Danish (anti)-Islamic Cartoons

D

droid

Guest
IdleRich said:
I guess that that's what I was asking really. Liberalism cannot just tolerate a fundamentalism that hates it can it? Is it possible for these different views to be reconciled?
Click to expand...

I was actually being sarcastic there... I dont believe that the vast majority of Muslims 'hate our freedoms', any more than I believe the vast majority of Christians support the executions of abortionists, or acts of 'Christian' terror such as the Phalange massacres in Lebanon, IRA/UDF bombs in Northern Ireland, or torture in Abu Ghraib... 'They hate our Feedoms' is a ridiculous soundbite designed for the vacuous and repeated only by the unredeemably brainwashed.

Overblown as it may be, I think some of the reaction to the cartoons HAS to be down to the fact that many Muslims in the Middle East feel like they are under physical and psychological attack from the West (and theyd be right to a large extent IMO) - the predictable reaction to which is to ignore their own internal problems and focus on the external attack - turning to the only things that seem to offer any kind of resistance, ie: extremism and religious conservatism.

Not that Im justifying this reaction - merely pointing out that its utterly predictable...
 
L

Logos

Ghosts of my life
Two things I've found interesting about this:

- perhaps I am naive, but a lot of people seem to have a lot of time on their hands to demonstrate in the streets, which probably wouldn't be the case if enough people had jobs etc

- I'm quite surprised (and saddened) that some of the leaders of Muslim countries can't understand that a free press means the government can't tell you what to print, and can't punish you either. Even if you broke the law as a newspaper it would be the prosecuting authorites, which are distinct from the executive, who would prosecutue.
 
B

borderpolice

Well-known member
bassnation said:
well, they have rushed into the old labour heartlands to pick up people disaffected by labours move to the right (ironically), so i take your point.

there is, however, a long tradition of anti-racism from the working class - cf. the reaction in the east end to moselys blackshirts. this should not be forgotten.
Click to expand...

given that imperialism itself is a form of racism, where was the east end working class when britain enslaved most of the rest of the world?
 
matt b

matt b

Indexing all opinion
Logos said:
Two things I've found interesting about this:

- perhaps I am naive, but a lot of people seem to have a lot of time on their hands to demonstrate in the streets, which probably wouldn't be the case if enough people had jobs etc.
Click to expand...


eh? please clarify...
 
matt b

matt b

Indexing all opinion
borderpolice said:
given that imperialism itself is a form of racism, where was the east end working class when britain enslaved most of the rest of the world?
Click to expand...

as far as i know, the working classes didn't really have the ear of government during the 19th century.

maybe this was due to laziness on their part.
 
B

bassnation

the abyss
borderpolice said:
given that imperialism itself is a form of racism, where was the east end working class when britain enslaved most of the rest of the world?
Click to expand...

in the east end, living in slums and dying of cholera, i would imagine.

the first victims of imperial oppression were at home, working themselves into an early grave making the tools that allowed the empire to expand.

do you think these people had any say or benefited in any way from the empire?
 
IdleRich

IdleRich

IdleRich
- "I'm quite surprised (and saddened) that some of the leaders of Muslim countries can't understand that a free press means the government can't tell you what to print, and can't punish you either. Even if you broke the law as a newspaper it would be the prosecuting authorites, which are distinct from the executive, who would prosecutue."
Click to expand...

Spot on.

Regarding "Hating our Freedoms" whatever that means, I'm sure or at least I hope no-one thinks that applies to all (or even a large proportion of muslims). I'm just saying that there is a clash between two ideologies when one says "everyone can do and say what they want" and the other says "in that case we will use the right to say what we want to tell you what you shouldn't do", cue much handwringing etc. Basically, can a society that tolerates (horrible word) homo-sexuality, tolerate people who won't tolerate it?
 
P

Pearsall

Prodigal Son
the BNP is growing (and will grow) because there is always going to be a market for hard line anti-immigration politics in times of tremendous demographic change (like now), and there will always be a market for identity politics.

it's pretty simple stuff!
 
P

Pearsall

Prodigal Son
Pearsall said:
the BNP is growing (and will grow) because there is always going to be a market for hard line anti-immigration politics in times of tremendous demographic change (like now), and there will always be a market for identity politics.
Click to expand...

especially victimological identity politics.
 
B

borderpolice

Well-known member
bassnation said:
do you think these people had any say or benefited in any way from the empire?
Click to expand...

In the beginning, they didn't have any say, but they didn't protest either. The benefitted massively, by way of a higher standard of living as would have obtained without imperialism. European and American industrialisation was paid for by the exploitation of the rest of the world, especially through slavery. Later, certainly in the 20th century they did have a partial say, but they didn't say anything. as far as i remember, near universal male suffrage was introduced in the 1860s.
 
Last edited:
matt b

matt b

Indexing all opinion
borderpolice said:
No, they didn't have any say, but they didn't protest either..
Click to expand...


you are joking? the majority of the population didn't have a vote. there were massive popular movements throughout the 19th century that fought for, amongst other things universal suffrage, which would allow people to have a say in such things.


borderpolice said:
The[y] benefitted massively, by way of a higher standard of living as would have obtained without imperialism.
Click to expand...

please, please provide evidence- have you not come across things like the rowntree report, the work of edwin chadwick etc?

if i were you i'd focus my ire at those with power, not those who get shat upon.
 
Last edited:
B

bassnation

the abyss
borderpolice said:
In the beginning, they didn't have any say, but they didn't protest either. The benefitted massively, by way of a higher standard of living as would have obtained without imperialism. European and American industrialisation was paid for by the exploitation of the rest of the world, especially through slavery. Later, certainly in the 20th century they did have a partial say, but they didn't say anything.
Click to expand...

i think you need to read up on the history of 19th century england if you think that they had massively higher standard of living. the poverty easily equalled anything found elsewhere in the empire.

whilst its true that the ill-gotten gains from the empire funded many things in the uk, the working class did not see very much of it.
 
B

borderpolice

Well-known member
matt b said:
you are joking? the majority of the population didn't have a vote. there were massive popular movements throughout the 19th century that fought for, amongst other things universal suffrage.
Click to expand...

male suffrage was introduced in the 1860s. universal suffrage in the 1920s i think. this should have lead to an immediate abolishment of the UKs empire if the working class had had any interest in abolishing imperialism, i.e. if it had not been racist. thge suffragettes even stopped their protests to help the british war effort in 1914, i.e. to support imperialism.


matt b said:
the work of edwin chadswick etc?
Click to expand...

I'm afraid I know chatwick only as a reformer campaigning against child labour and improvement of public sanitation. in any case he was a civil servant, hardly working class.

matt b said:
if i were you i'd focus my ire at those with power, not those who get shat upon.
Click to expand...

what makes you think i don't. but the nature of belief is that numbers matter, hence working class beliefs matter.
 
B

borderpolice

Well-known member
bassnation said:
i think you need to read up on the history of 19th century england if you think that they had massively higher standard of living. the poverty easily equalled anything found elsewhere in the empire.
Click to expand...

you need to read up on the history of imperialism. it neither began nor ended in the 19th century. and english workers were not subjected to widespread slavery.


bassnation said:
whilst its true that the ill-gotten gains from the empire funded many things in the uk, the working class did not see very much of it.
Click to expand...

given that i work in an educational institution in the very heart of the London's East End, that was founded by rich victorians in the 19th century for the betterment of the working classes, i find such statements problematic.
 
Last edited:
matt b

matt b

Indexing all opinion
borderpolice said:
male suffrage was introduced in the 1860s. universal suffrage in the 1920s i think. this should have lead to an immediate abolishment of the UKs empire if the working class had had any interest in abolishing imperialism, i.e. if it had not been racist. thge suffragettes even stopped their protests to help the british war effort in 1914, i.e. to support imperialism..
Click to expand...


that assumes that the system was actually democratic in any meaningful way.

so you think that all members of the working classes were racist?

borderpolice said:
I'm afraid I know chatwick only as a reformer campaigning against child labour and improvement of public sanitation. in any case he was a civil servant, hardly working class..
Click to expand...

his 'Report into the Sanitary Conditions of the Labouring Population of Great Britain' provides clear evidence that the w.classes were not living it up in the mid 19th century.


borderpolice said:
what makes you think i don't.
Click to expand...


all the words you write?
 
B

bassnation

the abyss
borderpolice said:
you need to read up on the history of imperialism. it neither began nor ended in the 19th century. and english workers were not subjected to widespread slavery.
Click to expand...

being trapped in poverty and having no say in politics is a kind of slavery in itself. are you really telling me they had the choice to walk away if they didn't like it?

i find the view that the british working class are all uniformly racist to be highly offensive, not to mention inaccurate.
 
john eden

john eden

male pale and stale
borderpolice said:
In the beginning, they didn't have any say, but they didn't protest either.
Click to expand...

Aside of course from all the work by the communist party, as detailed in books like Joe Jacobs' Out of the Ghetto, which tells the story of anti-fascism and internationalism in east end working class communities.

Presumably you have either read this and discounted it, or are simply mouthing off about things you know nothing about?
 
B

borderpolice

Well-known member
matt b said:
so you think that all members of the working classes were racist?
Click to expand...

no, but statistically, the majority didn't have a particular problem with colonial exploitation. many were only too happy to exploit the benefits in a variety of ways.

matt b said:
his 'Report into the Sanitary Conditions of the Labouring Population of Great Britain' provides clear evidence that the w.classes were not living it up in the mid 19th century.
Click to expand...

i didn't claim they were. i claimed that they were better off than there class mates in the colonies. the "Sanitary Conditions of the Labouring Population of" the colonies was probably not even worth studying.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top