustrations of Mohammed all over the place.
And like customs everywhere, this one changed a bit and didn’t change a bit, and so today, while the people who won’t sit for a photo are fewer in number, it is so widely frowned upon to depict the Prophet that in the 1950s when Hollywood made a movie about him – they didn’t even try to depict him at all. They just showed Anthony Quinn talking to an unseen Prophet a lot.
So it’s not an urban legend, but I think it is reasonable to say that if fewer western countries were engaged in crusade activity, even Pentagon operatives bringing cartoons down to the desert from frosty Denmark would probably not have inspired the same outrage. People would have been more like, well, Denmark. Barbarians, what can you expect?
Now wasn’t that brief? And aren’t you proud? I am.
Great explanation. It addresses the issues and ignores the cartoon. …very effective.
And it answers your question, about why the cartoon was a good choice from the point of view of the Pentagon.
Well, I have no idea what was running through her mind for sure and I do know Susan’s history. But history only takes you so far in life. What you do on a daily basis does count too.
Let me try and explain where I see that Susan knew exactly what that image was that she was posting and if you look at it you can see it’s very clearly an ethnic caricature, one that only seeks to further the impression that Islam = al Qaeda.
Now, from my perspective, what would the left be ceding to mollify Islamic haters by posting a nice picture of a Muslim guy on telephone poles with lovely text about free speech attached? How would that in any way shape or form have anything to do with the cartoon issue? Either the image is from the cartoon series or it’s just a nice little picture of a guy wearing a turban… in which case how on earth is that standing up for free speech? How is the poster evidence that it isn’t true? Unless, as Ductape said, Susan didn’t actually read the post but put it up anyway and said she agreed with Dan for some reason undetermined.
Then there’s this:
See above for why it would make no sense for her to write that statement if she didn’t know the image on the flyer was from the cartoon series.
And then we get to this:
The image right at the top is the same one as in the poster. But my question is… how could you make a determination about the humor if you couldn’t see the pictures on your small monitor? And how, if you couldn’t see a picture on Dan’s site that is 400×502 in size on that small monitor, could you judge a compilation of 12 pictures on Wiki that altogether were 356×503 in size? I really don’t like my intelligence being insulted.
Sorry Boo, I’m not buying that argument. I also know that the day before Susan posted a different “I Spy” which stated (since modified at my and others request) This Muslim cartoon controversy is idiotic, much ado over little (unless you’re a PC nazi), and has gone on long enough:…The Muslims need to learn to get along with the rest of the world. It’s hard to think about someone’s history when their words are staring you in the face day after day. I know that Susan is a good person. I’m not questioning that. I am asking questions about her judgment and beliefs, as I would hope she would with me if I were to do or post something that offended or caused her concern.
I really would like to have a conversation about why those stereotypes are harmful, why equating Islam with al-Qaeda is dangerous and what it means to respect others cultures. But first we have to get past the bullshit excuses and be willing to talk about why we believe what we do. That’s a conversation I would be more than happy to participate in.
Yes I did and I made the point as to why the excuses regarding not knowing the picture was of a guy with a bomb in his turban because of a small monitor doesn’t jive with claiming to have seen the wiki entry and being able to judge the cartoons humor when the images are even smaller than the one on Dan’s site of the poster itself.
look, your position is that she is lying. But I can tell you right now that I did not see the bomb in the turban, nor did I put much thought into it until people got offended. I went and looked at the wiki and at least some of them seem Looney Tunes-esque. Silly dumb towelhead with a camel type cartoons that are obviously offensive. But, still, they are not worth burning an embassy over in my opinion. As I said elsewhere, there is no need to insult Falwell’s hordes needlessly, but when they act foolishly they are routinely lampooned much to the delight of most of the left. At root, the issue is can we criticize religious fanatacism without being accused of bigotry? Yes, we can as long as the people being lampooned are Christians. But if they are Muslims we cannot. Apparently.
Not everyone agrees with that.
As for the cartoon in question, it strikes me as the least undignified portayal of a Muslim (except for the bomb of course). It just doesn’t strike me as a facially unflattering. But maybe that is just me.
That probably is close to my position on the matter and I stated why in the comment where I dissected her post and how it would not make any sense at all for her to post that without knowing that it was a) part of the cartoon series or b) that the guy had a bomb in his turban. If she really felt that strongly about the free speech aspect of it she should have just said so instead of making excuses and telling us how hurt she was. I make mistakes all the time. I hurt people or offend people I care about. When I do so I either apologize from the heart with no excuses or stand my ground.
My problem with that image is the bomb in the turban and the equation that all Muslims = al Qaeda. That is dangerous and counterproductive. I’m surprised you didn’t see the bomb, it’s quite noticeable, but I’ll take you at your word.
There was an opportunity for us to have a real debate about what we all thought about the cartoons, the reactions to them, the choice of posting them around town, etc. etc. But that was not allowed as soon as it became personal and turned into a thread about buying Susan a new monitor and how sick she is. I feel for her, I really do. But I have many many problems in my own life that I don’t share online (or with most offline) and I certainly wouldn’t use any of those problems as a weapon with which to dismiss others concerns or shut down valuable debate.
And it isn’t just about this one posting Boo, it was also the subsequent ones where I was told I just don’t get it because I’m young. That’s a pattern of dismissal and basically taunting that I cannot support.
Like I said, I don’t think she’s a bad person, I don’t think you are either, but I also am a firm believer in calling it like I see it (as are you). And I’m very disappointed that it has turned out this way vs. enabling a larger discussion of cultures, beliefs and respect on a liberal site.
No. The point is that you have to have a depiction of a Muslim for it to make any sense. If people see a Muslim and a phrase about free speech then they turn on the TV and see crowds from Indonesia to Algeria buring Danish flags, they can put two and two together. Without the depiction it makes no sense. But the fact that it isn’t just some flamethrowing Iman, but Mohammed with a bomb makes it offensive to all Muslims.
That’s the distinction.
You think its obvious. It wasn’t obvious to me and I didn’t have a 101 flu.
Yes, I realize that the prophet was depicted with a bomb in his turban. I used ‘Muslim’ because that is what I saw that regular janes and joes would see when they looked at the picture. They wouldn’t know it was the prophet and it wouldn’t make a difference. The perception, subliminal or not, would be there.
And based on a ton of marketing studies about, basically, how propaganda, advertising, affects people (which I also mentioned in the first post). It shows that you have less than 3 seconds to make an impression with a consumer and a print piece. If an image is present people focus on that. And if we were to all put this picture up around our neighbourhoods (I’ve also used Toronto as an example) where we can’t control who sees it or in what context or what their emotional or mental state is, it could be very dangerous.
The fact that it’s the prophet in my mind is a secondary discussion to the larger one of if it would be beneficial to put a picture of a Muslim with a bomb in his turban up around my house.
like,I mean there are the descriptions in historical texts, etc, but because so little videotape from that era has been preserved… š
So no one, Muslim or not, would see that cartoon and think immediately, oh, that’s the Prophet Mohammed! it is clearly supposed to be a Muslim, although I suppose people could think it is a Sikh, but because of all the media attention, east and west, on the Danish newspaper, and because the cartoons have already been so widely disseminated in that media and on the internets, in most communities I think Muslims as well as non-Muslims would recognize the cartoon.
And of course when the newspaper first printed them, they were labelled as such.
Which brings me back to my earlier question. Assuming that the psy op started AFTER the cartoons were published, what was in that editor’s mind?
Don’t you wish we could get him here to ask him how he imagined his community would benefit from the project?
I think al Jazeera had a copy at one point… film at 11 and all. š
Just in case it has secret coded messages in it.
That’s exactly the way I see it as well. And I am rather disappointed that I posted exactly that question, framed in a very real and personal way (ie. would it be helpful or hurtful for me to post that around the streets of Toronto) and received no response from those to whom the question was addressed.
I personally at this point am quite offended that the actual question still goes unaddressed while straw men about who is hurt more by what has happened and post after post on the frontpage telling those of us who happened to take offense how wrong we were to feel that way. In fact it would appear to be taunting and that is what has driven this wedge in the community. Not Ductape, not Man E, not anyone except at this point, Susan herself and to a lesser effect, BooMan by his continued advocacy of her position while not addressing what the actual issue is as we see it.
As for support, I’m pretty sure I saw, and continue to see a ton of it. What I don’t see is a willingness to talk to those of us who vehemently disagree with how we have been treated or made to feel. Yet we are expected to grovel and understand how the other side feels. Guess what, I do understand. I understand that it does suck and would hurt to be called out on something by people you respect and admire. Now most would actually do some reflecting and soul searching to see what they might have done. If after that is done the person still feels that strongly, then say so. Stand your ground and advocate your beliefs. But don’t taunt us in your status as a frontpager with a bigger soapbox. Don’t make excuses about being sick and small monitors. Either admit the other side has a valid point and you have reconsidered your actions or tell us we’re full of shit and here’s why (which is what you BooMan I believe are doing, but you’re coming at it from the wrong angle since we are arguing two different points).
I am still here and I probably will remain here although I find these days that I just don’t have anything to say (well aside from all the above). I don’t want to continue this rift, I don’t think it’s productive, but I wanted my opinion on the record in hopes that maybe, just maybe, we can actually have a discussion about the REAL issue we all had with that initial, and the subsequent, posts.
And for the record I am one of the ‘younger generation’ that just don’t get it. I turn 33 on Friday.
(ps stark, no idea how a reply to you turned into a reply to Boo’s post at the top… rambling and all. š
A few of us said, from the beginning, that the entire series of events had all the marks of an organized propaganda campaign designed to incite divisiveness and hatred. The best way to battle that kind of propaganda is to expose it for what it is and end the infighting/animosity. Not many were interested in that opinion.
I’m interested to hear all of them, but I think you bring up a very good question.
If people believe that the whole thing is a psy-op, designed, as you say, to increase divisiveness and hatred (and in the interest of full disclosure, I happen to be among that happy band)
What would you suggest as ways to expose that without cooperating with Pentagon intent?
Force the debate to focus on the issues and circumstances that led to the controversy’s beginning. Dispel the myths that were used to help spread the disinformation. Concentrate on the ‘why’ in the need to have this divisiveness. Discuss the anomalies that allowed or encouraged this to gain momentum, such as debated focused on the wrong issues.
All of that is based on the proposal that the propaganda campaign was intiated elsewhere and what we saw here was the direct result of participating in that programmed influence. This does not imply anyone here deliberately promoted propaganda but the way it played out was natural.
This sums up the way I feel about many of the differences of opinion that have been expressed in the past few months.
My perceptions
Although I have to say it feels like a losing effort for me to keep trying to speak for tolerance and acceptance and listening. The desire to walk away is so strong…yet there must be something masochistic in me that wants to keep trying.
I have avoided the front page stories for a couple of months…and more recently started avoiding some of the diaries by various posters. And the last week or so I’ve started avoiding coming to the site entirely.
When the voice is silenced here, it will go elsewhere. The question is always to what level are we willing to accept intolerance among those around us.
I’m one of the older folks…
I marched for the E.R.A. in the early ’70’s, protested Vietnam AND served as a soldier for this country during the same time period – without conflict, been there for Roe v Wade, and so many things in between then and now. I’ve watched tolerance grow and be part of the culture of the ’70s and early ’80s. Now I’m watching tolerance be suppressed, change being dismissed as counter-productive, and so much more. And I’m watching us as the progressives or liberals or whatever we call ourselves not only let it happen but but aid and abet.
I’ll be back sometime tonight…work now…and I need to absorb so much that has been said in the comments.
Trying to write you from my other account — dunno if going into your trash again? Would you look for email regarding your story? Thanks so much.
is going to a bad place quickly.
Let me be as clear as I can for anyone reading this: I love Susan and have the utmost respect for her work and think she is a GOOD person. I want nothing more than to resolve this. I felt like my emotions and positions were invalidated around here two weeks ago and don’t want her or anybody else to think that just because I’ve finally had the chance to lay it all out on the table, that I don’t value what they’re feeling or thinking on a particular subject. I do, and I want to work through this.
If we can’t work through this, I would like to know that too.
Manny. I’m going to put this here, just for convenience, because I want to say “hi” to you, and to “DTF.”
I’ve been unavoidably distracted from blogging. Life is busy here. Anti-war stuff. All good.
I am uninformed on this issue. And I’m not sure if it is because I have missed diaries or comments. Or if I just did not read carefully enough. Nevertheless, I would like to have a full understanding of what is going on.
I’m a huge fan/friend of ductape and yourself. I think you two probably know that from my comments. A regular Harriet Miers, am I.
I saw the original SusanHu frontpage article. And the discussion that followed. I weighed in with my own thoughts that if it was a mistake, it ought to have been taken down. Which it was. I don’t know if I ever really understood the reason behind its posting. just kind of let it go. But it seems to have caused waves here beyond what I understood or read (and I mean to say here, in my own defense, that I did not, as a middle aged white privileged dude, did not have any failure to understand how the images could be hurtful and offensive).
So did I miss something? Can someone explain the controversy for me? I would like to understand. I mean. Let’s let it all hang out and get beyond it. If that’s possible. (Saying this knowing that my own schedule is about to make blogging all but impossible — so maybe it is best to let sleeping dogs lie or bury the hatchet or you name the cliche). But I’d like to know in full the story. To have a chance to make my own judgments. Maybe I already do know. Or at least have read all the public evidence. And I’ve been given some in private, too.
Anyway. That’s my say. Much love for you and DTF and others.
Off to another in a series of unending meetings — herding the cats of peace. So if there is dialogue I spark, I’m not ignoring it, just won’t catch up until later.
I’m not going to rehash everything, but you can read the following threads where all of my thoughts have been laid out. In public, which is where I think they belong. I’m sure they pissed off/insulted/infuriated/hurt/etc.etc.etc. Susan, but I was being honest in what I observed. I’m fully prepared to own up to any mistakes I’ve made in discerning what happened, but I can’t know that unless I hear from her.
Ductape – your words here have confused me. Before I decide that they are painful, I’m going to try and communicate to hopefully understand.
I have learned so much from you and appreciate your writing tremendously. I’ve even learned to hear you during times of conflict and accept your indirect style of communication at those times.
But when I read this – either I have a lot more work to do in understanding you, or this is a cheap shot. For now I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and hope to understand better in the ensuing discussion.
If there is something you are honestly trying to communicate – I’d suggest you try again. And if you are playing with us – it just makes me sad.
A valid point of discussion, on which people have differing views, has, instead of being discussed rationally and with the goal of learning about and hopefully coming to understand more about someone’s opinion that is different from one’s own, has been deflected into something that is not, in my opinion, achieving that goal.
I have seen, and participated in many discussions here, and learned a lot from people who agreed with me and who disagreed with me, and I would like to see that happen in this case.
I’m understanding a little bit more DTF.
But, it is your attempt to caricature Susan’s point that feels like a cheap shot. When you lay it out like this:
in favor of spreading around ethnic caricatures
it feels like a “set up” to me. Why not just ask for a conversation about her point of view?
Just my 2 cents.
And that is exactly what I am doing, asking for a conversation about her point of view.
In my opinion, I erred in expressing emotions instead of doing that.
that you let her define her point of view rather than offer a caricature of it.
Then, I think your question is one that I would join in asking.
not just her, but other people also who may have opinions that they too have been unable to express because the discussion of the issue has not been one.
The term “ethnic caricatures” is not intended to refer to anyone’s point of view! but, well, ethnic caricatures, caricatures that depict a person of a particular ethnic group in a way that might appear to be deliberately unflattering or stereotypical, such as depictions of African Americans with exaggerated facial features, for example, or a man in a yarmulke with a large nose.
I have not waged any opinion here on any of this, but I can definately say I have no tolerance for this kind of stuff.
I come here for learning and to join in with those who think such as I think and get ideas for how I should be thinking. NOthing in this world is FREE…get me nothing…if you either are of the thought that your thoughts/words do not hurt others, then let me tell you of the things in the beginning here that you comment on my comments and I was hurt by them, but you see, MY skin is thicker than that. But to keep feces stirred day in and day out, is not my favorite thing in the world to be envolved in.
I probably have many things to say that would hurt many here, but I simply do not say them, and if they do slip out in my comments, I try hard to apologize for them…I probably am more hard on my self than others would be.
Therefore, for all in concern here, drop it…or I will have to find another place for a while to read. My personal life is way to busy to come across this kind of stuff on a daily basis. I find many other things so much more important to fight for than this. I usually do not read this stuff, but I have to say, due to the hurt feelings here, it is not good. If you can not accept others and their thoughts and feelings too, then you are just what you accuse others of being. I have gone back and read these diaries, and I am done. I no longer want to see crap. I do not want to see aruging just for the sake of someone not accepting an apology for anything ever. This then makes me believe my opinon of you and others here have been false. I try to understand your POV and most of the time I do, but let me say NOT ALWAYS, like you do not agree with me always either. I do not pick a fight with you over this. I just accept it and go on, trying hard to understand your POV as well.
I am sure anyone can find something wrong in my rhetoric here today. I truly am sorry, if I do hurt feelings, but mine have been hurt many a time, and I just go on. Life is way to important to me anyhow than to fight and quibble over things that should have been ended a long time ago. I would fight for your right to be who you are and to say what you want to say too, I served our country to keep it like that. I do not wish my time and effort for doing this wasted. If you want to carry on the conversation, may I suggest to you and others who want to carry on with this, to contact the person(s) involved, that have your panties in a wad, personally and discuss it with them, in other words take it into the hall will you, please. This is actually ruining it for us all.
I’m in the same spot as you. I find fewer diaries I can comment in or fewer comments I can make almost on a daily basis. I’ve deleted more comments I’ve written that I’ve posted.
I said before, I wear a helmet when I come to these forums but I try to be considerate of those who don’t.
I am gun shy as well. This whole thing has had a chilling effect on my comfort with speaking my mind and heart.
:o)..hear ya, kiddo…I am just here for the learning an try to say the things I feel in a constructive way.
I obviously missed something, and, to tell you all the truth (and I know this will sound harsh), I really don’t care. What ever it is, it seems to me that the best thing to do would be to let it go.
where I live in for now, people have been putting them up around the place.
Almost certainly, the people doing it are Combat 18 and/or BNP members. It’s being done as a deliberate act of provocation, to encourage some of my neighbours to feel more unwelcome than they already do, and others of my neighbours more emboldened.
With elections coming up, it’s just been such a gift to the BNP.
That’s frightening.
Is the BNP the British National Party? And aren’t you in Australia?
I didn’t know they were even there!
There have been some reports about them on TV, if they are the ones I am thinking of, I don’t think their motives have much to do with free speech š
Indeed they are. And no, I’m not in Australia, though I was recently back in Erewhon for a little while.
No — I live in the land of the well-behaved poodle. More specifically in a little Northern town that used to be a cotton milling town once upon a time before the mills closed down. Things had seemed a little less tense here than some places, but since I’ve been back I’m not so sure.
Is there a large immigrant community? And does the BNP have a lot of support (not from the immigrant community, but in general)
The town is mostly white, but there’s a sizeable and quite visible Bangladeshi community — mostly second or third generation rather than immigrant per se., though there would be some people who are first generation (older people and some younger newly-married people).
There’s a smattering of Black Caribbean, and Black African and Chinese people and among the more recent immigrants will probably be a few Polish migrants as well as oddities like me.
The BNP don’t have any members in the local council here at the moment, but the part of the town I live in is one of the areas that is and will be targeted (it was last election) with leaflet campaigns etc., precisely because it’s fairly poor and contains both predominantly Bangladeshi and predominantly white neighbourhoods. The borders between them (I live pretty much on one of these) tend to be of particular interest to the BNP because they offer potential both in terms of provocation and in terms of recruiting.
In other words, there’s a significant chance the ward I live in will have a BNP councillor after these next elections.
Which is a fairly depressing prospect for obvious reasons.
they will blow up quite a storm before the pass.
I don’t know if there has been a demographic shift of this magnitude, markedness, and rapidity, any one or all of the three, in the entire history of the species.
Hang on to your seats folks, as we begin our Feature Persentation!
“Don’t throw things at Susan (throw them at BooMan instead)” camp. Nerf balls only, natch.
And I still am, to an extent. I recognized early on that Susan is not healthy, tends to stress, and really doesn’t deal with conflict or people well. That’s all okay… we all have our strengths and weaknesses. She more than makes up for that by being an excellent journalist and researcher, highlighting issues that sometimes don’t see the light of day on liberal (or other) blogs, pulling together strings of events and tying them together to give one a full picture of something that only was half visible before. And much more besides.
I don’t, in any way, hate Susan, or even mildly dislike her. I just want… maybe even need, her to understand. I mentioned at the outset of this that there was a massive disconnect, and an inability among some to grasp what I, at least, feel the issue is. I sense that that is still the case, although I know Susan came close the other night.
I think the entire (or at least most) of the free speech stuff is a canard, and a result of operating within a right wing frame, but let’s assume it’s an actual issue… there is a truly disturbing trend on some left leaning blogs now towards marginalizing Muslims/Arabs (sometimes unintentionally, no doubt) for different reasons. The more it is tolerated, or winked at, the easier it gets to do it.
It started with the cartoon thing – sort of a softening up there, a ‘how dare these people tell us what we can or can’t do’ type of attitude, that sadly some left leaning blogs fell into. Now, it’s the Dubai thing, where “we’re not being racist, just security conscious” has progressed… or maybe regressed, I should say into “yes, it may be racist, but we can win with this! and of course, we’re not really racist, we’ll just use the republicans own game against them”.
I don’t know… I really am going somewhere with all of this, but following a logical progression is just not my forte. I think probably the best way of putting it is… there needs to be a line drawn somewhere. I am sorry if some feel a chill or that they are unable to speak now or this or that thing… really, I am. But I simply do not believe that the use of racist images or speech, especially by liberals, serves any of us well, no matter what the point is we are trying to make. Whether it is free speech, or free ports, or being anti republican.
There comes a time when one has to say, this far and no more. I think that’s what some are hearing in the voices of those speaking out now… sometimes that is not a comfortable thing. Do I think Susan or any one else here is evil or bad or racist or whatever? Not at all… but I do think some are blind to the implications of some of this stuff and how insidious it is, especially the first posting of the cartoon in the first place. I called it then a sort of priviledged ignorance, and that is still what I feel was/is in operation. One good thing about ignorance tho is that it is not a permanent condition. Or, at least it doesn’t have to be.
about how ignorant I am š
And I agree that it doesn’t have to be that way. I think it is possible, again, I have seen it done many times, and participated myself, in discussions of differing points of view and learned a lot.
Somenody mentioned talking past each other, and I would have to agree that there has been some of that too, and I have probably been guilty of it without even realizing it.
We all have a lot that we can learn from each other, and we are the only ones who can decide if we want to talk about a question, and try to understand each other’s point of view, or we can, as ManEegee said, decide not to.
For the past 4 months or so I’ve been watching Booman Tribune slowly but surely implode. There are two sides to this as in every story…and the specifics of this incident are just one point in this implosion.
At this point, I consider myself a guest of B.T. and no longer part of this community. I have not felt part of this community for a long time now.
It has been with great sadness that all of the diviseness that was present during the ‘pie wars’ that brought many of us here is alive and well at B.T. The biggest difference is that here the group is smaller and the attacks, perceived or otherwise, are now perceived as personal. There is a stronger level of “my way or the highway” that is in many of the comments dircted at those that disagree with front pagers and with Booman.
It is with sadness that these diaries needed to be written. It is with greater sadness that I don’t perceive an answer to this. For several weeks now I’ve gone back to the “other” site. Most of the same diaries are there and so, other than friendship, I don’t feel that I’m missing anything by staying out of these fights and going elsewhere. There are special friends that I’ve met here and will stay in contact with.
As I said in supersoling’s diary….we stop liking then we stop respecting then we walk away.
How many more of us will walk away before this is addressed honestly on the front page?
SallyCat… you’ve expressed how I’m feeling too. Not sure when, but slowly it happened and now I feel like I’m not really a member of the community, but rather a visitor. Sometimes I’m scared to comment so as to not offend, and as rumi said in another thread I’ll often just delete my comment and click away. I’m not sure what the answer is … but it makes me really sad. When some of the most caring souls I’ve met online withdraw, then something is not right.
Yepper — I feel the same way SallyCat. The community part of this blog went out the window for me quite a while back too (and I mean even before “my” incident) — there are people I care deeply for here, but there are other places and spaces I can interact with them.
As far as the slow but sure implosion — I don’t think it will ever be “honestly addressed on the front page”.
SallyCat – maybe I’m slow, but I’m not sure I know what you’re referring to when you say that things are imploding.
I know there has been conflict, but isn’t that something we should expect? I know that everyone, including me, hasn’t always handled the conflict perfectly, but isn’t that also something that we should expect? I think conflict is a healthy part of any relationship or community. And if there isn’t open conflict in a relationship – either its hidden and getting expressed in passive ways OR you just don’t give a damn. I’ve actually learned alot in going through some of these conflictual situations here.
But maybe I’m not understanding what you’re referring to, so could you say more?
I’m watching in dismay as more and more of the strong voices have left or just no longer comment. I’ve stopped commenting in most of the diaries becaue I am so angry at the tone and tenor of the comments to those that disagree.
There are a lot of us – myself included – that feel we have been told that our opinions are contradictory, or inflammatory, or just wrong. We have been told, my perception and perhaps others as well, to STFU. We have been told to not question the ‘integrity’ of front page posters. So – yeah I’m watching very politically experienced and motivated people get slapped down.
My opinion on these diaries defending ethnic cartoons etc. is not fit for public discourse. I have watched so called liberals here in SF ostracize a young woman – for no other reason than she was Muslim and Pakistani. I have watched so called liberals bash people with different color skin, with different religious beliefs, with different sexual orientation. AND it occurs with recurring consistency in the comments here at Booman. At least at DailyKos when someone makes biased and racist and sexist remarks I can troll rate the shit out of them.
I am tired of treading carefully – that some diarists and some commenters feel they can freely make comments without thought. Yet in reading the comments in this thread there are others that are just as concerned about the behavior of commenters and diarists here. We hesitate to say anything – yet others get a free pass.
I’m tired of the concept of “inadvertent” disagreement. Bullshit. I’m tired of it and am doing my best to stay out of it…because there are a lot of hypocrites on this site. So Booman or Susan or whoever can feel free to ban away.
Thanks for taking the time and risk (?) SallyCat, I understand a little better.
I guess you can count me in with the 3000 or so Second Nature refers to below who can hear some from both sides. And, as I said before, I’m learning from it all.
I do have to “bite my toungue” alot when it comes to issues of religion – much more so than when it comes to issues of race. That’s because, from the time I was born, religion was used to hurt me in some very painful ways. It took me 35 years of life to find some healing. And frankly, since the leaders of this country decided to go to war with Muslims, it gives me no end of mixed feelings. Most of the time, I don’t see good guys and bad guys in all of this. I just hate that people keep being hurt by religion – theirs or someone else’s. I don’t want to EVER offend anyone who has personal beliefs, but I feel for those that are being hurt and sometimes want to speak to what has been healing for me.
learn anything. And I said “all” instead of “both” on purpose.
As we can see just from the comments in this diary alone, let alone all the previous ones, there are more than two sides, and we can also see that the initial question about to tack up or not to tack up cartoon posters, is nothing but a metaphor.
A useful, apt, and thought-provoking metaphor, and also a door, which if we will walk through it, offers us all an opportunity to get to know ourselves, and hopefully learn to love ourselves a little better, and and thus move toward stopping anti-Otherness at the source, because in the words of one of America’s most underrated philosophers, Mr. Ru Paul Charles:
Love yourself. Love yourself, baby. Cause if you don’t love yourself, there ain’t know way you gon’ be able to love nobody damn else
on the “all” instead of “both.” There are certainly as many takes on all of this as there are visitors to this site.
very much. I hope that this can be reconciled for all of us. I wish I knew why when W’s numbers are flushed so far he is almost drown that we are experiencing a falling apart here. I wanted to build one of the planks that could support a much needed platform here. We have so much together.
Now THAT about hits it on the head.
for the most part these past couple of weeks. I have become more and more saddened tha this has become a psych101 site instead of a lets frog march the bastards out site. This has dragged on far too long imho. I hope you can all resolve it soon. Someone email me when we can get back to saving the world.
This has dragged on far too long
What does “this” refer to?
The reason I ask is because to me, it is all about value and priorities, as I’ve said a million times before, bottom line it is someone else’s site and they willd efine what it is. As far as I can tell, there ais a desire to have both a “community” and a “top down” heirarchy, where some posters, their feelings, needs, etc. are more valued than others.
One or the other of these arrangements will work fine, but trying to continually have it both ways while refusing to define any communication rules, expectations, etc. beyond “don’t be a prick” is just a recipie for “this” happening over and over and over again.
I have divested myself from this site, because my investments weren’t valued, my expectations seen as too much and my feelings dismissed. I really don’t know why I am posting this, except that there are many individuals here I care about, though some that I care about most are not any longer.
I am at the point where I think I’ll just shrug and stop trying to overanalyze myself. I’ll post if I feel like it and won’t if I don’t.
Life is too freaking short.
Ductape,
I am hardly the best person to comment here. I have read some of the earlier postings that gave rise to this. Of course, I am merely a humble user of this site and have no individual contact with Susan. So, this is nothing more than my personal opinion.
Could it be that the original post which included the cartoon was perhaps an ill-advised attempt to post it for informational/instructional/illustrative purposes? Admittedly, I came late to the original discussion. Now perhaps I am naive and/or just my usual oblivious self, but if it was not the best course to post it, we can be certain that offense was not actually intended. But we can all agree that free speech brings with it responsibility for one’s own statements.
Others have stated other individual concerns that I am unable to address. The many discussions here concern me too, but perhaps they will lead to a fruitful outcome.
It is interesting that I began to write this comment several hours ago but did not post it then for fear of offending or just sounding like an idiot.
I sincerely hope that this current discussion is useful to the community.
Ductape,
I think Susan has the same view of religion I do; it doesn’t make sense. I’m in shock the cartoon created any stir here at all. I thought on a liberal blog I might be able to sort of get out of god’s menacing shadow for awhile. There is no hiding from the gods eh.
I think religion is something that should be open to caricature and ridicule. When people believe something or decide their stand on issues based on faith with no point to argue. I think that is ridiculous and harmful to political discourse around the world. All rational arguments are off the table because your base premise is that a god watches over us and that guides your decisions. This I find irritating.
When people are blowing themselves up while yelling god is great that begs ridicule and contempt. Maybe a cartoon of that religions prophet with a bomb in his turban.
When jews occupy and murder, based on a 3000 year old book, that begs ridicule and contempt. Since they have no prophet possibly a rabbi with a bomb in his bonnet would be a fitting tribute to that kind of irrational stupidity.
Not to gloss over the genocides in the name of christianity. Bood Abides made a great picture of bush as christ holding a missile. Which sums that up.
I really think a hands off the prophets attitude is unhealthy for mankind. Eventually we are going to have to confront these superstitions head on and stop making government policy based on religion. Any religion.
…or blog policy based on religion. Since all cultures love religion this shouldn’t be seen as prejudicial to any one culture.
one of the funniest things I’ve ever read was “Supply-Side Jesus” in Al Franken’s Lies and the Lying Liars… book. And I’m a Christian. But as a Christian, I’m aware of how my faith and my Christ has been perverted by many of the Religious Reich.
I admit to being one who supports the publication of the images…because exposure to the light is the only proper disinfectant for such bullshit. By educating ourselves to the hatred that is out there, we will not be surprised when a mosque is burned or blown up; we can learn to educate others so that the infection of evil and hate does not spread. Like by pretending we don’t get it when someone tells a racist joke — we force those with those attitudes to explain themselves, and perhaps they realize what’s wrong with the joke.
But it’s easy for me in my comfortable (but messy) Silly Con Valley apartment to sit here and say to the protestors, “Hey, what’s going on that would cause folks to see The Prophet in this light? Could it be the good name of Islam has been misappropriated by those who would do evil in the name of Allah?” No matter how many quarters of Intercultural Communication I take, I won’t understand their culture, their beliefs. It’s the same fervancy of “I’m right!” that leads people to bomb abortion clinics and kill doctors…to bomb school buses…to crash planes into the symbols of Western financial domination. And I’m not sure a middle ground can be found. All I know is that I can’t stop trying to learn…and I don’t think the rest of us can either.
So it’s okay to go out and ridicule someone else’s religion just because we disagree with it?
We don’t like the people that believe in Mohammed or Jesus or Buddha or Krishna or God so we can just make fun of all of them?
Wrong!
Spiritual beliefs are very personal and so any ridicule or attacks on the beliefs are attacks on them. I’m a Pagan. I do not belief in organized religion. Yet I will stand and defend any of these ‘extremists’ that decry to humiliation of their prophet. I will stand and defend any of the ‘Christian Fundamentalists’ and the humiliation of their Christ.
I will fight the politics of any and all of these people….but I will not participate in the ridicule of a person’s spiritual belief.
Which religious or spiritual belief gets to be exempt?
Or are you going to participate in the next Burning Times to come after people like me that don’t believe in religion? Shall I gather a faggot of wood…and my GLBT friends here know the original definition of the word faggot…so don’t get huffy about the word being derogatory….
If you’re pissed at me, tell me the problem(s). I’ve been trying to address people’s concerns. I had no idea you were feeling this way.
When did it become okay for progressives to ridicule religious beliefs?
– All major religious beliefs teach tolerance and love of one another. Ridicule is a political tool for suppression of others’ beliefs.
When did it become okay for liberals to suppress alternatives to the existing political system?
– As Bill Clinton says – when people think we win. We’ve stopped discussing because people are afraid to comment…then they leave to be heard somehwere else.
When did it become okay for derogatory comments to be repeatedly excused as ‘inadvertent’?
– “Oh they didn’t mean it”…is a weak excuse and is a coverup for not thinking about our words or actions.
When did it become a given that a front pager should not be questioned?
– My perception is that there has been a steady decline in the number of comments on the front page diaries over the last 4 months or so. This started about the time we were told not to challenge or question our resident CIA writer.
When did it become a Psych101 site (thanks for the term Alohaleezy) instead of a ‘frog marching’ site?
– We stopped thinking about political activism and became one repeating the common wisdom from the MSM. We’ve had some dynamic activism efforts put forth in the past. The most recent had 7 volunteers to spend 2 hours a week on TBD projects. 7 out of ????
These are a few of my issues. These are not personal attacks but an attempt to be objective in why we as a community are disintegrating.
My belief system is simple: “And it harm none, do as you will”. Sounds simple – but it is not.
You must think about each action, each word, each comment – and will it cause harm to another. This doesn’t mean I don’t fight injustices or work politics or not be an activist. It means that each and every time I write I think through what I am saying. My comments upthread were inflammatory. They were conciously done in the interest of stopping further harm to the site and the further harm to people of faith. I’m human – and regularly harm others, generally with concious thought first – and admit it.
These are a few of my thoughts – there are more but I need to get past some of the anger that has been building for a while.
Maybe more thoughts in the morning…and I’ll email you as well.
Here I go breaking my promise to myself to ignore this diary and then you go and post this Sallycat. This is why I need you to stick around.
I too have noticed that there is a small but very vocal group of people who regularly ridicule religious belief on this site. And I too have wondered when ridicule of any kind became something that progressives tolerated.
The surprising thing is how off the cuff it is. It’s like a throwback to fifty years ago when people would throw into conversations statements that were blatantly racist or sexist. And simply assumed that everyone agreed with those statements.
I’m glad you brought it up.
I saw the most incredibly hostile comment today in the News Bucket and I didn’t notice anyone object. It was about Catholicism.
If I step in I am guilty of supressing speech. If I say nothing I am tolerating bigotry.
All trusted users have the right to enforce standards.
Personally, I will allow critiques on religious beliefs, even strong ones, but some things are just disrespectful and mean. Maybe the community needs to work some of this out on its own, although I would hate to see the beginning of ratings wars.
look, “bigotry” is disparaging or hating people for things they can’t change about themselves. RELIGION IS A CHOICE.
Yes, yes, I know that “bigotry” is usually defined as disparaging religion as well. I think that is bullshit. Seriously. I really don’t care what the fuck you believe, but if your beliefs call on you to enslave women to their wombs, or own slaves, or stone homosexuals, or carve up a pubescent girl’s genitals, or or or or … then I’m going to make fun of you … I’m going to oppose you.
Now, if your beliefs are something that you keep to yourself and your community, then I could care less. It’s when it crosses that line, when I have to tolerate the constant imposition of people’s religions into every nook, cranny and crevice of daily life, then you’re fair game.
Here in WI, today, in this state who’s motto is “Forward” and who’s long history is one of working toward tolerance, there is a vote to offer an Amendment to the State Constitution to enshrine the oppression of GBLT people who want to formalize their families. WHY? Because religious nuts hate them based on their beliefs.
No, I’m damned well gonna ridicule superstion and childish demands for “respect” for people who seek to impose their make-believe rules on other people. I’m sick of religion, and sick of the religious. If you’re a spiritual person, and you find a faith that enriches your life, then goddess bless you … just don’t try to make it law or demand that I practice you holidays and genuflect to your idols.
This is the question for me: were those comments based on facts. As for the comments from the Argentine priests and the dictatorship, they were. It is a fact that the priests there did take confessions of those that were about to be murdered. It is also a fact that some priests did rat on other priests. It is also a fact that the po9pe did grant a visit to General Videla.
And, it is also a fact that the actual pope is naming right wing cardinals to Argentina as opposed to those leaning left, although argentina was opposed.
So, that means that I can not criticize the right wing of the christian churc (the christian right) nor those that have directly or indirectly participated in the murdering of my people, and providing a clout of legitimacy.
The truth is that most religions have committed terrible things. As for those in Argentina, God may forgive them. But not the Argentine people. Not in this life time
I am still bothered this morning by the comment in the News Bucket that BooMan is talking about. And I’m bothered by the fact that I was so stunned to see that there, I didn’t respond to it right away, which I should have. Because by not responding, I think people think that’s something I find acceptable, and it so totally was not.
For a long time, we didn’t have so many offensive comments. I’m out of practice at dealing with them, but starting today, when I see garbage like that, it’s getting downrated with a 2 and a comment explaining why. I’m tired of watching people I’ve grown to know/respect/care about on this site get hurt by the insensitivity of others.
Just because someone has a right to do something doesn’t mean it’s the right thing to do. And I’m not going to sit back and watch anymore.
Is this comment still there? I looked and did not see it.
here it is.
Hmmmmm. No comment.
Bush sucks. Lets get back to basics! š
What is scary the comment?
When did it become okay for progressives to ridicule religious beliefs?
That’s a tough question. Is it okay to ridicule Pat Robertson’s religious beliefs? If not, then why are George Carlin, Jon Stewart and Bill Maher so funny? But, I haven’t noticed the front-pagers here doing too much ridicule of religious beliefs. As for the comments, the community needs to help create standards for what is legitimate and what is not. Religion is not a ridicule free zone, but meanness and intolerance are definitely not in the spirit of this site.
When did it become okay for liberals to suppress alternatives to the existing political system?
I haven’t suppressed alternatives to the existing political system. It says right in the founding document that this is a Democratic site and that people of other parties are welcome as long as they don’t spout Bill O’Reilly talking points and are respectful of the mission, which is to elect Democrats. And third party people are capable of spouting anti-Dem talking points too, that can be completely not in the spirit of the mission of the site. I have never suppressed any of that, but I have argued against it.
When did it become okay for derogatory comments to be repeatedly excused as ‘inadvertent’?
Not enough info to respond.
When did it become a given that a front pager should not be questioned?
I never said Pat and Larry shouldn’t be questioned. I said that if people didn’t treat them with more respect they wouldn’t continue to post on the site. They have already given up answering questions. So disrepect by a small number cost us the ability to ask them questions and get a response. See how that works?
When did it become a Psych101 site (thanks for the term Alohaleezy) instead of a ‘frog marching’ site?
I am really not sure what this means. We’re trying our hardest.
I treat all guests and residents with respect, or at least I try to. I ask tough questions of everyone because the only we learn and grow is through a challenge.
If religion is the cause of insane politics it should be open to ridicule. Just as bush himself is open to contempt and ridicule his religious views are his guide. We can’t afford to dance around this one anymore. Too many people take this crap to heart.
I’m about as far from a religious person as you can find, and my brain is regularly boggled by religion in general and definetily by extremists of all faiths and denominations. Those are all open to reasonable discussion and questioning but when it crosses the line into open ridicule, the only result is to drive a wedge between us who see religion as force for much that is wrong in the world, and those of us who are believers and reasonable people.
Being sensitive isn’t the same as being censored by political correctness.
Good points all Super. We need to stay united. We won’t settle the question of religion here anyway. I’ll work around it like I have most of my life.
People are the cause of insane politics. If you disagree with their politics then talk about that.
Religion in and of itself doesn’t cause anything. People cause things.
that has got to be one of the most naive things I’ve ever read.
you must not be very well read.
well, considering I’ve read history, that I know about the pogroms, missionary schools on the reservations, the Inquisition, the Children’s Crusade and the other Crusades, the “Troubles”, the Hindus’ various wars on Muslims, and the Muslims’responding in kind, about the destruction of centuries-old Buddhas in Afghanistan and and and and and and …
Nope, don’t know nuthin’ ’bout history, and I haven’t read anything at all.
Religion is one of the greatest sources of evil in human history, and the fuel that feeds all-too-many conflicts.
If after all that reading this is your sole conclusion, then all I can say is that I’ll pray for you.
well, it has produced some great architecture, so there is that …
at last, something we can agree on
I’m rather fond of some of the music too
The historical facts behind most of the events that you cite show that it was economic dominance that was the driving force. My particular area of historical study is the economic oppression, under the guise of religion, that lead to the colonization of Americas…including Spanish occupation of Latin America and the British occupation of North America.
Using religion as the ‘name’ and reason for justifying behavior creates a front. The point that I’m trying to make is that if there is a problem with a person’s politics and behavior – call it what it is – oppression, suppression, or just control.
I disagree with Pat Roberts but do not criticize his religion – I criticize his crime inciting comments. I criticize his comments towards the oppression of women. I do not criticize or ridicule Christianity.
I disagree with Islamic Fundamentalists – but I criticize their oppression of the citizens that follow their beliefs. I criticize the oppression and tyranny against women that follows from their actions not from their religion. Islam is a tolerant and caring religion – a few extremists are not Islam.
I disagree with the Israeli resettlement policies and a lot of their treatment of the Palestinians. The policies of the government of Israel are not the tenets of Jewish theology. I do not criticize Judaism.
Control, oppression, suppression, economics and power…not religion are the problem.
We need to stop with the religious labels and consider the framing of what we say…
well, to quote Peter Gabriel:
It is religion that all too often determines who is “outside”. It is BAKED INTO many faiths. You can comfort yourself that the genocides in the western hemisphere were based on economics, but the Holy Church WAS the economic system. The oppression and murder and enslavement was pursued as aggressively by missionaries seeking to save “savages” as it was conquistators looking for gold. It was out of “love” and “christian charity” that my grandfather had his hair cut off and that forbade him to speak his people’s language. It was out of “love” that a minister took me into a church basement at age 7 to scream my sins at me until I begged to be “saved” … and looking into his eyes, stamped into my memory, that was RELIGIOUS FERVOR.
So comfort yourself with some postmodern scholarship about how it wasn’t REALLY religion. Won’t change what happened. Comfort yourself that the story of Eve hasn’t been used for millenia to torment women, and that Judas’ kiss hasn’t been the ugly soil out of which pogroms and holocausts grew.
Pat Robertson says and does what he does AS PART OF HIS FAITH. Look a fundie in the eye as he rants and tell me that’s not so.
Does religion HAVE to be this way? Well, no, but it almost always is. I’ll respect it if it’s kept away from me, but when it’s used to push political or economic agendas, the gloves come off.
We as a society have the ability to say different than the religious fanatics using this as a cover.
We – the progressives or liberals desperately need to separate church and state as part of our rhetoric and meme or the other side wins. We need to support the faithful without denigrating them…while we call bullshit on the leaders that support violence.
sure, I’d love to agree on all those things. I wish we had more religious leaders like MLK, who spoke NOT of what his religion demanded of others, but what it demanded of HIM, and that one of those demands was to find common ground with others operating from different beliefs and communities.
Sadly, though, increasingly I’m hearing the rantings of people like Jim Wallis, who demands that other progressives mirror the talk of the right-wing fundamentalists, demanding that we all condemn women’s choices as “regrettable” or “evil” or “wrong” in order to engage in political change.
I have friends of many faiths, and no faith. I go to their joyous occasions, and happily wear the appropriate headgear and try hard not to ignorantly stand when I should sit or sit when I should be standing.
While I wish I could agree that we could have success at separating church and state by just emphasizing the economic policies pursued by the radical imams and Pat Robertson, I think you need to face that their economic proscriptions ARE PARTS OF THEIR FAITH. This can be a good thing (muslim prohibitions on usury) or bad things (Robertson’s insistance that worldly wealth is a reflection of God’s grace). But in either case they are part of that web, that world system, and when you attack the policies that you oppose politically, it is IMPOSSIBLE not to attack their faith. Even if you’re trying not to.
Any religion that comes with a built-in doctrine of a “chosen people” and/or with a mandate to proselytize and convert is going to be eternally problematic to anyone and everyone outside the “chosen” circle of “converts.”
In my book, these are the “bully” religions–and I just wish they would GO AWAY. Leave me alone. Live and let live. But no….”live like I do or I’ll kill you…”. That is where the problems begin and end, and there is no end to it.
Alas. …eternally condemned to live out my life in one nation under SOMEBODY ELSE’S “god.”
“…sail for the New World, Mate, let’s not, and say we did….”–The Roches, “So,” CD Can we Go Home Now
(nice thought, anyway….)
and deeper look, you’ll find that “religion” is not the cause, but a merely convenient excuse.
You would also have to overlook the times that religion has been in the forefront of social justice movements in the past — our recent past includes folks like the Berrigans opposing the Vietnam War, the African-American churches in the South providing the organization structure for the Civil Rights movement, and Desmond Tutu’s fight against apartheid in South Africa.
Religion is not the evil…but rather those who use religion as a tool for evil. Just as politics are not evil, but rather a tool for those who would feather their own nest at the cost of their constituencies.
wrong. Apples and Oranges.
The Berrigans did what their faith demanded OF THEM. They did not impose their faith on others, but spoke of what THEY were called to do. Same w/ the black churches in the south and the jewish freedom riders from the north. The same w/ Bishop Tutu. ALL of them practiced what their faith demanded OF THEM. THAT is the proper role of religion in a civil society.
That is not what is happening w/ the Catholic Church over the last couple of decades (just one example … I could pick on other churches). The Berrigan’s movement, and the entire Liberation Theology movement, was rather firmly crushed BASED ON THEOLOGY, by Rome. JP2, soon to be a “saint”, toured Africa and told huge crowds of desperately poor people, starving children and overburdened women and frightened men, that condoms and other birth control WERE SINS. Flat out sins, evil, not to be used, lest one not attain heaven. At least partly thanks to that, and the intransigent demands by modern American Xtians, again AS A MATTER OF FAITH, that no funding go to birth control, Africa is now suffering under an AIDS pandemic that CONDOMS COULD HAVE MITIGATED. JP2 and Rome committed and imposed a terrible evil on the world, BASED ON THEIR FAITH. The only “economic” componant of that policy was the demand for more butts in the pews and more coins in the collection plate, but it was driven by church doctrine.
ALL of those “good” religious examples you cited were good people acting on personal faith and their own interpretations of their religions, often in contravention to authorities in their churches.
did this get put up here? When all of this hit the first thing that came to my mind was a conversation that I had with my Aunt during a dinner a couple of years ago. My Aunt is Latino but in my family for whatever reason it isn’t really acknowledged because she isn’t Latino, she is Ginger! I read all time, if I have a spare moment I’m reading and some place I had been reading about the many things that the swastika has been used for or meant before Hitler got a hold of it, so I shared it during our family dinner conversation. Then the table conversation turned to burning flags…..and my husband wasn’t there to clutch his chest and gasp that he was having the big one (he was in Iraq then fighting for the Red White and Blue) while everybody at the dinner table agreed that burning a flag was only symbolic. In this lifetime my husband will never be okay with the burning of the American flag….for him it symbolizes along with all of our many failures our amazing success at maintaining the level of democracy that we have for the period of time that we have and he believes that shit is seriously worth dying for! I then said, and burning crosses are only burning crosses and only a symbol and suddenly and sharply my Aunt said, “No, it’s wrong!” I looked into her eyes and saw something that I had never ever expected to see in Aunt’s eyes ever. A deep hurt and an even deeper fear that could only come from being a minority and living in this nation that at one time nurtured the KKK into power! She will never in this lifetime make the jump to ever seeing a burning cross be anything more than a form of terrorism. I would like to take burning crosses back from ignorant idiots running around in their bed sheets. So who is wrong here???…….nobody!!!!…….who is right here????…..nobody!!!!! Between the head and the heart that I have and the two that you have let us care for each other and stop this horribly stupid fucking fighting!!!!!! I can’t live your life and you can’t live mine…but we can respect the feelings and ideas of others and accept that sometimes there isn’t a clear cut right/wrong, black/white and there are only shades of humanity!!!!!!!! And everybody’s great taste only exists in their own mouth!
Nice
Thanks for sharing that.
the flag burning analogy is a good one MT
should americans burn flags….well it makes me uncomfortable as hell…should they be arrested for it….no.
“Denounce the government, embrace the flag.” – Wendell Berry
should people portray and ridicule each others religions…it makes me very uncomfortable unless we are ridiculing pat robertson and the pseudochristians (do as i say afterall)…should people be arrested for it….should governments ban it….should people riot because of it…should they just publish counter cartoons(do you see how silly this sounds?)
its hard to know whats right
“Do you want to be right, or do you want to change things?” – Johanna Russ
I wrote a diary called “J’ACCUSE. JE REFUSE.” In it I said I was joining with those Arab countries that are boycotting Danish products, and I suggested that BooTrib tighten up its editorial policies.
I asked politely that any images of cartoons depiciting the Prophet Mohammed be removed, and they already had been. I sent a love note to SusanHu and she sent one back to me.
After the brouhaha here, 60 minutes did a piece on the inside story of the Danes, the Danish PM, the newspaper, and Fleming Rose, the editor who commissioned the 12 cartoons. An intelligent editor said that the cartoons never should have been run, because the limits of free speech are good taste and good intentions.
But I’m swinging back a bit, as I found this one on Harper’s. A Cartoon by Mr. Fish It does not shit on my God, but it does expose the hypocrisy of so-called Christians…. their twisted and bloody history. The hymn, “Onward Christian Soldiers” made me gag as a child, and makes my blood boil now.
So, I made a strong stand and took very little heat for it. But I still think something’s rotten in Denmark, and Shakespeare thought so, too.
Is violence ever justified?
Can civil disobedience legitimately include property damage?
What are the limits of free speech?
Still waiting for answers…. hmmm…..
If my family of mixed races, mixed faiths, soldiers and peace activists can all sit at the same table and LIVE WELL, LAUGH OFTEN, LOVE MUCH! why the hell can’t we get beyond this. All that anybody can do is be willing to learn and willing to listen and willing to live. If all those answers are one size fits all and someone puts them up here then I guess it’s all done now. Don’t know what the hell I’ll do with the rest of my life!
This will fall under the category of “I acknowledge having read this.” Got laid up with the stomach flu, and although I’m starting to feel a bit better, my thinking is, shall we say very fuzzy. Rock on is about the best I can say.
But reading the comments, I think some pretty obvious things emerge:
One, this issue goes way beyond personalities, way beyond this blog, way beyond the internets.
In a way, it has nothing to do with any of that. That’s not to say that people’s viwes, and how they express them, are not influenced by personality, they are, or that people on this blog are not thoughtful, intelligent people, because you are, or that the internets do not give us a chance to talk about difficult issues, because they do. And I’m glad to see so many people willing to take advantage of that chance, share all that intelligence and thought, no matter how our personalities punctuate it all
Second, the views of people here are all over the place! I see anger, confusion, fear, frustration, pain, and hope. I see everything from “it can’t happen here” to “it’s happening here and it scares me” to “I just don’t wanna go there” to “it’s been happening to me all my life.” And applying my magical powers, š I see a furious energy of yearning, to understand the Others, we have not only to walk in their shoes, but think through what it is like to walk in our own.
In a comment to dove, who offers an interesting slice o’ microcosm pie from her own community, I said that I don’t think there has ever been a demographic shift on this scale, of this markedness, of this rapidity, in the history of human beings.
This is not a phenomenon that can be stopped, slowed, legislated, occupied or ignored and maybe it will go away.
This is your future, that is swiftly and inexorably becoming your present, even though it may have to slog, struggle, climb, slide and finally leap through your past to get there. And there is no opt-out box, it is the final piece in the triumvirate of death and taxes.
It is not, in its fullness, a clash of civilizations, it is a convergence.
How will you meld into it? What is your biggest obstacle?
Heh. I wish I had read this comment before becoming unglued. Oh well.
It’s ok SN.
There is hope :o)
Thanks, Supersoulsister…I’ll take a gallon.
You are asking very practical questions, and so my mind instantly goes to practical answers. Just this week I read an article about how the NAACP of my 90% white county is hoping more white people will show up at the next meeting. I can do that. I am making a point of reading ManE’s and Duke’s posts about immigration, in an attempt to better educate myself. I wanted to think that eating a lot of Mexican food would do the trick, but maybe I need more than enchiladas? š I’m thinking I can keep an eye out for some kind of local Muslim activity where I might be welcome to attend.
That’s how I will meld, I think, unless I get lucky enough to meet a really cute brown skinned man. And my biggest obstacle? The Sloth of the Born Lucky.
very graciously into crispy bits, and then use them to season low carb fish.
And boatloads of local Muslim activity is available for for your embracing pleasure at your community mosque. They will be delighted to see you, and will be very likely to have suspected links to good things to eat that you can investigate.
Dangerous Mexicans are also notorious for being glad to see you and having good things for you to eat, as you have discovered. Next time you find yourself in a gaggle of Mexicans, assume an innocent look and ask if anyone there has ever had cochinitas piviles, and what are they like? You heard they were good…
Ha! As if I’d do that without first looking up cochinitas piviles in my handy Spanish/English dictionary. Trying to get me in trouble, you are.
Duke didn’t seem to mind being turned to crispy bits.
And if cochinitas piviles is not in your dictionary, google and you will be shocked and awed at the purity and toothsomeness of my intentions š
I am going to finally say what I think about this whole situation without fear of getting jumped on and then I hope to never have to mention it again.
My strong hunch is that there are maybe a dozen people who feel strongly that the poster should have been published and don’t give a damn about the response. On the other side are maybe the same number who were outraged and continue to be outraged after several weeks of near constant bickering and downright nasty discourse.
THEN THERE ARE THE REST OF US. The 3000 others who are somewhere in the middle philosophically, able to see both sides and watch what is going on with great ambivalence.
I don’t presume to speak for those 3000 but I will tell you that I am:
SICK and incredibly sad about what is going on.
SCARED SHITLESS to voice my opinion for fear of turning a phrase the “wrong” way and being labeled as something I know in my heart I am not.
SO FUCKING TIRED of this circular firing squad, and the really tiresome refrain of the community falling apart.
THE COMMUNITY IS NOT FALLING APART. As in any community there are members who disagree, there are some real assholes who love to be contrary and have no interest in an honest resolution. The rest of us watch this and sigh and wish that it would just go away, because there is no longer any useful discourse going on.
I am open minded and have a good heart and I am always willing to learn and grow. The vast majority of us are.
As for me, I can’t help thinking that there are those who are pissing in the water and then complaining that the water stinks.
… and raise you an Aaaack!
Second Nature, I completely agree. In the last few weeks I can’t begin to count how many comments I’ve read and thought about how everyone is shooting from the hip, angry and selfish. It’s not a pretty thing to watch. I’ve lost respect for some, gained respect for others. I have a news flash for you… this site is not dead yet. I am one of those who has been deathly afraid to voice an opinion. But I will still be here when this is all over… and it will be over. When people operate entirely from their more negative emotions, understanding flies out the window. I would never have thought that otherwise intelligent people think they can win points by doggedly attacking each other. People get so self absorbed it’s frightening. Get over yourselves. It’s Bush we need to fight, not each other.
Healing will never occur until you all can drop the fucking attitudes, turn away from this ugly anger and talk TO each other.
It seems every organization of smart people eventually ends up with infighting. People, the polar ice caps are melting! The rising sea level will probably flood the ethnically offensive cartoons and the cartoonists too if steps are not taken.
Let’s put things back into perspective and try to save civilization.
If there are annoying trolls (I’m not claiming there are) the usual techniques of ignoring them or banning them should be enough. Arguing with them is just what they wish.
I’ve just been listening hard to all of this. Whew. I see there undercurrents I was blissfully unaware of and pond history I did not know. I hear lots of dismay and fear that the pond has become polluted and that more may leave and I hear the anger that often comes with losing something beloved
But the word that has caputured me the most, that I want to spend a lot more time thinking about, is "convergence" and the idea that what is happening here isn’t just the usual kind of interpersonal conflict that usually take online comunities down, but a part of something much larger and very essential if we’re all going to go "Onward."
The internet, these blogs, make a mixing of cultures more possible that it ever was before. Where else could I be rubbing elbows with those from so many other cultures and belief systms the way I can here?
Can such a convergence of different beliefs, religion and cultures ever occur smoothly, without chaos of some kind? I don’t see how: we’re reaching across some great distances here, trying to understand each other.
We’re trying to communicate from perspectives and life experiencieces so different, in some cases, there is simply no WAY there can be immediate understanding and acceptance of all of how each other thinks, feels, and behaves.
Convergence always means change, and change is almost always uncomfortable as hell for awhile. It can feel like the end of things, when really, is a transition to something new that might lead to something even better than what was.
But it’s hard, alway hard. Some who are willing stick with it and ride it though, others determine this is not what they feel ready to do at this point, and that’s fine too, every one of us must follow our own path and time table.
But I am not going away, because I don’t want to miss what the outcome of this kind of convergence might be, in a group that has come to know, care and respect and care about each other.
It’s not going to be easy and it does require a hell of a lot of willingness on every persons part to be introspective and willing to question and test ones own comfortable perspectives and belief systems.
That’s some kind of damned hard work, at least it is for me. It means wrestiing my attention away from what’s wrong with the others, (white, black, brown, red, yellow and purple!), and refocusing it on myself first. Not in judgement and blame, not to "place guilt" on myself, but to find OUT how I really believe and feel. (So many of what I thought were my "beliefs" weren’t: they came from a deeply inserted societal conditioning that I had simple absorbed. Much of which I discovered, upon examination, I didn’t really agree with at all )
Then look at all of this and ask if these beliefs are serving me, or those around me. Are they working for me in my life now, that life has become so full of colors and sounds I did not grow up with? Are they bringing me closer to those I want to know, or are they driving me away from them? Which do I want?
And if I find I am expecting perfection in this, from others and/or from myself, well, hello. That another belief I have to send to the reclycle bin, because perfection is not an option for me or anyone else I know.
I am intrigued and energized by all of this, not discouraged, because I have yet to see a group (online) quite this willing to hang in and keep working through this kind of change, or to tackle, head on, things as tough to understand as this stuff is. Most dissolve into a useless horrific bloody shock and awe battle long before this point.
I am a hopless optimist in some ways, and I want to be around when someone finally figures out how to operate a good thing from a circlular foundation, rather than a triangular structure.
DAMN, scribe, you’re good!
Well siad, well felt!
brava, lady!
I want to be around when someone figures out that “circular” thing too — maybe it’ll be here, who knows, eventually though, it’ll be somewhere.
Scribe you are one wise person. Best comment ever!
Setting aside ALL references or allusions to the ripples in the pond, I would like to address the larger issue:
From the movie “The American President”.
I believe that every civics textbook in America should have a picture of American citizens burning the American flag in protest, as an example of the right to free speech in America. A history text or a current events lecture could likewise have examples of symbolic desecrations and offensive caricatures of world leaders. I think that it is entirely appropriate for a sociology text or a legal text to contain examples of egregious “speech”. We do not hide the swastika when we study Nazism and we do not suppress photographs of the beatings at the Edmund Pettus Bridge during the march to Selma when we speak of racism, so why should we hide offensive images of religious figures when we study religion and religious extremism? In these contexts, I believe that it is appropriate to republish offensive symbols and images and words.
The tone of the supporting material is more important to me than the actual quoted speech or images. If the objective of publishing such materials is educational in nature, I am an equal opportunity offender, and I welcome the dissemination of such materials in my community. If one is to discuss materials which are offensive to various religions or other sensibilities, it is important to examine the materials which have been considered to be offensive.
Gratuitous use of the same words or images is harmful and I believe that the original incident at hand, the posting of caricatures in a neighborhood, is highly questionable, at best. I admit and embrace here the fact that I have not studied in great detail the exact posters that were placed in someone’s neighborhood recently, nor have I held an original of it in my hands, or viewed it with my own eyes, therefore, I do not have a final hardened opinion on the nature of its purpose. From what I have seen of it, I’m strongly inclined to believe that it was intended to sow discord and hate, not to achieve some larger goal. I also believe that it was well-crafted with the intent and purpose of entrapping free-speech advocates.
I can entertain the possibility that I would post pictures of flag-burnings in my own neighborhood if I intended it as a protest against what I felt were egregious and unlawful restrictions of free speech in America. I can entertain the possibility of personally posting materials caricaturing a certain religion if it were illegally adopted as an official religion of the U.S. in direct violation of the Constitution. I can’t imagine actually doing it, because I think that there would be better ways to accomplish the goal of protesting egregious and unlawful restrictions of free speech or freedom of religion in America. But I can also see that someone else may have a different final take on that than I would.
If the postings were heartfelt messages in support of the Constitutional right to free speech in America, I would be more forgiving of them even if they were caricatures or effigies of ME or something I hold dear. If they were simply intended to incite hate for me or the things I hold dear, I would more readily take offense. Again, the lines are sometimes gray, and offense is in the eye of the beholder. Out of R-E-S-P-E-C-T I try to stay on the “no-offense possible” side of that line in my personal communications, but on rare occasions in the past I have used tactics of intentional offense out of anger. In no circumstance would I post a swastika on a telephone pole in my neighborhood without a large and easily visible text disclaiming the values that it promotes. Again, I don’t think I would ever even do that, but if I were to do so, it would be accompanied by a loud call to avoid fascism, and the image would be there to offend the sensibilities of the viewer in order to bring attention to the message that the evils of fascism could happen or are happening in my neighborhood or my country.
In educational instances, I believe that the dissemination of offensive materials is a necessity. In the arena of political discourse, it is possible for me to entertain the idea that posting offensive images may have some merit, if placed in a context of increasing political awareness (which is, in effect, educational).
Duckie, you asked if we could talk about the pros and cons of disseminating ethnic caricatures as a worthy exercise to show support for free speech?
I’d love to do talk about that. I think it’s interesting.
Personally, I don’t think that disseminating such caricatures is a worthwhile exercise to show support for free speech. It seems to me that by disseminating caricatures of a representative of a “group,” an unintended consequence could be that harm might befall innocent members of that group. I wouldn’t think that was a responsible thing to do. I would like to think lefties could come up with exercises that are powerful, but not dangerous to people other than the ones doing the disseminating.
I’ve tried to think of ways in which disseminating ethnic caricatures might be a good idea, but so far I’m not coming up with any.
I just clicked on your website link — you are so beautiful!
Ahem, I’m glad to see you!
((kansas))
You, too, ((Brinn))! Ahem, back to the topic.
He made this great post in one of the threads yesterday, a whole boatload of really good free speech issues, and he knows I am no good at using the shamefully primitive Scoop alleged search feature, and he really should have made it a diary so I could post a link to it right now, but did he? Nooooo.
So I am forced to suggest a free speech issue that in my opinion, could use some Resistance: Free Speech Zones.
One would think that with an entire amenementful of free speech hardwired into Mr. Danger’s intimate freshness kit, that the entire US would be a Free Speech Zone, and that if any alleged government were to suggest otherwise, especially at gunpoint, that intimate freshness enthusiasts across the entire four inch wide political spectrum would take Caracas-after-the-attempted-coup style exception to such a thing.
That would, in my opinion, be a very worthy recipient of free speech advovacy.
You mean like that speaker’s corner in Hyde Park?
What would a free speech zone look like (if it couldn’t look like the entire map of the U.S.)? I wish our Congress was more a free speech zone, like Parliament appears to be, at least by comparison.