They're callous and feeble cartoons, cooked up as a provocation by a conservative newspaper exploiting the general Muslim prohibition on images of the Prophet Muhammad to score cheap points about freedom of expression.
But drawings are drawings, so a question arises. Have any modern works of art provoked as much chaos and violence as the Danish caricatures that first ran in September in the newspaper Jyllands-Posten?
NY Times
8 Comments
The question is more than just the images. Its the positioning of the right wing in Europe as the saviors of the unique European identity versus the Otherness of their minority muslim population. This is a process of exclusion throughout europe whether France, Denmark, name your country...
It's also a question of an entire culture being philosophically incapable of confronting images that might offend it. Rudi Giuliani's attack on the Brooklyn Museum for exhibiting Chris Ofili's virgin Mary (partially made with elephant dung) is a good American counterpart, albeit a non-violent one. Giuliani didn't grab an AK-47.
There are images that offend me; I don't burn down the embassies of countries from which those images' producers came. Responding to art with violence is completely unacceptable, no matter what color your skin may be. It's intellectually and philosophically inexcusable.
This is the right-wing provoking the right-wing.
The frustrating aspect of this situation, however, is that you would not have heard supposed leftists telling artists in the 1930s that they were being culturally insensitive by producing images that offended Hitler. Fundamentalist Islam, fundamentalist Christianity, ultra-nationalists - who cares if these people are offended? If a system of interpretation is so intellectually bankrupt that it cannot handle seeing a few ridiculous images, then that system does not have even one ounce of my sympathy.
Imagine if a new Marilyn Manson t-shirt was released, and it offended some southern Baptists - who then started burning cars and firing machine guns into the air. There's not a single "leftist" who would feel sorry for them. Quite the opposite, in fact.
These comments are directed at the cartoon controversy, not at either of the above posts, by the way. I'm just fed up with the fact that anti-art, homophobic, patriarchical armed fascists are getting sympathy from the American left for some f---ing cartoons.
Nice point, however, I think this issue is more a keen to racism then ideological or religious--there are forces that might exploit this issue, but there is no denying that these images are being used in there initial carnation to alienate the Muslim inhabitants of Denmark.
I think the interest position you argue is the great reversal of our age: Where the right wing uses the devices of the left to support their dishonorable agendas. Much like the position of the Bush administration who through decrying the plight of women in Afghanistan as if those issues were part of the end result--the bottom line is there is free speech and then there is speech which is used as a political hammer. Just as Goebbels and the Third Reich used images to grow their disinformation campaign to blame the German Jews for the problems of German—can we sit back and listen to a position of newspaper which is vying for the same alienation of its Other?
Let’s not confuse this issue with the van Gogh murder, the piss Christ (which destroyed the NEA), or the Offili’s poop Virgin. This is not about art or free speech in fact its troubling that the space is even framed in this context.
It’s not the after effects of the outrage or burning, but the initial act of the cartoons which were not innocent in the solicitation or publication, but were used to create hate and alienation in a nation where the persistence of racism is used for political gain. Let’s not forget that! The current situation has blurred the first act!
The silliest thing is that this issue is going to be a cartoon war between Israel and Iran! Do not forget there is something rotten in Denmark!
Certainly the original publication of these cartoons helped set a whole series of other events in motion, from the protests to these latest rounds of debates, but I agree with Geoff that "This is the right-wing provoking the right-wing."
Each side of extremism continues to attack the other, while moderate opinions are further stifled and eroded.
It seems that the frustration expressed by both Geoff and John reflect this rise in extremist membership and influence. For extremists like the Muslim jihadist or Christian fundamentalist, their legitimacy is considered divinely ordained, so it follows that difference (the Other) and dissent is intolerable.
Even nationalistic movements share in these characteristics, particularly a sense of divine right and entitlement. What is different here is the religious framework is replaced by an ethnic/geographic justification.
Over the past few years, it has become clear that these positions are hardening, as right-leaning politicians have increased their positions of influence throughout the world. This includes the election of a new prime minister in Canada, the obvious goings on in the States, the rise of conservative opposition leaders in both France and the UK, the increased power of the neo-conservative establishment in Iran, the rise of Hamas, etc. etc.. While each of these examples have unique circumstances, they share a population's dissatistfaction with leadership and a search for new ideas to confront incompetence, corruption or simply stale, unimaginative policy positions.
I believe we're witnessing a movement similar in scale to what occurred in the late 1960s. However, instead of a rise in liberalization, we've almost moved full circle and see a rise of conservativism instead.
I'm not disagree with that or Geoff's polemic of right-on-right feeding off each other, but the Danish editors had no idea that the cartoons would go past their borders.
And certainly if viewed through that lens we can view these in the context where they originated as blatantly racist propaganda of right wing elements from an ethnocentric xenophobic country who has not resolved its internal issues of its Muslim minority--much like other European countries. So in this context we must denounce the Danish government and this newspaper for its irresponsibility.
I wholly agree that the situation aboard is out of control, but again something is rotten in Denmark. And we should not let these external events twist our opinions to the event which was totally inappropriate.
This whole issue makes it hard to make a choice, but I think that's the complexity and paradox of today’s politic--your for womens rights, but they won't really get any through our presence, your for human rights, but you believe in the right to torture, your against killing innocent people, but for collateral damage. Everything would be so much easier with Kant's categorical imperative, but let's not fall into missing the original point and vote for the reversal which is being exploited by the right-on-right--the spectacle of the situation today.
Two interesting perspectives on all this: Salon. Guardian.
a few more neutral ways to understand the debate--through debate.
and WNYC slight debate
and DemocracyNow debate
, if less cartoon-oriented.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.