Multiculturalism and the "cartoons" row
Discussion
A friend just posted me a link to a very interesting article about the "Danish cartoons" row.
It contains a very interesting comment on multiculturalism:
"Multiculturalism and identity politics have been institutionalised in Western societies from the top down. This culture encourages all manner of groups to seek special status by defining themselves as victims and developing a heightened sense of grievance. Whether it is those who claim to speak for Muslims or gay men, the common characteristic of all such politicised identities tends to be a thin skin. Being offended or excluded in some way becomes a shortcut to claiming moral authority and demanding apologies and redress from the authorities."
The whole article is here (read it before you start analysing the politics
):
www.spiked-online.com/articles/0000000CAF59.htm
It contains a very interesting comment on multiculturalism:
"Multiculturalism and identity politics have been institutionalised in Western societies from the top down. This culture encourages all manner of groups to seek special status by defining themselves as victims and developing a heightened sense of grievance. Whether it is those who claim to speak for Muslims or gay men, the common characteristic of all such politicised identities tends to be a thin skin. Being offended or excluded in some way becomes a shortcut to claiming moral authority and demanding apologies and redress from the authorities."
The whole article is here (read it before you start analysing the politics
): www.spiked-online.com/articles/0000000CAF59.htm
They're on the web if you look for them. The thing is they're actually not very good, both in satirical content or in style.
This is the quote that I like from this article:
Phil
This is the quote that I like from this article:
spiked-online said:
Cartoons like these, however, simply seem to cause offence as an end in itself.
Indeed, those publishing and supporting the cartoons are avoiding the really hard arguments that need to be had out around these issues. It is more like a childish outburst, sticking two fingers up or screaming in frustration because you do not have the words to express what you feel - the political equivalent of a fart in polite company.
Phil
While in no way condoning the violent and destructive actions of those who have taken offense at the cartoons, I cannot see why any responsible newspaper would print them knowing full well that they were going to cause offense.
When they were printed 4 months ago in Denmark there were protests, so the fact that they were considered offensive was known, were they reprinted in an attempt to deliberately cause trouble, if so they were successful
When they were printed 4 months ago in Denmark there were protests, so the fact that they were considered offensive was known, were they reprinted in an attempt to deliberately cause trouble, if so they were successful
eccles said:
I found a copy of the 'Life Of Brian' at the local supermarket. Anyone wish to join me in a protest?
thats just it though, when that film came out, there were protests, and quite a few councils banned the local cinemas from showing it.
I didn't know that. We all accept it now though - don't we? In fact I watched it on Sunday night and didn't find it offensive in any way at all.
Corpulent Tosser said:
...I cannot see why any responsible newspaper would print them knowing full well that they were going to cause offense.
I think the problem is that if you think any of the religons are fundamentally wrong and stupid you can't say so without causing offense. So either you have to accept that religon is a subject which can't be attacked or you accept that religous people are going to be offended.
los angeles said:
Freedom of Speech comes with responsibilities, they are being irresponsible.
I'd start with Da Vinci's cartoon, the Holy Mother and Child. It's not the fact he tried to sketch Jesus's mum, it because I never got the joke. Then there is that boring Fred Basset ... what's that all about? I mean, hello, dogs cannot read. There there's Tom and Jerry - a vile and offensive representation of a stereotypical black woman servant if I clapped eyes on one. And the cat is continually depicted as truly stupid.
I agree with Fred Basset, mainly because it's boring and tedious, and the Phantom, moves slower than a valium fuelled sloth, plus his suit looks like he's wearing a condom which promotes promiscuity, can't have that, the violence can't be good either.
Dilbert has to go, it points out all the failures of the current systems of business and government, therefore undermining society, ditto Simpsons, Family Guy, South Park, Futurama.
TinTin was written by a Catholic and he makes foreigers and other religions look dodgy, along with all sorts of other foreigners, can't have that.
Don said:
And now we're criticising the police for how long it took to arrest Hamza!
Poor buggers. They can't win.
The Police are not paid to be popular. They are paid to ensure we live in a safe society.
The Police should of arrested him long ago - some of the evidence he was convicted on goes back to 2000, so why wasn't he arrested in 2001 or 2002? Why did it take 5 years for him to be arrested and prosecuted?
Gassing Station | The Pie & Piston Archive | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff