The Left, Denmark, Cartoon & Mahommet

[August1991]

Returning to this thread's title, here is a column by English-Canada's Official Leftist™, Rick Salutin:

A week ago, I'd not have guessed that the response among Muslims to those Danish cartoons, and the response to their responses, would still be escalating. What accounts for it?

Let me suggest it's not due to the specific cartoons. It's a reaction to a long, even centuries-long experience of being the object of someone else's caricatures with no effective way to reply.

....

Note that this cartooning (in the broad sense) was always done to "them" by others like "us," the West etc. It was never by them or for them. That's why the argument that they can't take a joke or that "everyone" is fair game for cartoonists doesn't apply.

G & M

There you have the Leftist argument in a nutshell. Since Muslims have been "oppressed" by the West, we in the West cannot make fun of certain Muslim practices or criticize them. So, presumably, Muslim men can beat their wives, stone to death rape victims or kill homosexuals. And we can't say anything.

But shouldn't I have the right to criticize a rich Muslim man? There are many Conrad Blacks in the Middle East. Are they protected from criticism because they are "oppressed" Muslims?

And who decides when a people is oppressed? Is there a secret handshake that determines membership?

I argued at the outset that the Left is in error if it tries to develop a coherent ideology based on the defence of "oppressed" groups. Karl Marx did not develop his economic theories on such an idea. Proponents of socialism did not either.

To me, this Leftist culture of oppression is a very modern phenomenon (perhaps with roots going further back). rabble.ca is filled with it and it informs Salutin's column linked above. It's more a feature of North American Leftism and may have its roots in Irish Catholic feelings of being an underdog. I dunno.

In any case, it just leads to incoherence. I note that Salutin is in favour of allowing Al-Jazeera to broadcast in Canada but feels that mildly anti-religious cartoons should be forbidden.

BTW, this Leftist view of Muslims as "victims" says much more about Leftists than it does about Muslims. IME, peninsular Arabs (those in Kuwait, Saudi, UAE, etc) are if anything generally arrogant. Victim is not a word I would use to describe them.

----

Here's a moderate Muslim's take on this cartoon business:

Last week, in the midst of violent protests and heightened emotions over the Danish cartoons of Prophet Muhammad, a conservative Muslim imam in the Middle East went on television and told more than 200 million people that Danes were burning copies of the Qur'an.

He was lying.

...

This is just one example of how conservative Muslims are manipulating the Muslim population.

CBC

I'll quibble about the excuse (the conspiratorial devil made them do it) but this is an opinion well worthy of a read.

----

I was going to argue to August1991 that the Left has not 'lost the economic argument', since no 'pure' experiment has taken place. Further, many societies, including Canada's vehemently support things that are left economically', including health care, regulated energy prices, and state-owned or arbitrated easement.

I have always been irritated by the "pure socialism never tried" argument. First, there have been enough experiments to draw conclusions. Second, socialism won't work in theory anyway. Third, we live in a dirty, real world - not in an ideal, frictionless vacuum. The Left has always compared a socialist fantasy to real world capitalism. It is a weak rhetorical tool that now only works on the exceptionally naive.

Nor Thelonious, is this a question of moderation. Markets are a wonderful way to achieve 'socialist' co-operation among multitudes. In this, free trade and markets are good and the Left should support them. Unfortunately, markets don't achieve co-operation in all situations and then, governments can obtain the solidarity which would otherwise be lacking. This is an urgent issue and the Left has the credibility to make a good case.

As I understand it, the Japanese have not fully admitted the atrocities committed in the past in the same way that, say, the Germans have.

This is a falsehood that has been created by the same biased media that you accuse of being apologists for Muslims. We can leave that debate for another day.

Start a thread, make your point and maybe I (and others) will learn something.

[Argus]

An interesting criticism of Islam from Jihad Watch's Hugh Fitzgerald.

Islamophibia: Really?

1) Muhammad is a role-model for all time. Muhammad married Aisha when

she was 6 and had sexual intercourse with her when she was 9. I find

appalling that Muslims consider this act of Muhammad to be that of the

man who is in every way a role-model, and hence to be emulated. In

particular, I am appalled that virtually the first act of the Ayatollah

Khomeini, a very orthodox and learned Shi'a theologian, was to lower

the marriageable age of girls in Iran to 9 -- because, of course, it

was Aisha's age when Muhammad had sexual relations with her.

...

2) I find appalling that Islam provides a kind of Total Regulation of

the Universe, so that its adherents are constantly asking for advice as

to whether or not, for example, they can have wear their hair in a

certain way, grow their beards in a certain way, wish an Infidel a

Merry Christmas (absolutely not!).

[August1991]

Muhammad is a role-model for all time.

Give it a break, Argus.

In Christianity, the father killed the son. What kind of role model is that?

[JerrySeinfeld]

Note to the "right":

Even engaging in a debate about these cartoons and their repurcussions in the muslim world is an excercise in entertaining the ridiculous.

Free societies allow freedom of expression, period.

Any muslim who challenges this in the name of "respect" is living in a dreamland.

No newspaper or individual is under any obligation to "respect" anyone. In fact, in free societies we reserve the right NOT to respect certain religions or points of view.

Respect is a subjective term. Freedom of expression is not.

Muslims who don't like this cartoon, or other apologists for threats of violence need to wake up and grow up -- or choose to live in societies where that freedom does not exist.

Make your choice, but don't expect to make your home in a place of freedom and then demand anything but.

Support Denmark - BUY DANISH!!!

[August1991]

Support Denmark - BUY DANISH!!!

Jerry, give it a break.

Making a point by posting on multiple threads on this forum is counterproductive to the point you want to make.

Nevertheless, Jerry, I appreciate the BUY DANISH. Cool.

[Argus]

Muhammad is a role-model for all time.

Give it a break, Argus.

In Christianity, the father killed the son. What kind of role model is that?

The Father did not kill the Son. The lesson from the crusifiction was one of sacrifice and peace. After all, what God could have done was kill all the Romans who had threatened his Son. He didn't do that. Another lesson was that life is fleeting and not as important as the afterlife. If you really believe in an afterlife (I don't) then dying is no big deal, and actually something to look forward to. I am not a particularly religious guy, but I take no messages of violence from that.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear August1991,

Edward Heath and Valery Giscard d'Estaing, both Conservatives, were dirigiste in a way that, say, Stephen Harper is not.

I looked through several dictionaries, and the only place I found something similar to 'dirigiste' was in my French-English dictionary. It had the word 'dirigisme', (government economic planning and control). I would say that most countries gov'ts dabble in this to one degree or another, more than practice 'Laissez-faire' to such degrees.

(Why do the french have such great terms like this, and not english, and why do the germans make up 32 letter words to mean the same thing?)

The Left has always compared a socialist fantasy to real world capitalism. It is a weak rhetorical tool that now only works on the exceptionally naive.

Not exactly true. Hutterites have been extremely successful with their brand of 'collective farming', to the point where they are (or were) the fastest growing land ownership concern in recent times. (This applies to prairie farmland only, though)

Cuba is an example of a tainted experiment, where the economic value of their production and ability to trade has been virtually nullified.

I argued at the outset that the Left is in error if it tries to develop a coherent ideology based on the defence of "oppressed" groups. Karl Marx did not develop his economic theories on such an idea. Proponents of socialism did not either.

To me, this Leftist culture of oppression is a very modern phenomenon (perhaps with roots going further back). rabble.ca is filled with it and it informs Salutin's column linked above. It's more a feature of North American Leftism and may have its roots in Irish Catholic feelings of being an underdog. I dunno.

I think your label of 'Left' is too broad, (and you yourself qualified the difference between 'the old left' and 'modern left', yet still lump them together in the next post.

Many people who witness this 'underdog phenomenon' called those people 'bleeding hearts', while you seem to think that all of those who support even economic socialism (and even 'fair play) must also and unequivocably support those that fight against a more powerful force. I don't believe this to be true.

[August1991]

Argus, the father did symbolically kill the son. ("I gave my only son... " ) And Argus, please don't play literal superstitions, or religions, against one another. (Is throwing salt better than sitting on a suitcase?) Christ is no more likely a son than Mohammed a reporter.

Felonious, diriger is French for direct - as in a Movie Director. Hutterites? I have always been surprised when socialists used ants for their proof, and suggested rats for capitalist experiments.

Thelonious, seriously, Anglo North American, protestant Leftism amounts to "bleeding heart", limousine liberals. They want to deny and valorize themselves by helping the oppressed masses. It was a marriage with Irish Catholic minority victimhood. Am I wrong?

----

I started this thread about a greater issue, IMV. Is the Western Left hypocritical? When the rich, urban Layton-NDP, Gore-Democrats claim to be "progressive", what does the word "progressive" mean?

What is Left and Progressive? What does "left" and "progressive" mean? Is it respect and sensitivity to those oppressed? For example, Muslims are a minority in this world, and at present, they are oppressed.

Should Western progressive leftists assist and defend Muslims, because Muslims are oppressed?

[scribblet]

Argus, the father did symbolically kill the son. ("I gave my only son... " ) And Argus, please don't play literal superstitions, or religions, against one another. (Is throwing salt better than sitting on a suitcase?) Christ is no more likely a son than Mohammed a reporter.

Felonious, diriger is French for direct - as in a Movie Director. Hutterites? I have always been surprised when socialists used ants for their proof, and suggested rats for capitalist experiments.

Thelonious, seriously, Anglo North American, protestant Leftism amounts to "bleeding heart", limousine liberals. They want to deny and valorize themselves by helping the oppressed masses. It was a marriage with Irish Catholic minority victimhood. Am I wrong?

----

I started this thread about a greater issue, IMV. Is the Western Left hypocritical? When the rich, urban Layton-NDP, Gore-Democrats claim to be "progressive", what does the word "progressive" mean?

What is Left and Progressive? What does "left" and "progressive" mean? Is it respect and sensitivity to those oppressed? For example, Muslims are a minority in this world, and at present, they are oppressed.

Should Western progressive leftists assist and defend Muslims, because Muslims are oppressed?

Progressive was a word coined prior to WW 1, to do with the period of reform.;

I'm not sure how the left sees Progressive, but IMHO it is simply another word coined to indirectly accuse the right of being 'regressive' and to give their moment the perception of being better.

There's a good article here on this:

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadA...le.asp?ID=15077

The man who is now virtually synonymous with Progressivism, Herbert Croly (The Promise of American Life), was himself both the son of a noted proponent of Comteian positivism and the student of Harvard's Josiah Royce, a disciple of Hegel. All of these thinkers contributed to what would become the ethical foundation of the Progressive Movement: a contempt and loathing of "individualism" -- and its political expression in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution: