Looking back at the Mohammed Cartoons a year later
These are the presentation notes for a speech I gave at an American Bar Association/Chicago Bar Association panel discussion on the Mohammed Cartoon controversy that I thought I would share. It was a part of a program called “Breaking Barriers, Building Bridges” May 31, 2007.
I think the most important point is “Giving people a voice is the best way to respond to violence and extremism.” Other points, we don’t have “free speech” in America. What we really have is controlled and managed speech. The mainstream American news media is biased, bigoted and racist against Arabs and Muslims who are shut out of the media system and denied an equal voice in the important Op-Ed pages.
Here are the notes:
- The Arabs and Muslims have a right to protest the Mohammed Cartoons.
- They did not have a right to turn to violence.
- The Western news media was complicit in fanning the flames of hatred. Yelling fire in a crowded theater.
- The issue moved from hate speech to violence. Violence trumps hate speech. But I believe that when hate speech occurs daily and is ignored, it carries the moral weight of violence.
- If you deny a people a voice, an opportunity to vent in a civil manner, you become the cauldron that constricts that anger, creating a boiling of public emotion that has no where to go except to explode in some form or fashion.
The problem is the Western News media and the bias and bigotry that exists in it. Arabs and Muslims are routinely excluded by the media on the pages where it counts, the Op-Ed public commentary pages that help define and mold public opinions and attitudes. I would argue the Op-Ed pages are more important in molding American attitudes about the Middle East than the news pages. And I include the broadcast Op-Ed pages like those on Cable TV, shows like Sean Hannity on Fox and Glenn Back on CNN.
We are not a part of the media or real partners even in our society. We are excluded. When you exclude someone so long and so intentionally as we are excluded, some in our society turn to violence. Not simply so carelessly but when the pot is allowed to boil and bubble up over years and over an array of issues and our voices are not permitted to be heard, some of those bubbles explode.
When one person crosses the line to violence, that act of violence becomes the symbol of the entire protest. The debate shifts from the principles of the protest and wrongly blames the violence on the a grieved society.
Take MSNBC Hate Commentator Don Imus: No one says Don Imus represents all of the White bigots and racists and demagogues who have talk shows or columns in the media. But when an Arab or Muslim does something, suddenly, they have been elevated as representatives of an entire culture.
Americans find it hard to accept the fact that Don Imus is a symbol of the corruption of the American news media, not because he went too far and got caught. But instead, because he turned his hatred on the wrong targets.
Role of Humor: Humor must have a place in any free society. You are not a free society if you do not make room for humor. I am not arguing that the Arab and Muslim World are free, by the way. I am arguing they are not alone in fault.
There is a difference between humor and satire. Satire, or standup comedy challenges the accepted norms of human life, as opposed to humor which entertains.
There is also a difference between laughing with someone and laughing at someone. Standup comedy laughs with someone. Hate speech often uses humor to laugh at someone.
I am going to go even further and say; It is not simply about a clash of religions and culture as we address Jyllands-Posten’s and the Mohammed Cartoons. It is also about the role of the news media, and how the media excludes voices. It is about how the media plays fans the flames of the court of public opinion, which often is as powerful as the court of law.
Imus used the term “Nappy Headed ho” to refer to the women players in the Rutger’s basketball team. That was a clash of culture.
What defined appropriateness or hate speech is the context, and the media and public opinion.
Was it satire? Not when you laugh AT someone.
The real issue came down to public response and media. It wasn’t about whether or not it was or wasn’t hate speech because Don Imus spews hate speech all the time. American morality is not always defined by principle, but by response.
Context is often lost when society swings its hypocritical, artificial measure of what is right and what is wrong. Don Imus had been slandering and insulting Arabs and Muslims for years and not one mainstream voice ever took up the challenge to raise the bar of awareness of his actions in the public.
Arabs and Muslims have complained, but complaints are meaningless unless they accompanied by two important elements: 1) Media coverage, and 2) adjudication in the court of law, or the more powerful court of public opinion.
Don Imus lost his job not because of his hate speech, but because it was 1) elevated by the news media; and, 2) it was adjudicated in court of public opinion.
Arabs and Muslims have been complaining about Don Imus for years. And we have been complaining about dozens of other loud-mouthed racists from Michelle Malkin to Sean Hannity, Glenn Back and the Rev. Jerry Falwell. And the media does not listen. And without the media, or creating our own media, the court of public opinion does not listen.
The law is incidental, tragically. Would a lawsuit by a member of the Rutgers teams against Don Imus have proceeded had the incident not received the brunt of the public moral outrage? Or been provoked by the news media? I don’t think so. The public outrage was stoked by the media.
Here’s something that happened in Toronto this week while I was performing with the Israeli-Palestinian Comedy Tour:
Aaron Freeman, an African American and Jewish standup comedian and a friend and partner in the Israeli-Palestinian Comedy Tour, was wearing a t-shirt that he bought online that read on the front (something to the effect of — not exact words):
“I have a cartoon of the Prophet Mohammed on the back of this shirt.”
On the back, of course, it said something like:
“I’m just joking. Don’t kill me.”
We were at the King Edward Meridien Hotel preparing for a standup comedy performance at the 2,500 seat Roy Thomson Hall, a prestigious venue. Aaron was not just some individual wearing something to provoke, but is in fact a professional standup comedian who performs on a standup stage where humor is used often to push the line of often ridiculous societal conventions, lines in the sand and taboos (in all societies). The outrageous is deflated.
Many of the employees at the hotel were Muslim. Maybe because I look Muslim, one of the employees approached me to complain about the t-shirt. Aaron had arrived the day before me and was wearing it the day before, too, obviously to provoke public reaction. It was humorous. But was it appropriate? Did it cross the line of hate speech, or was it simply relatively offensive speech? That is really the topic here when we talk about the hypocrisies that exist in American society, in American media, in American culture and society. And in America’s judicial system (which often fails to complete its judicially principled thoughts when it comes to Arab and Muslim rights these days).
The Muslim man complained that another employee said he was prepared to lose his job at the hotel to “take him (Aaron) out.” Suddenly the concerns of the others are now jeopardized by the possible actions of one among them.
(Aaron took the shirt off and said he understood the complaints, but I was the one who argued that no individual has a right to either tell someone what to do or threaten them in any way. Aaron’s shirt was not provocative but was in fact offenseive, in my opinion, only to those who are extremists in their views and insist that everyone around them lives by their standards — which is a typically Islamic World and Middle East trait of restructing public speech.)
In the Mohammed Cartoon controversy, the newspaper published a series of cartoons that were extremely offensive to Muslims.
The cartoons were published in November 2005, but did not become a controversy until January 2006 when they were adjudicated in the Muslim World court of public opinion. Suddenly, there were protests.
The determination of what is or isn’t offensive in the Arab and Muslim World was adjudicated in the public court of law, too; Yes, they have a public court of law, too, and a news media, which is not very free and is controlled through censorship imposed by its governments.
But are they different?
The American mainstream media is also censored, not directly by governments but by the more powerful “we the people” society which, through a free and open markets, decides who can or cannot become a journalist. The media decides who can or cannot express their views in the powerful Op-Ed pages of the nation’ newspapers.
In the Arab and Muslim media, the focus was the insult. In the mainstream American and Western media, the focus was the response to the cartoon.
That friction aggravated everything, as it always does. The protests turned to riots, and the riots turned to violence. And it wasn’t just against the people of Denmark. It became a protest against Western society and the biased media.
Why did the protests turn to violence? Because it was easy to turn to violence, especially when people do not have a means to participate to express their rage any other way. Blame the Arab and Muslims World. But then ALSO blame the Western media and especially the American news media.
The bigoted, biased and unjournalistic Western news media is responsible for contributing to the violence as much as the protestors themselves.
Imagine in the case of Don Imus if the news media had decided to not give African American leaders and the public a voice in the controversy. Could the protests have turned violent? Incited by a news media that ignores the concerns of African Americans, it could have turned violent.
And violence trumps the violation of principle and fairness that causes it, at least in the Western media.
That’s what happened in the Cartoon controversy. Arabs and Muslims were angry with the publications of the cartoon as they are about the callous and intentional exclusion of their voices from the Western News Media.
It is inexcusable to use the excuse: We tolerate insults of Jesus, why don’t you accept insults against Mohammed?
Sure Americans spoke out against the Jesus desecration. But they would have turned to violence, too, had they not been given an opportunity to vent in the mainstream media.
Don’t counter hate speech through laws that discriminate on the basis of who is the victim, Arabs, Muslims or Americans. Counter hate speech by insuring that we have an open and free news media and a public that is sensitive not only to mainstream concerns, but also to the concerns of others.
You want to file a lawsuit, sue the American news media for excluding Arab and Muslim voices, for limiting our voices and preventing us from participating in the public debate not when the flare-ups occur but consistently as full partners in society.
File a lawsuit against all of the bigots in the American media, not just those when the victims are those who have gained status, but when the victims remain outside of the protections of our laws, morality and our ethics.
Thank you
Ray Hanania
May 31, 2007
Join the Conversation
I think this is called rationalizing and excusing violence. Being angry is neither a justification nor a defense to criminal behavior.
Now THAT’s funny! The greatest likelihood is that it will NEVER cross the guy’s mind what’s wrong with making death threats to protest being accused of violence.
Your qoute “Take MSNBC Hate Commentator Don Imus” What rock did you crawl out from under.
Don Imus might cross the line a few times a week, but never does he create Hate. The ones that create Hate are the Al Sharpton and the Jesse Jacksons of this world.
Mr. Imus has been doing his thing for almost 40 years. How long have you been doing yours?
No, Jack, this is you confusing an explanation with a justification. I know it might be easier for you to write it off as “crazy people functioning without cause,” since that absolves you of any role to play whatsoever in addressing existing problems, but the sensible way to approach the issue is to look at why people are pushed to violence.
Ray, there is one very basic problem with this entire discussion regarding this topic–and I don’t mean yours, but the topic in general. I don’t even know why the discussion of “why did Muslims turn to violence in response to the cartoons?” is given a serious forum in the first place. Which Muslims? Were there any violent incidents in America with regards to Muslim protests? How about France and Britain? No, the very few incidents were isolated, in Damascus and Beirut and I think maybe in Pakistan, and it is acknowledged that even these cases were provoked or permitted by the government in Damascus and by provacateurs in Beirut. In fact, after these two embassies burned, there was a huge reaction in the Syrian blogosphere anyway, by people who were even present at the protests, but who were dismayed to see a small group of people go violent–and even worse, the authorities standing by idly! Of course, everybody knows that protests don’t happen “spontaneously” in Damascus without the approval or planning of the government.
I guess my point is that “Muslims” didn’t turn to violence. Some people here and there did, but they were not acting on behalf of some huge monolithic population that can now be held responsible for their actions. Because of this I don’t think there is a useful analysis here to “understand” why what happened happened. If anything, the interesting and useful analysis comes out of looking at the way people talked about it, and continue to talk about it.
Yaman, you are quite right. But there are two important caveats to consider.
One is your example is of British, French, and American Muslims. They live in societies in which the norms do not permit social violence (sadly not well enough enforced) so their response has to be viewed as a partly westernized one.
The second is that people who act violently are disproportionately important if not severely punished. For example, most Egyptians accepted Sadat’s policies, but the few that assassinated him had a greater influence on subsequent Egyptian history than the many. Even if they are punished their violence is a warning to others who might seek peace.
They also establish a norm. If violence is not publicly punished it becomes normal and permissible. Few were punished for their rioting against the Danes and none severely. They also give an effective warning to others. The rioters have effectively curtailed everyone else’s freedoms of speech and press.
Societies that do not punish violence in effect condone it and are complicit in it, even if only a few are violent.
Upon further thought, it seems to me that any consideration of someone’s supposed grievances on account of their violence is a mistake. It both rewards and legitimizes the violence.
Society must present an iron wall of rejection and punishment to acts of violence, particularly politically-motivated violence, or it will be condemned to endless violence. No concessions whatever should be made to violent criminals.
I’m sorry but it was your article that seems to brew with Hate. Don Imus and his morning show was a pure joy. Don Imus was aware of the fact that it is important to laugh at ourselves. Similar to a Saturday night Live skit on NBC. Don Imus was fair and supported women and minorities. Those who criticize him the loudest are ignorant of the show or it’s content….it’s just easy to jump on the bandwagon to beat up poor Don Imus for “scarring” the women of Rutger’s Basketball. Please! Too many crybabies in this society. The women of Rutger’s were graceful – they were not the problem – it was all of the agenda driven “Reverands” that stirred the pot. Did you know that Don Imus supported African American candidate, Harold Ford Jr in the Tennessee Senatorial race? Did you know that Imus got Death Threats because of his support? Don Imus has fought for Veteran’s rights – he put those phony Politicians on the spot and asked them how much their death benefit was…and then he asked “If yours is $250k – then how come a Soldier’s is $12K?” He kpet on them….and guess what? Now a Soldier’s death benefit is $250,0000. Imus fans screamed into our TV’s or Radios “Way to Go, I-Man!!!”. Imus stood for the little guy. Did you know that Imus and his lovely wife, Deidre, run the Imus Ranch for Kids with Cancer (all of those kids are not white, by the way)…..did you know that Imus raised over $4,000,000 for Imus Ranch for Kids, Tomorrow’s Children’s Fund and the SIDS Foundation even as he was being humiliated and publicly flogged by the likes of Al Sharpton? The main critics of Don Imus did not know him or watch his show. It’s important ot know of whom you speak. Clearly you do not. I’ll bet you do not compare to Imus’ good works…yet you call him hate filled? Wrong again….this could be a good learning tool for you….maybe..just maybe you will know better next time.
Come back, Imus, mornings are dull, oh so dull, without you…and the Politicans and powerful are breathing a sigh of relief that they are off of that hot seat. Come back soon, I-Man!!
Who are these Don Imus drones and where did they come from? I didn’t realize there was a pro-Don-Imus campaign these days. I wonder if any of them are actually Don Imus.
Don Imus drone? Ever think that he was popular because he made money for the show? As in, people actually liked the old bastard and watched? Well, we the audience did not get our voices heard.
Maybe we’ll have to resort to violence.(kidding of course.)
We’re working to be heard. Just imagine what it would be like having outsiders pick one line from a show and get it off the air. Especially people who didn’t get it. They pick the worst example, put out a clip, offend everybody and you’re off the air.
Love how you start calling us names(‘drones’) just because we have a different opinion. Basically just can’t stand people misusing Imus as this new example of hatred and thinking they’ve got it right.
Imus was not a hater at all. But a world of haters has judged him and rendered a verdict.
Mostly fair points here otherwise. Except that humor can educate. And satire can be fun.
Man, I am sick of self-righteous people.
Bob
This is literally insane. SPEECH is always only WORDS. ACTION is ACTION. There is no moral equivalance at all. There never will be. A trillion words will never equal a single bruise, let alone a death.
Wake up. Stop trying to justify bad behavior with smart rationalization. No matter how well proofed and spell-checked, it’s still just excuses.
HI,
I’m just going back to Ray Hanania’s critical appraisal of the now famous Mohammed Cartoon event. In his brilliant account he says:
‘Aaron’s shirt was not provocative but was in fact offenseive, in my opinion, only to those who are extremists in their views and insist that everyone around them lives by their standards — which is a typically Islamic World and Middle East trait of restructing public speech.)’
and then, he adds:
‘The determination of what is or isn’t offensive in the Arab and Muslim World was adjudicated in the public court of law…’
These paragraphs bring to the surface two perfectly valid and worth considering problems.
Unless our laws and the values inherent in each culture can truly account for ‘difference’ and consistently support open debates, discrimination and hate will continue to drive or poison our lives. I’m speaking as a human being and when I say ‘our’, I refer to humanity and not to any other particular community. From this position, I suggest we all acknowledge the existence of a philosophical approach (among others) called ‘deconstruction’ (see Jaques Derrida) and use it not to distroy traditions but rather as a method for questioning any discourse and as a way to open space for new thought. But then, I am aware this is far fetched…because people still struggle to ‘save’ cultural and religious traditions instead of saving themselves or saving their dying neighbour, be it in Africa or in Iraq…
Listen, as a longtime journalist, I have learned that people who love oyu sit back and enjoy, and the only others who write are those with either a passion for peace and truth (Lamer, for example) or those who just like to hate (Jack, and the Don Imus fan club)
Imus was hatefilled anti-Arab and anti-Muslim bigot. His hatred is not funny. We had a big Don Imus is FInished Party in Chicago to celebrate his demise and public humiliation. It was great. So satisfying to see an anti-Muslim basher gone down in flames.
At first, I used to feel sorry for him because I thought he was a grandma, but realized later that he was one of the ugliest men I have ever seen on Earth. Then I realized why he hates so much. He’s so damn ugly
Ray Hanania
http://www.hanania.com
Ray, get a life. You had a “Don Imus is finished party to celebrate his demise and public humiliation”. Sounds hateful in and of itself. ARE you an Arab and that is why you seem so outraged and accuse Imus of being “Anti Arab”? For the record, Imus was NOT anit Arab…he was anti jerk off…..for example, I think he would have made mince meat out of you…easily…and send you off on your way with your judgement and hatred in tow. You are a journalist? God help us all.
Cynthia,
I didn’t see a constructive attack in that, other than an implication that your lips are surgically attached to Don’s ass. Can you please offer an argument that doesn’t include insults or “DON ROCKS SO SHUT UP”?
What does “anti jerk off” even mean? I don’t consider making up words a valid refutation of Ray’s arguments.
Esra,
It appears that the responses from you (lips surgically attached to poor I-Mans ass?) and Ray (Don Imus is finished party to celebrate his demise and public humiliation?) are the responses that require explanation and express hostility at the least. So obviously rude and hateful in and of themselves – your intolerance of any but you own opinion is palpable! My ernest response is as a loyal and proud Don Imus fan who knows better. Sadly, you are among the bold, ill informed and make that so painfully obvious.
If you need a constructive “attack” ….interesting choice of word you chose there, Esra, and it only strengthens my rebuttal (not that is a not hostile word…as opposed to “attack”). I do not make hostile remarks….just supportive and factual. Proof of my support for the wonderful and talented Don and Deidre Imus can be found in my earlier post and/or by simply going to Google and researching this topic. Education is a wonderful thing – look up all of the good deeds that Mr. Imus has done for so many over the years and you will owe him and me an apology. If the worst thing he ever did was “offend” someone than he probably is as guilty as you in that category.
As far as the Muslin and Arab world and their “image” at the present – that is a very touchy subject. Certainly all are not painted with the same brush. However, the community is responsible to stand up for the image and show a more public condemnation of intolerance and violence. Unfortunately, as long as people use violence as their only solution to a problem….they will be looked upon as hostile and dangerous. That is just the way it is for anyone. So if some in the community are seeking to enlighten the public on the dignity of these cultures…they should begin by standing up and, even if they agree with the “issues” of the violent, they should offer a public and diplomatic solution that is as bold and attention grabbing as the current efforts and show force for peaceful solutions…then the violent will be isolated and ineffective. It’s the only way.
You love whining about hostility yet you’re the one claiming that we are all blind and retarded because we’re not fans of Don, who by the way, if he has fans like you, then I can only believe that what he preaches does in fact encourage hatred and racism. No one owes him an apology. Stop complaining so much.
Learn how to approach others with respect before you start accusing others of “hostility.”
Cynthia doesn’t realize that she is exactly guilty of what she accuses Ray of, which makes her comments here all the more useless and annoying. Try to be less defensive Cynthia and more open minded and polite about the opinions of others!
- I am not guilty of what either Ray or Esra or Murad have said. I am merely stating the truth – Imus was good, not bad or racist. I am not the one who called names and said I enjoy watching another’s public humiliation. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. Murad – you are telling me to be more polite? Have you read the others posts – or are they similar to you so it’s ok for them to be so rude. You yourself threw a slam at me by stating that if Imus fans are like me….they must be bad. Now that is not nice at all…or necessary. I am merely making a point for my side of the argument..that’s all…nothing personal about it. If you knew Imus – you would know he is the farthest thing from a racist…thats all. You obviously do not know him, his work, his charities, his character…..so I’ll just chalk it up to the fact that you would rather call him names then really know about him or his show…or his fans. NO need to insult all of his fans either – there is a reason Imus was so popular…that reason was love, not hatred. Love. Simply but true. I do not need to call names to make this point….because love is stronger than hate and stronger than name calling and insults. Imus’ show was about love and standing up for the underdog. We loved Imus because he stood up to the powerful and got things done. His show just wasn’t about jokes or skits – it was about action and charity and important causes for Veterans. Imus was a former Marine and he was very sympathetic to Veterans – he was a tireless champion for many causes. You can google this to see for yourself…I am not making it up. Also google Deidre Imus – his lovely wife. Another wonderful human being who did more for others than many many famous or powerful people. His voice and generousity of spirit is sorely missed. That is my point. A man like that will always get my support. Who do you support?
Thanks for listening – I hope you take a step back and think about it before you just sling insults at me again.
yikes, enuf re Imus-back to other ideas and thoughts- offensive speech(that is, public speech )is acceptable in our country, however, if violence is directly called for, thenit is not legaland they will be arrested. On tv or radio offensive speech is often seen-then, it is subject to the voice of the people- peaceful protest, or a thing such as signing of a petition Getting on the news may occur, and eventually the market takes over, as it did in the imus case, and it was decided that the offender will not be a good rep for the broadcasting company, and would not make them money.(the bottom line) Offensive portraits of Mohammed may have offended some people, as the portraits of jews in the muslim world offend me, (which do in fact lead to direct viloence against jews, thereby being subject to the US govts prohibitiion,)while the Mohammed cartoon’s do not seem to me to go beyond offensive. In fact, the thought that a picture of Mohammed be drawn at all was considered offensive from what i read, to some groups of people . Obviously this restriction cannot be tolerated in the west, as every religious figure is skewered regularly in cartoons.. If it reveals a side of a situation that is critical of my own group I may , in fact, like to read it if it is clever, nuanced and merely making a point that can be worthy of consideration. I may , then, write a letter to the editor explaining my evaluation of the cartoon.
Limpia, it also should not be ignored that most of Imus’ problem was that he offended a politically powerful group to whom everyone else is sensitive. If he had insulted Bulgarians or Mongolians in exactly the same way, there would have been a brief minor stink and he would still be broadcasting.
i guess power , can be disproportionate(tho there are more blacks than mongolians and bulgarians in the usa- and when the bulgarians and mongolians reach a population of critical mass, they will have more power, i am sure)In the Imus case i think he was fired because the broadcasters feltthey may have had difficulty keeping sponsors. so money is the bottom line re the merely offensive.Not so re the kind of speech that advocates violence which is subject to the law. there can be a fine line, i guess. Your point re a disproprtionate power of certain distasteful individuals such as sharpton,well, i also dont respect him-let me mull that over.In any case, i thin in a short while Imus will again be bankable and he will be back-uhh unless he was prohibited from the airwasves for his offensive speech- he wasnt, was he? (really, i may not have all the facts!)
Limpia, I had not thought of Sharpton but he is a good example. He notoriously makes racist remarks and always gets away with it.
Jack, Cyntia,
Try to step down from whatever pedestals of the ‘chosen ones’ or comfy TV chairs you are tempted to occupy (and I know, you are working hard, that’s not my point!) and go live in any of these communities (they might refuse at the beginning), try to meet and know someone real, a fellow Muslim, Jewish, Black, Mongolian, recent immigrant, whatever. Try to REALLY listen to that person, and when you listen, try forgetting who you are. Strive for a moment to be something else, someone else. Take a trip to the Middle East or to Africa or even better, to far away lands who are not even acknowledged in the mainstream (Western media) maybe to a place without TV and without frills and just stay with the locals for a while. I know, many of us cannot afford that, or if we do, we choose a fancy hotel and a tour organized by a Western agency to be on the safe side. But maybe, if you get to know a member of any minority well enough, they would allow you to stay with their relatives back home. Move out of what you think you know… and then return to yourself and to the US and listen again, with new ears!
If I may correct myself quickly, I wanted to address the previous note to all who might be in need of a dis(re)location, not only to Jack and Cynthia. I first and foremost address it to myself because I’ve lived past my expiration date in Saudi Arabia as a woman expat.
I wanted to just offer another perspective on this race for voice and space, for who is right and who is not right…because I’ve been ‘listening’ to this rather heated (yet possibly purging) e-discussion for awhile now. We need spaces to blast it all off, we need symbolic kicks in the ass (accepted gracefully or not). We need to go to the margins of who we (think we) are.
It feels good to speak out, isn’t it? Imagine that you didn’t have the command of language neccessary to do it, imagine space here on the internet or anywhere else was refused to you, imagine people wouldn’t listen or would take your words out of the context of your lives and would switch them around to suit their own needs or agendas that do not include you…and then accuse your entire community…imagine this is done constantly, for years, wouldn’t you explode and ACT in the real world (not in the real world of writing but in the other real world)? That’s when violence happens. People who swallow their voices for too long errupt. That was one point that Ray made in his article but not many seemed to understand it properly…
Lamer, I have lived in Chile, traveled all around Zimbabwe, in Mexico, Mongolia, India and a number of other places. I have seen people a lot poorer, less privileged, less articulate, and less listened to than Ray’s or your hypothetical Muslim about to explode with rage and violence. In every one of those countries, no matter how poor or oppressed they are, violence is unacceptable. The Untouchables in India, the campesinos in Mexico, the poor of Zimbabwe, all consider violence uncivilized and unacceptable. In most countries committing an act of violence not only disgraces the one who does it, it humiliates his family and friends. In western countries, any act of violence gets you immediately fired from your job and makes it difficult to ever get another one.
No amount of rationalization and doubletalk can make it acceptable to civilized people.
ACTION, as you so romantically capitalize it, in civilized countries means WORK– working hard to improve either your or your family’s situation or your country’s. It does not mean damaging property nor harming people. Those are the actions of a barbarian or a child. What you call “erupting”, we call a “tantrum”. Children should not be allowed to have tantrum, even less should adults.
Lamer, you would be mistaken if you think that the others on this site are more sympathetic to violence than those from western countries. Read what they had to say about someone named Yoni who hinted at violence against one of the moderators. They described him as a rat, a creep, and a freak. I assume they would say the same about you if you were to rationalize and condone violence as you seem to be doing.
I agree with the fact that it is always important to learn about other cultures and what is acceptable and what is not. I do make an effort to educate myself on global matters and I do not just tune in to American media for information. I simply think that if one particular culture frightens people – people will move away from them out of fear…and not closer to them to learn the reasons “why?”. This is what violence breeds….separation and fear…not understanding and an iniative to learn and grow from another’s experiences. I do find it appallling that women in some cultures cannot read, write or defend themselves. It’s an outrage – yet our government still works with such countries and in doing so, condones those behaviors. America’s foreign policy is the issue that keeps coming up…perhaps Muslims and those whose cultures are affected by these restrictions and day to day violence should band together and make this voice heard – power in numbers as far as the government is concerned. This would educate the average American to the plight and also add some voices to the fight. Education is the key – most people cannot afford to travel the world…but with the internet and with the appropriate voices of those people (look at Darfur – why not find a celebrity Arab figure? people like celebrities – it’s working for other causes). Anyway, just a thought.
So you traveled a lot and most probably on a contract. Great, that only shows how priviledged you and I are…and how easily we can spell the word ‘civilization’ and how comfortably we can ‘understand’ the ‘uncivilised’ people’s call for action and say that they’re like children having ‘tantrums’, implying that they need to grow up, get over it, become adults, become ‘men’, rational, you name it. Come on, Jack, you can do better than that!
I don’t think ANYBODY here has consciously endorsed or has tried to rationalize violence. IF I’m wrong, point that one out to me and I’ll rip him to shreads
Nothing justifies violence, indeed. Rather, my tiny point was the recognition that violence happens on the basis of repression. It seems that the Muslim world is ‘doomed’: first they are repressed at home from inside their own system of thought and with the help of a few powerful extremists, and second, they are subtly but effectively repressed in whatever host cultures they attach themselves to in search for more opportunities and in search for voice. And then, they are openly repressed by Bush but I am not going to start you all on that one.
Violence is inevitable at this point in time, cultivated even. I believe that it all starts in language, in the texts that we’re reading (listening to) or that read (or speak for) us. All our actions are ‘texts’ (speech) first. Words are extraordinarily powerful and potentially dangerous, everybody knows that. Words have started revolutions. Now, how do you deal with that as a civilised society of grown ups — to use Jacks’ style? By censoring speech? Banishing violent preachers and putting away those who kill and hurt? Paradoxically, yes, they even do it in Saudi Arabia now (a bit too late though).
I, for one, am concerned with the BEFORE of violence. In my romantic little world, I believe that more people need to acknowledge (very young and faster than ever) the simple fact that violence happens and it will continue to happen on the basis of previous repression, marginalization, discrimination, lack of better resources and an overpowering mainstream. Who is the global mainstream now?
Look, I am not Muslim but I live with Muslims around me. I have Muslim friends and I encounter other Muslims who make me vomit (because with them, that’s the only ‘voice’ I can afford). One thing is sure: Islam is their (and by extrapolation, our history); it is an important part of who they are, just like ‘democracy’ and ‘independence’ and just like ‘Christianity” is part of who ‘pure-breed’ Americans and Western Europeans are (forgetting that it was all founded in crusades, slavery and collonialism).
Looking at things from Saudi Arabia where every possibility of new thought is restricted, especially if you are a woman, and where too many people have actually internalized this view and believe that they have a choice, so, looking at the world from here, I can only hope to see the day when organized religion is discarded, becomes outdated (because disfunctional) and that we all breathe, look around us, understand that perhaps God has already forgiven us and we can start forgive ourselves and each other and start anew but … that sounds like idle talk because we live in a world of ‘unsolved mysteries’: i.e. Bush- Blair ‘save’ Iraq by destroying it, the ‘revolution’ in Iran got stolen and turned around itself in Iran, too many powerful voices in the US media make money on behalf of others’ miseries (and ‘educate’ the crowds in an entertaining way). Some of us are even desperate when these little gods leave the scene (what will we do now? what will we do?!)… Well, some concepts and some people need to leave the scene !
And yes, Jack, ‘work’ is part of the answer. Mind you, women in Saudi Arabia are not allowed to work in public and we are in the 21st century!
Lamer, you are looking for someone who sounds like he or she is trying to gin up a rationalization for violence, so you can tear them to shreds? The place to look is where one should alway start in a hunt for sinners — in the mirror.
You are wrong. Violence is NOT inevitable. People have choices about some things and not about others. But violence is one of the things we do have a choice about. Blaming our own personal choices on your “powerful voices in the US media” or Zionist conspiracies or Safavist patriarchists or anybody else is always dishonest and a copout. When you blame someone else for your own behavior you become to that extent dissociated from yourself, an automaton, not quite human.
Whether one is religious or secular, you ought to have a long enough adult view to realize that ALL people leave the scene eventually. To commit violence to hasten the inevitable is both immoral and short-sighted.
Jack,
I
I wrote an elaborate, heartfelt reply and then lost it by mistake. I’ll try to sum it all up:
I didn’t think I was looking for someone whom I could tear to shreds (it was a joke, I even marked it as such with a smiley face).
I might have read you wrong and you might have done the same with my text. Perhaps I was too vague.
The place to start is indeed in the mirror. But in a way, we are each other’s mirror. And how we view God (if that’s something of concern), is our mirror too. The mirror is an excellent ‘correction tool’ but also a frightening realization: when there is no other way to turn around, we have to face (acknowledge) each other, salute the ‘foreigner’ that runs through our blood or literally, salute the stranger who inhabits our country. And then, we have to deal with this reality in a very thoughytful way!
Now, talking about ‘adult views’, I lost my innocence in Riyadh Saudi Arabia when, on the 9-11-2001 I watched on a big screen in a public space the replay of the disaster and when I heard many ‘first’ reactions going : “Kois!”(Good Beautiful, in Arabic). “Kois!” said a woman covered in black next to me. Should I blame her now ?! You see, I am neither American, nor Arab, yet this whole thing affects me to the core of my humanity.
Violence, in principle and in fact is not inevitable but look around, it is (or seems) inevitable! Violence usually happens as a result of internalised abuse of some sort, be it on a historical or a biographical scale. Violence is directed outside when the person (or people) caught in the circle of abuse cannot identify and dissociate from the voice of the abuser speaking in him or herself. Therefore, he or she ends up speaking in the voice of the abuser, sometimes going as far as fighting for that voice (in the name of God and in the voice of the Father in patriarchal societies). There are people whose history was marked so heavily by loss (Palestinians, Jews, Kurds) or so strongly by repression (Saudi Arabia, for instance) that they now have trouble seeing a way out of the circle of violence. If they’re well fed they rely on speech, if they’re poor and uneducated they take speech in the street and materialize it on the battle field. Osama and other extremists talk them into wars against ‘infidels’. Bush, in fact entire combat armies talk soldiers into fights against the forces of darkness, into fights for peace. You see, these ones take themselves for the whites on the chess board..
Democracy and ‘enlightenment’ of any kind cannot be force fed because it defeats the cause and the reaction you get is contrary to what you expected (see the disaster in Iraq and the revolution turned upon itself in Iran).
I am not for desacralization. If anything, I believe in the interior (inner)bibles and qurans, the inner gardens, the inner symbolic lands called Islam and Israel. I believe in the Song of Songs. If you don’t hear these believes in my text, that’s even better. That’s an area that deserves silence in a world of excessive speech and obscene literalness preached in every corner.
I liked what you (Jack) replied to me when I said that some concepts, people, worlds, need to leave the scene. You said that we ought to realize that ALL people leave the scene eventually. In light of this realization, mortality makes each of us more humane and life so very precious. Yet we continue to fight death with death. There are figures of death and disfigurement in speech too. Denial is a figure of death. Lack of humour is another…lack. One ought to fight death with life – life, that generous ‘yes’. But that’s hard and potentially dangerous to the self (or to the ‘identity’ of a nation) because by saying ‘yes’ you open up to the other and let the other traverse you. In that sense, I said that each of us should try going to the margins of who we think we are, so we can meet the other outside denial and violence. But that’s very hard to do, I’ve tried it numerous times. We all have tried it, for instance, when we’ve been inlove. Love is a potential threat to the self and we fear being vulnerable, that’s when ‘love becomes a duel’. I will kill you, out of (fear of) love, you little pest, you stranger! Move back to your home country! Shut up! You deserve to be locked away! Say it but use acceptable language! Use our language if you want to be understood! Become one of us first!
Now, these last interjections were all examples of death talk that we all use with anybody who threatens societal or individual norms. How far should love go, though? Please, don’t expect me to love Osama Bin Laden and commit suicide, ok?
Sorry, I took a lot of space with ‘psychological’ and low grade ‘philosophical’ talk…but it feels good and we’re probably all ready to move on from a dead end.
Lamer, if there is ever a reason for violence, it is against our computers and software that make us lose long heartfelt messages that we have spent a long time crafting. My congratulations on your persistence in writing it again.
If you need to relieve yourself of feelings that you have difficulty sharing, consider keeping a diary. I have been keeping one for many years and it has been and is a valuable part of my life.
Nothing beats dialogue, Jack. Because in dialogue you hear yourself best, you understand whether you make sense or not, whether others understand you and whether you really understand others, whether others can help you shape yourself further. True dialogue is the most valuable an exchange. I have a diary. I’ve had a diary since ever. A diary is good but is not enough. That’s why writers write…and publish, activists do their work in the world and people search to come together.
Lamer, for some things nothing beats dialogue. But for others, written monologue can be better. Lots of written monologue is just worrying, or obsessing, or considering and reconsidering intrinsically minor matters. No one wants to hear or read that. It is not good for anyone to listen to or read venting of spleen. But writing it down is cathartic and beneficial.
Most of all it is clarifying. Most people’s thinking, including mine, is muddled and illogical. (As one can easily see from this and other blogs and fora.) Imposing the logic of your language of choice forces thought into more logical and reasonable shape.
A diary is also harmless and safe. One offends no one and confesses nothing that one shouldn’t. Most of all one doesn’t bore one friends. I have 39 handwritten volumes now and I assure you no one would want to read all that drivel. Even I don’t want to read it. But writing it has been immensely helpful to me over the years.
As someone who knows the Imus show closely, I don’t what you mean about him being anti-Muslim or anti-Arab. I don’t see him as hate-filled either, but at the risk of sounding hippy-dippy, kind of love-filled actually.
Y’all don’t know what you’re talking about re: Imus. Haters calling a good guy a hater, thus making themselves out to be good. Justifying violence. The world is twisting to the breaking point.
Sorry to bring the Imus thing up again, just can’t stand seeing him used as everyone’s punching bag. The perception is inaccurate. Find another punching bag.
Sorry, I wished I watched a few Imus shows, so I can offer an informed opinion. It just sounds to me that you are praising him disproportionately. I understand that people should praise or criticize public figures but I am not sure how healthy and reasonable is to get attached to this extent to someone on the screen, to any leader, for that matter. Unless of course, he was thrown in jail, yet innocent. But that was not the case, right? He was fired, I understand. About the public humiliation part, sorry, but any public figure, especially politicians and all those who dare to touch ‘touchy’ issues in public expect in fact public reactions and should therefore be prepared for the worse. He is perhaps used as a punching bag because he represented something beyond himself as an individual? He was a symbol of…?
This one is for Jack and the next one for Cynthia (and then, I might need to stop for awhile because I am taking too much of your space and time)
Jack said: “Most people’s thinking, including mine, is muddled and illogical. (As one can easily see from this and other blogs and fora.) ”
I am not sure what you mean by illogical. Most comments have an internal logic that is grounded in the lived experience of each individual.
I think that true stories told by those who lived them are invaluable — of course, we need to find the right tone as not to offend people — but even heartfelt (that is emotionally charged, lively) accounts hold an extraordinary value! Subjectivity. What else is there, objectivity? You believe in ‘objective objectivity’? I see objectivity as an agreement. That’s why we’re here on this site: to reach agreements and ‘correct’ each other. And to acknowledge Subjectivity because that’s the base of Respect. I believe this kind of respect goes against the grain of hypocrisy, denial and laziness — this respect that acknowledges subjectivity is at the heart of democracy. Democracy is based on real understanding! Unless you, guys, convince me of the contrary with an example from life or perhaps from Ancient Greek texts where the notion of democracy comes from.
Cyntia,
I agree with you. You said that “This is what violence breeds….separation and fear…not understanding and an iniative to learn and grow from another’s experiences.” Yes, those who cultivate violence are perfectly aware of that: they want separation and want to spread fear. Others are drawn into this and become violent without really knowing where this is taking them and in this sense only, they are victims themselves.
Lamer, we could get along with just subjectivity if it were not for the future. All all opinions are not equally valid and not equally to be respected.
For example, say an illiterate says that in his opinion the old rickety wooden bridge will support the heavy truck. A structural engineers does measurements and calculations and finds that it won’t. Are both opinions equally valid? Perhaps, but only until the future comes and the bridge collapses under the truck and the driver is killed.
Others here, notably Esra’a, seem to believe that their opinions must be respected even when they contradict familiar facts. There is considerable difference between disrespect for a person and disrespect for his opinions. The illiterate in the example may be a fine person and worthy of personal respect. His opinions about bridges are nevertheless not to be taken seriously, particularly not by the truck driver.
Esra’a is the moderator here and she is unable to accept that distinction. Perhaps that is because facts require work to learn and understand, and opinions do not. In any case, she has urged me not to write to this site any more.
She herself says that many people find her and her friends “somehow” rude and have left their blog. Your leaving will greatly impoverish the already thinning interest of this site. My departure may ever so slightly diminish it as well.
There is a saying, “Beware of what you wish for. You might get it.” The people who set up this site don’t really want to hear views contrary to their own. And they won’t.
Goodbye Lamer. It was fun talking to you.
Good bye, Jack. People who are truly engaged in dialogue make it hard for me to say good bye. One last reply (long because it’s the last one).
In the previous message Jack made very good points. Science provides us with the least biased, the most objective answers (although I heard that the Theory of Relativity and Quantum physics threaten that view). Science builds trust because it is founded on thorough research of facts, on collection and methodical analysis of data. Science cultivates genuine questions, the ones that allow you to find out what you don’t know already. There is enough knowledge (there is even such a thing as Theory of Knowledge looking at how knowledge is constructed).
There is research (science) and there is enough history behind democratic systems, available to anyone who truly wants to help with social change. But it is one thing to KNOW (have the information) and another thing to UNDERSTAND and be able to apply that knowledge in your own life.
For this region of the world, to understand democracy, it would take a paradigm shift, a complete switch of mentality and that’s VERY hard work. Very uncomfortable work, I should say. It takes personal courage to question your current beliefs. And when I say ‘question’, I say REALLY question them, to the point of risking them. You have to somehow dissociate from your beliefs and call them opinions, rather than feel threaten when these beliefs are put into question. And then, as you said you have to comfront opinions with facts and with the latest research available.
I withdrew from another forum on this site (see the short lived interaction on ‘Human Rights in Saudi Arabia’) because, although in principle each woman contributing there (Rasha from Saudi, Esra from Bahrain and Pouyan from Iran) was complaining about the lack of human rights in the region, especially in Saudi, the minute I butted in and offered my view, as a woman expat living in Saudi, there was suddently, TOTAL silence. I thought, they must have been afraid to post an answer… but then, I also thought that it was a form of exclusion and closure, their way of saying “I don’t want to hear that from you!’
People who are different than you, afford you another view, a multitude of other experiences, an opening, otherwise you are left with what you know already.
If you don’t strive for change, if you are fine with what you have, that’s great. It really means that the situation you are in is what you deserve. Democracy is a big change, a continual strive for change and for questioning. There is always the possibility that you leave democracy and its discomforts to those who seem to be able to handle them. And to those who are able to get the joke about the Mohammed Cartoon on that comedian’s shirt.
But before we can be light and laugh, we ought to be able to dig deep and grasp the root of intolerance and racism within ourselves. I must say, I have to do it quite often in Saudi land because intolerance breeds intolerance. My tolerance level has dropped severly since coming here simply because peopel around me are intolerant.
Why do I, as an expat, and as a non-Muslim be obliged to wear an abaya (minor example)? I want no less than a ‘scientific’ answer which I am able to offer if you ask me why women shouldn’t drive with their faces covered by a veil and why it is not a good idea to wear full black coverage under the sun.
What does the fact that although I am a respectable human being, I am prohibited to visit Mecca because I am not Muslim? Here, I don’t ask for a scientific answer. Here I want common sense.
Why do I pay for a 5 star hotel room in Jeddah (or anywhere in Saudi) and when I ask if there is a Health Club they say Yes, there is. Men only. Yet, I paid the same amount of money with my fellows men.
Why do passports here have to be identified as Muslim or non-Muslim? If you consider Islam a country with intrinsic laws, then you also imply that you have a special status among other religions, other humans, other countries. There is the European Union, the United States, the Muslim and the rest of us. How does that sound?
If deep down inside you don’t see a point in my questions, if you cannot question a law, ANY law, THE LAW, then also know that you are FAR AWAY from understanding ‘the law of democracy’.
It’s too late for tribal and religious fights and definitions! We have reached the day of global issues and global encounters. We have reached a state of global warming and scarce natural resources. A day where abuse, abuse of resources, of power, of priviledges, any kind of abuse is intolerable. See how far tolerance can get you. If this doesn’t bring us together as human beings, than nothing will.
One more thing. I hear this a lot and apparently out of nowhere: “Oh, I am proud to be a Muslim’. As an uprooted person and as a humanist, I can’t help but ask: Why do you need to say that ?! Why would I need to say to myself and to others that I am proud to do whatever I do to the best of my abilities? Why should I say that I am proud to be Canadian for instance? I love Canada for many reasons and I criticise it for others. I don’t think I NEED to feel proud to be Canadian. I shouldn’t even need to say that I am proud to be a human being, that would be kind of weird in front of an animal who is just what it is without, again, needing to feel proud. Animals, Nature in general actually humble me. Of course, I am smarter than my dog. But my dog is very smart too and very happy: he doesn’t have to be tolerant or love strangers
Guys, with you striving for separation, we will be all farther than ever from each other… humans and nature, separately, women and men, separately, Muslims and Non-Muslims, separately, Arabs and non-Arabs, whites and people of color, believers and non-believers, secular and religious, ad infinitum…yet nothing is infinite on this Earth. We are all just that: Earth. And this should be a sobering truth.