Danish Newspaper And Mohammed Cartoon

I have no sympathy for that kind of bullshit. I can't stand the fucking anti-PC crowd that tries to hide racism and bigotry behind "freedom of speech". "Oh, we have freedom of speech to say what we want! That's what makes Western society great! Freedom of expression and exchange. And after all, sometimes the truth is ugly." OH FUCK YOU!!

These same "anti-PC" c*nts would scream for censorship if I drew a cartoon depicting Adolph Hitler baking Jews, or if I drew a cartoon depicting White Christian farmers screwing cousins and sheep, or if I drew a Black/Arab Jesus, or a cartoon of European tribes being sold to powerful ancient African nations as slaves. Imagine if I drew cartoons with a halo over Stalin's head and devil horns on Ronald Reagan. THEY'D BE THE FIRST FUCKERS TO CRY FOUL!! Yeah, they hate being "politically correct", but would be the first ones to get offended if a Malcolm X speech was aired on national TV.

"Anti-PC" is just an excuse for White people to be racist and bigoted in public without being criticized.


If you do shit just to piss of people, don't cry like a b*tch when they bite back. White people can be so f*cking arrogant.

Freedom of expression, freedom of speech, these are all concepts that should respected, but shouldn't go unchecked. Alot of expressions are just plane immature, stupid, and dumb.

It would be wise for another publisher to depict how childish and dumb this cartoon is. How could any artist put their stupidity on display nationally, and then hide behind freedom of speech/expression.

It's corny, stupid, and not even remotely funny. I mean it couldn't even be classified as "cheesy". It has one purpose. To incite violence. Which diminishes the whole "freedom of expression" thing into, "freedom to incite violence".

Is it supposed to be sattire, witty, or intelligent?

Should people 'lighten' up, and have a sense of humor? Or should people grow up, and have a sense of humanity, sensitivity, and maturity?

quote:

Originally posted by HeruStar:

Should people 'lighten' up, and have a sense of humor? Or should people grow up, and have a sense of humanity, sensitivity, and maturity?

Maybe not "have a sense of humor," but I would say that the violence is pretty outrageous. To me, if it's wrong to depict Muhammad as a violent terrorist, then it's even more wrong to carry out violence and terror in the name of defending Muhammad's honor. That's like you falling on somebody after they've made fun of you for being clumsy.

quote:

Originally posted by Empty Purnata:
These same "anti-PC" c*nts would scream for censorship if I drew a cartoon depicting Adolph Hitler baking Jews, or if I drew a cartoon depicting White Christian farmers screwing cousins and sheep, or if I drew a Black/Arab Jesus, or a cartoon of European tribes being sold to powerful ancient African nations as slaves. Imagine if I drew cartoons with a halo over Stalin's head and devil horns on Ronald Reagan. THEY'D BE THE FIRST FUCKERS TO CRY FOUL!! Yeah, they hate being "politically correct", but would be the first ones to get offended if a Malcolm X speech was aired on national TV.

I'm not anti-PC, but I am anti-censorship. If they're going to dish it out, then they have to be willing to take it as well. All the things that you listed are things that white people should be able to take without making a federal issue out of it. Especially considering how much of their shit everyone else is required to take in this form.

quote:

If you do shit just to piss of people, don't cry like a b*tch when they bite back.

I have to take offense at all the violence though. It was a cartoon, not a bomb. All they've done is prove the cartoon has a semblence of accuracy when they start blowing up buildings in retaliation to disrespect. There is a lot to be said for self-restraint and it says much about the character of a people. If African-Americans blew something up everytime we were disrespected, there would be nothing left of this country.

quote:

Originally posted by Empty Purnata:
I have no sympathy for that kind of bullshit. I can't stand the fucking anti-PC crowd that tries to hide racism and bigotry behind "freedom of speech". "Oh, we have freedom of speech to say what we want! That's what makes Western society great! Freedom of expression and exchange. And after all, sometimes the truth is ugly." OH FUCK YOU!!

These same "anti-PC" c*nts would scream for censorship if I drew a cartoon depicting Adolph Hitler baking Jews, or if I drew a cartoon depicting White Christian farmers screwing cousins and sheep, or if I drew a Black/Arab Jesus, or a cartoon of European tribes being sold to powerful ancient African nations as slaves. Imagine if I drew cartoons with a halo over Stalin's head and devil horns on Ronald Reagan. THEY'D BE THE FIRST FUCKERS TO CRY FOUL!! Yeah, they hate being "politically correct", but would be the first ones to get offended if a Malcolm X speech was aired on national TV.

"Anti-PC" is just an excuse for White people to be racist and bigoted in public without being criticized.


If you do shit just to piss of people, don't cry like a b*tch when they bite back. White people can be so f*cking arrogant.

Like Black Viking, I am not anti-PC, but I am anti-censorship. Whether or not I find the comic offensive, I think that a publication has the right to print it and I believe that individuals have the right to protest against it non-violently. I support their right to censure (express harsh criticism of the picture) but not to censor (control the press, speech, artistic expression). Free expression to my mind is integral to democratic society.

Personal anecdote:
I was a chaplain in NYC when Andre Serrano's work was displayed for the first time. For those who don't know, he is famous for "Piss Christ" where he has a photo of a crucifix in a glass of urine. He took pictures with other religious symbols using menstrual blood and semen. When the Catholic Campus Ministry tried to ban a showing of these on Columbia University's campus, our office refused to go along. Just a few years later, there was another incident in the city over an African artist, Chris Ofili, who used elephant manure on a portrait of the Virgin Mary.

How can an educated person let a handful of religous zealots or fanatics represent hundreds of millions of peaceful religous followers; and then have the nerve to depict that ignorance as if it is some form of elite sattire?

What if I painted a caricature of a white man standing near a black church with bombs in his hands, and placed a tatoo on his back that said 'White Protestant Male'? What if I painted a caricature that suggested that all whites in America are part of the KKK? Doesn't sound funny huh? Neither does this muslim cartoon.

quote:

Originally posted by kresge:

Like Black Viking, I am not anti-PC, but I am anti-censorship. Whether or not I find the comic offensive, I think that a publication has the right to print it and I believe that individuals have the right to protest against it non-violently.

This is one of the problems with Western Media and its Johnny come lately reporting and its refusal to state truth when it is widely known. Most men and women in America and some of you on this forum believe that these protest just started a few weeks ago, and started off violently. These cartoons as most articles have noted were first published in September, the protest against these cartoons began then. The protest were all peaceful, the Danish Muslim community wrote letters, Muslim leaders asked to meet with the Danish Prime Minister when he refused there was a grassroot boycott of Danish products, this happen from September through January. In response to these non-violent and peaceful protest the European newspaper communty responded by printing the cartoons over in several Newspaper, basically saying to the non-violent protestors "go to hell". This is when all hell broke loose, the peaceful means to getting a response was ignored thus the Muslim world turned to the only thing White folk seem to understand Violence.

Now that you know the truth what is your response, is it still the same, do you see the violence in the same light? peaceful protest were tried for nearly five months but white folk don't understand anything bt violence, so the response has turned to that.

quote:

Originally posted by Empty Purnata:
I have no sympathy for that kind of bullshit. I can't stand the fucking anti-PC crowd that tries to hide racism and bigotry behind "freedom of speech". "Oh, we have freedom of speech to say what we want! That's what makes Western society great! Freedom of expression and exchange. And after all, sometimes the truth is ugly."

This reminds of the Republican/corporate media response to Joseph Lowery's comments about Bush yesterday. They're not saying anything about "free speech" there. Instead he's accused of using Mrs. King's death for political purposes.

quote:

Originally posted by James Wesley Chester:
Rev. Lowry also pulled no punches in pointing out that CSK and MLK were both victimized by domestic spying by the government.---Vox

The Republicans are trying to make this event about 'bashing Bush'.

What bottom-feeders!!

This reaction is a part of that European-American mentality that says African American-Americans are being disruptive, and inappropriate when we 'tell' what European-Americans have done, or are doing, to us.

It is 'bashing', it is 'truculent', it is disorderly; it is wrong for us to 'tell'.

After all, no good can come of such anti-social behavior.

Ingrates.

It's only "free speech" when it expresses a pro-white/pro-USA/pro-corporate-power point of view.

quote:

Now that you know the truth what is your response, is it still the same, do you see the violence in the same light? peaceful protest were tried for nearly five months but white folk don't understand anything bt violence, so the response has turned to that.

And that's the rub as they say. Also, there is nothing comparable in terms of Christian symbols, as KRESGE suggested.

Considering what KRESGE said, what's to come of this:
I support their right to censure (express harsh criticism of the picture) but not to censor (control the press, speech, artistic expression). Free expression to my mind is integral to democratic society.

So, basically, people are allowed to completely, purposely and repeatedly desecrate and violate everything that's sacred to one group without reproach. Note: Symbols of Christ, no matter what the lay or particular Christians feel about them, just aren't as sacred. This is one of those things that don't translate from one language/culture to another.

Anytime you have FALSE or questionable images of Christ (i.e. White, GERMAN Jesus), not to mention images in the first place... then there is a lot less that is sacred about the Christ, Mary, etc. So, KRESGE, how you favored not sanctioning/censoring The SENSATION or whatever is really incompatible and doesn't make for a proper comparison. It just doesn't translate.

Again, what's suppose to come out of that process?

quote:

Originally posted by Faheem:

These cartoons as most articles have noted were first published in September, the protest against these cartoons began then. The protest were all peaceful, the Danish Muslim community wrote letters, Muslim leaders asked to meet with the Danish Prime Minister when he refused there was a grassroot boycott of Danish products, this happen from September through January. In response to these non-violent and peaceful protest the European newspaper communty responded by printing the cartoons over in several Newspaper, basically saying to the non-violent protestors "go to hell". This is when all hell broke loose, the peaceful means to getting a response was ignored thus the Muslim world turned to the only thing White folk seem to understand Violence.

Now that you know the truth what is your response, is it still the same, do you see the violence in the same light? peaceful protest were tried for nearly five months but white folk don't understand anything bt violence, so the response has turned to that.

Doesn't change anything for me. I'm not going to pretend to understand this mindset. And I think Kresge is right, that the newspapers aren't beyond reproach. But just because the European media was intransigent in their response to boycotts and protests, doesn't lead me to think violence is in any way a justifiable next resort for the aggrieved. And like I said, in this case it's even stupider IMO, in the face of the subject matter of the cartoon.

quote:

Originally posted by Faheem:
Now that you know the truth what is your response, is it still the same, do you see the violence in the same light? peaceful protest were tried for nearly five months but white folk don't understand anything bt violence, so the response has turned to that.

Yes, my response is the same. It is not OK for them to blow things up over a picture, just because they did not get the response that they wanted. It's good that the muslim community tried peaceful protest. That does not mean that anyone else has to bend over backwards just because they don't approve. No one commited violence on them. There violent response is unacceptable.

This is the kind of shit that starts wars over nothing.

quote:

Originally posted by Black Viking:

quote:

Originally posted by Faheem:
Now that you know the truth what is your response, is it still the same, do you see the violence in the same light? peaceful protest were tried for nearly five months but white folk don't understand anything bt violence, so the response has turned to that.

Yes, my reponse is the same. It is not OK for them to blow things up over a picture, just because they did not get the response that they wanted. It's good that the muslim community tried peaceful protest. That does not mean that anyone else has to bend over backwards just because they don't approve. No one commited violence on them. There violent response is unacceptable.

This is the kind of shit that starts wars over nothing.

And this kind of shit is unacceptable as well.

http://africanamerica.org/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/79160213/m/8001048173

Hypocrisy, double standards, and "freedom of speech" rhetoric.

quote:

Originally posted by Vox:
But just because the European media was intransigent in their response to boycotts and protests, doesn't lead me to think violence is in any way a justifiable next resort for the aggrieved.

Maybe thats your problem, you are looking for a justifiable reason, when all I have given you is the reason why the violence is happening. I rarely if ever waste time trying to justify anything, I simply give you the cause and reaction, you can take it or let it alone. Either way, what we see happening did not happen in a vacuum and it was not unprovoked.

I think it goes a little deeper than that, though, Faheem. When I said that I can't pretend to understand the mindset, I had in mind my miniscule, rudimentary understanding of the impact on Muslims from the Middle East on the fact that they largely come from a ethnic culture that derives a huge portion of its identity from religion. Islam isn't just a religion; it is probably the primary influence on their culture (even on those there who aren't Muslim). I suspect that this makes it much easier for violence to result from a caricature of their prophet.

I obviously will never understand the impact of over 1400 years of cultural influence on how strongly a group can feel about something like this. But to me, anytime you engage in acts that lead to death, there ought to be a "justification," more than just an explanation or a cause. Otherwise, why have a problem with what we're doing in Iraq? It's "caused," and "explained," but certainly not justified. If I didn't need a justification, I wouldn't care what Bush & Co are doing there, or are planning to do in Iran. And no, you don't need to justify it, and I don't. But if no one else can, then I can't be non-critical about it.

quote:

Originally posted by Nmaginate:
Anytime you have FALSE or questionable images of Christ (i.e. White, GERMAN Jesus), not to mention images in the first place... then there is a lot less that is sacred about the Christ, Mary, etc. So, KRESGE, how you favored not sanctioning/censoring The SENSATION or whatever is really incompatible and doesn't make for a proper comparison. It just doesn't translate.

Again, what's suppose to come out of that process?

I think that the ethnicity (or historical accuracy" of the image is irrelevant as to its sanctity or sacredness. They are entirely different things.

As to there being no comparable term in Christianity, again, I think that there are people who view the image of Christ in a comparable fashion. There is not the same restrictions on human images in Christianity as there is in Islam, but know Christians who where angry enough with the movie The Last Tempation of Christ to call in bomb threats to theaters.

And I still stand by my view wwith respect to freedom of expression, artistic freedom, etc. Do I think that the Danish press shows a lack of sensitivity? Yes? But this does not justify violence.

The cartoons were originally commisioned to test the boundaries of free speech in Denmark. An ethnically Danish author who was writing a pro-Muslim children's book on Islam, couldn't find anyone to illustrate it for fear of violence and persecution from the Muslims in Denmark. He questioned whether political correctness in regards to Muslims was hindering free speech in the country. The newspaper drawings were meant as a test--granted, a rather childish one. The smarter option would have been just sketch with no political implications, but even then it would still be offensive according to Islam: ALL images of Mohommed are offensive in that religion!

While the drawings were pretty incinderary, a more "PC" representation would probably have caused just as much of an [violent] outcry. Many Muslims themselves didn't help matters with threats of death and violence. They protest (in part) their religion being represented as one of violence and terror, so to combat this stereotype they engage in....violence and terror? Yeah, that's smart. I can understand why they were angry, but I'd have to side with the Danes and other Europeans of this one: Denmark is a sovereign nation with a long history of liberalism and free speech. Danish newspapers publish whatever they damn well please, even if it is rather silly and offensive. It seems that for many people who side with the Europeans the issue is that Muslims are trying to force their blasphemy laws onto a secular society.

As for the double standard, there is a report that the same Danish paper refused to publish images which Christians would find offensive, but western Europe (and America) as a whole aren't shy about mocking Christianity...or politicians, or religions figures, or anything else, for that matter. And it's interesting that no one seems to have noticed that Muslim newspapers were publishing the most awful propaganda against Jews and others long before the Jyllands-Posten decided to turn agent provacateur. Not that this justifies the assinine move taken by Jyllands-Posten, but if we're gonna play the "hypocrisy card" it should be played equally.

quote:

Do I think that the Danish press shows a lack of sensitivity? Yes? But this does not justify violence.

BUT you did not answer me question and "I stand by my view" that the Christ and Christian images are not comparably "sacred" in Christendom.

Symbols of Christ, no matter what the lay or particular Christians feel about them [read: Christians angry enough over 'The Last Tempation of Christ' to call in bomb threats], just aren't as sacred.

It just doesn't translate. It's not the same language or the same word. There's a deeper, different meaning because of the very different tradition in Islam.

quote:

I think that the ethnicity (or historical accuracy") of the image is irrelevant as to its sanctity or sacredness. They are entirely different things.

KRESGE, when and if people, Christians don't particularly take care to "accurately" depict Christ, as he was, with the available information there is about what Christ may have looked like then there is no way you can legitimately say that the image of Christ is comparably "sacred" to the regard Muslims have towards Muhammad.

For Christians to depict "In Their Own Image" and especially to perpetrate a White Jesus and the attendant Slavery Theology perpetrated on Africans/African-Americans hardly shows Sacred Regard or Stewardship over the image of Christ. Whether it's different or not, it's still strikes against the degree of "sacredness" of the image of Christ in Christianity.

quote:

Christians who where angry enough with the movie The Last Tempation of Christ to call in bomb threats to theaters.

And they were angry because of what??

All of that stuff aside... Please address my question:

So, basically, people are allowed to completely, purposely and repeatedly desecrate and violate everything that's sacred to one group without reproach... So what's suppose to come out of that process [of controversial publication and then stern censure]? There is NO RESOLUTION in that. Does Democracy = Problems/Conflicts WITHOUT Resolution?

Like the saying about Western Religion and it's compartmentalized worldview.... STRANGE DEMOCRACY!

quote:

Originally posted by Nmaginate:

So, basically, people are allowed to completely, purposely and repeatedly desecrate and violate everything that's sacred to one group without reproach... So what's suppose to come out of that process [of controversial publication and then stern censure]? There is NO RESOLUTION in that. Does Democracy = Problems/Conflicts WITHOUT Resolution?[/LIST]Like the saying about Western Religion and it's compartmentalized worldview.... STRANGE DEMOCRACY!

Yes, democracy means problems and conflicts without an ultimate resolution. This does mean that some situations might reach an amicable conclusion, but as soon as one problem is solved, many more would arise. I do not believe that democracy is a state of affairs. It is a process, dynamic, dialogical, agonistic, and messy. Does that answer your question?

quote:

I do not believe that democracy is a state of affairs. It is a process, dynamic, dialogical, agonistic, and messy. Does that answer your question?

Yes... But a PROCESS has to have an END. Whether you call it an Ultimate Resolution, whether an ultimate one is achieved... there is little that's virtuous about Democracy if it's merely a PROCESS that has little intent or commitment towards an End.

quote:

Originally posted by Nmaginate:

quote:

I do not believe that democracy is a state of affairs. It is a process, dynamic, dialogical, agonistic, and messy. Does that answer your question?

Yes... But a PROCESS has to have an END. Whether you call it an Ultimate Resolution, whether an ultimate one is achieved... there is little that's virtuous about Democracy if it's merely a PROCESS that has little intent or commitment towards an End.

I can not agree with your assertion that there must be an end. Why do you believe that to be the case? I do not think that there will ever be a end to struggle. Liberation, justice, freedom, are goals, but I do not think that we will every fully realize them. But I would assert that there is value in the struggle, ala Camus' The Myth of Sisyphus.

quote:

I do not think that there will ever be a end to struggle.

Ummm... I didn't say that. I was talking about DEMOCRACY. The process must have a intention and commitment towards resolution. Whether there will always be conflict and problems is irrelevant.

The point is what is the point to Democracy.
It has no virtue when and if it doesn't and won't even commit to resolution. What good is it then when it won't?

quote:

Liberation, justice, freedom, are goals, but I do not think that we will every fully realize them.

I said:
Whether you call it an Ultimate Resolution, whether an ultimate one is achieved...

AKA "may never be fully realized" but PROGRESS and a clear, focused and intentional PROCESS towards that Goal (aka that "END") is a conscious and firm commitment.

quote:

I would assert that there is value in the struggle

And I say that has little to do with the PROCESS of DEMOCRACY or an earnest answer to my question.

quote:

I do not believe that democracy is a state of affairs. It is a process, dynamic, dialogical, agonistic, and messy.

I've asked what is the purpose of all this Democracy "mess". What? Just to be messy?

You talk about struggle... The CRM was about achieving or progressing to resolution. Was there "value" in that struggle worth talking about without that resolution?

quote:

Originally posted by Empty Purnata:
This is the cartoon that is the center of controversy.......





http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/sfgate/detail?blogid=15&entry_id=2796

Freedom of Speech is one thing but DISRESPECT is another. I dont think the image deserves the riots and killings but I do think the images are insensitive and disrespectful.

Many americans do not understand why this is a big deal. Black americans should be more understanding. If the Danish Press publish a cartoon of a black slave hanging from a tree with black 'urban thugs' pointing guns at him, with a caption that read "Bush's Dream come true".... I think my first respose would be to riot. Understanding that violence inspires more violence, I would have to find another way to handle the issue. Maybe they will find another way, soon.

quote:

Originally posted by Omega4ul:
If the Danish Press publish a cartoon of a black slave hanging from a tree with black 'urban thugs' pointing guns at him, with a caption that read "Bush's Dream come true".... I think my first respose would be to riot. Understanding that violence inspires more violence, I would have to find another way to handle the issue.

I agree. But I don't think they understand that violence inspires more violence. Shocking really, considering current global events. There are far more constructive ways of dealing with disrespect. As I said in an earlier post, if African-Americans blew something up or burned something down everytime we were disrespected there would be nothing left of America by now.

quote:

Maybe they will find another way, soon.

I hope so... for their sake as well as ours.