| แฟ้มประวัติFlawed Skullบล็อกรายการ |  เครื่องมือ  วิธีใช้ |
|
23/3/2549 Cartoons and Political Labels'Bigoted provocations,''Fascistic intolerance,' etc, etc.
We live in a global village (yes I'm as cliched as they come). This is not so much a village due to anything but technology. If there weren't hi-def satellite transmissions of the most unworthy pieces of 'news,' there would not be a global 'village' to speak of. Which makes sense when discussing the whole Mohammad cartoon fiasco. Initially I had settled for siding with the proponents of freedom of speech as there was massive hysteria on the other side. However, now its time to ummm, analyze and scratch beneath the (yes thats right -- another cliche coming up) surface.
Ever since the advent of communists, common labels became hopelessly skewed. These included -- reactionary, progressive, right-wing, left-wing, and in India, communalism, etc. etc. Communists have over the decades perfected the art of ad hominem and a lot of other pseudo-intellectuals have borrowed their technique and used it to great avail. For the lazy masses hurling about in their modern-day mental drones consisting of layers of work, finances, work, children, and finances, this technique gets great results. This is because the faculty of critical thinking required an ever-acute eye for propagandistic rhetoric and verbiage and I believe people frankly don't have the time or the interest in following public debates on issues critically as a lot of it does not affect their lives directly. So in effect, if someone like Robert Spencer tries to open a debate on the 'real' causes of terrorism around the world today and how they might have something to do with core Islamic traditions, Ward Churchill and company will hurl the previously-mentioned labels the first time and in effect disparage Mr. Spencer's credibility. This might have nothing to do with the argument Mr. Spencer might make. It has all to do with circumabulating the real debate and instead hurl abuses to stay in power. This is exactly the sort of thing Romila Thapar, Irfan Habib and other 'eminent' historians in the Marxist academic halls of India do to defend their lousy outmoded so-called 'scholarship'.
So why did I mention all of the above? Simple reason: political correctness. It is the epidemic plaguing serious discussion today. Those who do not adhere to this monstrosity borne out of good intentions are labelled fascists and right-wing nuts instantly. It is a fact that people calling themselves 'liberal' or 'left-wingers' usually adhere to the scriptural doctrine of political correctness more than the so-called 'conservatives' or 'right-wingers'. This is not to say that all conservatives are free from the clutches of this dogma either. But the real point is the harm that this dogma causes in obfuscating open and honest debate. This is a top-down trickling of ideas. It's sort of common knowledge that a Middle American and a common man in India holds onto opinions and views that cannot be deemed 'politically correct', but often the ideology is forced from the top-down by media giants like Times and India Today.
So in purview of the above, if we were to see through the looking-glass (yes more cliches thank you), we would see an enormous amount of obfuscation and rhetoric on the issue of the Mohammad cartoons. It's true that the hysteria of the Muslim mobs was maddening and truly condemnable. But why exactly did it take them 5 months or more to put up their demonstrations? What purpose did it serve? Why did the Iranian nuclear issue get hidden in the process? One would find out from our great friend Google, that the Danish imam Achmed Abu Laban who went on a tour of the Middle East to publicize the issue of the cartoons after the Jyllands-Posten refused to apologize, carried in his portfolio the 12 original illustrations and also 3 fake ones which were way more offensive. He spread bile and vile propaganda against the Danish people and spread victimology. He wailed to the Egyptians about how being a Muslim is inviting harassment and persecution in Denmark. It is also said that at the Islamic summit at Makkah of the OIC was set the agenda of pursuing the agitation against Denmark to dilute the Iranian nuclear issue and to disparage Denmark's reputation which was to get a seat at the rotating temporary UN Security Council.
So began the campaign. Embassies were burnt, flags were torched, effigies of Western leaders were trampled and torn, Jihadi slogans were screamed out loud. Amid all the hysteria people naturally took sides. Some took to the freedom of speech argument, while mostly Muslims and some so-called liberals pursued the argument about 'responsibility' to be exercised while speaking freely. These people were, of course, an hour late and a dollar short as they were absent during the Piss Christ and other such controversies. So naturally people saw the hypocrisy. However, some of the commentators questioned the events and realised that it was all planned rage by the dictatorships of the Middle East and by tinfoil hat logic stated that we should not provide 'fuel' to the Middle Eastern tyrannies to use their people for political purposes. Absurd, indeed.
Among all the verbiage and sloganeering, I asked myself the above questions and arrived at various answers. SO yes, there was a conspiracy afoot. Yes, freedom of speech is absolute when it comes to mocking religious figures. Yes, there should be 'responsibility' in exercising freedom of speech but not when disparaging religious figures. Yes, indeed the hysterical murderous Muslim mobs were incited by the dictatorships. But, one must stop and ask how is it that these people are so easily provoked over cartoons? They say its cos Mohammad is a very respected and deeply loved character to them. They say Mohammad was the perfect man, he was merciful and peaceful. NOW WAIT A MINUTE....to show that Mohammad was a peaceful man you are committing arson, vandalism, murder and calling to genocide. We have to say that Islam is a religion of peace or we are to be killed. Is this 1984 yet or what!?! Orwell would be smiling in his grave (rather meekly). Who exactly are the fascists and racists? The people calling for genocide and mayhem and terrorism in the name of avenging cartoons or the cartoonists? Even that specious organisation - the United Nations had to get involved. A political poster of UN is posted here later. The UN Human Rights Commissioner takes time off from petty everday things like the genocide in Darfur or massive starvation in the rest of Africa or the unrest in Haiti and religious persecution in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia and instead issues a strong worded statement to the effect of condemning Denmark. I know why Bush put John Bolton in there!
The racists, bigots, and fascists were calling the people questioning their behavior racists, bigots and fascists. It does NOT get more Orwellian than this. And within this devious and pathetic development, the establishment of political correctness served as the oxygen in a combustion keeping the false flickers of victimhood and grievance alive. All the while, the broker at Wall Street or the banker at HSBC or the grocer down the street doesn't give a fart and arrives at the conclusion that both sides must be equally responsible.
Conclussion: get rid of political labels...or use them carefully and if you know your argument is based on sound logic and facts, ignore ad hominem and rally on with it.
ข้อคิดเห็น (3)ในการเพิ่มข้อคิดเห็น ให้ลงชื่อเข้าใช้ด้วย Windows Live ID ของคุณ (หากคุณใช้ Hotmail, Messenger หรือ Xbox LIVE คุณมี Windows Live ID อยู่แล้ว) ลงชื่อเข้าใช้ หากยังไม่มี Windows Live ID ลงทะเบียน
การติดตามข้อมูลURL การติดตามข้อมูลสำหรับข้อมูลนี้คือ: http://flawedskull.spaces.live.com/blog/cns!B6DE406F1EE568B2!178.trak เว็บล็อกที่อ้างอิงข้อมูลนี้
|
|
|
