Due to changes in my personal situation, I have neglected my blog.
It's not that there has been nothing to write about. The movie "Fitna" by Geert Wilders - who thinks the Koran should be banned in the Netherlands and compares Islam to Nazi fascism - came out. There were protests from Muslims and Danish editor Flemming Rose unnecessarily defended the film. Then there is the US presidential race in which Obama lost a major contest in my native Pennsylvania. I have been talking with both Chinese and Tibetans as they have faced a major crisis in their shared history - events that are more complex than they are often portrayed in the West. These are all blog-worthy subjects.
But the circumstances that had kept my blog going until about the end of March have been disturbed. I moved from Japan to New York into a less stable situation. More of my time must be dedicated to securing a steady income and there is less mental room for crafting my thoughts in blog form.
Should a blog try to remain focused? Is it worth writing about all my day to day worries and about what I had for breakfast? I had been trying to keep it on a certain level. I started my blog to address a certain issue, specifically because I felt that the blogosphere was unbalanced in its treatment of it (I am talking about the Danish Muhammad cartoon thing, which was my MA thesis topic). I branched out into other topics such as the US elections, but generally kept it political. Some have suggested that I include more about culture and language - topics that sound a little wishy-washy to me, but that I must admit I like.
Friday, May 2, 2008
Monday, March 24, 2008
Flemming Rose and Osama Bin Laden
It seems strange to argue that people should not be killed for speaking their minds. It is strange because this is an established point that does not need to be argued. But some are making this argument in response to terrorist threats.
The argument is not with terrorists themselves, though, because terrorists are presumably beyond the reach of ideological debate. So what is its purpose? And, perhaps more importantly, what are its consequences?
These are questions that a critically thinking public should have asked when European newspapers rallied around 'free speech' and began republishing caricatures of the prophet Muhammad in 2006, incensing the Muslim world. But instead, a misguided debate about 'free speech' and 'religious sensitivity' emerged and continues today.
A key element of this argument is presenting 'freedom' or 'free speech' as in danger. These values, being perhaps the most central to Western society and even an individual's identity, elicit strong emotions in Westerners. They may be similar to the emotions that Muslims experience when the central symbol of Islamic society and identity was attacked by Western media and society at large. This comparison may help Westerners to consider the reactions of Muslims more objectively.
In both cases, it became difficult to think things through rationally. A threat to such basic elements of identity elicits fear. This should be recognized as dangerous. In the volatile circumstances that breed terrorism, war and social tension, it is precisely at junctures such as those faced in 2006 as well as today that we must be most careful.
Recently, Flemming Rose, the Danish editor who is behind the publications of caricatures of Muhammad that caused an uproar in 2006, responded to a tape recording of Osama Bin Laden, the man who is supposedly behind the 9/11 attacks and whose name is synonymous with "terrorism." They are voices engaging one another on fiercely antagonistic ideological grounds in a time when their words have real consequence.
There is one point that they appear to agree on. Each seems convinced that the best way to address the tension between Islam and the West is through head-on confrontation.
Mr. Rose presents himself as if he is speaking for the West and challenging the ideology of "terrorism" or "radical Islam" or something. But I wish he would stop.
The argument is not with terrorists themselves, though, because terrorists are presumably beyond the reach of ideological debate. So what is its purpose? And, perhaps more importantly, what are its consequences?
These are questions that a critically thinking public should have asked when European newspapers rallied around 'free speech' and began republishing caricatures of the prophet Muhammad in 2006, incensing the Muslim world. But instead, a misguided debate about 'free speech' and 'religious sensitivity' emerged and continues today.
A key element of this argument is presenting 'freedom' or 'free speech' as in danger. These values, being perhaps the most central to Western society and even an individual's identity, elicit strong emotions in Westerners. They may be similar to the emotions that Muslims experience when the central symbol of Islamic society and identity was attacked by Western media and society at large. This comparison may help Westerners to consider the reactions of Muslims more objectively.
In both cases, it became difficult to think things through rationally. A threat to such basic elements of identity elicits fear. This should be recognized as dangerous. In the volatile circumstances that breed terrorism, war and social tension, it is precisely at junctures such as those faced in 2006 as well as today that we must be most careful.
Recently, Flemming Rose, the Danish editor who is behind the publications of caricatures of Muhammad that caused an uproar in 2006, responded to a tape recording of Osama Bin Laden, the man who is supposedly behind the 9/11 attacks and whose name is synonymous with "terrorism." They are voices engaging one another on fiercely antagonistic ideological grounds in a time when their words have real consequence.
There is one point that they appear to agree on. Each seems convinced that the best way to address the tension between Islam and the West is through head-on confrontation.
Mr. Rose presents himself as if he is speaking for the West and challenging the ideology of "terrorism" or "radical Islam" or something. But I wish he would stop.
Wednesday, March 5, 2008
Dangerous word games
Flemming Rose is the Danish editor who commissioned the Muhammad cartoons that caused an international crisis in 2006
Flemming Rose has problems with certain words. Recently it was Islamophobia. In the past it was multiculturalism and cultural-relativity. He questions the validity of these terms and the concepts that underpin them.
He also has a penchant for certain words. He uses words like politically-correct and victimology with all the legitimacy he can muster.
The above terms that he decries are those used by his ideological opponents. The terms he uses, describe them. So far, he has left tolerance and diversity alone. And although he has avoided a term for his own position, I can think of a few.
What is interesting is that he and people who sympathize with his viewpoint have begun to use words like multiculturalism and cultural-relativity pejoratively. This, to me anyway, is mind-boggling. Where I am from, to openly criticize and oppose diversity falls into the realm of racism and is not tolerated by wider society. (An example is a recent article entitled, "Multiculturalism Kills; Cartoons Don't."*)
But I am not from Denmark. The average Dane seems to me to be something of a victim. Many seem baffled that their quiet benevolent country could be demonized and subject to boycotts, threats, and riots. They have been put on the defensive.
Unfortunately, it seems that many have positioned themselves in opposition to "Islam." Here, the quotes are intended to denote that, as an object of fear, Islam has become an abstract concept that often encompasses Muslims. Anyway, it is much more than "a set of ideas" as Mr. Rose claims. Of course, this fear and prejudice is widespread throughout the West.
Check my comment about Islamophobia on Flemming Rose's blog.
Flemming Rose has problems with certain words. Recently it was Islamophobia. In the past it was multiculturalism and cultural-relativity. He questions the validity of these terms and the concepts that underpin them.
He also has a penchant for certain words. He uses words like politically-correct and victimology with all the legitimacy he can muster.
The above terms that he decries are those used by his ideological opponents. The terms he uses, describe them. So far, he has left tolerance and diversity alone. And although he has avoided a term for his own position, I can think of a few.
What is interesting is that he and people who sympathize with his viewpoint have begun to use words like multiculturalism and cultural-relativity pejoratively. This, to me anyway, is mind-boggling. Where I am from, to openly criticize and oppose diversity falls into the realm of racism and is not tolerated by wider society. (An example is a recent article entitled, "Multiculturalism Kills; Cartoons Don't."*)
But I am not from Denmark. The average Dane seems to me to be something of a victim. Many seem baffled that their quiet benevolent country could be demonized and subject to boycotts, threats, and riots. They have been put on the defensive.
Unfortunately, it seems that many have positioned themselves in opposition to "Islam." Here, the quotes are intended to denote that, as an object of fear, Islam has become an abstract concept that often encompasses Muslims. Anyway, it is much more than "a set of ideas" as Mr. Rose claims. Of course, this fear and prejudice is widespread throughout the West.
Check my comment about Islamophobia on Flemming Rose's blog.
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
A global battle for free speech?
My continuing debate with Flemming Rose
I responded to an article that Mr. Rose wrote for the Wall Street Journal and republished on his blog. It is about the alleged plot uncovered by Danish authorities to kill the cartoonist Kurt Westergaard. In my response below, I refer specifically to the following passage:
"Every one of the above cases speaks to the same problem: a global battle for the right to free speech." You are asking the reader to make a leap of logic here that I am not ready to make. That is the leap from the examples you give to your conclusion. Unfortunately, many people were primed with anxiety and suspicion about Islam and have followed your leap into a xenophobic abyss.
Of course those incidents are in no way acceptable, but oversimplifying them into a "battle for the right to free speech" is just irresponsible - it is going too far. "Criticizing Islam" is not an academic exercise in a political vacuum. Essentially, you put the conflict between extremists and the West ahead of the relationship between Muslims and the West. To me, at least, it is clear that the latter is a bigger, more urgent issue. And it is the key to the former.
What is acceptable artistic subject matter is based on societal standards. Basically, you do not sympathize with the people who object to such 'criticism' (whether or not I do is not the point at hand). Other material that by your definition would be "censored" includes subjects that have been rejected by greater society. You and I likely agree that it would be distasteful and inappropriate to display 'art' portraying Jews or Blacks in a disrespectful light. That public consensus did not come about easily or overnight; each case is a result of a complex history and political context. David Irving claims to examine history critically, but he cannot escape the politics of his subject. Though his choice of subject matter and aim of his criticism is likely no accident - neither is the case here of "criticizing religion."
Personally, I am fine with people saying all kinds of irresponsible things. All that bothers me is when they gain power and become mainstream. That is dangerous and that is what the legal aspect of the cartoon issue is about - just like that of holocaust denial.
Simplifying the matter into one of free speech is like simplifying all those who were offended as extremists. As in the cartoon debacle, they are offended for religious reasons, but they are also intimidated as they see the governments, media, and citizens of the West rally against them. And then they are asked to choose a side. Should they side with a West that alienates and publicly humiliates them? Or should they side with fellow Muslims who defy the West and defend their dignity? Even if their methods are extreme, the methods of the West are also extreme, many argue (I don't think I have to list examples). This is the choice with which YOU present them. Then you call them things like "silent moderates," implying that the nature of Islam is not moderate at all.
Free speech itself is not really at risk here. So such a lofty cause comes off as little more than a thinly veiled attack on Muslims. In the end, it undermines the validity of Western ideals.
I responded to an article that Mr. Rose wrote for the Wall Street Journal and republished on his blog. It is about the alleged plot uncovered by Danish authorities to kill the cartoonist Kurt Westergaard. In my response below, I refer specifically to the following passage:
Consider the following recent events: In Oslo a gallery has censored three small watercolor paintings, showing the head of the prophet Muhammad on a dog’s body, by the Swedish artist Lars Vilks, who has been under police protection since the fall of 2007. In Holland the municipal museum in The Hague recently refused to show photos by the Iranian-born artist Sooreh Hera of gay men wearing the masks of the prophet Muhammad and his son Ali; Ms. Hera has received several death threats and is in hiding. In Belarus an editor has been sentenced to three years in a forced labor camp after republishing some of Jyllands-Posten’s Muhammad cartoons. In Egypt bloggers are in jail after having “insulted Islam.” In Afghanistan the 23-year-old Sayed Perwiz Kambakhsh has been sentenced to death because he distributed “blasphemous” material about the mistreatment of women in Islam. And in India the Bengal writer Taslima Nasreen is in a safe house after having been threatened by people who don’t like her books.
Every one of the above cases speaks to the same problem: a global battle for the right to free speech.
"Every one of the above cases speaks to the same problem: a global battle for the right to free speech." You are asking the reader to make a leap of logic here that I am not ready to make. That is the leap from the examples you give to your conclusion. Unfortunately, many people were primed with anxiety and suspicion about Islam and have followed your leap into a xenophobic abyss.
Of course those incidents are in no way acceptable, but oversimplifying them into a "battle for the right to free speech" is just irresponsible - it is going too far. "Criticizing Islam" is not an academic exercise in a political vacuum. Essentially, you put the conflict between extremists and the West ahead of the relationship between Muslims and the West. To me, at least, it is clear that the latter is a bigger, more urgent issue. And it is the key to the former.
What is acceptable artistic subject matter is based on societal standards. Basically, you do not sympathize with the people who object to such 'criticism' (whether or not I do is not the point at hand). Other material that by your definition would be "censored" includes subjects that have been rejected by greater society. You and I likely agree that it would be distasteful and inappropriate to display 'art' portraying Jews or Blacks in a disrespectful light. That public consensus did not come about easily or overnight; each case is a result of a complex history and political context. David Irving claims to examine history critically, but he cannot escape the politics of his subject. Though his choice of subject matter and aim of his criticism is likely no accident - neither is the case here of "criticizing religion."
Personally, I am fine with people saying all kinds of irresponsible things. All that bothers me is when they gain power and become mainstream. That is dangerous and that is what the legal aspect of the cartoon issue is about - just like that of holocaust denial.
Simplifying the matter into one of free speech is like simplifying all those who were offended as extremists. As in the cartoon debacle, they are offended for religious reasons, but they are also intimidated as they see the governments, media, and citizens of the West rally against them. And then they are asked to choose a side. Should they side with a West that alienates and publicly humiliates them? Or should they side with fellow Muslims who defy the West and defend their dignity? Even if their methods are extreme, the methods of the West are also extreme, many argue (I don't think I have to list examples). This is the choice with which YOU present them. Then you call them things like "silent moderates," implying that the nature of Islam is not moderate at all.
Free speech itself is not really at risk here. So such a lofty cause comes off as little more than a thinly veiled attack on Muslims. In the end, it undermines the validity of Western ideals.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
