Danish Cartoons: Racism Has No Place on the Left

[IndianaGreen]

Danish Cartoons: Racism Has No Place on the Left

by Deepa Kumar

I've just about had it. I cannot watch one more episode of the Daily Show which makes racist jokes about Arabs and Muslims. I am sick and tired of people who see themselves as part of the left writing articles that put a liberal gloss over what is, in essence, a right-wing "clash of civilizations" argument. And I am fed up with an anti-war movement in the United States that will do nothing to defend Muslims against all the attacks they have faced both domestically and internationally. So, I feel compelled to speak out against the steady rightward drift among sections of the left since 9/11 on the question of anti-Arab and anti-Muslim racism. The Danish cartoon controversy, and the anemic response by the left in this country, is only the latest example of this drift.

Unlike in Britain and elsewhere, where the anti-war movement has called demonstrations in solidarity with Muslims outraged over the cartoons, US national organizations like United for Peace and Justice have done little. This should come as no surprise given the extent to which liberals have accepted and internalized right-wing arguments like Samuel Huntington's "clash of civilizations" thesis which sees the West as a force for enlightenment and the East as barbaric. Similarly, right-winger Niall Fergusson's argument is that the US should take on the mantle of being a "good empire" that brings democracy and secularism to failed states, apparently just like its British predecessor. We saw these arguments being echoed on the left when

● liberals supported the Afghan war, buying into Bush's argument that it would "liberate" Afghan women;

● sections of the left peddled a soft "White Man's Burden" line calling for continued occupation of Iraq by the US (or the UN) on the grounds that if the US left the country it would degenerate into civil war;

● sections of the left argued that indeed the Bush administration was "bringing democracy" to the Middle East because elections were held in various countries.

http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/kumar210206.html

[Voice1]

1. Well said Deepa

Racism, and incitement to violence indeed has no place on the left. More people need to make those points.

[Violet_Crumble]

2. She mentioned Richard Neville and his article...

He's a bit of a wanker - one of those ex-hippies who are now so middle-class it hurts. Despite his article no major newspaper here published the cartoons, not even the Murdoch rags. From what I saw online, Deepa Kumar is right in that the US Left reacted in a very different and distasteful way than the Left in other countries did...

That bit about sections of the Left doing 'White Man's Burden Lite' is so true. Today I started reading Robert Fisk's book, 'The Great War For Civilisation: the conquest of the Middle East' and he points out some of the eerie similarities between the British occupation of Iraq in the early 20th century and the US occupation. It's an excellent book, btw, and I'd highly recommend it...

Violet...

[vi5]

3. I don't support any BS "clash of civilizations" cr*p or the wars...

But I do support freedom of speech as an absolute. The freedom to draw and publish the cartoons as well as the freedom to protest, speak out against, and boycott the entities responsible for the cartoons. My position on freedom has nothing in common with and nothing to do with Bush's notion of freedom or with either of the botched wars or the fact that I want us out now.

Obviously there are a lot of people on here that disagree with me on that. Oh well.

[IndianaGreen]

4. Ms Kumar addresses the "freedom of speech" meme in her article

an article that you may have not read in its entirety. Ms Kumar makes the point that "free speech" is a "liberal fantasy.":

What I'm arguing is that there is no neutral point in a world characterized by racism, wars, and imperialism -- you are either on the side of the oppressed or the oppressor. One may have criticisms of how sections of the oppressed have chosen to resist, but you still have to take a side. Furthermore, in a world where the media are dominated by pro-war US, UK, and Australian conglomerates that do all they can to marginalize dissenting voices, "free speech" is a liberal fantasy that masks the reality that speech is "free" only for those who are rich enough to spend liberally and freely buy the speech that serves their interests. A "free speech" defense of the racist cartoons, condemning the protests against them, is liberal cover for right-wing arguments.

http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/kumar210206.html

[KDLarsen]

5. Last time I checked..

.. Jyllands-Posten wasn't a part of a "pro-war US, UK, and Australian conglomerate". It's been a while though, so I can't remember their stance on the War in Iraq, though it wouldn't surprise me if it leaned towards pro-war.

Also, sorry if it may disappoint people, but the original article sounds a bit too radical for my taste :-)

[Violet_Crumble]

6. Isn't Jyllands-Posten a conservative paper?

And a few years ago it refused to publish a cartoon taking the piss out of Christianity for fear it would offend Christians?

Violet...

[bloom]

15. I wouldn't be too sure about that.

I don't suppose the Corporate Media covers these things - but there is this:

"There is also a clear connection between the publication of the anti-Muslim cartoons and the secretive Bilderberg group.

Anders Fogh Rasmussen, the Danish prime minister and frequent Bilderberg attendee, for example, has refused to issue a formal apology, which would cost Denmark nothing but could save the nation from further losses to its exporting business and national prestige. Denmark has lost significant market share in Muslim nations due to a consumer boycott of Danish products.

The damage caused to Denmark's image, prestige and economy is likely to be severe and long-lasting. Danish lives are also clearly endangered.

Rasmussen's refusal to apologize, however, suggests that the "calculated offense," which has lead to increased tension between Europeans and the Muslim world, was intentional. One would think that Flemming Rose, as the person directly responsible for the "calculated offense" to millions of Muslims, would be charged under Europe's anti-racism laws, not to speak of the severe damage his offensive cartoons caused to Denmark and the Danish people.

Merete Eldrup, the managing director of JP/Politikens Hus, the parent company that owns Jyllands-Posten, is married to Anders Eldrup of Denmark, a Bilderberg attendee for the last five years. Anders Eldrup is chairman of Danish Oil and Natural Gas (DONG)."

http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/forum.cgi?read=85229

[vi5]

8. Oh, o.k. then.

I did read it. Which is why I said what I said. Which is why I emphasized that I supported the right to publish the cartoons as well as the right of the protests AGAINST the cartoons. I'm not going to allow anyone to tell me my belief system is a "fantasy" but that some other belief system (be it muslim, christian, jewish, whatever) is true and should be respected.

There are a lot of ideals which could be dismissed as fantasies because there are no concrete examples of them in this shithole world that surrounds us. Peace, Justice, Equality to name a few, as well as the basic tenets of most of the world's religions and ideologies. That doesn't mean I'm going to abandon my fight for them just because some writer declares them a fantasy or some people who I thought were liberals decide that they want to adopt an eye for an eye approach to these things and say "well they deny my free speech so I"m going to deny theirs." If others want to turn into what they claim to hate that's their right as well.

[Boojatta]

11. Some questions

Furthermore, in a world where the media are dominated by pro-war US, UK, and Australian conglomerates

Does the term "pro-war" identify the views of the shareholders, boards of directors, operations managers, and nonmanagement employees or does it identify the nature of the message published or broadcast by the conglomerate?

that do all they can to marginalize dissenting voices,

What can pro-war conglomerates do to marginalize dissenting voices?

"free speech" is a liberal fantasy

What prevented W from saying that he didn't like the policy ideas that John Kerry put forward during the Presidential debates and that the election was therefore cancelled?

that masks the reality that speech is "free" only for those who are rich enough to spend liberally and freely buy the speech that serves their interests.

Do people buy shares in media companies on the understanding that they can get higher profits with other kinds of investments and that they are sacrificing some profit in order to get some control over content? How many shares does one need to own in order to get some control of content?

[IndianaGreen]

16. You should have learned in English 101 that when you break apart

a paragraph into its component sentences, you strip it of all its meaning.

If a person in the median income category were to buy shares in GE, he would not be a capitalist for he would have no say so in how the company is run. However, if you are an insurance company or other major stockholder in GE, you are a capitalist. Jack Welch, former CEO of GE, has said that the media companies owned by GE should reflect the views of the corporation. He is not alone in this thinking.

We don't have news or press that can be considered free to any extent. The MSM is in the business of entertainment on radio and TV, while the print press represents the views of its owners. The public only gets the owners' point of view, not an unbiased journalistic point of view.

There are many articles and books critical of the press that you can look up and read on your own time. I will also suggest you read the many articles written by Robert Fisk about the press. I recall a book by Keeble that quoted Fisk's experiences during the siege of Khafji in Saudi Arabia, when Fisk encountered an American correspondent who berated him for reporting on the battle taking place before their eyes. This reporter was embedded with an American unit and he had taken exception to Fisk going about chasing the story, rather than provide a Pentagon spin.

We can also look at the shameful role played by the NY Times, not only in the Judy Miller case, but by not publishing the story about NSA spying for fear that doing so would impact the Kerry-Bush race in 2004.

We have no free press in this country!

[Boojatta]

19. Do all owners have the same point of view?

The public only gets the owners' point of view, not an unbiased journalistic point of view.

Does free speech mean that only "an unbiased journalistic point of view" should be permitted?

[Boojatta]

21. Does English 101 say a thesis and an argument are the same kind of thing?

... given the extent to which liberals have accepted and internalized right-wing arguments like Samuel Huntington's "clash of civilizations" thesis ...

[thinkingwoman]

13. Ms Kumar is wrong

free speech is not a "liberal fantasy" because rich Republicans are working to suppress it. Her argument, while containing some good points, goes too far in the other direction.

[Boojatta]

14. "fantasy" means free speech not protected enough or not worth protecting?

If you had enough money, you could mail one letter every week to every address in the USA. However, if the letters were boring, then how would you persuade people to read them?

If people did read the letters, then would the letters have the intended effect?

How could the letters suppress all the messages that everybody else is sending?

[thinkingwoman]

23. How did free speech happen in colonial times?

That model would work again.

[rman]

30. The colonial times never ended, and surely those who's land was colonized

didn't have very much free speech.

[thinkingwoman]

31. the colonial times in America never ended?

Interesting theory.

[rman]

32. That's not my theory.

My theory is the 'the West' never stopped colonization.

[thinkingwoman]

33. Um, whatever

None of that has anything to do with the question I asked, which was really straightforward.

[rman]

36. I'm saying free speech didn't really work in colonial times -

not for the natives anyway. I think that answers your question.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

7. I have always seen the violence

as a clash of religion or civilizations. (Muslim against Muslim/Christian againt Musilim and vice versa.)

You say you don't see it that way. Could you elaborate a bit? What do you think is the root of the violence?

[vi5]

9. I should have clarified...

It obviously is a clash of civilizations, but not in the way the author of the original article implied, which I took it as a civilized, enlightened west versus a savage, unenlightened east.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

10. okay, gotcha and I agree

[Terran1212]

12. The Daily Show is good fun but I think they are on Muslims' side

They keep to Establishment talk because they basically do feed from the Mainstream, but did this person see the thing about the Turkish movie? They basically said that it's a response to American films demonizing Muslims.

[bloom]

17. I don't see TDS being on the Muslim's side n/t

[fedsron2us]

18. Why is the left so keen on running

the opposition to the war in Iraq like a scene from Monty Pythons Life Of Brian ? Condemning the US anti-war movement for not being sufficiently on message from the tenure of a comfortable academic post in Rutgers University is beyond parody. Kumar's piece just wants to press those rather worn out white liberal guilt buttons while offering no real positive suggestions as to how the butchery in the Middle East can be stopped. It seems it is more important to castigate 'splitters' like the United For Peace and Justice movement for their lack of ideological purity than it is to overthrow Caesar and bring an end to the slaughter.

[liberalpragmatist]

20. Well, I agreed with toppling the Taliban, but otherwise, I agree..

... pretty wholeheartedly with much of what she says.

On Afghanistan, I supported it not because I believed we could be a "civilizing" force but because we were attacked by a country that truly gave aid and shelter to Al Qaeda, that allowed Bin Laden to operate on its soil, and was ruled by a radical fundamentalist clique. The unfortunate thing is that not enough resources have been devoted to winning Afghanistan, allowing much of it to slip back into warlordism.

But otherwise, on the cartoon controversy, she is very correct. There is a strong undertone of racism and racial superiority to much of the liberal criticism of the Danish cartoons. Sure, criticize the violent response, and support Danish goods in the face of a boycott over something Danish manufacturers had nothing to do with, but don't deny Muslims' right to be offended and at least understand the context within which the offense was caused.

[dsc]

22. Honestly I am sick to death of Islamist apologists

There isn't a single Arab country in which a gay person would not be jailed or killed simply for being gay. It isn't racist, evil, or imperialist to point that out. Many of these very same people protesting those cartoons have no problem trafficing in the worst kind of anti woman, anti gay and anti Jewish propaganda. It isn't racist, evil, or imperialist to point that out. We had no business going to Iraq but that doesn't make these people anything other than facists with a different religion than the current facists in the White House. editted to put in not

[smirkymonkey]

24. Exactly, call the same exact people Christian and put them in

America and we would see these apologists do an abrupt about face. Not only would they not defend them, they would probably use the exact same words to condemn them. Oppression is oppression is oppression - I can't see why so many on the left seem to honor it when it is being committed by people w/ brown skin, whereas the same behavior committed by white people would elicit outrage.

[megatherium]

25. You are exactly correct! nt

[rman]

26. That's like blaming "Americans" for the war in Iraq

You don't mean to say that every muslim is responsible for gays being jailed or killed in Islam countries?

[dsc]

28. No they aren't all responsible

but lets get real, the Muslim faith is very bad on gay rights, the people chanting in the streets are very, very devout Muslims. Every country, without exception ruled my Muslims is bitterly anti gay that isn't an accident.

[rman]

29. You confuse Islam with fundamentalist Islam

Two two are related in much the same way as Christianity and fundamentalist Christianity are related. You wouldn't say Christian faith is very bad on gay rights, just because of a few reli-fundi whackos, would you?

And as we don't hear much about moderate/progressive christians, we hear even less about moderate/progressive Islam.

[dsc]

34. Is there anything like a United Church of Christ version of Islam

or a Universalist or Episcopal? I have literaly never heard of such a thing nor have I seen any sort of socially liberal version of Islam.

[Violet_Crumble]

35. Of course there's different Islamic sects...

Some are as socially liberal as you'll get when it comes to most religions, and others are on the fundie side of things....

violet...

[dsc]

37. Then where are they

I am being serious here. I have literally never heard of any socially liberal Moslem sect.

[Violet_Crumble]

38. They're where all socially liberal religious sects are...

I'm being serious here too. From yr earlier posts, are you of the opinion that as you seem to think that coz you've never heard of any socially liberal Muslim sects, that must mean Muslims are fanatics who run round burning down embassies?

[dsc]

39. I haven't seen Falwell burn down any embassies

but he sure isn't socially liberal in any sense of the word. I don't think all Muslims burn embassies but I do think that it would be pretty easy to count on a couple of hands the number of Muslims who are in favor of gay rights.

[Violet_Crumble]

40. And I bet you haven't seen any Christian fundies firebomb abortion clinics

Amazing what that selective sight thing can do. And I wasn't aware that you were acquainted with all one billion Muslims in the world to be thinking that only a couple of handfuls of them would be in favour of gay rights. Oh, and while we're at it, which of the mainstream Christian denominations support gay rights? I've heard the Catholic Church is just so socially liberal on issues like that :sarcasm:

Violet...

[dsc]

41. I named several but evidently you didn't read the post

The UCC, Episcopal, Univeralist all support gay rights. As do liberal branches of the Methodists and Christian churches. My point about the embassies is you were implying that my standard for not being socially liberal was bombing embassies. I was pointing out, with an example, someone who isn't socially liberal who doesn't firebomb. It should be noted that this is the third post of yours in response to one asking for Muslims who support gay rights. You have named precisely 0. That speaks volumes. The fact is there are no recognised sects of Islam that recognize any gay rights. Not in the US, not in Europe, and certainly not in the middle east. Conversely both Judism and Christianity have sects which fully integrate gay rights as part of their mission. And, the list of Christian and even Catholic countries with full rights for gays is growing while the list of Muslim countries with that is non existent. Incidently, before you ask, Canada, Spain, and the Scandanavian countries plus Belgium all have full or close to full gay rights including marriage or true equivalents to marriage.

[Violet_Crumble]

42. They're not mainstream churches...

And give me a break. Yr now getting into branches of churches, even though I asked for mainstream churches?? If yr interested (and I suspect yr not) in finding out if there are any Muslim sects, (making sure you dig right down to branches of every sect in yr exhaustive efforts that recognise gay rights, why don't you head into the Muslim forum here at DU and ask? While yr there ask for a show of hands for who supports gay rights, and you'll finally find yrself some Muslims who do support them. Or are you such an expert you don't need to? I noticed you've slipped from 'I haven't heard of' to now claiming with certainty that there's not any Muslim sects that recognise gay rights, while painting a bullshit picture of many Catholic countries with full rights for gays...

Uh, I wasn't going to ask about Canada, Spain, etc, mainly coz they've got zero to do with what was being discussed. Also, I notice on being pulled up on yr broadbrush stuff of guessing only a few handfuls of Muslims worldwide, you just ignored it and changed tack a bit. You do understand, I hope, that the official stance of religious leaders on issues like that are not generally the same as that of their flock. The Catholic Church and birth control is one example. Or are Muslims again somehow different?
Violet...

[dsc]

44. The UCC is a mainstream church as are the Disciples of Christ

aka the Christian Church. The Epispocal church is a the Anglican Church in America and was in point of fact the first church here. The UCC is decended from the Pilgrims. I will grant the Universalist church is a bit out there but there are as many of those as there are Mormons.

I would call three many and there are three Catholic countries (Spain, Belguim, and Quebec (which was the engine of Canada's gay rights vote)) that have full rights. Not even one Muslim country. It should be noted that Germany which is about half Catholic, Italy, Portugal, and Luxumborg all have more gay rights than the US does let alone any Muslim country.

[Violet_Crumble]

45. No they're not

and quebec isn't a country. as yr clearly intent on some pathetic agenda where christianity is so liberal while islam isn't, i'll leave you and yr broadbrush posts alone and hope that one day you meet a Sufi or at the least do a basic googleand learn about progressive islamic thought...

[dsc]

46. They most certainly are

What planet are you on. The UCC, also known as the Congregationalists, trace their ancestry back to the Pilgrims. http://www.ucc.org/aboutus/shortcourse/congo.htm

The modern form of this denomination dates from 1957 and there are more Congregationalists in the US than there are Jews. I would hope you would consider Jews a major religious entity in the US.

The Disciples of Christ date from the 1800's. Founded by Barton Stone and Alexander Campbell. I will admit that our numbers aren't nearly as large as one would hope, but there are over a million Disciples. The Episcopal Church is the oldest Protestant Church in the US. I don't know what you would consider a mainstream church if the direct descendents of the Pilgrims and the Anglican Church in the US aren't.

As to Quebec, I never said Quebec was a country, but the fact is Quebec provided the margin of victory for gay marriage. The Bloc Quebequois provided a higher percentage of votes for gay marriage than the Liberals did. Only the NDP provided a higher percentage and they made it a party line vote. In other words NDP ministers who voted against lost their seats. Had Quebec been an independent country it would have had gay marriage in an overwhelming vote and Canada wouldn't have by a fairly decent vote.

[Violet_Crumble]

47. No, they're not...

The planet I live on is the one where the US isn't the centre of the world as we know it, and where bigotry against Islam and Muslims doesn't manifest itself amongst as solidly on the Left of politics as it does in the US...

As to Quebec, I never said Quebec was a country,

You did. Here's yr own words to remind you:


"there are three Catholic countries (Spain, Belguim, and Quebec"

Or was that an optical illusion?

[dsc]

48. There are more Anglicans

which is what Episopalians are than any Protestant sect save Catholics. If that is some sort of unimportant sect then frankly no Christian sect is important.

[Violet_Crumble]

49. Honestly I am sick to death of Christianity apologists

Anglicans??? I'm a lapsed Anglican, and the Anglican Church does NOT support gay rights. Epiyanks are NOT mainstream Anglicans. Cope with it, dude. Mainstream Christianity is intolerant of gay rights, and instead of protecting Christianity, you should be showing yr outrage just like you do about Islam...


Violet...

[dsc]

50. That is horseshit

The Anglican church has not thrown out either Canadian or American Anglicans who have supported gay rights. The renegades are the conservatives on this not the liberals.

[QC]

51. So tell us about them.

You keep referring to these people, yet you never tell us anything about them, despite repeated requests for more information.

Come on--we're all ears.

[rman]

27. Any examples of TDS making racist jokes about muslims?

[Skinner]

43. I'm so tired of people whining about the Daily Show.

It is, first and foremost, entertainment. It is also (IMHO) the most insightful current affairs program -- serious or satirical -- on television today. If the Daily Show tried to satisfy the oversensitive whiners on the left or the right, they would 1) stop being funny, and 2) stop being insightful.

(OK, I admit it -- I didn't read the whole article.)

[genieroze]

52. Rascism has no place on this planet.