Skip to main content

View Diary: Muslim Cartoon Controversy: What the Media Isn't Telling You (358 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  There might have (1.00)
    been slightly more to that then what you are implying (such as a socialist government with no protection of rights for all people), but we'll just pretend that you said something coherent.
    •  What did that (none)
      "socialist" (Danish?) government do about the racially hateful "free speech"  between its first occurance on Sept 30 2005 and when it reared its ugly head again on January 10 2006?

      That part of the story is not being covered by the Media.

      •  I don't think it (none)
        lead them to execute a large amount of Muslims.

        You will need to work on your WWII analogies a bit more if you want them to stick.

      •  Not a Socialist government. (none)

        The Government Anders Fogh Rasmussen consisting of the two parties Venstre and Conservatives.

        Although "Venstre" means "Left," as Wikipedia explains,  the party is based on "free-market Liberalism" and is a "right-of-centre party."

        Hence the government is a right-wing coalition.



        The description of the actual cartoons as "hateful 'free speech'" likewise is inaccurate. Jerome a Paris writes:

        One point that I have never yet seen mentioned is that several of the cartoons ALSO make fun of JP and/or the cartoonists. One has "PR stunt" quite explicitly visible. The one with the kid stats that "JP's journalists are a bunch of reactionary provocateurs".

        Which brings me to the point that I disagree with the almost universal opinion that these cartoons were pretty bad. There are provocative, sure - that was the explicit intent, but they are not without ambiguity, which is the hallmark of good caricature. And several I liked.



        If you disagree, please reproduce or link to one or more specific images and explain, with specificity, what you find "hateful."

        Thank you in advance for your consideraiton.



        f/k/a one of the people "`Our country, right or wrong!' . . . when right to be kept right; when wrong to be put right." (Sen. Carl Schurz)

        by another American on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 02:05:14 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  They were (none)
          National Socialists... as in fascists.

          Fascism and Communism are both forms of democratic socialism. Many put them on a spectrum of right to left... but they belong together, with libertarianism on the other end of the spectrum.

          •  the National socialist party wasnt socialist (none)
            they were coporatist. I can see few similarities between modern day scandinavia and WWII Germany.

            They are somewhat close on the spectrum of state power, but thats it. Everywhere else, theyre opposites

            Momma, who are we voting for? Big momma gon' vote for Rod Blagojevich.

            by your friend steve on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 02:57:58 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  Since neither Nazism nor Communism (none)

            was democratic, neither was a form of democratic socialism. Nor do I understand why someone here would want to link democratic socialism to either form of totalitarianism.


            f/k/a one of the people "`Our country, right or wrong!' . . . when right to be kept right; when wrong to be put right." (Sen. Carl Schurz)

            by another American on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 05:08:00 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  Two points: (none)
          1. The reason I said  "socialist" and put it in quotes was that is the term that libertynow used in the comment to which I was responding, to describe the government (I gathered he was referring to the Danish government). If it turns out that the Danish government is a right-leaning government, as you say it is,  that may help to explain their apparent neglect to properly attend to the 'free-speech' incident after it first occurred on Sept 30, 2005, and evidently received a large number of very appropriate quiet, civilized formal complaints from Muslim/Arab representatives*, during fall 2005 following the first publication of the race-targeting caricatures.

          2. Not sure what makes Jerome a Paris an authority/expert on hate speech, or what the relevance of that linked quote of his is to the point you were trying to make. As you should well know,  hate-speech is defined largely in the eye of the target/victime For example. millions of Europeans and Soviet citizens in the 20th century found nothing seriously wrong with similar caricatures of Jews .   It is indeed possible that the Danish editor's initial solicitation and publication  of the caricatures was an act of simple insensitivity and  poor (but non-malicious)judgement. But it became hate-speech for the Danish editor to rerelease and redistribute the offensive caricatures even AFTER the publication had been notified in an appropriate civilized and discreet manner in Fall 2005 that they were deeply offensive on racial and religious grounds to a specific group of people.    
          •  The antisemitic cartoons to which you (none)

            link are infintely grosser than the comparativelymild, non-graphic Danish cartoons.

            If you disagree, please reproduce or link to a specific Danish cartoon and explain why. Generalizations, rather than specifics, suggest an inability to make a persuasive case.


            f/k/a one of the people "`Our country, right or wrong!' . . . when right to be kept right; when wrong to be put right." (Sen. Carl Schurz)

            by another American on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 05:10:20 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Again. It's all in the eye of the beholder. n/t (none)
            •  Compare the (none)
              German "Poison Mushroom" with  the Danish 'Bomb-in-the-hat' hook-nosed Muslim

              they look the same to me. But then again, i am neither a Jew nor a Muslim.

              •  Warning: Images Shown and Discussed Below. (none)

                Shumard wrote: "Compare the German "Poison Mushroom" with  the Danish 'Bomb-in-the-hat' hook-nosed Muslim
                they look the same to me. But then again, i am neither a Jew nor a Muslim."

                Going to Emperor's Clothes, the site to which Shumard linked, I was unable to isolate the antisemitc cartoon he discusses. Accordingly, below I reproduce it and its neighbor. The German cartoon is on the left.





                In addition to the antisemitic image, the caption presents a poisonous, antisemitic message:

                "Just as a single poisonous mushroom can kill an entire family, so can a single Jew destroy a whole village, a city, yes a even an entire nation."

                "Just as the poison mushrooms emerge everywhere out of the soil, so the Jew can be found in all countries of the world. Just as the poison mushrooms often bring the worst misery with them, so the Jew is the cause of misery and deprivation, of disease and death."


                Where the antisemitic, German cartoon depicts a Jew with a large nose and thick lips, to my eye the Danish cartoon of Mohammed with a bomb in his turban shows a fairly normal nose and no lips at all -- perhaps it's covered by the mustache. In all events, putting aside the idea of depicting Mohammed and the political commentary involved in the bomb-in-the-turban, there's nothing grotesque or offense about the image itself.

                Moreover, the Danish cartoon has no caption. Unlike the antisemitic, German cartoon, the Danish cartoon thus contains no vicious written message. The import of the image as a whole is left ambiguous. For sure, there's no clear statement that any accusation is being made against all Muslims. (Compare the German statement: "the Jew is the cause of misery and deprivation, of disease and death.")

                YMMV, but I stand by my original claim that the antisemitic, German cartoons are grotesque and much more insulting or offensive (feelings about depicting Mohammed apart) than the Danish cartoons.



                If you disagree with my analysis, I respectfully request a specific analysis, not blanket generalization.

                Thanks in advance for your consideration.


                f/k/a one of the people "`Our country, right or wrong!' . . . when right to be kept right; when wrong to be put right." (Sen. Carl Schurz)

                by another American on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 07:43:26 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  It would appear that you are much more adept (none)
                  at parcing shades of hate than I am. All I can say is that perhaps if you were a Muslim, your discomfort over that second hate-image might be greater than what you feel now.

                  Sorry if that is too general an answer for you, but I am not in a mood to compare artistic techniques and the numbers of brush strokes between the two hate-images, as you seem wont to do. Maybe someone else will play with you for a while.

                  •  asdf (none)

                    I wrote:

                    If you disagree with my analysis, I respectfully request a specific analysis, not blanket generalization.

                    In the absence of any analysis on your part, I take it that you do not disagre with mine. In the circumstances, nothing more need be said.


                    f/k/a one of the people "`Our country, right or wrong!' . . . when right to be kept right; when wrong to be put right." (Sen. Carl Schurz)

                    by another American on Mon Feb 06, 2006 at 02:11:05 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site