Strong female writers are there. As in most places and times, they tend to come from educated families. You are unlikely to hear from them in our news media however.

I do understand your point. However, is the USA and its current regime, part of your “our” and “we”? (Personally I prefer not to include that lot in mine!) Does your “we” include “western” behaviour in “their” region over the last century … including right now? (That is, if, for the sake of argument, we ignore Javispink’s valid point that Muslims are not a race, but followers of a religion.)

“Them us” framing or “us them” framing … Neither represents the “big picture”. I believe we must (try to) learn to view things differently in this ever shrinking world.

I was brought up always to consider before acting: “How would I like it if someone did that to me”?

eredwen

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Don’t hold your breath.

eredwen: the point you’re missing about that them-us aspect, is that it isn’t our framing. Ed Koch in the RealClearPolitics blog notes:

“Today there are new ostriches in our land. They refuse to take terrorists at their word. The Times reported on February 4th the comments of a cleric at the Al-Omari mosque in Gaza, ‘We will not accept less than severing the heads of those responsible’. Regrettably, many Westerners don’t take Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, Osama bin Laden’s principal deputy, at his word when he said, ‘Killing the infidels is our religion, slaughtering them is our religion, until they convert to Islam or pay us tribute.’”
(URL for this is http://www.realclearpolitics.com/Commentary/com-2_15_06_EK.html)

And, no doubt to your chagrin, al-Zarqawi doesn’t dialogue too well.

So we’re left with the underlying issue: how to interact with a substantial chunk of humanity, who frames things in (to our Western minds) an absurdly reductionist dichotomy of us=believers, them=infidels, and then proceeds to act literally on that framing.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

I agree with all you wrote. Please accept my apology if you saw my comments as detracting from your excellent posts!

My main theme was comment on “human behaviour” and our (boring) repetition of “we”/ “they” thinking, with little thought given to who the current “they” really are.

eredwen

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

“there aren’t many females openly lined up on either “sideâ€?!”

Agreed, most females seem to be generally as confused as most males around the issues raised by this controversy. As one thoughtful female, Tapu Misa, sensibly wrote in yesterdays Herald: on the topic of whether newspapers ’should or ’should not’ have published the cartoons, “neither position seems indefensible…”.

“very good point … semantically. Muslims are not a race.”

I was attempting to make a point beyond mere semantics, one relevant to the perception of where the ’sides’ are in this debate. Some ‘ethnic’ Muslims living in the West have spoken out against pressuring newspapers to toe the line on religious sensitivity. Offended or not, they enjoy the freedom to offend and be offended. Likewise many ‘white’ people of a religious stripe have seized upon this controversy as an opportunity to demand more sensitivity to their own sacred cows.

The fact that this is being framed as a race issue leaves liberal Muslims high and dry. Arab newspaper editors who chose to publish the cartoons are being persecuted in their own countries and liberal confusion means their plight is going largely unprotested in the West.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

However, the (often identifiable) ethnic differences between the “two sides” are causing a lot of the fuss, and while I’m on the topic of “identifiable differences”, there aren’t many females openly lined up on either “side”!

One thing is for sure: Homo “sapiens” (the name we give ourselves) is right there in the fray (again!)

What’s new in the human zoo?

eredwen

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

“But I would make the case that the backlash we’re starting to see in Europe is in response to a militant refusal to assimilate by Muslim immigrants, or even worse, active hostility to their host nation’s culture, not any kind of racism on the Europeans’ part.”

I would agree with that, especially in the case of countries like Denmark.

Also, making comparisons between what happens in the USA (for example) and what happens in a country like Denmark overlooks an essential difference between the much larger muti ethnic, multicultural USA with its recent history of being a country of immigrants, from many parts of the world, encouraged to come there to fill up the empty spaces and provide labour etc, whereas Denmark is a very small stable country whose family groups of immigrants are more likely to be there for humanitarian reasons and not “for the good of Denmark and the Danes.”

eredwen

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

I certainly wouldn’t make the case that Mexicans are Christians and therefore better able to assimilate in America than the “more foreign” Muslims. But I would make the case that the backlash we’re starting to see in Europe is in response to a militant refusal to assimilate by Muslim immigrants, or even worse, active hostility to their host nation’s culture, not any kind of racism on the Europeans’ part. And I wouldn’t expect the Danes to give up freedom of speech for anybody’s sake, let alone for the sake of immigrants who dislike the culture they’ve immigrated into. There’s really only one useful action for people like that to take, and that’s to go home again.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

“On what basis could anyone suggest that Danish culture shouldn’t dominate in Denmark?�

On the basis that nativism is a kind of racism which is used to justify inequality, and that is inherently undemocratic.

The arguments being put forward by the Danish Minister of Cultural Affairs are the same arguments that have been raised time and again by nativists in the United States, with each large wave of new migrants. Samuel Huntington is their current spokesman. His dire predictions about the impact of Mexican immigrants on American culture have much in common with those of Danish nativists who see Muslims as a threat to Danish culture. Here is one writer who rejects that pessimistic view:

“Forgive my sarcasm, but I just can’t buy Huntington’s absurd argument that Hispanics are incapable of assimilation. In fact, I’m absolutely certain that Huntington will be proved wrong. Here’s how it will happen:

“A crisis somewhere will send a new flood of immigrants to America — Uzbeks or Zulus or Tajiks. At that point, some fully assimilated Hispanic politician or pundit or Harvard professor will denounce these newcomers, citing their ignorance, their barbaric customs, their willingness to work for peanuts and their congenital inability to assimilate.

At that moment, Prof. Huntington will find his Hispanic soul brother at last.�

And before you say “Oh, but Mexicans are Christian, and therefore less foreign than Muslimsâ€?, have a read of the rest of this article and note the strong antipathy to Catholicism in America’s past. As the tall blonde said, it won’t happen overnight, but it will happen! But if you try to force the matter, it will probably take longer and involve far more bloodshed (no, she didn’t say that bit! – but now I think about it, it’s not a bad analogy!)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A41786-2004Mar8?language=prin ter

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Despite reading/listening to the media (who have not done a good job on this topic) for me, the following is the key that fits:

” … “in particular, the cartoon where we see Mohammed’s head (with the most sacred scriptural phrase on his forehead) as a bomb, is viscerally offensive to the average practising Moslem … equates Islam with terrorism… insulting because it labels them, implicitly, as terrorists, but worse … it insults their faith by labelling Isam as a religion of war, which is counter to their conviction”

also bj, sam buchanan et al :

For me, reading the latter part of this thread has been a pleasant, informative, “collegiate” experience … frogblog at its best!

(It is interesting to have a quick run through this entire thread … quite a drama!)

Very well done everyone!

eredwen

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Many on the broad left seem to characterising this as a dominant, arrogant culture (eg. Danish nationalists) deliberately provoking a vulnerable minority culture (moderate Danish Muslims) which looks like a blatant attack on multiculturalism and a threat to peaceful coexistence. Our natural sympathy is with the ‘victim’. No doubt there is some truth in this analysis but it misses the point of why many otherwise staunch ‘multiculturalists’ are deeply uncomfortable with the constant exhortations to be ’sensitive’ to religious sensibilities.

The dialogue between cultures in a Western country takes place, and is *enabled* to take place by a meta-culture of post-enlightenment humanist values. Limiting the rights of newspapers to offend religious sensibilities can’t simply be cast as protecting one cultural group from the excesses of another when it risks weakening the ’scaffolding’ which allows cultural dialogue to happen in the first place.

Contrary to assumptions made in posts here, its not hard to find examples of Muslims who were *not* offended by the original cartoons, and there are also Muslims in the West who *were* offended but still argue against actions to suppress similar expressions. (Link:http://www.sundayherald.com/53994). These are people who recognise the value of the meta-culture, which allows them to be Muslims in a ‘non-Muslim’ country. They see occasional offence and ridicule as being a price worth paying for having an uncensored voice of their own.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

I’m certainly not defending Moslems for their irrational beliefs. Simply pointing out that you can’t dissuade someone from irrational beliefs by rational argument. And still less by belligerent argument. I learned that trying to reason with Christians.

And it’s not (only) the religious zealots we should be worrying about. It’s more the average Joe Moslem, whose level of religious faith tends to be that of a typical European of 50 or 100 years ago (or that of a healthy plurality of Americans today), i.e. inclined to take the scriptures literally etc… Doesn’t make them bad people.

And as for all this guff about islam being inherently bad because of the way they treat their wimmin… that isn’t actually islam, it’s the primitive tribals who were early adopters and propagated the faith… check it out, there’s no scripture that imposes the veil etc… But secular, humanist, enlightened islam worked well for centuries when christian Europe was steeped in bloody feudalism… Bin Laden and the wahhabis discredit Islam in the same measure that Cortez, the Inquisition etc discredits Christianity.

Choose your enemies with care.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

The problem is that reason will not sway them from their belief because by its very nature, belief itself provides a comfort level that is really hard for most people to abandon. When asked a question about why something happened, even if they are completely ignorant, they are able to answer without hesitation, that God wills it. Absolute certitude and no unanswered questions. Why? is the question that’s built in. We ask it all the time because it is our monkey trick for survival… to know why things happen and so be able to predict and change what will happen. It makes us uncomfortable, the unknown. It makes us realize that sooner or later we WILL die.

“Why ask why?” – It was a beer commercial once… but it is the basis for religions of every stripe… answering the “Why” that has no answers in science or logic. Go without doubt and you ARE a little stronger in some ways. Your “faith sustains you”.

So its really hard to change a religious zealot’s way of thought… I would reckon it impossible, but zealots and fanatics make up only a small minority of all the religious people in the world…

The rest can argue and reason and see the humor and the contradictions and not be threatened in their faith, but push them too far and they push back. They also gain something from the simple act of having faith, and they won’t let you take that from them. So going to the mat about “freedom of the press” with respect to religion is a fools errand if the free speech in question is an egregious insult. All it can do is make a lot of people angry and sell a lot of papers.

Note: Religion is one of the forbidden subjects in the wardroom of a US Naval vessel. You are not permitted to discuss religion in the officer’s mess… nor draw your sword (still part of a full dress uniform).

Discretion is sometimes the better part of valor.

respectfully
BJ

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Indeed, it’s a culture war we’re watching. As Greens, we should not be participating in it.

In fact, we’re falling collectively into a trap set for us by extremists. The current troubles obviously suit Moslem extremists wonderfully. They hope ordinary Moslems will jump to the conclusion that the West hates them, and when exciteable souls in the West jump on their bandwagon to proclaim we must stick to our guns, they reinforce that caricature.

It happens that, in particular, the cartoon where we see Mohammed’s head (with the most sacred scriptural phrase on his forehead) as a bomb, is viscerally offensive to the average practising Moslem.

Why is that? It’s because it equates Islam with terrorism. That is not only insulting because it labels them, implicitly, as terrorists, but worse (arguably), it insults their faith by labelling Isam as a religion of war, which is counter to their conviction (and the theologians are on their side, in their great majority).

The Moslems who will not be offended by that particular cartoon are that small minority who think terrorism is OK, and believe that Mohammed is on their side. Paradoxically it is they who are manipulating the anger, in an attempt (which we must hope will fail) to instill in the faithful, the sort of hatred against the West that can lead them to justify terrorism…

In particular, Waymad, I’m appalled that you seem to equate Wahhabism with the reactions of ordinary Moslems (if I interpret your rant correctly). This extremist sect happens to control Saudi Arabia, and is militantly evangelistic, and should be opposed, in my view; but to equate this with Islam is rather like judging Christianity by the likes of Ian Paisley and his American fundie counterparts.

And if you choose the West… warts and all… then what about the White Man’s Burden? Tolerance breeds tolerance. Let’s

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

It’s not for want of opportunity – I’ve travelled extensively in Islamic countries and slept in the house of my sunni relatives (now that I think about it, perhaps my aunt was trying to finish me off by over-feeding me – a cunning and diabolical plan indeed!).

Actually, most of the serious violence I’ve suffered came from people who were most likely Christians, and I’ve had guns pointed at me by Buddhists on a couple of occasions. I have experienced a lot of hospitality from muslims, and been assured on a couple of occasions that Christianity and Islam are the same thing and had debates with Islamic fundamentalists that were much more intelligent and good natured than the average frogblog thread.

(Warning: Rather impolite sarcasm follows)

I agree that the west has produced some magnificent values, and has spread them to all the countries they’ve conquered, too. I’m sure the people enslaved or slaughtered by western imperialism were most impressed by their oppressors’ high-mindedness. And as a Pakeha I’m sure that our educated and enlightened forbearers would never have considered reducing Maori to something like the status of dhimmi – a minority with lesser rights than the ruling majority.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

As a Values Party member all those years ago, I do recall dem days when Values mattered. And what are the values at stake here?

‘Islam’ means ’submission’ and views the world as two ‘houses’: Dar al-Islam – the abode of submission, and Dar al-Harb – the abode of war. And if you are not an accepted, practising Muslim, guess which house you’re in? Accepted means of course not Sufi, Shia, or any of the other ‘heretical’ Islamic sects. They aren’t inside the tent.

So it really *doesn’t* matter why some Muslims are angry at us: nothing we can do short of conversion to their beliefs, would be enough. Tough luck too if you have XX chromosomes. You get to join a patriarchy.

A little Kipling:

“When the Cambrian measures were forming,
They promised perpetual peace.
They swore, if we gave them our weapons,
that the wars of the tribes would cease.
But when we disarmed They sold us
and delivered us bound to our foe,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings
said: “Stick to the Devil you know.”

(from Gods of the Copybook Heading, 1919)

The devil we know is the scientific, rational, West. And as Toynbee said long ago, civilisations don’t die, they commit suicide.

I’m proud of the West and my heritage, and it sure beats the alternative on offer here. Not to stick up for Western values now is to contribute to their decline and eventual suicide.

That’s what this debate is really about: Values. West versus Dhimmitude. Their definition, too, not ours. We don’t get to frame this one.

I choose the West. Warts and all.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

I think it does matter why muslims are angry with ‘us’. To suggest that fundamentalists are just looking for an excuse to stir up trouble sort of misses the point that happy, secure people aren’t particularly responsive to being stirred up. People who feel oppressed and under attack are easily incited and I think a lot of muslims have genuine reasons for feeling this way.

I don’t think the government of Iran – or most of it anyway – sees the west, or the secular, democratic state as an inherent enemy. It seems to me that it’s the west that has a problem with Iran rather than vice versa. Iran has a stongly nationalistic and independent culture, and fiercely resists foreign domination. This makes it the enemy of certain western elites who believe countries should roll over and surrender themselves up to western corporate control.

I’d imagine if I suggested to Iranians that they should folllow NZ in giving up ownership of most of its economy to overseas corporations and change their laws to suit foreign interests, I’d be treated like a village idiot – and fair enough too.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

re:p**sing contest. –
You have to read back a few posts in this thread, pick up on eredwen and smokey and lightcircle, Worthwhile reading.

ciao
BJ

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

(but how..pray..?..y’know..your pissing-contest claim..?..)

phil(whoar.co.nz)

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)