:: My Divided Soul ::

I am currently in Manchester, UK to present my final two conference papers. My sleeping schedule is very messed up, as I am wide awake at 12:44 in the morning, probably at least in part to having slept 5:30-10 this evening. Of course, sleeping at that time is kind of strange, as it is the middle of the day both here and in California. I’m not sure what time zone my mind is on at all. Here is a list of some random thoughts, including some things I’ve meant to post for awhile. All of this will be short and some of it may make little sense.

• Skydiving is awesome. I have the pictures and a video to prove it. If you ever get the chance to go, I highly recommend it.
• I’d rather have my laptop and camera with me on a plane and run the risk of it being blown up than have to worry about putting these things in my suitcase. Two weeks ago, I flew into London two hours after they arrested all of those people on suspicion of plotting to blow up some transatlantic flights. As a result, I was allowed only a plastic bag with my wallet, ticket, and passport for the return trip. That means I checked $7000 in equipment into my suitcase. Luckily, everything made it back in working condition, but I was not amused in having to expose it to baggage handlers and the elements of the cargo hold. Personally, I think such overreaction just allows the terrorists to succeed in their ultimate goals: instilling fear resulting in the loss of freedom.
• When there is nothing to take pictures of, at least there are flowers. My flight to London was so I could attend another conference. There wasn’t much to do in Wokingham and not much to photograph, but I did what I could.
• I’ve learned to sleep on airplanes. I couldn’t do it for the longest time, but now having been to Europe and back several times, I think I’m getting the hang of it.
• The summer is almost over. This is both really good and really bad. I’ve enjoyed my time in California, but it has felt like a temporary life. I’m eager to get back to my house and my drumset in Ithaca. It will be my last semester there and I’m not sure what life will bring my direction afterwards. I’d like to think everything will be fine, though.
• I cannot escape who I am and I’m destined to put myself in the same situations over and over.
• United is now my airline of choice. I have flown out of SFO using them three times now and each time it has gone smoothly and the people have been extremely friendly and good at what they do. The same cannot be said for US Air, my former airline of choice. I flew them for this trip to Manchester and they have been rude to me from start to finish. Also, whenever I call to ask questions, they never understand what I’m asking and they can’t answer well.
• My laptop is on its last leg. The hard drive makes funny noises at me now and again and slows down to a crawl. Once Merom-based Macbook Pros come out, I’m ordering one.
• It rains in other parts of the world. Having been in the bay area, where it has rained all of once since I’ve been there, I am spoiled with regard to weather. I didn’t bother to check the weather in Manchester, which was a mistake. It’s not very warm and it’s rained everyday. I probably should have brought a jacket, umbrella, or long-sleeve shirt.
• A 21-year-old boy who goes to school in smalltown, PA brings dynamite on a plane and it is obviously not terrorism, but a t-shirt in Arabic sparks concern. Maybe this is why last time I flew into SFO, I was asked the following questions: “Where is your family from?” “What is your father’s name?” “Have you ever been to Syria or Iran?” “Are you Muslim?”
• I’m looking forward to using a pirate voice during part of my conference presentation tomorrow.

Justin has made a couple posts regarding the issue of the cartoons of the prophet Mohammad that appeared in a Danish newspaper and I have responded to them as comments on his weblog. I wanted to post my responses here as well. I would ask that you go read his entries as well, to get a different perspective on the issue. (I suppose this all means I should figure out how this whole “trackback/ping” thingy works.)

First of all, in response to his February 3 entry, “Idiots with Assault Rifles”:

There was a specific reason I didn’t get into the protests and threats of violence when I talked about the issue. It’s not that I “let them off easy,” it’s that too often when Muslims or Mideast politics are discussed in the media, it always moves to the issue of “idiots with assault rifles and masks” in a way that makes it seem they speak for the majority of Muslims. It amounts to subtle racism. For instance, during the day yesterday, the BBC’s story on the portrayal of Mohammad had two pictures with it: both of them showed people with masks and assault rifles. No pictures of the peaceful protests and boycotts were visible until you specifically clicked on the “In pictures” link. And even in that batch of pictures, there was a one of a person with mask, assault rifle, and book obviously meant to imply it was the Koran. Muslims are portrayed in the media as terrorists. I wanted to avoid having my entry focus on that part of the story in any way, as I think it is being focused on plenty in other places. In fact, it is only now in the face of these protests that we are hearing anything. These cartoons were printed back in August. So it is only once we have assault rifles and threats that it matters.

I think the same is true of the reaction to the victory of Hamas in Palestinian elections. Every article I have ever read that has anything to do with Hamas comes with a disclaimer: “Hamas has carried out numerous suicide bombings and is considered a terrorist organization by the US State Department and Israel,” even in articles that have to do with the deaths of Palestinian civilians at the hands of the Israeli army! Hamas did not get elected on the platform of “death to Israel.” In fact, it was not an issue they even brought up during the election. The were elected because of the social programs they have backed in the occupied territories for decades. They provided help to the people when no one else would. They also ran on a platform of removing the old, corrupt government. Up until this point, the United States and Israel have both said the Palestinians need to get rid of their corrupt officials before any true progress can be made.

Well, that is what the Palestinians did. And now aid to Palestinians is being cut off left and right because Hamas has guns and bombs (even though they have adhered to the ceasefire since August 2004). They are not even being given a chance. My hope is that the move to power will be good for Hamas and the Palestinian people. Energy spent trying to govern takes away from energy spent with more violent means. But the fact is, we won’t know until we give them a chance. Backing them up against a wall this early just makes the whole situations worse. At least Jimmy Carter has the right idea.

And in response to Justin’s February 7 entry, “Largely Ignorant Muslim Fundamentalists,” I wrote:

I think in some ways, this goes beyond just newspapers, though. This has been coming for a long time. As I understand it, Muslim immigrants are treated like second-class citizens in Denmark and other European countries. In Denmark, the current political climate is one of “immigrants, get out.” In fact, a person like me would have trouble in a country like that simply because of my last name. That is why I think the boycotts of Danish and Norwegian products are a reasonable protest.

It is true that the call for punishment of the newspaper by the government does not fit within Western governing practices. But it does with the governing bodies these protesters are used to.

I should also point out there is a major difference between speech directed towards Muslims and speech directly towards their faith. Directly speech towards Muslims themselves does not lead to this kind of uproar. It is the fact that the faith itself has been insulted. Muslim leaders may call Christians or Jews inferior (find me a religion that doesn’t call others inferior or wrong–strong belief seems based in this fact), but the Danish newspaper insulted the faith itself. It would be the difference between showing priests as child molesters and portraying Jesus Christ as a child molester when that scandal broke. That is the difference, and it is a very important one.

Europe is now trying to play the victims when they are not. They have treated Muslims and other immigrants poorly. And now that there are economic and political implications, they are blaming the Muslim countries and saying they have to be so careful dancing around topics relating to Islam and that it is unfair. Well, I’m sorry that Muslims ask for respect towards their faith. Just because other people do not does not make Muslims wrong. I don’t think Dutch MP Ayaan Hirsi Ali can claim to understand that, even if she is of Somali decent, as she once said, “Measured by our western standards, [Mohammad] is a pervert. A tyrant.”

I’m not saying that means the Danish government should punish the newspaper, but we do at least have to understand why they are calling for something that seems so radical. All of this goes beyond cartoons now. We are talking about two groups of people that aren’t even on the same field, let alone able to negotiate. However, too often is the perspective that the people in these Muslim countries are just backwards people who need to get with the program and accept the light of the west taken. As we have moved into an age of being more connected to the entire world, being sensitive and understanding of others’ beliefs is that much more important. We can’t impose “western standards” on everyone.

The Muslim world has reacted very strongly to cartoons of the Prophet Mohammad in the Danish newspaper, Jyllands-Posten. One of these images showed Mohammad with a headdress shaped like a bomb. Another had him saying that there weren’t enough virgins in paradise for suicide bombers. In Islam tradition, one is not to depict the prophet Mohammad, as it promotes idolatry. The anger in the Muslim world has lead to demonstrations and boycotts. It is only now, after many months and such boycotts and diplomatic sanctions that the newspaper is apologizing.

I find the newspaper’s images disturbing for two reasons. The first is that it reinforces the stereotype that Muslims are terrorists and that Islam itself promotes terrorism. This is a misconception Muslims have been fighting for decades. Yes, it is true that there are terrorists who are also Muslims. However, it is not true that Islam is violent by nature or that Muslims of the world are terrorists. This is the more simple of the two reasons I find the images offensive.

The second reason is the justification given for the images. The paper said, “Our right to say, write, photograph and draw what we want to within the framework of the law exists and must endure - unconditionally!” In other words, “the law allows us freedom of speech.” I won’t disagree that they have the right to say what they want to say. I won’t disagree that censorship by a government of ideas or media is a bad thing. However, I do disagree that having the freedom of speech means you should use it to say whatever you want, no matter how much it could offend people.

More and more often, offensive material in our society is being justified by freedom of speech or as having some kind of meaning as satire on the current state of affairs. It is true, satire often offends people. It is meant to. It tries to challenge us to look at what we think and what is going on in the world around us, sometimes even effecting political and social change that benefits us all.

However, while a lot of satire is offensive, not everything that is offensive is inherently satire. A dead baby joke, for instance, is not trying to make some sweeping social commentary on abortion. It is simply there to offend. Some find such things personally offensive. Others laugh. Some even do both. No one has illusions about such jokes. No one telling these jokes tries to wrap them up in some grand political meaning. They are offensive, plain and simple.

Now, anyone who makes offensive content can claim to be making social commentary on free speech itself. “I am defending my freedom of speech” has become the rallying cry of rude people who have nothing really interesting to say, but instead are being offensive for the sake of being offensive. Personally, I think Eminem is a great example of this. Eminem is not being satirical when he raps about homosexuals, women, and just about everyone else in the way he does. He’s not some brilliant lyricist trying to overturn the status quo. He is a person who is being offensive because it will get him attention and sell millions of records. No attempt to effect social or political change here. Nevertheless, this is the argument we hear. We hear from his avid fans that he’ll say anything and how awesome that is and people who are offended just don’t get it.

That is the essence of the problem: defending one’s offensive speech with “well, they are just overreacting” or “I have a right to say what I want” is no defense, it is simply a shift of responsibility from the person who created the offensive art to the person offended by it. It is like trying to say a woman who claims she was raped is at fault because she didn’t enjoy it. To shift the blame makes it easier for the entire world to become more offensive, to respect one another less and less.

The shift of blame continues in the form of calling any attempt at tolerance “political correctness,” a phrase with a negative connotation of excessive sensitivity in order not to upset those who aren’t thick-skinned enough to take a little criticism. I agree, there are some things that push sensitivity too far. The whole “Happy Holidays” vs. “Merry Christmas” is a shining example. I never had an objection to Merry Christmas. No matter what words are used to express the sentiment, the message is still the same: a wish that one is happy during this season and has warm and friendly experiences. The message is a positive one.

On the other hand, accusing those who get upset at the depiction of their prophet as a terrorist of being overly sensitive is trying to justify offensive statements. Depicting Mohammad with a bomb as a headdress does not express good feelings towards anyone. It does not attempt to question the status quo. It does not make some broad commentary on the situation Muslims face in an attempt to bring about change. It is offensive for the sake of being offensive. It serves to reinforce stereotypes that cause all followers of a religion to be watched carefully out of fear. It angers a group of people in the hope of getting attention. It is hate speech, nothing more.

I am certainly not calling for the Danish government to punish the newspaper or to limit freedom of speech. In the same way, I don’t think Eminem CDs should be pulled from the shelves of stores. However, what speaks about us as a society is not just the freedoms we have, but how we use them. Exercising one’s freedom is a wonderful testament to those who fought to win us those freedoms and the struggle many faced to change wrongs they saw in the world.

Nevertheless, one should always keep in mind that having the right to be offensive doesn’t mean you should be. I’ve seen people say in response to the reaction on the part of Muslims that they should just cool it because other groups are subject to such offensive imagery, too. How is that a justification? Although it is a cliché, it is still true, “an eye for an eye leaves us all blind.”

So where does this leave the situation? Danish products have been boycotted in much of the Muslim world, resulting in sales in that part of the world approaching zero. In fact, Arla Foods has been forced to lay off 125 workers as a result. I have to say, good for the people who are participating in the boycott! I’m not sure I buy any products produced in Denmark. I believe I will take a little closer look, however, and make sure I do not. I hope that such boycotts send a strong message that such hate speech is not tolerable. It does not make us better off as individuals or as a society.

Recent events with the game Grand Theft Auto have troubled me. Apparently, one can access secret sex scenes in the game, which has lawmakers, retailers, and parents up in arms. As I understand it, talking to BNG, some parents are mounting a lawsuit against the game’s creator for the material. So there are two places where I get fuzzy.

First of all, are these parents actually under the impression that Grand Theft Auto was a wholesome game until it was know that the sex scenes were in there? Now I’m not trying to say I think the material in the game is right or wrong, but I don’t understand how a game that rewarded theft, murder, and drug dealing is suddenly evil because it contains sex. As I understand it, sex is a legal act in most of this country, which murder and such are not. So why are people so concerned about explicit sex, but not explicit violence? The contradiction can be seen every day on television: blood and violence can be seen on prime time television, but a quick peak at a nipple puts the FCC and legislators on the warpath.

The other thing that bothers me even more is that parents are unwilling to take responsibility for their children and instead turn to censorship as a means by which to shield their kids from what they deem inappropriate. We have seen public outcry on many occasions for song lyrics (e.g., Ice T’s “Cop Killer”), television content, and internet websites. The common response is to try to pressure the creator to publicly apologize and pull the “offensive content” from the public eye. Why can’t parents make these decisions for their own kids and act accordingly? Don’t want your children listening to explicit music? Check the lyrics of albums they want to buy before you allow them to purchase them. Concerned about the images your children might see on television? Make sure to watch with them or, if really concerned, don’t have a television. Want to make sure your children don’t access certain content on the internet? Put the computer out in the open in a room where you can see what your child is accessing.

The bottom line is that a number of parents want to have kids, but don’t want to put in the time and effort it takes to raise them. Parents can be quick to blame the media, the schools, or any other scapegoat they can use, so long as it means they can just be hands-off on a day-to-day basis. I don’t pretend to know what it is like to be a parent, as I have not yet had that experience. But I do firmly believe in the idea that what is right for me is not necessarily right for everyone else. If I don’t want my children exposed to something, I will take the steps to keep it away from them. In the same way, I don’t want other people to tell me what the world, my kids, and I should be exposed to.

Think it’s okay for your kids to shoot people in the head in a video game but not see animated breasts? Fine by me. Just don’t take my right to make that determination for my own kids out of my hands.