Progressive Democrat Issue 64: SOME THOUGHTS ON THE DANISH CARTOONS
It seems silly that something as trivial as cartoons would spark such controversy. But clearly the Danish cartoons have struck upon several critical issues that, on the surface anyway, illustrate some real geopolitical differences in philosophy. But I really think it is more complicated than many make it seem. It ISN'T just religion vs. freedom of speech. In some ways BOTH sides are misinterpreting the other and certainly one side is overreacting.
First, here is a selection of reactions to the Danish cartoons:
For those who wish to see the cartoons that have made this fuss (and to better understand my comments below) you can seem them on Daily Gotham.
My reactions to these cartoons have see-sawed. My first gut reaction was to completely support the freedom of speech side. But I tried analyzing the situation in terms of "what if" these were anti-Jewish cartoons and realized that considering it from the other side I may be sympathetic to Muslims boycotting based on their offense, though there is no way I would be sympathetic to the violence that some have engaged in. I have since moved back to the pro-freedom of expression side when I realized that many of the cartoons are NOT offensive at all and some are actually sympathetic to Islam. Yet this has been largely ignored in people's reactions to the cartoons.
It is not a simple thing. I think there are several issues here:
First, a couple of the cartoons are indeed offensive and perhaps it was irresponsible of the papers to print those particular ones. At first I interpreted SEVERAL of them as being offensive. On closer inspection only maybe two or three are. The one portraying Muhammend as a dirty ruffian with a knife flanked by two veiled women is based on racial stereotypes just as offensive as portrayals of big-nosed Jewish bankers. It also is a complete misinterpretation of what Muhammed actually preached. The one showing Muhammend with a bomb in his turban is also based on racial stereotypes of Muslims being inherantly violent and Islam being inherantly a violent religion. Of course the rioters just re-enforce that, but that doesn't excuse racial stereotyping on the part of the cartoonists. The cartoon referring to suicide bombers expecting a harem of virgins after their death also is focusing on stereotypes, but perhaps in a more ambiguous way.
Two other cartoons fooled me because I didn't look closely enough. One SEEMS to show Muhammed with devil horns, which would indeed be offensive, implying that Islam was evil. But it doesn't portray Muhammed with devil horns. He has a halo and it is thus SYMPATHETIC to Islam, putting Muhammed on an equal footing with Christian saints and Jesus. Another cartoon has a police line-up with people in turbans. At first I thought that was racist as well, portraying all Muslims as criminals. But once I knew that the caption said something to the effect "They all look alike" when in reality they all look different (including someone who looks like Gerry Garcia!) is NOT insulting to Islam but rather is attacking Western stereotypes of Muslims. It is implying that Westerners don't look beyond the turban to see the person, something that was tragically illustrated when some Sikhs were killed right after 9/11 by American lynch mobs who thought they were Muslim. Again, this cartoon is SYMPATHETIC to Islam.
The rest seem harmless to me, unless I am missing something, which is possible.
The second issue is freedom of expression. Those newspapers have every right to publish the cartoons without being threatened. AND the governments of those nations where newspapers published them should NOT censor their media. Of course, Muslims have EVERY RIGHT to boycott those nations, but NOT to be violent. Freedom of expression goes both ways.
Third, fairness. The nations where these cartoons were published give EQUAL freedom to those who denegrate any religion or belief. By contrast, many of those Muslim nations that are up in arms about the Danish cartoons are perfectly tolerant of equally or far more offensive cartoons depicting Jews. There is a hypocricy on the part of some Muslims that is at least as offensive as the worst of the cartoons in question. It is harder to understand the level of offense that some Muslims are displaying when they tolerate anti-Jewish cartoons all the time. The actions of some Iranians, blaming Israel for the Danish cartoons and soliciting cartoons making fun of the Holocaust merely amplified this hypocricy.
A fourth thing is, images of Muhammed have been a part of Islamic Art at various times in history. It is much like the split in Christianity regarding "icons." Some Muslims find portrayals of Muhammed blasphemous, others don't. In many museums I have seen pages of the Q'ran illustrated with images of Muhammed. Now, those images were not offensive in content like some of the cartoons were, but they would still violate the claim that images of Muhammed are not allowed at all. I have seen such images, very beautiful ones, in many museums around the world. Many originate in some of the very nations that are so angry now, though at different times in history. Will those museums be burned next?
All in all, I have come back full circle, back to sympathy with the freedom of speech side of this. Especially since MOST of the cartoons are harmless or actually sympathetic to Islam. I think the sympathy shown to the Muslims by Rabbis and the Vatican is appropriate and diplomatic. It is smart for religious leaders to side with the religious feelings of Muslims. But in the end I think they may be wrong. The bottom line is that once again Islam, a religion just as reasonable and just as any, is being hijacked by some of its most extreme elements. This is not good when it is done in Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism...or Islam. Reason and moderation, not extremism, are needed in this controversy.
First, here is a selection of reactions to the Danish cartoons:
''I share and understand the anger of the Muslims regarding those drawings. However, this can't justify such a disproportionate response'' said France's chief rabbi and chairman of the conference of European rabbis (CER) Joseph Sitruk.
"The publication of those caricatures of the Muslim prophet Mohammed by the Danish daily Jyllands-Posten and their reproduction in other newspapers show a lack of honesty and respect."
The Vatican condemned the publication in several European newspapers of caricatures of the Muslim Prophet Mohammed, founder of Islam. Those publications sparked protests across the Muslim and Arab world.
On February 3, thousands of Palestinians demonstrated - men and women separately, brandishing Korans - in Gaza cities as well as in Jerusalem, responding to the call of the Hamas, the Fatah and the Islamic Jihad against the caricatures of the Prophet Mohammed published in a Danish newspaper September 30, 2005. They burned and trampled on Danish and French flags.
In Gaza, they were 5,000. Some shouted : "Bin Laden come back. The first time, they didn't understand." On French TV channel "France 2," a Palestinian woman said : "The Europeans havn't apologized enough. They should kneel before Islam. We don't want their products ! The boycott is only the beginning !". A few hours later, PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas had still not reacted.
Papers in Syria and Jordan have published the cartoons, a brave move. And, of course, all through Europe papers are reprinting the cartoons, probably both to boost circulation AND to be in solidarity with the cartoonists.
For those who wish to see the cartoons that have made this fuss (and to better understand my comments below) you can seem them on Daily Gotham.
My reactions to these cartoons have see-sawed. My first gut reaction was to completely support the freedom of speech side. But I tried analyzing the situation in terms of "what if" these were anti-Jewish cartoons and realized that considering it from the other side I may be sympathetic to Muslims boycotting based on their offense, though there is no way I would be sympathetic to the violence that some have engaged in. I have since moved back to the pro-freedom of expression side when I realized that many of the cartoons are NOT offensive at all and some are actually sympathetic to Islam. Yet this has been largely ignored in people's reactions to the cartoons.
It is not a simple thing. I think there are several issues here:
First, a couple of the cartoons are indeed offensive and perhaps it was irresponsible of the papers to print those particular ones. At first I interpreted SEVERAL of them as being offensive. On closer inspection only maybe two or three are. The one portraying Muhammend as a dirty ruffian with a knife flanked by two veiled women is based on racial stereotypes just as offensive as portrayals of big-nosed Jewish bankers. It also is a complete misinterpretation of what Muhammed actually preached. The one showing Muhammend with a bomb in his turban is also based on racial stereotypes of Muslims being inherantly violent and Islam being inherantly a violent religion. Of course the rioters just re-enforce that, but that doesn't excuse racial stereotyping on the part of the cartoonists. The cartoon referring to suicide bombers expecting a harem of virgins after their death also is focusing on stereotypes, but perhaps in a more ambiguous way.
Two other cartoons fooled me because I didn't look closely enough. One SEEMS to show Muhammed with devil horns, which would indeed be offensive, implying that Islam was evil. But it doesn't portray Muhammed with devil horns. He has a halo and it is thus SYMPATHETIC to Islam, putting Muhammed on an equal footing with Christian saints and Jesus. Another cartoon has a police line-up with people in turbans. At first I thought that was racist as well, portraying all Muslims as criminals. But once I knew that the caption said something to the effect "They all look alike" when in reality they all look different (including someone who looks like Gerry Garcia!) is NOT insulting to Islam but rather is attacking Western stereotypes of Muslims. It is implying that Westerners don't look beyond the turban to see the person, something that was tragically illustrated when some Sikhs were killed right after 9/11 by American lynch mobs who thought they were Muslim. Again, this cartoon is SYMPATHETIC to Islam.
The rest seem harmless to me, unless I am missing something, which is possible.
The second issue is freedom of expression. Those newspapers have every right to publish the cartoons without being threatened. AND the governments of those nations where newspapers published them should NOT censor their media. Of course, Muslims have EVERY RIGHT to boycott those nations, but NOT to be violent. Freedom of expression goes both ways.
Third, fairness. The nations where these cartoons were published give EQUAL freedom to those who denegrate any religion or belief. By contrast, many of those Muslim nations that are up in arms about the Danish cartoons are perfectly tolerant of equally or far more offensive cartoons depicting Jews. There is a hypocricy on the part of some Muslims that is at least as offensive as the worst of the cartoons in question. It is harder to understand the level of offense that some Muslims are displaying when they tolerate anti-Jewish cartoons all the time. The actions of some Iranians, blaming Israel for the Danish cartoons and soliciting cartoons making fun of the Holocaust merely amplified this hypocricy.
A fourth thing is, images of Muhammed have been a part of Islamic Art at various times in history. It is much like the split in Christianity regarding "icons." Some Muslims find portrayals of Muhammed blasphemous, others don't. In many museums I have seen pages of the Q'ran illustrated with images of Muhammed. Now, those images were not offensive in content like some of the cartoons were, but they would still violate the claim that images of Muhammed are not allowed at all. I have seen such images, very beautiful ones, in many museums around the world. Many originate in some of the very nations that are so angry now, though at different times in history. Will those museums be burned next?
All in all, I have come back full circle, back to sympathy with the freedom of speech side of this. Especially since MOST of the cartoons are harmless or actually sympathetic to Islam. I think the sympathy shown to the Muslims by Rabbis and the Vatican is appropriate and diplomatic. It is smart for religious leaders to side with the religious feelings of Muslims. But in the end I think they may be wrong. The bottom line is that once again Islam, a religion just as reasonable and just as any, is being hijacked by some of its most extreme elements. This is not good when it is done in Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism...or Islam. Reason and moderation, not extremism, are needed in this controversy.
posted by mole333 | 11:38 PM
|
0 comments
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home