a bizarre yet tragic headline that's become quite common in the last few weeks. I meant to write something about it when it first started to break out, but didn't have the time.
First, back to the original publishing of the cartoons. Personally I think that the newspapers had a right to publish, but perhaps a responsibility not to. The simple fact that something may offend can never be grounds for censorship - after all, it is fundamental to a free society that there is robust criticism and comment, and that's always bound to offend someone. That said, just because we can say anything, doesn't mean we should always say everything. Newspapers and journalists have an influence in society (those unelected legislators of mankind!?), and hence have responsibities. Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words might get other people's broken. If something is going to offend, and especially offend a significant section of society - then it has to be justified. In addition, the justification has to be stronger if there already is a sensitive climate about the matter, or to do with the section which might take offence. Satire about car dealers can be done with less introspection than satire on race or creed.
That said - were the cartoons justified? Some of them I think were just downright offensive - for example the one with Mohammed with a time-bomb turban. There is no witty insight here - since there is no logical basis to associate the founder of islam with what some of his misguided followers do. And even if Islam was initially a religion of conquest - so was Christianity at this time. Violence and 'terrorism' is not just a religious issue either - there have been many bombs dropped and planted 'legitimately' and not so legitimately in the name of secular causes.
The one with the line of suicide bombers turning up at paradise to be greeted with a 'stop,stop, we've run out of virgins'did at first make me laugh. But then again, I have to admit I've laughed at many a joke that I wouldn't want published. On the one hand it does make a satirical point - from some standpoints all religions are illogical, and especially in my view the ones that promise a world somehow different to this one, but yet with 'desirable' things from it. However, the problem I think with this joke is it appeals to a surface level of understanding of suicide bombers - that they just do it because they want the big pay off in paradise. I strongly believe however that religious conviction works slightly differently (it would be easier to overcome otherwise!) and more importantly, economic and social factors play a major role. I think religious ideals don't merely provide an incentive, but more often provide an outlet for built up frustration. This is something missed by the cartoon, and why it does pander to stereotypical conceptions about suicide bombings - and why in my view it is not respectable comment.
So respectable newspapers shouldn't have published them as such, at least before the controversy broke out. However when it did, I personally felt I had the right to know what all the fuss was about, and think it was right of papers to publish them afterwards, though maybe they could have somehow covered up mohammed, and referred to him indirectly - but would this have helped?
What is the real point of the story is however the reaction to it. The scary thing is it seems to have been portrayed in parts of the Islamic world as unfairly as they sometimes perceive themselves as being portrayed in the west. It was never 'us' insulting 'them'. It was a handful of individuals making a rather bad joke about 'them'. What worries me is how this all fed to easily into the hands of those on both sides who want to portray a 'clash of civilizations'. While I don't doubt that many in the muslim world (and muslims and non-muslims in the west) are angry about the cartoons, it is obvious in the more volatile areas like Palestine and Pakistan these feelings have been inflamed. Even in the riots, it struck me as odd that so many Danish flags were to hand. No doubt such places always have a handy stock of stars and stripes available, but I don't think even I in europe could get my hands on a full size Danish flag at short notice. Ok, this might be a small point, but I think all 'iconic' tv moments have to be approached with scepticism. Whether its toppling of statues or burning of flags.
Is this a sign of our times? Is there something it is indicative of - which we can do something about? Yes, and maybe. Definately the anger and frustration (often justified) in many parts of the world is something that has to be taken seriously. Given how they have been treated it is unsurprising that the anger of the Palestinians can flow out in all directions. But there is more to it then just that, because there are more people affected than just those living under the burden of occupation or poverty. The real problem is how these valid grounds for anger are inflamed with ideals and theologies into a more general alienation, even of sections with in our own society. I think in a way it is a reversion to tribalism, a sense of 'them' and 'us' which is natural in human nature, but not inevitable. It can and has been overcome by well constructed societies, but as those societies change, and become more interconnected with others that differ from them, both need to adapt.
A good example of something that can be natural but not inevitable is an experiment i read about regarding brain imaging of how people react to photos of someone from another race. The initial results showed that a part of the brain involved in aggression did indeed light up when people saw a face of a different race. This would seem to imply we are just naturally xenophobic, and while we might be able to control the behaviours with laws, we cannot control the instict. However in a more subtle extension of the test, subjects were primed to consider the face as an individual, for example by asking 'will the person in the next photo like celery?'. In such cases the relevant brain area did not light up. To me this shows how we can consciously change how we approach the world, and thereby modify how we unconsciously view it.
It seems a ridiculous question to ask, but we live in times when people are killed in 'cartoon riots'....so I wonder do suicide bombers like celery?
No comments:
Post a Comment