![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
rhuSome thoughts on the upcoming "Everybody Draw Mohammed" Day.
At first, it sounds like a fun bit of protest. "After all, it's just a picture, right? And if they're going to be so ridiculous as to be offended by a picture, even if the depiction itself is respectful, then...."
But the mode of what's offensive isn't really the point here. The point is that we've been told that something is offensive in another culture, and so many people have decided to do that specific thing.[1]
Since the origin of this can be reflected in the Danish political cartoons and in South Park, let's do a thought experiment. Remember Feb. 2009, when Sean Delonas penned the now-infamous political cartoon in the New York Post, depicting the chimpanzee who was shot in Connecticut and tying it to President Obama? Americans of all stripes were outraged.
Now imagine if someone had started "Everybody Draw Obama as a Dead Chimpanzee Day."[2] They would have been entirely within their constitutional rights, I suppose, but most if not all of us would have been deeply offended by this, and rightly so. That would have been the intent: to offend us, to dismiss our worldview as unworthy of respect, as utterly contemptible.
That's the message of "Everybody Draw Mohammed" Day. If that's the message that you intend to send, that Islam is contemptible and you want to offend its adherents, that's certainly your right. But don't act surprised when people take you up on that, and get offended.
And don't be self-righteous about it. Your goal is to offend, and you can't get off by claiming the other person shouldn't have been offended.[3]
And of course there are consequences. First and foremost, it diminishes the person who has intentionally given offense.
At a broad level, it makes the class against whom the offense was committed look less favorably on the group doing the offending. When I'm offended by something in the media, I stop reading that publication, which has financial consequences for their circulation rates. In this case, it will make it harder for our communities to work with Moslems, both in our communities and abroad, on areas of common goals.
And in a small but important number of cases, it can push individuals into a murderous rage. This is not specific to Islam by any means. Look at the origins of gang violence; read "Romeo and Juliet"; think about why Cain killed Abel. When people feel not only wronged but fundamentally disrespected, some of them decide that only blood will suffice.
Don't get me wrong: I'm not saying "Don't do it just because someone might get killed." Never give in to terrorists. But if and when the chickens come home to roost, understand why. Don't turn around and claim that it had nothing to do with you. Don't say "If Israel would give up Gaza, Moslems will stop trying to kill us" because it just ain't so -- the psychopaths are targeting us for much more than the question of who controls the land between the Jordan and the sea. That's not a justification, just a strategic fact.
If you choose to intentionally offend millions of people, go ahead; but don't do it as a lark. Be mature about it and weigh your actions.
And I hope you'll choose to take the high road. Not out of fear, but out of self-respect.
-
Notes
[1] - Interestingly, there seems to be significant overlap between people who plan to participate and those who insist on understanding and respecting the differences among peoples.
[2] - Or "Confederate History Month"
[3] - How many times have you yourself cringed when an athlete, TV star, or politician starts off with "I'm sorry if anyone was offended by my calling so-and-so a ____."?
At first, it sounds like a fun bit of protest. "After all, it's just a picture, right? And if they're going to be so ridiculous as to be offended by a picture, even if the depiction itself is respectful, then...."
But the mode of what's offensive isn't really the point here. The point is that we've been told that something is offensive in another culture, and so many people have decided to do that specific thing.[1]
Since the origin of this can be reflected in the Danish political cartoons and in South Park, let's do a thought experiment. Remember Feb. 2009, when Sean Delonas penned the now-infamous political cartoon in the New York Post, depicting the chimpanzee who was shot in Connecticut and tying it to President Obama? Americans of all stripes were outraged.
Now imagine if someone had started "Everybody Draw Obama as a Dead Chimpanzee Day."[2] They would have been entirely within their constitutional rights, I suppose, but most if not all of us would have been deeply offended by this, and rightly so. That would have been the intent: to offend us, to dismiss our worldview as unworthy of respect, as utterly contemptible.
That's the message of "Everybody Draw Mohammed" Day. If that's the message that you intend to send, that Islam is contemptible and you want to offend its adherents, that's certainly your right. But don't act surprised when people take you up on that, and get offended.
And don't be self-righteous about it. Your goal is to offend, and you can't get off by claiming the other person shouldn't have been offended.[3]
And of course there are consequences. First and foremost, it diminishes the person who has intentionally given offense.
At a broad level, it makes the class against whom the offense was committed look less favorably on the group doing the offending. When I'm offended by something in the media, I stop reading that publication, which has financial consequences for their circulation rates. In this case, it will make it harder for our communities to work with Moslems, both in our communities and abroad, on areas of common goals.
And in a small but important number of cases, it can push individuals into a murderous rage. This is not specific to Islam by any means. Look at the origins of gang violence; read "Romeo and Juliet"; think about why Cain killed Abel. When people feel not only wronged but fundamentally disrespected, some of them decide that only blood will suffice.
Don't get me wrong: I'm not saying "Don't do it just because someone might get killed." Never give in to terrorists. But if and when the chickens come home to roost, understand why. Don't turn around and claim that it had nothing to do with you. Don't say "If Israel would give up Gaza, Moslems will stop trying to kill us" because it just ain't so -- the psychopaths are targeting us for much more than the question of who controls the land between the Jordan and the sea. That's not a justification, just a strategic fact.
If you choose to intentionally offend millions of people, go ahead; but don't do it as a lark. Be mature about it and weigh your actions.
And I hope you'll choose to take the high road. Not out of fear, but out of self-respect.
-
Notes
[1] - Interestingly, there seems to be significant overlap between people who plan to participate and those who insist on understanding and respecting the differences among peoples.
[2] - Or "Confederate History Month"
[3] - How many times have you yourself cringed when an athlete, TV star, or politician starts off with "I'm sorry if anyone was offended by my calling so-and-so a ____."?
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2010-05-04 05:45 pm (UTC)it's also not just that people don't get to be disingenuous about who should be offended. It's picking and choosing what restrictions on expression we think are acceptable and we think aren't.
This is going to be offensive to millions of people who are good, non-extremist people, and it's ridiculous ignorance to claim that all of the people you would agree with couldn't possibly have taboos. Dumping crucifixes into bottles of urine is also protected First Amendment expression in the United States, but if you wander around doing it, you're going to anger a lot more people than Pope Hitler Youth: good people, who are probably on your side about many things other than religion. Burning the flag isn't only going to anger the Tea Baggers, it's going to anger a lot of people for whom the flag is an important symbol of progressivism, of an immigrant refuge, of the Great Society. Lighting up Matt Stone and Trey Parker in effigy... well, that's probably a threat, so not protected expression. So maybe I can come up with better ways to show my distaste for them.
Out of self-respect, at least.
Moderate vs. radical Muslims
Date: 2010-05-04 05:54 pm (UTC)Rather, it is to insult the belief that drawn depictions of The Prophet are legitimate grounds for threats, violence, fatwas, and even murder. This is not an abstract belief; previous published depictions of Mohammed have caused exactly these reactions from Muslims in many parts of the world.
Speaking of "chickens coming home to roost," "Everybody Draw Mohammed" day is the chickens coming home to roost for moderate Muslim leaders who have failed to effectively stand up to the radical Muslims who think that threats, violence, fatwas, and murder are acceptable reactions to religious insults.
Re: Moderate vs. radical Muslims
Date: 2010-05-04 06:28 pm (UTC)See, for example, this response to an alleged al-Qaeda leader’s call for American Muslims to revolt against their country.
Regarding the specific issue of drawing Mohammed, there is a frieze in the Supreme Court building that depicts Mohammed along with other famous historic lawgivers (Moses, Napoleon, John Marshall, etc.). A delegation from a Muslim lawyers’ group examined the frieze and concluded that “While KARAMAH fully identifies with the Islamic aversion to such representation of the Prophet, we are very pleased that Islamic contributions to law are recognized in the highest court of our land. We see that attempt in a tolerant light similar to that in which earlier Muslims saw Turkish and Persian art.”
Re: Moderate vs. radical Muslims
From:Re: Moderate vs. radical Muslims
Date: 2010-05-04 07:09 pm (UTC)Let me put this in terms you might be able to understand.
When someone kicks you, by accident, you're supposed to use your words, and not fight. And then that person is supposed to say, "sorry" and you make up. It's important to use your words instead of fighting.
Dane kicked Izzy, and it really hurt Izzy. And Izzy threatened to beat Dane up instead of using his words. That was bad of Izzy. Izzy should have used his words to explain HOW he felt.
Now you know that when you kick Izzy there, it hurts.
So your plan is now to kick Izzy over and over in that same spot? Good plan.
Re: Moderate vs. radical Muslims
From:Re: Moderate vs. radical Muslims
From:Re: Moderate vs. radical Muslims
From:Re: Moderate vs. radical Muslims
From:Re: Moderate vs. radical Muslims
From:Re: Moderate vs. radical Muslims
From:Re: Moderate vs. radical Muslims
From:Re: Moderate vs. radical Muslims
From:Re: Moderate vs. radical Muslims
From:Re: Moderate vs. radical Muslims
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:Re: Moderate vs. radical Muslims
From:Re: Moderate vs. radical Muslims
From:Re: Moderate vs. radical Muslims
From:Re: Moderate vs. radical Muslims
From:Re: Moderate vs. radical Muslims
From:Re: Moderate vs. radical Muslims
From:Re: Moderate vs. radical Muslims
From:Re: Moderate vs. radical Muslims
Date: 2010-05-04 08:09 pm (UTC)(Or: "I didn't draw swastikas on your temple to insult you...")
(no subject)
Date: 2010-05-04 05:59 pm (UTC)I don't doubt this, but I will say that (thankfully) this is only the second time I've even heard of this travesty. The other time was on the FB of someone I consider a friend, but whose politics I find incomprehensible, and so I wasn't really surprised. I did comment on her wall, saying simply "What is the point of this?"
I really do not get this.
(no subject)
Date: 2010-05-04 06:35 pm (UTC)How would you send the message?
Date: 2010-05-04 06:38 pm (UTC)Or do you think that is not a worthwhile message to convey?
Re: How would you send the message?
Date: 2010-05-04 07:28 pm (UTC)(1) People who are offended by artistic portrayals of Mohammed but would not react violently to them.
(2) People who are offended by artistic portrayals of Mohammed and want to respond by doing or threatening violence to the artist.
A criminal prosecution against anyone who threatens the artist would have virtually no effect on the first group, and would do as much to deter the second group as anything else citizens of a modern state can come up with.
A mass draw-Mohammed group will piss of members of the first group, and would not deter members of the second group from violence, because people in the second group already know that the majority of Americans have no particular reverence for Mohammed.
Re: How would you send the message?
From:Re: How would you send the message?
From:Enough!
Date: 2010-05-04 06:58 pm (UTC)Let's move on toward something positive.
This was never meant to be a 'call' to draw.
It was a cartoon!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Re: Enough!
Date: 2010-05-04 10:03 pm (UTC)I think there's actually some really interesting analysis to be done in how political cartooning can make people think, but shouldn't necessarily be acted out.
(no subject)
Date: 2010-05-04 07:11 pm (UTC)1.) I'm furious about censorship in the face of the violent tendencies of fundamentalist lunatics. People might get mad about "Everybody Draw Jesus Fucking A Donkey Day," but no one would get killed over it. The South Park Mohammed reference wasn't even offensive--it was joking about how just having Mohammed show up was blasphemous, even if he wasn't visible, or was hiding in a bear suit. I don't think he spoke even once. Mohammed actually DID show up in earlier episodes of South Park (usually while hanging out with Jesus and Buddha), but Comedy Central has retro-censored those episodes as well. Not out of cultural sensitivity, but out of fear of people getting killed.
I am not a Muslim, and in a free society, I should not be held to the standards of a religion I don't even believe in. I especially shouldn't have to do this for fear of what violence some religious person might commit. I write "God" all the time, and I don't get angry emails demanding that I switch it to "G_d" or I'll get shot. (The word "GOD" appears on TV shows all the time, too--no one frets about it.) No radical Jews are defacing the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel. The only reason this is even an issue is because the fundamentalist followers of Islam are so much more inclined to threaten violence than any religion I can think of. Remove the threats, and South Park would never have been censored.
Surely you can see how that's a direct threat to free speech? Is it strange that free people would want to stand up against it?
2.) From a strategic standpoint, Everybody Draw Mohammed Day has a real advantage. When South Park did it, Viacom was afraid of its employees getting targeted for reprisals. But if everyone does it, there are no targets. There's safety in numbers this way, and I think it reduces the odds of tragic retaliation. If you're going to do it, this is the healthiest way to go about it.
3.) As a plea to liberal American Muslims to rethink their own interpretations of the hadith. I think too many people are unaware that the ban on images of Mohammed is relatively recent (since the 17th century) and confined primarily to Sunnis (which are 90% of the world's Muslims, admittedly, but still). You can find Muslim images of Mohammed quite easily with an online search, and there's an interesting collection of them here: http://zombietime.com/mohammed_image_archive/ Muslim feminists in American call for a return to a pure Quranic faith, with less emphasis on the hadith, in the name of the fairer treatment of women. Surely they could do the same thing in the name of art; a reconception of iconography in an age that speaks in icons.
Images of Mohammed are old; the Muslim freakout about it is new. So Everybody Draw Mohammed Day could, in theory, be grounds for a return to an OLDER form of Islam that killed fewer people. (Kind of like the "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance, which was a late addition that later became practically the only part of it anyone cared about.)
I don't pretend for a second that my idealistic reformist vision is what will happen in most cases--Everybody Draw Mohammed Day is practically begging to be used as a day for Islamophobes to vent their worst racist and Orientalist bile--but that's what I, at least, intend to call attention to. A program being censored because of threats of violence is a symptom of an unhealthy religion. ("People getting killed" is always a symptom that something's terribly wrong.) I think it's better to try to point out and isolate the cancer than either kill the whole patient or ignore it and hope it doesn't spread.
(no subject)
Date: 2010-05-04 07:53 pm (UTC)I am unconvinced that this is an issue in the US. Fanatics will say fanatical things, but I can’t recall a single person in the US being killed for drawing a picture of Mohammed. Most of the violent protest on this issue seems to have been in Europe, which has had issues with Islam that go beyond a few pictures.
2.) From a strategic standpoint, Everybody Draw Mohammed Day has a real advantage.
There is no safety in numbers, because anyone who cares enough about this issue to commit murder is simply going to go after whichever artist appears to be the most convenient target.
3.) As a plea to liberal American Muslims to rethink their own interpretations of the hadith.
Why should any Muslim give a damn what I think of their interpretations of the hadith? I certainly don’t care what any Muslim thinks of my interpretation of the Talmud. If a Muslim were to draw some picture insulting a Jewish belief that I cherish, and then explain this as “a plea to liberal American Jews to rethink their own interpretations of the Talmud”, my reaction would not exactly be positive.
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
Date: 2010-05-04 08:53 pm (UTC)Are you SERIOUS? Where do you LIVE? People have been killed over less.
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:Regarding Point 1, Sentence 2
Date: 2010-05-04 09:23 pm (UTC)Re: Regarding Point 1, Sentence 2
From:(no subject)
From:Say what?
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:Free speech, head scarves
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
Date: 2010-05-04 07:11 pm (UTC)For some reason, I don't remember a "Everybody make a chocolate Jesus" day when the Catholic League did essentially the same thing to a New York hotel that a couple of extremist Muslims did to Comedy Central. (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11669242/)
chocolate Jesus
Date: 2010-05-04 08:17 pm (UTC)===Dan
Re: chocolate Jesus
From:(no subject)
Date: 2010-05-04 07:26 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2010-05-04 08:20 pm (UTC)Yes, and it appears she has posted a comment in this discussion as well
Date: 2010-05-04 08:27 pm (UTC)She is now saying that she was just making a satirical joke and never meant for it anybody to actually *do* "Everybody Draw Mohammed" day.
To a lot of observers, myself include, it looks like she *did* intend for it to be taken seriously, but never expected it to get as big as it did, and now she's backpedaling because she's scared just like Comedy Central was.
I'm certainly not the only one who thinks that; see http://mollynorris.com/freshestthing.html , where Molly has the integrity to post on her own Web site stuff about others are saying the same thing.
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:You may certainly be right...
From:Re: You may certainly be right...
From:Re: You may certainly be right...
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:I disagree on one point
Date: 2010-05-04 08:28 pm (UTC)I value the virtue of not being offensive, I just value a society free from violence and threats of violence in response to speech even more.
I'd prefer to be a bit more prankish, perhaps by drawing a stick figure and writing below it "Is this Mohammad?" But I understand the impulse.
=thomas
Re: I disagree on one point
Date: 2010-05-04 08:30 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2010-05-04 09:09 pm (UTC)But it bothers me that offense taken by someone with a religious belief is considered more important the the offense I take from having my freedom of expression threatened by extremists. Not everyone feels as strongly about this, I suppose, but there's no question of which form of offense is more un-American, more undemocratic, and more allied to religious demagoguery. I'll take secular demagoguery every time. At least you have a basis for arguing against it.
(no subject)
Date: 2010-05-04 09:22 pm (UTC)There is something so . . . middle-school emo about doing something just because you know it will piss somebody off.
If you have an important point, and making that point might require hurting feelings, okay, I understand that.
But in this case, the point IS to hurt the feelings.
Yes, in a free society, you have the right to hurt people's feelings.
It's just that grownups don't.
Grownups ALSO don't respond to getting their feelings hurt by threatening violence.
But from where I stand, this looks like a whole lot of behavior that doesn't reach the level of maturity I expect from my kindergarten/first grade class. I see some people threatening violence because their feelings were hurt. And I see other people deliberately going out of their way to hurt that first group's feelings.
Neither of these are things which I think a self-respecting adult would do.
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
Date: 2010-05-04 10:19 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2010-05-04 10:53 pm (UTC)My overarching view is this. You have a right to not be harmed. You have a right to not be threatened. You do not have a right to not be offended. If you respond to a perceived offense with violence — whoever "you" are — you are always the one in the wrong. No exceptions.
(no subject)
Date: 2010-05-05 12:39 am (UTC)I don't think refraining from unnecessary offense is a capitulation to those who would respond to offense with violence, in general and certainly not in this specific case, when the anti-censorship message can be conveyed without the offense.
(no subject)
Date: 2010-05-05 12:40 am (UTC)Thoughts a day later
Date: 2010-05-05 12:26 pm (UTC)Re: Thoughts a day later
Date: 2010-05-05 04:17 pm (UTC)I'm sure I've also internalized a lot of Islamophobia. Although I was a religious studies major, got a basic grounding in all the world's religions, remain a fan of religious people (not religions per se, but the people who are drawn to them), and have done a certain amount of reading to understand at least how moderate to liberal Muslims view things, it would be foolish not to expect a certain visceral reaction to story after story of religious zealots killing people in the name of Allah. I think of the perfectly decent Muslims I know (which would be all of them), think how I felt when I was a Catholic and heard the news about priest abuse and Irish Catholics setting off terrorist bombs, and I make an effort to react calmly. But it's still a conscious effort every time, and how long can you keep it up?
Then add the additional frustration that, every time I've considered making a gesture toward understanding Islam, the main roadblock in the way is...Islam. I'm not allowed to sit in on Jummah as a visitor. I'm not "really" reading the Qu'ran if I don't know classical Arabic. I attempt to find out about scholarly research on the sources of the Qu'ran, and discover that there's been almost no work done because scholars of the Qu'ran keep getting death threats. (This happened in the 1800s in Christian countries, too, but come on: it's 2010 now.) Throw in the fact that the Qu'ran is probably the worst-organized religious book in history (with the Upanishads a close second), and that there are almost no English translations of the hadith, and that when you read what hadith are available it's as mind-numbing as Leviticus ("a told b who had it from c who was d's brother and passed it to e, f, g, h, i, j, and k on down through history that Muhammad (p.b.u.h.) always kept his beard trimmed.")...and I start to think, "If there were such a thing as a badly designed religion, isn't this sort of what it would look like?" I'm guess I'm saying that, after all this frustration, I'm ready to be met halfway. I can only imagine what people less patient than I am must be thinking. (Continued...)
Re: Thoughts a day later
From:Re: Thoughts a day later
From:(no subject)
Date: 2010-05-06 09:02 pm (UTC)Sharia law forbids drawing Mohammed, and many Muslims are deeply offended by such depictions. Fair enough. Respect their sensibilities and don't offend them.
You know what else Sharia law forbids? Indecent dress. As an example, a 16 year old Christian girl got 50 lashes in Sudan (http://www.africanseer.com/news/17970-Sudan-teen-lashed-for-indecent-skirt-lawyer.html) for wearing a knee length skirt. I wasn't able to find the exact penalty under Sharia law for nudity or pornography, but I'm not going out on a limb when I predict that in countries under Sharia law, showing her boobs in public would get a woman brutally murdered. If not by a government official, then by a murderer acting on the urgings of religious authorities.
So, if you are opposed to EDMD because it is "going to be offensive to millions of people who are good, non-extremist people," why are you not ALSO insisting that non-Muslims wear head-to-toe clothing at all times in public, and that all porn shops be closed down?
It's the same religion.
It's the same religious law that's being broken.
It's the same punishment under religious law for breaking the law.
It's the same millions of good, non-extremist people being offended.
So what's the big difference? Why are there SUVs full of explosives being deposited outside Comedy Central's headquarters, but not Victoria's Secret's?
The answer that I arrive at is this: there are millions and millions of non-Muslims exposing too much skin for fundamentalist tastes, making them impossible to single out and target. There are only a handful of cartoonists drawing depictions of Mohammed, few enough that they can be singled out and targeted. So we need more of them -- LOTS more of them -- to make their persecution effectively impossible.