http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4693292.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/4677976.stm
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5196323
http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/02/07/news/europe.php
This controversy is out of control already, so I don't mean to beat a dead horse. All sides are taking past each other and refuse to empathize so much that I don't really have the stomach to comment a lot. But a brief discourse from me is still seven pages!
THE DANISH CARTOONS
http://michellemalkin.com/archives/004413.htm
Here are the actual cartoons from the Danish paper. Some are clearly harmless, and others are obviously pejorative and slanted. Even online, it was terribly hard to find them (ABC, New York Sun, and Philadelphia Inquirer were some of the few outlets to display the images). But leave it to humanitarian Michelle Malkin to provide them for us. Of course the anti-Muslim right wing in the USA are quick to support the Europeans (that's a first) in the name of free speech/press. I find this peculiar, since such hardliners are wont to suppress Bush criticism, castigate the "elite liberal bias" of the media, and denounce any "unpatriotic" thought against the War on Terror. But we can't really expect most media pundits to keep their heads and not exacerbate such controversies, because they feed on hype and anger like crack fiends.
http://www.kcrw.com/cgi-bin/db/kcrw.pl?show_code=tp&air_date=2/6/06&tmplt_type=Show
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5194727
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5193894
To elevate the debate, here are some discussions from NPR affiliates. This is the big problem: the Danish paper made a direct request to cartoonists for explicitly provocative images depicting the prophet Mohammad (after the fact, Jyllands-Posten newspaper denies calling for offensive cartoons in particular). That publication has had a long history of harsh editorials against immigrants, and calling for such measures as "reeducation camps" and surveillance of vagrant Muslim youths. In a nation like Denmark with biting satirical tradition, the cartoons were an experiment to ascertain if journalists/illustrators were scared to make controversial depictions and risk backlash. The message is valid, but the messenger is suspect. Unfortunately, Denmark has been one of the least receptive Western European nations to Muslim immigrants, and was under investigation by the UN since 2001 for various racist/discriminatory issues (http://www.faklen.dk/en/doc/somalia.shtml). So this row is not just about journalistic freedoms. Maybe their intent was benign and comical, but they should have known that furor and violence would probably ensue. They have the right to publish anything suitable under the law, but greatly overstepped their bounds and put others at risk. Let psychologists or other researchers do a controlled study on media self-censorship or anti-Muslim-immigrant sentiments in Europe, where the results will actually hold value for the world community, events won't spiral out of control, and innocents won't suffer needlessly.
THE CULTURAL DIVIDE: EUROPE
Some Americans may take offense to every little thing that contradicts their worldview, but Europeans enjoy satire and often hold nothing sacred. They can laugh at themselves, their own cultures, us Yankees, and sometimes other cultures. Humans deserve to live as they want under agreed-upon local and international laws/standards of decency. If they want to exercise their freedoms and expect others to not take it the wrong way, then they should give such respect to everyone else – and most Westerners usually do. No one is blaming Europeans for their idiosyncrasies and penchant for criticism, except when some "Old Europe" nations dared to oppose Bush's Coalition and the invasion of Iraq. But we have to understand that others take offense even when it's not intended. To make matters worse, the perpetrators and their supporters don't think it's a big deal, and may not care or try to understand why Muslims are so angry.
http://www.cfr.org/publication.html?id=8218
http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/1006/p06s02-woeu.html
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4191408
www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RL33166.pdf
As the case with the French riots, people already realized (and probably experience it daily) that relations with Muslim immigrants in Europe were not stellar, but never thought it could explode as we have seen. Westerners usually don't spend time in immigrant housing projects, in unemployment lines, or in makeshift, graffiti-laden mosques. They don't witness all the things Muslims are upset about, and may not understand that their dry satire and blasé irreverence often fan the fires. Like Americans and Katrina, their ignorance and apathy for "Les Misérables" have compounded the insult, outrage, and turmoil. And one thing that the wretched and despondent often cling to with all their might is religion. This is true all over the globe, because no hardships or mistreatment can purge it from their souls. Religion may be their last defense against despair, and people will behave irrationally and commit harsh acts to prevent others from threatening that sacred refuge. Apart from the relatively few Westerners who have suffered from Muslim violence/prejudice, Europeans don't know what it feels like to be the victim, the "problem", the outsider, or the unwelcomed. It's easy for the majority to ignore/mistreat minorities and then wonder why they harbor so much discontent. Most European states depend on immigrant labor for their very survival, from poorer Eastern European states or the Islamic/African world. Yet they understandably harbor some hostility for the altering of their traditional societies, frustration at the failure of their integration efforts, and even worry about Turkey's incorporation into the EU, making Europe "too Muslim" (despite the obvious economic incentives).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salman_Rushdie#The_Satanic_Verses_controversy
http://www.webcurrent.com/rushdie.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3974179.stm
The Danes practically baited Muslim extremists and invited a firestorm. It was a childish dare that degenerated into yellow journalism. With huge Muslim populations in Europe and previous terror attacks in the recent past, you'd think the editors would take notice and show more restraint and caution. You don't dangle a tuna in front of a shark when you're in the water too. The history of Muslim-Western cultural clashes speaks for itself. I'm sure the newspaper executives felt shielded from any repercussions, but now the 12 journalists involved have decided to go into hiding like the fictional writer Salman Rushdie after The Satanic Verses hit the shelves. At least Rushdie's case was more defensible, because he was writing modern allegory indirectly based on the life of Mohammad derived from a controversial early Muslim text (that current Muslims denounce as blasphemous myth). Iran's Ayatollah Khomeini issued a $3M bounty and fatwah for Rushdie's head, which was less about the defense of Islam and more about inciting fanaticism/solidarity over a faux-controversy for political gain. Dutch director Theo Van Gogh (descendant of the suicidal genius painter) was murdered in 2004 after making his film "Submission" about the mistreatment of females in Muslim societies. He was a fringe artist to begin with, so his work never reached the mainstream to generate an international response. Van Gogh ignored numerous death threats until he was finally killed. The film was callous and brash, but was meant to protest a perceived injustice and give a voice to victimized Muslim women, not to ridicule others in a petty manner and mock an entire faith with no clear purpose, as the irresponsible Danes did.
THE CULTURAL DIVIDE: THE ISLAMIC WORLD
Jokes, caricatures, and stereotypes depicting Muslims as terrorists or barbarians are plentiful and clichéd. The Danish cartoonists did nothing groundbreaking, and there was little merit in their efforts. It is abundantly clear that Mohammad is not the enemy of the West. Some of his followers hate Westerners, our values, and wish for all of us to die or convert, but that has nothing to do with the sacred image of a religious figure. Why would they choose to depict him in such shameful ways? Most people love sardonic cartoons of unsavory characters like Osama, Saddam, and the Ayatollahs. Satirize and criticize them all you like, because their poor actions and beliefs justify it. There is just no need, no good purpose, and no logic in satirizing Mohammad. It is no coincidence that Mohammad is the most common male name in all of recorded human history. He had his share of controversial features and his message was imperfect, but he is revered by billions of people. Some things just have to be taboo and "hands off"; or rather we should attack Mohammad's wayward followers instead of the man himself. By comparison, how would we feel if the foreign media mocked our religion and heritage? Many westerners would be up in arms, protest, and probably burn mosques, if Muslims portrayed the Virgin Mary as a whore, Jesus as a queer, or the Holocaust as a joke (as Iranian president Ahmadinejad did, unfortunately). These abominations are no worse than drawing Mohammad as a thug.
Western insensitivity and lack of remorse have exacerbated the conflict. Conversely, Muslim populations have behaved very badly as well. The Bible says god told Moses that he forbade idol worship, and punished the Jews for their iconoclasm. Islam takes it to a much higher degree, as any representations of Allah and Mohammad are forbidden. So again, just because it is permitted in our society doesn't mean that others won't take serious umbrage. Outside of the UN confines, we have no right to tell others how to live, just as they have no right to dictate terms to us. Even though we may not target them directly, we should exercise caution if they could be indirectly influenced by our actions. In the global community, word travels fast and the butterfly effect is rampant. We should hope that Muslims respect non-Muslims, our free speech, and different customs. But we can't always expect others to tolerate all our culturally incompatible practices, especially when they feel deeply dishonored as a result. It goes way beyond debate over burkhas and beards. Those are by-products of religious interpretations, but the cartoons mock the heart and the messenger of the religion itself. It's much worse than "your momma" jokes and way beyond personal. It's their faith and what they hold most dear; why can't we realize the impact of these actions? Bombs and embargos might be much easier to stomach in comparison. We can criticize the repressive regime, the terrorists, and their deplorable actions, but it makes no sense to attack their heritage. Mohammad did not cause 9/11 or the immigrant problems in Europe. Let's place the blame on the right people, even if it requires some introspection and remorse.
While much of the world community has struggled to unite against Iran's nuclear ambitions, the cartoons have definitely galvanized and unified the Muslim world against certain elements of the West. Despite the gravity of this insult, some Muslims are expectedly overreacting, and opportunist figures are manipulating their anger. They can protest in their cities or boycott the newspapers in question, but torching foreign offices or withdrawing diplomats just make matters worse and doesn't restore dignity to their prophet. Why are Muslims killing Muslims over Western ignorance and insensitivity? Hostile regimes in Syria and Iran with poor human rights records and disdain for Jews are still crying foul and calling for retributions against the West. Washington thinks that enemy nations will utilize the turmoil to further anti-American or anti-Western sentiment/violence. Unfortunately, the West's prior penchant for hypocrisy creates an opening that they may be able to exploit. An Iranian publication is issuing a contest for humorous or offensive depictions of the Holocaust, just to see if the world community is equally uncaring and pro-free-speech of Muslim-inspired content derogatory to Judeo-Christians.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4694876.stm
http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/02/07/news/web.0207toon.iran.php
Just as current Muslim-Western tensions have nothing to do with Mohammad himself or the practice of Islam in general, this controversy has nothing to do with Jews and Americans, yet they are thrown into the mix because of what they represent. Jews and Muslims have a history of enmity, and America is the proverbial puppet master of the West. As my previous emails/blogs have described, the US and Israel are seen as the enemies of Islam due to a tragic history of distrust, hostility, and brutalities from all sides. I don't know if one can argue who is right or wrong, but obviously many Muslims have serious and justifiable grievances with the policies and activities against them. Many Muslims feel that Western intrusions are jeopardizing their traditional values and religious beliefs. This is probably why extremist groups like Al Qaeda, the Iranian theocracy, and Hamas have significant grassroots support that often catches us by surprise.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060208/ap_on_re_mi_ea/prophet_drawings_135;_ylt=AtrwJjjRsuoBBlcp.uwFlsXbEfQA;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl
The cartoon chaos inspired mass protests and sometimes bloodshed at US and other Western military/diplomatic stations in the Persian Gulf and Afghanistan. Many moderate Muslims and intellectuals are vehemently protesting the cartoons, but refrain from violence and lawlessness. Much worse, some hateful ideologues and terrorists seek to persuade others that the USA and the West are out to get them, in order to boost support and recruitment. They have no real platform and nothing positive to contribute to Muslim society, so they rely on hate to further their short-term agenda of violence. It's always easier to hate an enemy than work constructively to solve a problem. They want to capitalize on every little offense to Islam in order to convince their followers that we are the enemy to fight, so we should avoid trapping ourselves in that position. They may be oversensitive and excessive, but we shouldn't give them a reason. After Abu Ghraib and other scandals that gained us nothing in return for political hara-kiri, why do we continue to give them ammunition to use against us?
Some American patriots loathe flag burning, yet Koran desecration barely fazes them. After the Koran abuse controversy, we should have learned a lot about the Muslim response to perceived blasphemy, and the need to tread lightly. Most Muslims did not read the inflammatory Newsweek article or even know the location of Guantanámo on a map, yet word traveled fast. They became enraged at the news, and agitators whipped up the masses to march and engage in unrest. In Iraq and elsewhere, Westerners were attacked and taken hostage, and the government was furious at "the press" for behaving so irresponsibly and putting Americans in danger. While investigators concluded that Koran abuse did take place in US prisons, the White House's rage was more centered on journalists' improprieties, not the actual cultural insensitivity itself. Few people in the US government were vocally remorseful about Koran desecration, which probably made matters worse. The Defense Department boasted that we treat prisoners so humanely and they should be lucky to even have personal copies of the Koran, when other countries wouldn't grant such luxuries to inmates. But depriving detainees of religious material or insulting their culture will cause even more backlash against us and hamper our interests in the Middle East. Therefore, it just makes more sense to play good cop for our own benefit, and we shouldn't pretend that we're so gracious to Muslim detainees out of the goodness of our heart.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4587679.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4585281.stm
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4658943
Maybe a lot of Muslims already believe that Westerners hate them, and are just waiting for the "proof" to justify their fears. They're just waiting for the next slip-up to become angry at us, so our only defense is to carefully watch our step until they stop waiting and start believing that we mean them no harm. Sensible people may be able to see through overt propaganda and lies, but we can't reverse their anti-Western hostility if we keep reinforcing it through callous actions against Muslims. Yes, this does require more effort and sensitivity on our part, measures that indignant Western hardliners may be unwilling to endorse. But we can either make the minimal effort to refrain from insulting an entire faith, or keep reading headlines about angry mobs and burning buildings. It's not that difficult, but we really need to choose whether we want to reduce or inflame anti-Western sentiments among Muslim peoples, and then behave accordingly.
FINAL COMMENTS
I recently wrote about the religion of Islam, and unfortunately the contentious points that I alluded to are rearing their ugly heads again. The post-cartoon violence and furor will not be the last incident of Muslim-Western conflict and potential "cultural incompatibility", but what can we do to ameliorate relations and calm emotions?
http://www.adl.org/PresRele/ASUS_12/4444_12.htm
http://www.kcrw.org/cgi-bin/db/kcrw.pl?show_code=tp&air_date=12/23/05&tmplt_type=show
http://mediamatters.org/items/200511100014
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ideas_opinions/story/261414p-223885c.html
Some Westerners are quite angry because they feel that we must constantly bend over backwards to respect and accommodate Islam or they'll sick suicide bombers on us, while no other creeds or races get such "preferential treatment" (maybe apart from the Jews due to post-Holocaust remorse, and German law even bans hate speech). Religion has inspired many great works over the centuries, but is also a major source of human conflict. After the release of "The Passion of the Christ", some American Jews did worry about anti-Semitism over the negative portrayal of their people. During the recent holiday season, the American Right protested the supposed "War on Christmas", manifested in the use of Happy Holidays/Season's Greetings in the marketplace instead of more religious salutations. Some feel that secularists and liberals hate Christianity and constantly attempt to purge it from American life, even though the USA is about 80% Christian with millions of safe, free places of worship located in every state. Maybe it was a faux-issue geared towards firing up the conservative base and embracing victim complex, as some Muslim groups and governments did to their people during this cartoon controversy. However, prickly Christians really don't have much to fear over debates on intelligent design, prayer in school, and "In God We Trust" on currency. Yes, the battles over abortion and gay marriage may be central to the tenets of their faith, but Muslims are in an entirely different boat. Many Muslims are literally under attack, or at least mistreated like second-class citizens in the West. Some Muslim states are run by corrupt cabals that shame Mohammad's example of leadership. Foreign troops occupy or have strong presence in multiple Muslim nations. And insensitive Western treatment of Islam rears its ugly head in the media every so often. These realities arouse real fears of persecution among Muslims, so naturally they are defensive and oversensitive at times. Some civic and religious leaders are looking for any minor offense to exploit into holy war, because anger and the threat of persecution have always been tremendous motivational tools.
I respect the argument that it betrays our freedom and values if we succumb to self-censorship and the intimidation by others of our unpopular opinions. But self-censorship is different than a plain call for common sense and sensitivity. I know that the political correctness and diversity movements are ridiculous and farfetched at times, but would we prefer the opposite extreme of intolerance and indifference? In the USA, we have a legal right to wear a KKK outfit in Harlem, or park our brand new Mercedes Benz in the bad Hunter's Point neighborhood of San Francisco. But why would we want to? What good purpose would it serve and what could it cost us? What sort of principle are we risking our necks to defend? Some causes are definitely worth fighting and dying for, depending on your values and beliefs – but some "principled stands" are just foolish and reckless.
Well aware of the probable repercussions, the European papers decided to publish clearly offensive content that would cause trauma and humiliation for thousands, if not millions. People in the Middle East who never hurt a Westerner now feel disgraced by them, and the world should pay attention. People who had no prior fight with non-Muslims now have a reason to be upset, insulted, or at least disappointed and suspicious. Is a low class publicity stunt exercising free speech worth this much backlash and negative sentiment? Knowing full well that Muslim extremists love to exacerbate any tension to spark the Islamic world's furor, why would those Europeans take such a risk and stubbornly cling to their narrow agenda? As we see time and time again, the worst conflicts occur between obstinate extremists on both sides who won't back down.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/2420305.stm
"Family values" Americans were enraged over Janet Jackson's pasty, yet few raise a finger to oppose the genocide in Darfur. The Vatican and other Christian organizations called for a boycott or repeal of various media from South Park to "The Last Temptation of Christ" due to offensive or blasphemous content, yet it took centuries for them to finally speak out against the Inquisition and Crusades. Yes, it is true that Muslims seem to be the only ones destroying things and killing people over insults to their faith (Northern Ireland notwithstanding). Blowhard Christians in the West may protest offensive media and behavior, but rarely do they harm anyone. Yet their actions do have negative effects on others, and I doubt that Jesus would want his persecuted followers to respond with more bigotry in turn. Many "Christians" have been implicated in hate crimes against gays, including the murder of a homosexual college student and then taunting the mourners at his funeral. It's true that Islam seems to be the only religion that involves mass stampede deaths claiming hundred of pilgrims, or worldwide protests that often result in Muslim riot police killing Muslim dissidents. Within and beyond America's borders, the world can be a brutal place, but that does not mean that we are somehow better than them, or immune to such destructive and hateful actions if forced into extreme situations.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/195158.stm
http://www.nbc10.com/news/4077250/detail.html
http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2005/06/08/christ050608.html
Since the "yelling fire in a crowded theater" argument is plainly obvious, I'll just add one point. Just because we have the right to do something doesn't necessitate that we must do such a thing to celebrate our freedoms. What are the consequences, and is the gain worth it? We are legally entitled to patronize brothels in Nevada or start a hate website, but we don't need to if there's no good reason and the expenses are great (economic, moral, and human costs alike). We cannot use the law to shield us from bad behavior, especially when others will suffer as a result. As many pro-war Americans claim, freedom isn't free. You pay a price if you exercise your freedoms in questionable ways. Some might think that the US media's hesitance to show the controversial cartoons is a capitulation to the Muslim extremists and gangs of destructive thugs. That is possible, but from another angle it's just the smarter thing to do.
I hope you believe that we can still be true to ourselves and coexist with Muslims. We don't have to live in a bunker in fear of Islam, but there's nothing wrong with treading lightly when needed. The Spanish felt that it was a greater risk to continue their support of the Iraq War and incur terrorist reprisals, so they withdrew and haven't been attacked since. The USA and others do not approve of Iran's nuclear programs, but it's a greater cost to invade rather than pursue peaceful coercion, so we choose not to wage war. Just because we can do a thing doesn't mean we must do that thing. So if the choice is: insult Muslims and incur violent backlash, or behave politely and coexist peacefully, then it's a no-brainer. Surely it's not that simple, but it's a positive starting point. US mainstream media (minus Fox News) constantly check themselves to avoid offensive, inaccurate content, because one gaffe can cost millions and end careers. Maybe we take it too far, and maybe the Europeans are too explicit. Unfortunately, many Muslims are hypersensitive, overreacting, and easily manipulated by hate-mongers. Surely we must work to spread awareness and mitigate cultural hostility, but we should also respect that they act out often for good reason.
So if we can save lives and reduce discontent by not publishing or condemning derogatory media with minimal artistic or intellectual merit, I think it's a fair trade. Again, it is mostly up to us. If we're tired of singing this tune, then we must be fair and respectful if we expect fairness and respect in return. We should work to curb religious extremism and inflammatory content everywhere, whether in Tennessee or Tehran. This is not a call for repression and censorship, because the use of force and the law has its limitations. But if we can raise the dignity of discourse in the public sphere, reduce homegrown religious hypocrisy/sensationalism, and improve our rapport with the Middle East – that is half the battle. When we celebrate diversity yet make irresponsible, dangerous behavior socially unacceptable, hopefully the Muslim world will follow suit.
----------
My roommate actually happens to be Danish so it was interesting
talking to him about this stuff. Actually, he hates Denmark so he
thinks the Danes deserve the protests, embassy fires and whatnot.
But, he told me some hot Israeli chick came up to him and
complimented him on being Danish. A couple of quick points here.
I do not believe these cartoons would ever have seen the light of
day in the US (not in a mainstream newspaper anyways). Every
editor would have caught it, and DECIDED not to print it.
On this front, we need to be aware that there is a difference
between the US and Europe. Despite all the negative situations,
the US is still way better about immigration than any country in
Europe. Most of the American venom is targeted towards hating
black people. As I heard a speaker put it recently, "every
immigrant group is temporarily black in the US." The Eastern Euros
went through it, so did the Southern Euros, as did the the Chinese
and the Latinos are going through it now. So, of course the Danish
newspaper was baiting the Muslim population, but they were given an
implicit green light by discrimination in the population.
While I agree with your assessment of the Islamic religion,
unfortunately religion and practice are completely different
things. Let's face facts, if Krishna or Moses had been
caricatured, Danish embassies would not be burning in India or
Israel. Fundamentalism is particularly strong and has been merged
with political purpose in the Islamic movements.
So, in some sense, this is an utterly predictable situation.
Europeans hate Muslims, and the Muslim population is more
reactionary than most other populations. This impasse can only
occur when both conditions are present (or when the Western power
actively engages in suppressing Muslim populations as the US does).
The easiest way to get rid of the situation, then, is to build
restraint into the European system. The EU, and its rules, would
go a long way to making this come true. The funny thing is that
there isn't an analyst, academic or streetwalker that doesn't
realize that if the EU could come to fruition it would totally
dominate the world within 10 years of creation (much bigger economy
than the US with better social programming). But the Europeans hate
everyone else too much.
So, in summation, while the Muslim population is reactionary the
real problem lies with the Europeans (the French are THE WORST on
this front...hence the riots). I don't believe this is about
Americans or Christians (although in Lebanon hatred was directed at
those groups as well), it is about Europeans.
They need to get their act together.
------------
Well put and thanks for your comments. Yes I agree; Europe and the US deal with immigrants and Islam very differently. While we actively bomb them from time to time, the Euros prefer latent or overt domestic discrimination I suppose. Of course Britain is seen as more tolerant of diversity yet complicit in US/Israeli aggression in the Middle East. Actually on NPR a guest commented that Chirac is the most popular European leader to Muslims because France vehemently opposed the Iraq War. I don't know if those sentiments have changed after the French riots, but Chirac wasn't really seen as the source of Muslim "persecution" versus hardliners like Le Pen and Sarkozy. Actually Chirac and de Villepin were calling for more outreach and social work for discontent or impoverished immigrants to quell the anger.
As you said, in the US it's a "black-white thing", and in Europe it's an immigrant-indigenous issue. America has been a land of immigrants, and despite the tragic relations with Native Americans and black slaves in particular, US immigrants are forced to get along with each other. Surely older immigrants like the Irish and Poles still beat down on recent immigrants like Mexicans and Hmong. But many economic sectors have been very mutlicultural (especially science, and even organized crime and the Confederate leadership, as you told me!), because Americans are still united in the pursuit of wealth, glory, and Manifest Destiny. Since Europe is a lot more micro-ethnically diverse and still grapples with the legacies of colonialism, the situation is very different. Immigrants and refugees came to America, while Europeans exported their settlers, armed forces, and culture (plus deadly diseases) all over the place. Very rarely did colonized people settle to Europe prior to WWII. Like our Jared Diamond conversation, they're used to "cultivating primitive cultures" abroad, and not familiar with absorbing minorities or diverse peoples within their borders. Europeans have never really accepted Jews, Gypsies, Moors, or other Diaspora people, and still there is tension over Basques, Corsicans, Northern Ireland Catholics, and other agitators/separatists. Recent Muslim immigrants are an even stiffer shock to the system, since they're entering European cities at a faster rate and larger quantities than ever before (and they're absolutely vital economically, despite their low education/employment rates).
Europeans like their cultures and their way of life, as they should (hence the "non" votes to the EU Constitution that attempts to render their economy more American). Our heritage is worth defending, but of course it's not perfect and changes must come (like the reduction of prejudice). Surely many Euros believe that Muslim immigrants should learn to act like them and assimilate, rather than "bending over backwards" to accommodate foreigners and all their cultural idiosyncrasies (the US backlash against illegal Latino immigration echoes these sentiments somewhat). Why should they don religious attire in our secular schools? Why should they refuse to learn our language and eat our foods? Diversity has different connotations on each side of the Atlantic. Of course satire and caustic free speech are also European traditions. As you said, no mainstream American media source would have touched those cartoons with a ten-foot pole. Self-censorship, "for shame" knee-jerk reactions, and pandering to pollsters are rampant in American media compared to Europe. Just look at the BBC versus CNN, sexual content and profanity in mainstream entertainment, and official political discourse. Brave journalists in Russia face death to criticize Putin, yet the Democrats barely utter a peep after Bush's ridiculous State of the Union speech. Of course violence is quite prevalent in US culture, and we have to commend Fox News for their comfort with offensive, opinionated rhetoric. So Europeans are accustomed to being inflammatory, irreverent, and rarely take things personally. Unfortunately, they expect others to be similarly nonchalant, which is rarely the case in the Middle East. When I think of Muslim nations, empathy and temperance don't really come to mind. The American mainstream is thin-skinned, religious, and short fused compared to Europe's. The lower-income, uneducated, and fundamentalist elements of Muslim society are even worse. But really can we blame them, considering the harsh environments in which they exist? Arab-Muslim fundamentalism only developed in response to Western colonization and economic exploitation in the region.
So yes, it seems that Muslims overreact regarding religious insults a lot worse than people of other faiths. Few Christians or others would burn embassies to avenge an offense, but with mouthpieces like Falwell and Roberson, we can't be so sure. Is it worse for an ignorant mob to torch a building, or an educated, wealthy ideologue with massive audience reach to claim that Sharon is dying because of god's punishment over Gaza? People like them are the embarrassing Western equivalent of Ahmadinejad. But as you said, the rage is more sociopolitical than spiritual. Despite our fetish for capital punishment and weapons ownership, Americans rarely resolve domestic disputes with violence. Surely we have nasty tongues and our foreign policy is quite brutal at times, but our society is fairly peaceful and orderly versus the rest of the world. Of course this is the case, because we won – we're the last superpower! Our "culture" may be violent, but our social institutions are not (minus the unfortunate souls at the mercy of law enforcement and penal system). But in the Muslim world, Sharia law manifests itself in some very gruesome ways among fundamentalists and the ignorant. Therefore violence is institutionalized in the Islamic world. It's "righteous" or "justified" to resolve adultery with stoning, theft with the removal of a finger, or Islamic blasphemy with Jihad. This is terribly generalized, and plenty of Muslims people/leaders denounce suicide bombing and honor killings, as well as the call for calm and sanity after the cartoon row. But whether they like it our not, some of their ruling parties and religious leaders endorse such harsh behaviors as part of god's will and social decorum, in their view.
So probably everyday Muslims have more of a penchant to respond to insults/challenges with violence for retribution. We responded to 9/11 with violence against others who had nothing to do with the attack, but when cooler heads prevail, the USA can be a just and humane nation. After the tragic experiences of the World Wars, Europeans are very slow to anger and violence. Gun ownership is prohibited or vastly curtailed in most nations, and capital punishment is totally nonexistent (apart from Belarus). Only France, UK, and Russia have nuclear weapons, and Europe's cumulative defense spending and incidence of violent crime are minimal compared to America's. Surely they export a ton of weapons to Third World hotspots, but domestically they are very civil and nonviolent. They are much more careful and metered with their responses, preferring negotiation and analysis instead of brash actions like certain American cowboy leaders. That being said, it really puzzles me why Europeans treat immigrants so harshly. Maybe it's the legacies of colonialism again, like the conflicts with the IRA, Algerians, and Yugoslavians. They have to know that despair, anger, and unrest will eventually haunt them to avenge their unjust practices. Maybe their national-cultural pride precludes their ability to treat immigrants better. But for a continent that has spurned violence and injustice so well as so rapidly after WWII (the most terrible ethno-nationlistic conflict in human history), they should know better. You're right – they need to clean up their act and show the world what the EU stands for.
I think Muslims are tired of being labeled as barbarian and terrorists. They are tired of being disrespected and treated unequally by us. Most people in the West forget that modern Muslim fanatics evolved and intensified in direct response to the West. Our military-economic activities in the region have engendered much of the backlash, extremism, and fundamentalist reactionaries. The Mohammad cartoons only add fuel to the fires, especially because many in the West are so obstinate and unrepentant about the controversy. The Danish paper refused to back down, and Kopenhagen declined to engage in a dialogue with Muslim leaders to assuage the conflict. Westerners seem more concerned with the defense of free speech rather than rectifying one of the most egregious, blasphemous depictions of Mohammad in mainstream society. Fringe elements push offensive, disgusting, and useless content all the time on the Web and other media. But now a billion plus followers have to see their prophet depicted as impudently as Daffy Duck, even with a bomb on his head.
Surely the violent response, economic embargoes, and whatnot are counter-productive by the Muslim world, but angry people don't think very rationally. Unless you're Jesus or Buddha, when you are wronged you want to hurt someone else. Would the Muslim leaders rather have their followers at their throats if they didn't respond with enough fury at the West? Some agitators are playing to the crowd or inciting the mobs, some figures are reasonably upset and demand recompense, but some leaders are just caving to the anger and getting the protesters off their backs. So the whole shit-storm is out of control, and the Muslim world and Europe have reached an impasse, as you said. Maybe relations will deteriorate before they improve, if ever. Unfortunately, the USA is viewed as Europe's keeper, and we've committed our share of improprieties in the Middle East. So we're thrown into the mix even further, since we're already seen as an extension of Israel. The Bush White House offered token, vague condemnations of culturally insensitive content, but was much quicker to condemn the protests and reactionary violence (it's never the West's fault and always the Muslims'). Chirac and many other leaders denounced the cartoons and all hateful content, since they don't want to jeopardize their citizens abroad and permit the fires to spread to their backyards too.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4693628.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4691878.stm
But of course American conservatives are angry at Bush and the other "capitulators" for not taking a stronger stand for "free speech" in defense of Denmark, Western values, and in opposition of radical Islam's intimidation and violent tendencies against us.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060208/pl_afp/europeislammediaus_060208183556
No comments:
Post a Comment