Z-Lo

On maintaining a blog

2008-05-02T20:08:00.006+09:00

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.

Flemming Rose and Osama Bin Laden

2008-03-24T14:57:00.014+09:00

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.

My neighborhood: ghost town

2008-03-05T22:50:00.003+09:00

Dangerous word games

2008-03-05T11:09:00.013+09:00

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.

A global battle for free speech?

2008-02-20T14:58:00.013+09:00

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:

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.

The Danish cartoon crisis was never really over

2008-02-18T14:57:00.021+09:00

Danish papers reprinted the most inflammatory of the original 12 Muhammad cartoons last week and immigrant youths continue to riot in Copenhagen and other Danish cities.

The events surrounding the Danish cartoons of Muhammad, or the cartoon crisis, never really ended, did they? The frequency and intensity of the demonstrations subsided, but the ripples of that splash did not. A watchful eye on the news (and the blogosphere, even more so) could find something new directly or indirectly related to the cartoons almost every week if not every other day.

Since the cartoons, there has been a pronounced rightward swing in Western publishing, politics and mainstream thought as well as hypersensitivity from Muslim countries. There were the elections where the Danish People's Party used a Muhammad cartoon in its campaign posters along with other blatantly xenophobic and racist statements and imagery (right). There were trials that saw editors and protesters jailed. The timing of the Salman Rushdie's knighthood could be interpreted in two ways: 1. blindly naive, or 2. blatantly provocative.

The crisis was a turning point in relations between the West and the Islamic world, but it was also a prism through which one can consider that relationship. Although the line-of-thought that claims to be 'defending free speech' derives its legitimacy from events like Theo Van Goghs's murder and his movie, the cartoon crisis forced that debate into a wider mainstream consciousness and is its center. But is the frame of 'free speech' sufficient to consider the whole picture? What other elements might be at play in the republishing of the cartoons across Europe and in the reactions of the Islamic world? How might all this look to the average Muslim? These are questions that are all too often passed over when considering the cartoon crisis. Instead of inquiring, the overwhelmingly typical response has been simple indignation.

What triggered the reprint was the report on Tuesday of an alleged plot against the life of artist Kurt Westergaard (pictured). He drew the one of Muhammad with a lit bomb in his turban. The rioting that has continued into its 7th night, interestingly, began before any of this. It is easy to imagine, though, that these events fueled the anger of urban Muslim youths who clashed with police and burned things. Although the two events might not share a clear causal relationship, they obviously share a context.

Here, the paper responsible for the original cartoons, Jyllands-Posten, reports on the arrests and displays the offending cartoon. It also includes statements from the paper's editor in chief and from the cartoonist himself. Flemming Rose, the paper's cultural editor who commissioned the original cartoons (and who is presumably the author of this article), also blogs about it. The article presents the artist's stated intention: "What the cartoonist wanted to say with his cartoon was that many people exploit the prophet to legitimize terror." But the objectivity of the newspaper's presentation is deeply suspect and the cartoon and its implications demand critical analysis.

The smoke-filled room

2008-02-13T11:33:00.010+09:00

With slight trepidation that I'm crossing the line from composed blogging to ranting... just one thing on the superdelegates and their 'smoke-filled room':

The prospect of a bunch of party elites nominating Hillary behind closed doors is outrageous, infuriating. If it were to happen, I would abstain in November and encourage others to do the same. I would take to the streets with placards and a megaphone.

If John McCain has to think about uniting his party behind him, he should consider a contribution to Hillary Clinton's campaign. Her winning the nomination would certainly do the trick.

More than one person has expressed the resonating sentiment to me that they fear the massive let down if Obama were to fail to make the nomination. It would make us feel foolish to have given in to the optimism that a visionary could actually overcome the establishment Goliath. Sometimes it's as if we were being jerked around because our hopes just seem so high. But Obama is capable, his policies are solid, and any doubts about him should be well dispersed by now.

Obama's achievement

2008-02-07T12:35:00.003+09:00

Consider the significance of Obama's success. Hillary sat atop the hill that Obama has had to climb. She has been accumulating money and connections for how many years now? She's got the name and face recognition, the celebrity husband. The whole establishment and the strings of power at her fingertips. She must have expected to cruise to the throne.

But Obama came out of nowhere and on charisma and a transcendent political message gripped the world. The hurdles that he has cleared should show the country everything they need to know in this election. Even if they each got about the same number of delegates on Super Tuesday, Obama's achievement far outstrips Hillary's.

A triumph for Obama would be revolutionary. But to see the mighty Hillary fall would be equally as spectacular.

Here, on Japanese television, as the primary votes were being counted in California, they showed the same short clip of speeches from each of the candidates over and over. Clinton: "You're ready for a president who brings your voice, your values and your dreams to your White House." Obama: "There is one thing on this February night that we do not need the final results to know: our time has come. Our time has come, our movement is real, and change is coming..." The nuances of these are certainly lost in the Japanese subtitles as well as the ocean of difference separating the experience of Americans and Japanese. I wonder if it comes across to the Japanese viewer that Clinton sounds like a commercial for White House brand laundry detergent. I wonder if you have to be American to appreciate the timeliness and power of Obama's oratory. Of course the Japanese shouldn't be expected to get worked up about it in the same way.

The power of Nazi symbology

2008-02-06T15:11:00.000+09:00

My recent activity on Flemming Rose's blog (here) prompted this entry.

In my thesis (that I finally submitted last week - woohoo!), I noted that parties on both sides of the Danish Muhammad cartoon issue equated the other to the pre-WWII Nazi movement. Today still, they have not backed off. There are certain concepts or symbols that are very basic to society. Whether they are ideas, symbols, or words that refer to but have outgrown those ideas, they are fundamental to our discernment and identity. The Nazis or Hitler, for example, being universally condemned as representatives of the lowest of human potential, are one of the most powerful symbols in Western culture.

On the other end, so I argued, was an abstract and amorphous concept - or perhaps lack thereof - called 'freedom.' This word means a lot of things to a lot of people, but over all, it means what they want it to mean. It is representative of 'goodness,' personal worth and respect. For example, is the 'freedom' that crops up some couple dozen times in a speech by George W. Bush the same as the 'freedom' in Dutch PM Geert Wilders' "Party for Freedom" who wants to ban the Koran in The Netherlands? Mr. Wilders, by the way, routinely compares the Koran to Hitler's "Mein Kanpf," which, incidentally, is banned in the Netherlands.

Though these two do not form a perfect duality, they are useful tools of rhetoric. Tip: Use 'freedom' to talk about yourself and your beliefs, and find a way compare your opponent to Hitler. The qualitative nature of these concepts are basic premises with which no one can argue without discrediting themselves :)

On Evil and the name Z-Lo

2008-02-04T23:15:00.000+09:00

There is a possibility that Bosnian, Croatian, Czech, Polish, Serbian, Slovak and Slovenian readers may get the wrong impression of my blog based on the title. I discovered this amusing and perhaps unfortunate fact Googling myself to see how easily my new blog could be found. Among acronyms, also a lot of pages in other languages appeared that included the word zlo.

It seems that in the languages mentioned above, this word generally means evil! (See the Wictionary entry) Ha! Of course, it is different in that in those languages, there is no hyphen and in Polish there seems to be a tilde-like marking through the l. But it is still similar enough to come up in a Google search. As of now, I come up as #66 on the 7th page in a search for Z-Lo among 614,000 results. It also seems to be the name of 1 or more rock-bands as well as the abbreviation for the Manzanillo airport in Mexico.

So Bosnians, Croatians, Czechs, Mexicans, Poles, Serbians, Slovaks and Slovenians, don't misunderstand the nature of my blog! I am definitely a bigger fan of dobro. As I mentioned in my first blog entry, Z-Lo is an offhand reference to J-Lo, Jennifer Lopez's media pet-name. People that know me will get the connection.

I would enjoy hearing from speakers of these languages about this...

Memories of Japan: Enka

2008-02-03T02:18:00.000+09:00

After 2 years, I may be leaving Japan in a couple months. Although still uncertain, facing the possibility, I grow reminiscent.

Much of my time here has been characterized by solitude. Nothing encapsulates that particular solitude like the enka reverberating through the floor on this cold February night.

Enka is a form of Japanese music popular with an older crowd. It is shunned by young people like many shun country music in the US, but I am told that one suddenly likes it upon turning 30. In terms of melody, it retains a certain 'Asian' quality that often wouldn't sound strange being plucked on a koto. It is in contrast to J-Pop and other modern Japanese music which, wishes with all its money and half-English that it were American. J-Pop is completely devoid of the qualities that we in the West understand as originality and creativity but it is masterful in terms of emulation and technical skill.

Enka is terminally maudlin. Lyrics are necessarily about memories, lost love and inebriation. This type of music goes hand in hand with alcohol - literally: a mic would be in one hand and a glass of Korean liquor, shochu, in the other. You see, enka is made for karaoke. And in little bars run by a mama, mainly male over-fifties sing for each other late into the night. Every night.

This kind of bar is called a snack. There are no fewer than 3 of them on the first floor of my building. I live on the second floor. So the bass of these slow, moaning melodies drifts through my floor like the distant wailing of the damned. Sometimes there is also a pounding bass drum as I sleep on a thin futon in my modern wood flooring apartment. Did I mention that there is no concept of central heat in Japan? So it is cold as people party below me.

People's 'right' to offend

2008-01-29T15:15:00.000+09:00

My recent activity in the blogosphere

A blog today joined the mass of those supposedly 'defending' the 'right' to be offensive. This time though, the blogger was reasonable and seemed less rabid than the average. So I thought it might be worth a response. The article is called "On offense" and uses the danish cartoons as well as the case of Christian groups suing the Jerry Springer opera and Sudan's teddy bear as examples. Here is what I said:

You are right that religion is misused for political goals - that is not new. And you are right that there are interesting parallels between the various cases you mentioned. You drew them together on the basis that they were all about 'religious offense'. But I would argue that there are nuances to each case that make a discussion limited to this one theme problematic.

The danish Muhammad cartoons issue is a turning point and, I believe, one of the major events of our generation. The issues you mention and many others can only be properly understood with the cartoons as a backdrop.

Firstly, I must take issue with statements about the necessity for newspapers to publish them to show people. I found them online like that *(snapping fingers), and I'm sure you did too. And copious attention is given to "the legitimacy of the criticisms of Islam that were in the cartoons" and more.

But Muslims are not part of our society like Christians are, and this raises some issues in comparing them. We, firstly, have relatively scant understanding of their religion or society beyond vague impressions - many of which are unbalanced. Second, that they are not part of our society makes criticizing them a very different issue than criticizing Christians or Christianity, which are. Lastly, as a group, they are in a relatively precarious social position, which makes them far more sensitive to an attack that to us may seem trivial. This is obviously not true of Christians.

Thinking of Muslims as a society rather than just a religious group helps. Some more devout than others, but they share a common sense of identity. Sure, the cartoons were not offensive to us, and it is hard for us to imagine how they could be. But that is where the tolerance of the West failed: we failed to understand the nature of the offense. We don't have anything in the West to compare to the proscription of images in Islam, so people wrote it off as a 'taboo'. Further, what does the prophet mean to Muslims? Muhammad could be understood as a concept that is central to Islamic society and even the individual's identity. It may be hard to find a parallel in Western culture to help put this in perspective, but that is why cultures are different. The social implications of the cartoons, supported by the West as a whole was an affront to Muslim society, and this cannot be overlooked. The unity of newspapers, politicians and populations must have been terribly intimidating.

The dilemma and the resolution

2008-01-28T14:03:00.000+09:00

On Mark Steyn, Ezra Levant and David Irving

Blogs are still buzzing and bloggers are fuming about Mark Steyn and Ezra Levant who were both recently called before the Canadian Human Rights Commission for publishing things offensive to Muslims. Just like when David Irving was arrested and jailed in Austria for holocaust denial, the whole fiasco puts reasonable people in the uncomfortable position of defending unreasonable people. The Canadian case is, of course, less extreme.

There is nothing more counterproductive to their cause that these misguided people could do. It was often pointed out that David Irving was being made a martyr. Some are now calling Ezra Levant a hero. This production gives holocaust denial and Islamophobia a voice, free advertising. It suddenly puts these ridiculous causes on the side of 'free speech'!

With David Irving, many argued that it would be much more effective to ignore him and let him rot in disrepute and obscurity. That is exactly the solution for the current anti-immigrant, anti-Muslim movements. They need to be humiliated and ostracized from the mainstream, and this is one thing that law cannot accomplish.

So frustrated Muslims and well-meaning people on the Left: be more sparing with the law. Suing publishers in Canada, France, Denmark or anywhere else only works against you.

Many viewed the reaction to the Danish Muhammad cartoons also as trying to suppress free speech. This is a perverse misrepresentation that allowed xenophobia to steal the moral high-ground. But Muslims have a right to be offended and to protest. People must realize that their outrage expressed more than religious offense. The violence we saw was not representative of Muslims or the protests as a whole. It is unacceptable for this to be interpreted as an assault on free speech and reason to exercise it at the expense of minorities.

OBAMA, '08, Oh yeah!

2008-01-27T13:00:00.000+09:00

Go Obama, go! He did it in S. Carolina today and he's gonna do it all the way to Washington!

"If the globe can't vote next November, it can find itself in Obama. Troubled by the violent chasm between the West and the Islamic world? Obama seems to bridge it. Disturbed by the gulf between rich and poor that globalization spurs? Obama, the African-American, gets it: The south side of Chicago is the south side of the world." So writes Roger Cohen, who might not be qualified to singlehandedly choose the next president of the United States, but he is a good writer and smart. In his International Herald Tribune column, he talks about what an Obama presidency would mean to the world and the significance of its symbolism. And that is no small factor.

Hillary is sharp, extremely knowledgeable and on the right side of a lot of issues. But, she is a real politician's politician, and that is a big turn-off. She in some ways seems to have a thirst for power and to give her personal ambition the priority. Secondly, the movement against her, whether or not she is deserving of it, is significant. It means not only more divisiveness and ugly politics, it could be a real barrier to her actual productivity. The Republicans are much more ready for a fight with her.

If it is a matter of change versus experience, firstly, almost anything would be a good change from the present embarrassment to the country. Clinton would offer a change, of course. And Obama's experience is not lacking in an obviously fatal way. But the kind of almost revolutionary transformation that Obama would offer overshadows everything else when taking a broad perspective.

Roger Cohen quotes Obama saying, "the security of the American people is inextricably linked to the security of all people." I cannot overstate how refreshing and inspiring this kind of thinking is after the 8-year disaster we have endured.

We, the world, need Obama in the White House.

What is Linguistics?

2008-01-26T22:51:00.000+09:00

As all linguists know this is a very common question but one to which a simple answer is elusive. Linguistics was my undergraduate major, which doesn't quite qualify me to claim the prestigious title of 'linguist'. But below I attempt a simple introduction for those to whom it may be exotic...

The aim of linguistics is to describe the rules that apply to Language (that is, to all languages). The tedious rules of schoolbook English grammar and spelling are largely conventions that have been imposed on the language by dictionary-makers and Latin scholars centuries ago. They are often at odds with the natural systems of Language which linguists strive to understand. Hence, linguists are here to sympathize with and vindicate your frustrations – not to correct and harass you about what is ‘proper’.

The linguist’s descriptive approach is therefore in contrast with the study of the rules of style, or the prescriptive approach. Linguists rely on the way people actually speak for their data, rather than on the way they are taught they ‘should’ speak. Using these data, hypotheses are tested à la the scientific method to form a complete picture of how Language works. Just as physics uses abstract models to describe the properties governing the physical world, so does linguistics approach the description of Language.

Colorless green ideas sleep furiously.

In 1957, Noam Chomsky famously used this sentence to illustrate that syntax is a system that could be investigated independently of meaning (compare the sentence inverted: Furiously sleep ideas green colorless. Each is meaningless, but only the first remains syntactically acceptable). This approach divorced language from its context to examine its core systems (syntax, semantics, morphology, phonetics and phonology) as if in a sterile lab. This is the basis for generative linguistics, the dominant school of modern linguistics.

In addition to the approach outlined above that aims to explain how language is mentally processed and produced by describing it as a system, there is also a social scientist’s approach to linguistics. Both share the fundamental interest in language as it is naturally acquired rather than as it is learned in the classroom. The difference lies in their respective goals. Theoretical linguistics aims to map the systems of language in the human mind and sometimes intersects with biology and psychology. On the other hand, social scientists take a broader, generally interdisciplinary approach to understanding the role of language in context. One approach need not contradict the other since each investigates a very different field of inquiry.

What would Lisa Simpson say?

2008-01-25T20:00:00.000+09:00

I sometimes feel like I am staging a one-man defense of tolerance and pluralism. Maybe it is because I am just wrong, but I'm not convinced yet. One possible reason that there are so many who are belligerent toward Islam and seemingly so few that are offended by that trend is that the nature of the debate is much more conducive to alarmist ranting. The arguments are easy: free speech is good, violence is bad. Simplistic is maybe a better word. They are at least far easier than thinking about solutions. But I think they require an antidote because their conclusions are dangerous. And, because like the fear on which they are based, these ideas are accessible and contagious.

What would Lisa Simpson say? She often represents the rational, compassionate and educated liberal faced with the ignorance and madness of the masses (often represented by her family). But the liberal is becoming more nebulous. It seems that by claiming defense of free speech, xenophobia has infiltrated their ranks. People claim to be supporting human rights by opposing Islam because Islam suppresses them - the reality is far more complex. We need more on the left being articulate about it, and not just Muslims. Would Lisa have a penetrating insight, or would she just say something that sounds smart and bookish about free speech?

Multiculturalism is a bad word?

2008-01-25T17:21:00.000+09:00

On Flemming Rose's blog today I wrote:

I find it very interesting that people on one hand espouse tolerance and equality and on the other are very candid about their criticism of multiculturalism. I must admit that I don't understand. Does equality mean everyone being the same or sharing the same culture? Sure ethnocentrism and racism are not the same thing. The first is more innocent and naive sounding than the latter. But they are not unrelated.

Multiculturalism lately has come under attack and seems to be among the words whose meaning has been tweaked. 'Freedom' is another. It seems that those who oppose the concepts of multiculturalism and cultural-relativism want to change some of the basic premises of the dialog. Will many of the same concepts that were condemned under the label of prejudice be reopened and legitimized under a new name? One can imagine something like 'realism' doing that job, for instance.

No one wants to be called 'racist'. This might be the most offensive word in the English language. It seems to diverge from the content of its meaning, become an ad hominim attack, and is completely ineffectual. So how can we address the issues. The whole argument for multiculturalism seems to be easily dismissed by calling it 'politically correct'. One side screaming 'racist' and the other screaming 'PC' is futile and counterproductive. But these include important ideas that are the culmination of a long process of liberalization and that as a culture we have struggled for.

In an article for RealClearPolitics in 2006, Mr. Rose wrote: "I am a Dane because I look European, speak Danish, descend from centuries of other Scandinavians. But what about the dark, bearded new Danes who speak Arabic at home and poor Danish in the streets? We Europeans must make a profound cultural adjustment to understand that they, too, can be Danes."

This brings up very interesting and important points. Admittedly, it reveals another difference that is perhaps cultural: as an American, this is hard to digest. At least it requires a certain sense of cultural-relativism to realize that Denmark is not as diverse as the United States. Otherwise, one is tempted to call it blatant racism or xenophobia. But on the other hand, of course we cannot be blind to differences among us.

Ultimately, we all face a more diverse future. It seems pointless to resist. There may be resistance on both sides, but we can only act within the limitations of our own circumstance. Criticizing another group that one only understands as an outsider is problematic and risks having little effect beyond offense. One argues the merits of his own culture in the terms of his own culture and so does the other guy. Multiculturalism and cultural-relativity as concepts are cerebral tools to help us deal with this future. But I don't find the prospect of a diverse society particularly scary or unpleasant.

We and all our economic prosperity are complex products of history. Some time in the ineluctable future people will be discussing not what caused the rise of the West and what makes it so great, but what caused its demise.

My debate with Flemming Rose

2008-01-22T14:43:00.000+09:00

Here is the link to my first experience of online debate. Actually it is the first time I had the courage to post something in public cyberspace. It is on the blog of Flemming Rose, the danish editor who became famous for printing the infamous Muhammad cartoons. Actually, Mr. Rose only responded once to my comment - the rest are mostly readers who had a bone to pick with what I wrote - so it is not actually a debate with him. Unfortunately, my passion got the best of me and I had begun the comments in a way that set a confrontational tone. Nonetheless, amid some name-calling, I think overall it is worth looking at if you are interested in the issues surrounding the Danish cartoon controversy.

(As an aside, I will write about other things as well, so stay tuned...)

The real reason I started a blog

2008-01-20T14:02:00.000+09:00

I really created this blog partly as an answer to what I see as an unbalanced representation of viewpoints on the web/in the world. There may be an unbalanced number of proponents of those viewpoints, but I at least want to make it known in cyberspace that others exist. Getting to the point... the Danish Muhammad cartoons are more than a passing interest of mine - actually, it is the topic of my master's thesis.

As I am neither Muslim nor European, I don't have a vested personal interest in the matter. So why am I writing about it? Simply because it is too interesting not to. But I also feel that I have something to say about it that 1] is not being said and 2] that needs to be said.

I first learned of the cartoons in 2006, the way most other people did. I was at first shocked and baffled to read that embassies were being burned in protest to cartoons. I was further shocked to observe my own reaction that, These Muslims are fucking crazy! Their point of view seemed completely unreasonable. Further, like many people, I thought that Flemming Rose, editor of the Jyllands Posten newspaper that first published the cartoons in Denmark, was quite reasonable and cogent in saying that, “if a believer demands that I, as a nonbeliever, observe his taboos in the public domain, he is not asking for my respect, but for my submission.”

But I was further shocked by the response of the European papers that reprinted the cartoons and the politicians that defended them. I did not yet understand what was so offensive about the cartoons, but whatever that was, surely this was not the best response. The Muslim point of view was elusive, but the unity and scale of the response told me that there was something to it.

I was disappointed that there was not more of an attempt to understand the Muslim side. People in the West seemed to view it as evidence either of violent irrationality or an assault on the very essence of Western society. Naturally, perhaps, they understood the behavior of the Muslim community in their own terms. But the Muslim world was not acting within the frame of Western thought, so such an interpretation will of course be problematic.

Those who rallied around 'free speech' were attempting to address real problems. Of course simply capitulating to a terrorist threat grants it power. But the predicament of the many Muslims caught between the extremist element and a hostile West must also be considered. The scope and unity of the West in claiming its "right to offend" must have been very intimidating.

The xenophobia and intolerance that seem to have come out of this episode is disturbing. For writing my thesis, I get 'Google alerts' in my email that inform me of any news or blog activity relating to "danish Muhammad cartoons". About 98% of blogs in my inbox are somewhere between mildly and openly hostile towards Islam. There is a whole Infidel Bloggers Alliance which, as its name suggests, is caustically anti-Islam. I seem to be facing an army of angry bloggers, but they represent well the element to which I wish to respond.

So this is the basic point of view I want to bring to the table through my blog. This is only the beginning, really. Muslims sometimes express some of these views. But they are often inarticulate or are ignored simply because they are saying what they are expected to say as Muslims. People in the West who are accused of being 'PC' have not been nearly articulate enough either. They are allowing words like 'freedom' to be hijacked, and losing the battle for the true spirit of democracy.

I want it to be known that there are other opinions out there. Let me know what you think :)

Canadians on the Danish Muhammad cartoons (continued from yesterday)

2008-01-19T16:01:00.000+09:00

Here are some responses to the thread I was participating in yesterday. I always seem able to get a rise out of some people :)

When I see that someone has been reprinting those cartoons, I fear for their safety. So far, there hasn't been any violence that I know of toward any such person in North America. On the other hand, it's becoming clear what even very minor accidental slights (the Mohammed teddy bear) can lead to outside the US. It's just prudent to realize that what happens routinely outside the US (spasms of violence directed towards those who express insufficient reverence towards Islam) could also happen here, given the right population mix.
and
Yes, it says your friend is a histrionic fool. Really, what about any of those cartoons put his wife or children in danger? What about them exposed muslims to violent hatred? Maybe the bomb turban one (the most offensive in my view), but is there any reason to think that a bearded guy with a donkey in the sun is going to inspire some bigot to go on a killing spree?
and my response:
In a society that is overwhelmingly hostile to a minority, it is natural for a member of that minority to feel fear. The xenophobia and nationalistism that are all too common now and expressed above by failing to distinguish between Muslims and homicidal extremists and general fear of Islam is a perfect example of that hostility.
Denunciation of extremist violence is a given; it does not belong in the same sphere of debate as criticism of free speech and censorship.
I don't believe that it is the place of government to limit speech of any kind. The anti-Islam and anti-Muslim movements must be exposed as the bigotry that they are – and this must be accomplished through public consciousness. The proponents of these views do not deserve to be prosecuted for holding them – they deserve to be humiliated, intellectually tarred and feathered. We have accomplished this as a society in regard to other groups. It is time to apply those lessons and stop allowing it to be a debate that is acceptable in the mainstream.

Canadians on the Danish Muhammad Cartoons issue

2008-01-18T17:27:00.000+09:00

Here is an example of a forum that I posted to today. It is about one of the issues in which I am most interested and involved: the 2006 crisis and controversy about Danish Muhammad cartoons. Specifically, this is about a Canadian editor who published the cartoons and has been called to testify about it in front of the Canadian Human Rights Commission. He then gave an indignant opening comment about his 'freedom' and questioning the commission's legitimacy. He has been called hero by some bloggers. The whole thing has caused a flurry of blogging. My comment is near the bottom at the moment, but here is what I wrote:

This is one of the best forums I've seen about this issue (the cartoons issue, that is)! About 99% of what you see online is people raging about 'Eurabia', Sharia, 'freedom' and all kinds of other bigoted xenophobic nonsense. About 99% of the remaining 1% seems to be written by Muslims. I am glad to see some varying viewpoints from the West. Well done Canadians! :)

1. Media has real power. What is printed reflects, represents and influences public opinion in no small way. The reprinting of the the cartoons itself was the issue at hand. The media itself was a central actor in events, so printing the cartoons was not simply about reporting the news. I could care less about people's actual beliefs, but it is a different thing for me to say that people who believe something are idiots and for a mainstream newspaper - many mainstream newspapers, not to mention politicians and seemingly society as a whole - to attack an already marginalized group.

2. Muslims are a group. The nature of the cartoons was a religious reference, but, as a group, Muslims felt assaulted. And they had good reason to. Muslims may not be a minority in terms of global numbers, but in Europe, they most certainly are. In the world as well, they are overwhelmingly poor and, at least in the way that many see themselves, living in the shadow of Western dominance.

A professor of Islamic studies who I saw speak on this topic said that when he saw the cartoons, his first reaction was fear for the safety of his Muslim wife and children. I think that says a lot.

Day One

2008-01-18T16:55:00.001+09:00

Call me Z-Lo. Today I have created a blog. This action was sparked by my occasional desire to respond to things in the world and in my life that may not have a specific outlet elsewhere. Often I am compelled to respond on internet forums regarding issues I follow. There, I have used the handle, Z-Lo. Kind of like how people call Jennifer Lopez "J-Lo". I am far from a technophile, but this step marks a new stage in my gradual acceptance of this newfangled "information-age"...