Display:
The problem, kcurie, is that by elevating this into a discussion of racism, we are reinforcing and reiterating the views of the original editors, whereas they are better off ignored, or else confronted within the community which they tend to circulate (a very small one, apparently).

Instead, this has become an international event because of the free speech issue, not the racism issue.

by Upstate NY on Sat Feb 4th, 2006 at 04:28:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I do not know if I understand your point. You say that by using racism as the frame we are not doing anything good?

Or you mean that by using the freedom of speech debate we have made this a global issue when it need not to be, since this was supposed to be a purely racist remark in a small corner of Europe?

You mean it is better to use the racism frame , the freedom of speech or just ignore it all together?

I, myself, would liek to recall that it was started by racists and then other radicals took the issue which at the same time helped other radicals.

I just thought that using freedom of seppech as a theme will ake everybody involved and the moderates, as always, will be drowned out...but in this self-created discussion (as you seem to say the KKK would have loved this kind of publicity) is always difficult to know exactly what to do.

A pleasure

I therefore claim to show, not how men think in myths, but how myths operate in men's minds without their being aware of the fact. Levi-Strauss, Claude

by kcurie on Sat Feb 4th, 2006 at 04:45:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I'm not saying I have all the answers, but when the KKK visits each state annually, people have become accustomed to their marches. They are ignored. The only story on their march is that, inevitably, the ACLU goes to court and prevents local authorities from banning the march.

All I'm saying is that once the story made it out of Denmark, it became a free speech issue. Within Denmark, readers of the newspaper had every right to condemn it, cancel subscriptions, etc. Outside of Denmark, the calls to muzzle the newspaper editors were more inappropriate than the cartoons themselves, IMO.

by Upstate NY on Sat Feb 4th, 2006 at 11:37:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]
But you are implying that the original editors were racist, and in that case freedom of speech is the frame that the original editors want us to use in order to cloak their bigotry and take a high moral ground.

guaranteed to evoke a violent reaction from police is to challenge their right to "define the situation." --- David Graeber citing Marc Cooper
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sat Feb 4th, 2006 at 04:50:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I think this is exactly what happened

A pleasure

I therefore claim to show, not how men think in myths, but how myths operate in men's minds without their being aware of the fact. Levi-Strauss, Claude

by kcurie on Sat Feb 4th, 2006 at 05:08:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]
On the other hand, the racism frame has been hijacked by unsavoury fundamentalist muslims. So what frame do you adopt?

guaranteed to evoke a violent reaction from police is to challenge their right to "define the situation." --- David Graeber citing Marc Cooper
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sat Feb 4th, 2006 at 05:17:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Cloak their bigotry? On the contrary, freedom of speech is what allows for the EXPOSURE of bigotry.
by Upstate NY on Sat Feb 4th, 2006 at 11:38:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:
Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password
Occasional Series