(NOTE: Welcome, Michelle Malkin readers! You can download the "Buy Danish" icon as a GIF file here.)
Last October, you may recall, a neo-Nazi group staged a rally in Toledo, Ohio. The Nazis claimed to be protesting supposed crimes by black gangs against white citizens in that part of town. Many blacks, offended by this accusation, showed up to counter-protest. It wasn't long before some of the blacks started throwing rocks at the Nazis, and the scene quickly devolved into an all-out riot. As CNN reported at the time:
That's a lesson that Muslims currently protesting a Danish newspaper's publication of 12 editorial cartoons depicting Muhammed would do well to consider. Here are the cartoons, which appeared in Denmark's Jyllands-Posten last September. (Click the thumbnails to open larger versions in a new window):
Some of them, not all, associate Islam with violence or intolerance. Perhaps the harshest of the lot depicts Muhammed wearing a bomb on his head. But as editorial cartoons go, these are relatively mild.
Nevertheless, the cartoons sparked an international Muslim outcry that boiled over in the past few days, spurring boycotts of Danish foodstuffs and demands that not only the newspaper, but also Denmark itself, apologize. The Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia even called for the Danish government to punish the newspaper, free speech be damned. Muslim media weighed in, with the Arab News lamenting that "we have heard the usual responses about freedom of speech and governments having no control over the press and media."
The shrieks of outrage soon turned into threats of violence. Some Palestinians in Gaza burned Danish flags and chanted "War on Denmark, Death to Denmark", while others, wearing masks and carrying guns, seized an EU office there. In Iraq, a militant group called for attacks on targets in Denmark — and, for good measure, in Norway, where the cartoons were reprinted.
The swelling wave of Muslim fury forced Denmark to warn Danes not to travel to Saudi Arabia, and to "show caution" when travelling in other Muslim countries. And, following threats from the al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigade, Norway has advised its citizens in Gaza to leave, while the Danish Red Cross said it was evacuating an employee from Yemen (and two from Gaza) as boycotts and anger there grow stronger. "There have been concrete threats against our employees," said a Danish Red Cross spokesperson.
Ironically, the fury of the Muslim world's response to these cartoons shows that the cartoons themselves weren't entirely off-base. They depicted Muslims as intolerant and violent, and Muslims responded with intolerance and violence.
Those who protested the cartoons were united by a common demand that Muslims, and Islam, be treated with respect. The energy that fueled their outrage might be better spent demonstrating why such respect is warranted.
FOLLOW-UP:
Over at LGF, Charles shares some feedback on the "Buy Danish" campaign from a reader named Dan:
ANOTHER FOLLOW-UP:
Dangerous Dan analyzes the content of the cartoons:
Last October, you may recall, a neo-Nazi group staged a rally in Toledo, Ohio. The Nazis claimed to be protesting supposed crimes by black gangs against white citizens in that part of town. Many blacks, offended by this accusation, showed up to counter-protest. It wasn't long before some of the blacks started throwing rocks at the Nazis, and the scene quickly devolved into an all-out riot. As CNN reported at the time:
Police and SWAT teams moved in, and about two dozen rioters were arrested, Toledo Police Chief Michael Navarre said. He said he expected 30 to 40 arrests by the end of the day.Ford was right. Angered at being called violent criminals, some Toldeo blacks responded by commiting violent crimes. In general, when someone accuses you of doing something, you will not prove them wrong by doing it.
Toledo Mayor Jack Ford declared a state of emergency and asked for 50 highway patrol officers to reinforce Toledo police. A curfew came into effect at 8 p.m. for people "roaming around the streets," he said.
He also blamed gang members for the violence, saying it turned into "exactly what they wanted," referring to the Nazi group.
That's a lesson that Muslims currently protesting a Danish newspaper's publication of 12 editorial cartoons depicting Muhammed would do well to consider. Here are the cartoons, which appeared in Denmark's Jyllands-Posten last September. (Click the thumbnails to open larger versions in a new window):
 |  |  |
 |  |  |
 |  |  |
 |  |  |
Some of them, not all, associate Islam with violence or intolerance. Perhaps the harshest of the lot depicts Muhammed wearing a bomb on his head. But as editorial cartoons go, these are relatively mild.
Nevertheless, the cartoons sparked an international Muslim outcry that boiled over in the past few days, spurring boycotts of Danish foodstuffs and demands that not only the newspaper, but also Denmark itself, apologize. The Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia even called for the Danish government to punish the newspaper, free speech be damned. Muslim media weighed in, with the Arab News lamenting that "we have heard the usual responses about freedom of speech and governments having no control over the press and media."
The shrieks of outrage soon turned into threats of violence. Some Palestinians in Gaza burned Danish flags and chanted "War on Denmark, Death to Denmark", while others, wearing masks and carrying guns, seized an EU office there. In Iraq, a militant group called for attacks on targets in Denmark — and, for good measure, in Norway, where the cartoons were reprinted.
The swelling wave of Muslim fury forced Denmark to warn Danes not to travel to Saudi Arabia, and to "show caution" when travelling in other Muslim countries. And, following threats from the al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigade, Norway has advised its citizens in Gaza to leave, while the Danish Red Cross said it was evacuating an employee from Yemen (and two from Gaza) as boycotts and anger there grow stronger. "There have been concrete threats against our employees," said a Danish Red Cross spokesperson.
Ironically, the fury of the Muslim world's response to these cartoons shows that the cartoons themselves weren't entirely off-base. They depicted Muslims as intolerant and violent, and Muslims responded with intolerance and violence.
Those who protested the cartoons were united by a common demand that Muslims, and Islam, be treated with respect. The energy that fueled their outrage might be better spent demonstrating why such respect is warranted.
FOLLOW-UP:
Over at LGF, Charles shares some feedback on the "Buy Danish" campaign from a reader named Dan:
Dan also notes that if we’re planning to buy Danish products, we may want to avoid products from those companies that are losing business in Arab countries — because they almost certainly agreed not to deal with Israel as a condition to sell in those countries. They made a devil’s bargain, and now it’s payment time.Sigh... nothing is ever simple, is it?
ANOTHER FOLLOW-UP:
Dangerous Dan analyzes the content of the cartoons:
While the toon with the turban bomb has been getting most of the attention, also observe toons 8 and 11 (the chalkboard one and the one with orange falling on the guy's head). Both of those are criticizing the Danish newspaper for seeking to publish the cartoons. Then you go to toons 3 and 9 (the guy hiding his drawing and the one with Mohammed calling off his guards) and you'll see that they're a commentary on Muslims' potential reaction to the drawings, which was obviously warranted.Interesting.
Glad I found your blog.
You nailed it. Ironically, the Muslim community doesn't 'get it' and probably never will.
WR95
Ironically, you unintentionally nailed it - each case reflects our human penchant for group violence, which Hobbes said we can cure by creation of a government (and which Western democracy seeks to control by imposing checks and balances). Absent such a state, parties to conflicts find themselves in Hobbesian traps and predictible behave just as you have noted - including dismissing the moral standing of the other side.
It is sad that you don't seem to get this, but I hope that someday you will.
Some relevant reading:
review by Pinker on Glover on violence and evil
Hobbes and international politics
Hobbes and Israeli withdrawal from Sinai
Pinker's Blank Skate (pdf)
Also, my understanding is that the issue isn't that the cartoons depict Islam as a violent religion, it is that they depict Mohammad. Representations of the Prophet are strickly forbidden in Islam because they are a considered a form of idolatry. That is what the beef is about.
Now if I were Danish, I might just start building a big Mohammad out of LEGOs.
Also, there have been plenty of Muhammed drawings through the ages without sparking an international outcry. (No doubt it's easier to generate mass outrage in Muslim countries these days thanks to the Internet.)
And consider too that a Danish Muslim group had no problem making its own insulting drawings of Big Mo and falsely attributing them to the Jyllands-Posten in order to fan the flames of outrage. You can see an example of its handiwork here.
Riding Sun provides a valuable public service by documenting Gaijinbiker's compulsive, transparent, anti-Muslim bias. It's also Exhibit A of how cynical right-wingers like GB are when it comes to American values like free speech.
Of course, it seems like people who offend Muslims, like Salman Rushdie and Theo Van Gogh are the ones who really need to be watching their backs — not those, like Rall, who summon the bravery to take on the big, bad ol' US of A.
I don't see what's so "cynical" about my views on free speech. Speech should be free regardless of the viewpoint it expresses; free speech protection encompasses Rall's work just as it does the Jyllands-Posten cartoons.
Of course, Muslims can decide to use their own right to free speech (assuming they live in Western countries like Denmark, where they have it) to criticize those cartoons. But demands that the government of Denmark apologize for the actions of an independent newspaper, or boycotts of Danish food producers that had nothing at all to do with the cartoons, are more than mere critcism; they are actually demands that free speech be curtailed: The people behind these protests want Denmark to place limits on what other people are allowed to say.
When Nazis marched in Skokie, the Jewish community and ACLU acknowledged their rights and supported them - because they did not feel threatened, were supported by police, and took the view that their own interests were best protected if the government did not suppress freedom of expression. It sounds like the scene in inner city Toledo was quite different - such places tend to be under-policed and police tend not to be from the community, with the result that violence and "honor" codes are all often that's left for protecting self and property. It's no surprise that the Toledo march turned out differently, since the march wasn't about free speech, but about self-defense and threats. Violence is what you get in a Hobbesian state - which tells us something about solving the problem.
As for Islam and those cartoons, I am sure you understand that as there is no global state or police force, international relations also take place on a Hobbesian level. The cartoons are fairly clearly intended to diss Muhammed, which is quite understandable in the context of a cultural struggle in which some are engaged - Muslims versus the non-Muslim West. While certainly legal in the West, don't the cartoons also show an intolerance and hostility towards Islam, which Muslims are interpreting in precisely the manner they were intended? While legal, aren't they deliberately inflamatory? If so, where is the wisdom in them?
If your hope is that mutual provocations escalate, so we can show the Muslims our power to treat them all like Chechens, then you're definitely on the path to success. If such case, by all means continue to play the defense lawyer for the bigots in the West and mock those Muslims who take offense.
If not, start thinking about how we can de-escalate and build a global society that is strong enough not to tear when various groups exercise their rights of free speech. That might include realizing that building a better world may require criticizing all of those who are quick to fly off the handle and/or provoke, whether at home or abroad.
However, I must disagree that GB is cynical on the question of free speech - he has his words in the right place but just doesn't see how he has gotten emotionally wrapped up in things. The free speech of those critizing our enemies must be protected, but when someone critizes us (or gives us information we don't want to hear, like the Reuters (AP?) analysis of the effectiveness of "decaptiation" attacks), then they have become unpatriotic and must also be critized. GB, you're a smart guy; you really should start living in a three-dimensional world.
You know that racism against blacks is bad, and that it wasn't people's blackness that made them violent, so you are careful in the earlier part of your post to say "some of the blacks", "many blacks", and "some Toldeo blacks". But when talking about the idiotic actions of some Muslims, you forget the distictions and go on about "Muslim fury", "the Muslim world's response", "Muslims responded with intolerance and violence." Why did the "some" and "many" suddenly disappear?
I think you wisely worded the earlier part of the post the way you did because without the qualifiers it would sound like a racist blaming all Toledo blacks for the problems of racism. Why, then, with a billion Muslims on the planet, the vast majority living peaceful lives, do you choose to lump them all together? What conclusions should people be drawing from your choice of wording?
That said, my family is doing our part to keep the Danish economy strong.
(1) Blackness, in and of itself, is not an ideology or a religion. Islam is. As such, it is fallacious and racist to say that someone acted a certain way "because" he is black. It's quite a different matter to say that someone acted a certain way due to his Muslim beliefs.
(2) It's always prudent to avoid overbroad generalizations. Yet at some point, we are no longer talking about fringe "extremists", but about a movement that has widespread support from a particular group. Only a handful of blacks engaged in the Toldedo riots, but the protests against the cartoons were widespread, drawing broad-based international support from official Muslim leaders and ordinary Muslims alike.
That said, I hope you will note that I did specifically limit the scope of my criticism to "Muslims currently protesting a Danish newspaper's publication of 12 editorial cartoons" — in other words, not all Muslims, but only the ones who are participating in the protests. And when it came to the most aggressive acts, I did write that "Some Palestinians in Gaza burned Danish flags", and that "others, wearing masks and carrying guns, seized an EU office". After all, only a handful of Palestinians engaged in these actions, and not all Palestinians are militants or terrorists.
Ultimately, I think there's a tipping point to these things, beyond which the fact that some people didn't actively participate is outweighed by the fact that many others did.
This is instinctive group-think and one reason why you and others on the right tend to question the loyalty and patriotism of those who disagree with you about Iraq and Islamofacism.
Our biology makes tribal violence rather easy, but our rational facilities give us the means to step back and pursue positve-sum solutions. That is the march of culture (with fits and starts) and is responsible for the remarkable spread of multilateralism and wealth after WWII.
Do you disagree? Or are you with Ann Coulter and others who think that we must gird ourselves for a crusade against Islam, kill their leaders and convert the rest?
Of course there are more than two options, and I mention Coulter as a strawman just to illustrate how ridiculous the confrontational approach can be. Dealing with Islam is certainly a serious, long-term issue that, unless we deliberately chose violent confrontation, will require mutual confidence building. We should deal with it with caution, aware of how emotional responses can lead us astray.
You seem to be spoiling for a fight, or at least completely behind those who are. I just want to make sure that those who choose confrontation are aware that they are playing with fire.
Given that Gaijinbiker has a legal background, he knows exactly what he's doing by claiming that the "protests" were widespread and included ordinary and "official Muslim leaders."
The vast majority of "official Muslim leaders" and "ordinary Muslims" were NOT involved in violent protests, but rather chose other nonviolent, civic means such as written complaints, to protest the cartoons.
Gaijinbiker is deliberately tarring Muslims at large with acts that are committed by a tiny minority of fringe radicals. Why? When the Bush administration is exposed spending tax dollars to plant fake stories in Iraqi newspapers, you criticize the press for exposing it. In explaining why you expect the U.S. media to cheerlead for the U.S. in the Iraq war, you cite the heavily censored, one-sided U.S. media coverage during World War II as your preferred example.
Government censorship of news media historically rests almost exclusively on the rationale that criticism of the military or the government itself is a national security threat and tantamount or equal to disloyalty or, even, treason. To the extent that your comments are amenable to that view, even if they don't parrot it, you are, in practice, a direct enemy of free speech.
Lastly, you censor your blog.
First, keeping trolls and hecklers off my blog is not "censorship"; it's just choosing who I care to share my own personal website with. I'm not stopping anyone from speaking their mind elsewhere, including on a blog of their own. You have the right to say what you want, but I don't have the obligation to listen to you. And for the record, I haven't banned anyone from commenting here because I disagreed with their political beliefs. I have banned people for being rude, insulting, or malicious, and I will continue to do so.
Second, regardless of whether you think paying to include favorable stories in Iraqi papers is appropriate, it's certainly not censorship.
Third, I don't believe I've ever called for the government to step in and stop the media from covering the Iraq war in the way it chooses. I would like to see the media, on its own, decide at the very least not to be openly hostile to America's efforts in Iraq, which is not at all the same thing.
Finally, what sort of restrictions on media coverage during wartime are approrpiate is a subject that's worthy of debate. I would say there's a spectrum of acceptibility, with general criticism of the government at one end, and disclosure of confidential battle plans, for example, at the other. Reasonable people can disagree about where to draw the line. And certainly, we should be suspicious of self-serving attempts by politicians and the military to push that line toward the censorship end of the spectrum. But calling me "a direct enemy of free speech" because I'm farther toward one end of the spectrum than you are strikes me as hyperbolic.
And while I think you have fair points, I think that GB is simply trapped in an adversarial world and reflexively sees certain things in a black-white way - the denial and self-justifications are largely subconscious and automatic. We all do it, at least some of the time, despite our best efforts. I do think he tries, but has a difficult time.
GB, your arguments concerning the media are full of rationalizations and self-justifications - many quite good, but they miss the main point. You have adopted a very adversarial and partisan point of view on dealing with Islam, such that you see much of the news (and those on the left) not as being stupid or misguided, but down-right unloyal. The article on decapitation strikes is a case in point.
I really think you need to climb a peak and start seeing the forest. Right now, you are just thrashing through the bushes.
Carlsberg (beer),
Arla Foods (Dairy Products) - that company which is mostly affected!!,
Lego (toys),
Bang &Olufsen (HiFi),
Butter-Cookies
here you can find som more,
Thanks once again for your support!!!!
It is not true what a person called Dan writes that you always have to claim not to sell to Israel to be able to sell to muslim countries.
In this blogg it is very important to remember that even if you are a jude, a christian or a muslim you are not better than the others and that there are terrible people in all the 3 religions - those crazy, simpleminded fanatic judish settlers, fundamentalistic hatefull rightwing USA christians and those out of category islamists that makes us afraid and sad every day when we see their eyes in tv.
I'll make a slogan "BUY DANISH!" and put it on my rear window tomorrow... will also try Tuborg
http://laughterwmd.blogspot.com/
We have never had before a big immigration from other countries - except our naboring countries - Norway/Sweden and particularly Germany - When speeking of Germany the danes has been invaded several times thoughout the history - Last time by Nazi-germany - 1940-45 - until we was freed by the british and the USA - what we will never forget - what danes in my ages and older (I' m born in 1942) specially will thank the USA and the british (Winston Churchill) for. - After we was freed in 1945 (5. may) - we was again able to speek an talk freely - we was free and not slaves anymore - thank you USA and GB again.
The Danes are chistian people - and therefore The Worlds oldest flag - the danish flag is red with a white cross in it (symbolizing the Christianity) - and we are using our flag very often - and are very proud of "danebrog"/our flag.
Therefore, when the social-demokrat desided without any woting in 1983 to speed up the refugee-number - increasing to more than 200.000 (muslims) up to day. - And when we had increasing trouble with some of these muslims - violence - crime etc. - the danes became more and more sceptical - and therefor in 2001 we elected a new goverment in DK to stop this "invation" of muslims. - Had we not done so - the national budget in Denmark would colapse. - I guess thes 200.000 muslims cost us about double of our defense-budget - because reative few have a job. - Said in other words 2 danes had to work for one muslim - It means that we have high taxes.
If an emigrant comes to USA - he will not get any economic help - he or she is on their own from the very start - unlike in Denmark.
In january 2005 about 6 - 8 IMAMS went for a journey to the Muslim countries in The Middle East - and after they went back to "there home-country" Denmark - and the trouble started. - Thes Imams wanted in a way to dictate our government - what to do in this situation - the wanted RESPECT - and the danes stopped their complaining about the many problems with the danish muslims (robbery/crimes/no jobs etc.) - and many danes felt these DEMANDS as a DIKTAT - which the did not like.
It funny - that the danes - who have paid the highest capita pr. inhapitant to help the Countries in the 3. world - and had paid billions of danish kroner (kr) for UN-troops (danish - in palestine/Cypres/Bosnia/Kosovo and now together with US-troops in Iraq - we have had the biggest number og troops for UN in 40 years pr. inhabitant in the World.
Seen in that perspective - it is difficult to accept the sayings from the Muslim World - that danes are RACIST - What about the Christians in the Muslim world - specially in Saudi Arabien ???
Per from Denmark
A user account is required to post comments. If you do not have an account, please feel free to create one. Accounts with obscene or offensive user names will be rejected.
I always have time for a well-articulated opposing viewpoint, thoughtfully and politely expressed in good faith.
However, I have no time for name calling, personal attacks, rudeness, or other types of hostile behavior, whether directed at me or at other commenters.
Therefore, comments I find to be rude, abusive, profane, annoying, or otherwise inappropriate may be deleted. Comments may also be deleted if they are redundant or off-topic.
The maximum comment length is 3,000 characters. Longer comments broken into multiple parts to circumvent this policy will be deleted. If your comment is too long, please edit it down, link to the full text on your own blog, or both.