From: Douglas Brooker (d.brooker@laposte.net)
Date: Sat 11 Feb 2006 - 14:36:41 GMT
Wade Allsopp wrote:
>
> On 2/11/06, *Kate Distin* wrote
>
>
>
>     Your analysis strikes me as having hit the nail on the head.  I've had
>     conversations with very moderate, culturally English, not particularly
>     religiously observant Muslims in the UK, who feel very strongly that
>     although they condemn violence and terrorism they can nonetheless
>     understand the feelings behind the violence and terrorism.  As you
>     say,
>     there is a perception of being marginalised and not having their needs
>     met within Western society.  And another part of the problem is of
>     course the entanglement of any encounter between Islam and the
>     West with
>     the situation in Israel/Palestine.  All of this creates a strong
>     feeling
>     of identity with fellow Muslims, whatever their behaviour, and a
>     consequent reluctance to condemn even very extreme behaviour by others
>     within that brotherhood.  Heightened in this case by identifying with
>     the feelings of outrage about the prophet being ridiculed and
>     denigrated.  Then we as non-Muslims hear even our very moderate
>     friends
>     expressing sympathy with the feelings underlying terrorism - and the
>     alienation is exacerbated.
>
>
>
> I agree, this is the point I was trying to make when I said that the 
> main losers of all this
> have been the moderate Muslims living in the west whose main goals are 
> not jihad
> but simply to get on well with their lives and live peacefully with 
> their neighbours.
>
> My sense is that many moderate British Muslims and those such as Jack 
> Straw who
> strive to represent their views, were wrong footed by the cartoons.  
> The initial reaction was:
> "this is outrageous, people are linking Islam with terrorism, this is 
> yet another example of the
>  prejudices we face, these publications should not be allowed."
>
> We then saw maybe 50-100 radical Islamists (representing about 0.007% 
> of the British Muslim population) outside parliament screaming "behead 
> the cartoonists, let's have another 7/7, go go Bin Laden etc etc"
>
> In an important sense it was these people who the REAL cartoons.  
> Remember the idea behind a cartoon
> is to exaggerate real features of the subject to comic effect.
>
> Whereas the original cartoons were pretty weak images published in a 
> Danish newspaper months previously and would have had approximately 
> zero impact on British people's perception of Muslims, these real live 
> cartoons got headline coverage on every TV news channel and just about 
> every serious newspaper in the UK for 2 or 3 days.  They will have had 
> a material effect on reinforcing the prejudice against Muslims in the 
> UK.  It was only a day or two later that moderate Muslim opinion 
> seemed to wake up to this and begin a largely ineffectual counter 
> offensive.
>
> What I think moderate Muslims have not woken up to is that successful 
> cartoon images "work" because they magnify aspects of the subject that 
> are really there. Think of the domineering, handbag bashing Spitting 
> Image puppet of Margaret Thatcher or the grey, mousy puppet of John 
> Major.
>
> I think the comedy side of this whole story has not received much 
> attention to date.  The Muslim reaction to the cartoons
> has generally been that because they are cartoons they are there to 
> "ridicule" and perhaps humiliate Muslims.  In fact I would say that 
> this is to mistake the nature of comedy and cartoons, at least in 
> British society.  Comedy is there to bring us down to earth in a non 
> violent, non threatening way, to prevent us from taking ourselves too 
> seriously. When successful it is perhaps the most effective form of 
> criticism, which is presumably why in just about all of the major 
> world dictatorships, from Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Saddam Hussein 
> to the current Islamic theocracies, making fun of the leader and 
> regime in public was something that could rapidly lead to prison or in 
> many cases death.
>
> Most discussion of the cartoons has centred on the one with Muhammad 
> with a bomb in his turban, which is really just making the point of 
> the link between Islam and terrorism.  I think most people have said 
> that the only one of the cartoons which is actually funny is the one 
> with Muhammad sitting on a cloud being approached by a line of suicide 
> bombers saying "sorry we've run out of virgins".  This is the one (or 
> something like it) which should  be on posters all over Gaza, Baghdad, 
> Kabul and Bradford, because there is a very dangerous meme out there 
> which needs to be doused and the traditional forms of argument simply 
> don't work against it.
What is the very dangerous meme out there that needs to be doused? 
===============================================================
This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat 11 Feb 2006 - 14:58:01 GMT