When the right-wing, anti-immigration, anti-minorities Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten printed those cartoons of Mohammed wearing a bomb-shaped turban on 30 September 2005, I don't think they could have had any sensible idea what they were about to let loose in the world.
I've watched as the reaction to the cartoons grows increasingly hysterical on both sides. On the Muslim part, there appears to have been a calculated policy by some of the more radical Imams to kick up as much fuss as possible. By adding cartoons that weren't even a part of the original series, they apparently toured Muslim countries informing the citizens of the blasphemy of the West. Cue riots, flag burning and deaths. To a large degree, the Muslims have every right to be upset. Despite what has frequently been touted, it's not actually forbidden to show images of Mohammed at all. It is however, considered a step too far when the prophet is portrayed as a terrorist. Their right to feel offended doesn't, of course, excuse acts of violence any more than Christians have the right to send death threats to high ranking BBC officers who put on Jerry Springer the Opera.
All this has been gone into at great length.
My take on this part of the issue:
1) The Danish newspaper should have been more mindful of causing offence. That said, there probably was a naivity about how great the outcome might be. (Since originally posting this, I have read that the newspaper is well known for its anti-immigration stance, so perhaps I was being over generous here)
2) The other media outlets that subsequently published the cartoons were definitely aware that their actions were likely to lead to more protests and were also likely to inflame tensions between communities. Freedom of Speech, despite what seems to have been touted around the West, does not mean that you shouldn't use your brain and not be mindlessly offensive.
3) The cartoons should have been protested not because they were blasphemous but because (for the most part) they were rubbish.
4) Muslim leaders who inflamed this situation by manipulating the ordinary men and women are scary motherfuckers.
5) I don't believe for one moment that most ordinary Muslims have any desire to overthrow the government.
What worries me at least as much is the reaction of some sections of the non-Muslim population here.
I spend the majority of my online time on a number of 'core' websites. Many are band/music-related sites, others not. Most of them have some sort of community element to them - a forum, noticeboard or chat facility.
Since the whole furore about the cartoons kicked off, I have noticed a frightening lurch to the right on these online forums. I can only suspect that it is the same everywhere. I work in a place that would probably be considered by most to be incredibly PC, and it was never likely to be much in evidence here. My mates are also unlikely to be a party to any such lurch, and therefore I haven't experienced it in real life. Perhaps everything I'm about to write is just simply a huge over-reaction and there isn't any such problem at all. I can only hope so.
I'm not talking about the two-dimensional types here. There's one chap that frequents a question and answer site that I use who is so preposterously right-wing that it's hard to take him seriously. For a long time, this chap has expressed views such as 'Islam is inherantly evil' and 'Islam is a virus' and 'We should get our boys out of Iraq and then just nuke it. And get Iran whilst we're at it'. I was seriously entertaining the notion that this guy was some sort of parody, perhaps a comedian trying out a new persona. Sadly, I don't think that's the case; occasionally this gentleman displays signs of actual intelligence and sense. But anyway, he's not the issue. He's clearly an idiot and generally people treat his views with the contempt they deserve.
No, the issue is with the 'normal' people. People who generally express reasoned views that you might hear in any pub, or at a gig or whatever. Just, you know, people. People who are reasonably intelligent, reasonably well informed, have reasonably good jobs etc. People, indeed, like me. All of a sudden, a great number of these people are coming out with comments that you wouldn't have heard even in the wake of the July bombings.
All of a sudden crass, racist jokes about Muslims seem to have become acceptable. These are not jokes that have any great insight into the human condition, the Muslim condition or anything else. Their closest analogy is Bernard Manning saying to a black man in his audience, 'How did you get here? Swinging from the lamp posts?' - making some sort of black man/ monkey comparison. Really base stuff. From a technical perspective alone, most of the jokes are incredibly lame - where's the expectation and subversion? It's not like these jokes are attempting to make people think by challenging their prejudices, they are purely and simply based around being offensive.
But worse than 'jokes' is the fact that there seems to be a new consensus; 'Enoch Powell was right with his Rivers of Blood speech'. 'The Muslims are out to take over this country.' 'By 2050, the UK will be a Muslim country.' 'Islam is a religion of violence and here is the proof in the Koran.'
Along with this, there is frequently an invocation of the increasingly redundant word 'racist'. The problem with the word is twofold. Firstly, many people now see a claim of 'racism' as a catch-all used to deny them their right to express their views and by pre-empting that accusation with 'but some people will call me a racist for having those views' it becomes very much harder for any legitimate arguement that it *is* actually racist to succeed. Indeed, it requires an in-depth analysis of the statement made for any rebuttal to hold water. Few seem to be interested in entering into such debates (and indeed online forums are not always the best place to have such indepth conversations), claiming that it's getting bogged down in semantics. Secondly, since many of these people would argue - and doubtless legitimately - that they do not hold these views about any non-white person, that Islam is not limited to people of one skin colour and that therefore it cannot be considered racist. So, in my opinion, the 'racist' angle has become problematic to say the least.
My real concern is what all of this means going forward. If what I have seen is representative of society in gereral - and as I said, I hope it isn't (but fear it is) - what can we expect going forwards. I remember studying 'war' at university as part of my anthropology options. The first thing that occurs in any conflict prior to it decending into violence is denigration. Human beings are actually extremely bad at enacting violence upon people they consider to be equals. I recall (though regretably I don't remember the name of the tribe involved) a discussion of a tribe of Amazonian cannibals. They were not exclusively cannibalistic - the environment simply couldn't have supported such a thing - but they would periodically go off and massacre another tribe and consume their flesh. What fascinated me was the fact that before they could carry out these attacks, the tribe would spend several days working through a ritual of self-aggrandisment and debasing of their target. This consisted of a primitive version of 'Yo Mama'! They would tell stories about how their intended victims indulged in sex with children, incest and other no-nos. The purpose of this, as you have undoubtedly guessed, was to make their victims seem less like people with whom they shared characteristics but mere animals. And it was acceptable to kill and eat animals...
Now, obviously I'm not suggesting the non-Muslims of the UK are about to decend on the followers of Islam and eat them! However, it strikes me that the characterisation of Muslims as violent animals, hell bent on wiping out Western culture, who demand special rights of consideration that are not allowed to the 'indigienous' people etc... all these things may breed a culture in which violence against Muslims becomes seen as acceptable.
It strikes me as particularly ironic that this is happening at the same time as the holocaust denier David Irving has been jailed for three years for having lectured Austrians on his odious views back in 1989. I'm not getting into that debate here, but suffice it to say that, sometimes regretably, free speech cuts both ways and fuckwits like Irving get the right to air their views. In my opinion, jailing him suggests his views have more creedence than they deserve. What I find ironic is the subject of Irving's rants - the Jews and, by extension, the rising tide of anti-semitism in Germany in the 1920s and 30s that allowed the Nazis to sieze power in the first place. With the exception of Irving and a few marginalised, deluded fools on the far right, it would be difficult to find many who could deny the horror of happened in Europe just a few decades ago. Any cursory glance at the history books will show that anti-semitism in Germany did not begin with the gas ovens, but with a society that looked for a scapegoat for its ills.
I hope that I'm not sounding like some sort of deluded maniac predicting a new holocaust. I'm not suggesting for one second that it will come to that, but it does feel to me that we are rushing headlong into a scenario that with utterly repugnant consequences. What is needed is to re-engage before this point is reached. By simply understanding the concerns on both sides, we can all stop this slide before it goes any further.
Or we can continue to deal in stereotypes and the politics of fear, escalating violence and increasing extremism and hatred and see where that leads us...
"And who knows which is which and who is who?"
I've watched as the reaction to the cartoons grows increasingly hysterical on both sides. On the Muslim part, there appears to have been a calculated policy by some of the more radical Imams to kick up as much fuss as possible. By adding cartoons that weren't even a part of the original series, they apparently toured Muslim countries informing the citizens of the blasphemy of the West. Cue riots, flag burning and deaths. To a large degree, the Muslims have every right to be upset. Despite what has frequently been touted, it's not actually forbidden to show images of Mohammed at all. It is however, considered a step too far when the prophet is portrayed as a terrorist. Their right to feel offended doesn't, of course, excuse acts of violence any more than Christians have the right to send death threats to high ranking BBC officers who put on Jerry Springer the Opera.
All this has been gone into at great length.
My take on this part of the issue:
1) The Danish newspaper should have been more mindful of causing offence. That said, there probably was a naivity about how great the outcome might be. (Since originally posting this, I have read that the newspaper is well known for its anti-immigration stance, so perhaps I was being over generous here)
2) The other media outlets that subsequently published the cartoons were definitely aware that their actions were likely to lead to more protests and were also likely to inflame tensions between communities. Freedom of Speech, despite what seems to have been touted around the West, does not mean that you shouldn't use your brain and not be mindlessly offensive.
3) The cartoons should have been protested not because they were blasphemous but because (for the most part) they were rubbish.
4) Muslim leaders who inflamed this situation by manipulating the ordinary men and women are scary motherfuckers.
5) I don't believe for one moment that most ordinary Muslims have any desire to overthrow the government.
What worries me at least as much is the reaction of some sections of the non-Muslim population here.
I spend the majority of my online time on a number of 'core' websites. Many are band/music-related sites, others not. Most of them have some sort of community element to them - a forum, noticeboard or chat facility.
Since the whole furore about the cartoons kicked off, I have noticed a frightening lurch to the right on these online forums. I can only suspect that it is the same everywhere. I work in a place that would probably be considered by most to be incredibly PC, and it was never likely to be much in evidence here. My mates are also unlikely to be a party to any such lurch, and therefore I haven't experienced it in real life. Perhaps everything I'm about to write is just simply a huge over-reaction and there isn't any such problem at all. I can only hope so.
I'm not talking about the two-dimensional types here. There's one chap that frequents a question and answer site that I use who is so preposterously right-wing that it's hard to take him seriously. For a long time, this chap has expressed views such as 'Islam is inherantly evil' and 'Islam is a virus' and 'We should get our boys out of Iraq and then just nuke it. And get Iran whilst we're at it'. I was seriously entertaining the notion that this guy was some sort of parody, perhaps a comedian trying out a new persona. Sadly, I don't think that's the case; occasionally this gentleman displays signs of actual intelligence and sense. But anyway, he's not the issue. He's clearly an idiot and generally people treat his views with the contempt they deserve.
No, the issue is with the 'normal' people. People who generally express reasoned views that you might hear in any pub, or at a gig or whatever. Just, you know, people. People who are reasonably intelligent, reasonably well informed, have reasonably good jobs etc. People, indeed, like me. All of a sudden, a great number of these people are coming out with comments that you wouldn't have heard even in the wake of the July bombings.
All of a sudden crass, racist jokes about Muslims seem to have become acceptable. These are not jokes that have any great insight into the human condition, the Muslim condition or anything else. Their closest analogy is Bernard Manning saying to a black man in his audience, 'How did you get here? Swinging from the lamp posts?' - making some sort of black man/ monkey comparison. Really base stuff. From a technical perspective alone, most of the jokes are incredibly lame - where's the expectation and subversion? It's not like these jokes are attempting to make people think by challenging their prejudices, they are purely and simply based around being offensive.
But worse than 'jokes' is the fact that there seems to be a new consensus; 'Enoch Powell was right with his Rivers of Blood speech'. 'The Muslims are out to take over this country.' 'By 2050, the UK will be a Muslim country.' 'Islam is a religion of violence and here is the proof in the Koran.'
Along with this, there is frequently an invocation of the increasingly redundant word 'racist'. The problem with the word is twofold. Firstly, many people now see a claim of 'racism' as a catch-all used to deny them their right to express their views and by pre-empting that accusation with 'but some people will call me a racist for having those views' it becomes very much harder for any legitimate arguement that it *is* actually racist to succeed. Indeed, it requires an in-depth analysis of the statement made for any rebuttal to hold water. Few seem to be interested in entering into such debates (and indeed online forums are not always the best place to have such indepth conversations), claiming that it's getting bogged down in semantics. Secondly, since many of these people would argue - and doubtless legitimately - that they do not hold these views about any non-white person, that Islam is not limited to people of one skin colour and that therefore it cannot be considered racist. So, in my opinion, the 'racist' angle has become problematic to say the least.
My real concern is what all of this means going forward. If what I have seen is representative of society in gereral - and as I said, I hope it isn't (but fear it is) - what can we expect going forwards. I remember studying 'war' at university as part of my anthropology options. The first thing that occurs in any conflict prior to it decending into violence is denigration. Human beings are actually extremely bad at enacting violence upon people they consider to be equals. I recall (though regretably I don't remember the name of the tribe involved) a discussion of a tribe of Amazonian cannibals. They were not exclusively cannibalistic - the environment simply couldn't have supported such a thing - but they would periodically go off and massacre another tribe and consume their flesh. What fascinated me was the fact that before they could carry out these attacks, the tribe would spend several days working through a ritual of self-aggrandisment and debasing of their target. This consisted of a primitive version of 'Yo Mama'! They would tell stories about how their intended victims indulged in sex with children, incest and other no-nos. The purpose of this, as you have undoubtedly guessed, was to make their victims seem less like people with whom they shared characteristics but mere animals. And it was acceptable to kill and eat animals...
Now, obviously I'm not suggesting the non-Muslims of the UK are about to decend on the followers of Islam and eat them! However, it strikes me that the characterisation of Muslims as violent animals, hell bent on wiping out Western culture, who demand special rights of consideration that are not allowed to the 'indigienous' people etc... all these things may breed a culture in which violence against Muslims becomes seen as acceptable.
It strikes me as particularly ironic that this is happening at the same time as the holocaust denier David Irving has been jailed for three years for having lectured Austrians on his odious views back in 1989. I'm not getting into that debate here, but suffice it to say that, sometimes regretably, free speech cuts both ways and fuckwits like Irving get the right to air their views. In my opinion, jailing him suggests his views have more creedence than they deserve. What I find ironic is the subject of Irving's rants - the Jews and, by extension, the rising tide of anti-semitism in Germany in the 1920s and 30s that allowed the Nazis to sieze power in the first place. With the exception of Irving and a few marginalised, deluded fools on the far right, it would be difficult to find many who could deny the horror of happened in Europe just a few decades ago. Any cursory glance at the history books will show that anti-semitism in Germany did not begin with the gas ovens, but with a society that looked for a scapegoat for its ills.
I hope that I'm not sounding like some sort of deluded maniac predicting a new holocaust. I'm not suggesting for one second that it will come to that, but it does feel to me that we are rushing headlong into a scenario that with utterly repugnant consequences. What is needed is to re-engage before this point is reached. By simply understanding the concerns on both sides, we can all stop this slide before it goes any further.
Or we can continue to deal in stereotypes and the politics of fear, escalating violence and increasing extremism and hatred and see where that leads us...
"And who knows which is which and who is who?"
