Suntou, Nice observations. You picked out some salient points from the piece. Mamdani's piece is very interesting. Good day, Mboge On Mon, Jun 7, 2010 at 11:19 AM, suntou touray <[log in to unmask]>wrote: > Mboge > Thanks for this material. It's both well written and captivating. I took > some parts of the article for emphasis, it is not in the order that Mamdani > wrote it: > > > > *"It is well known that the Danish paper that published the offending > cartoons was earlier offered cartoons of Jesus Christ. But the paper > declined to print these on grounds that it would offend its Christian > readers. Had the Danish paper published cartoons of Jesus Christ, that would > have been blasphemy; the cartoons it did publish were evidence of bigotry, > not blasphemy." Mamdani* > > This is an interesting revealations. When they ran with the free speech > thing, their comtempt is demonstrated in their bais approach. The sad thing > is, Evangelist groups and right wing tink-tank groups tend to defend this > recklessness. > > *"In that interview, Gunter Grass said the Danish cartoons reminded him of > anti Semitic cartoons in a German magazine, Der Sturmer. The story was > carried in a New York Times piece, which added that the publisher of Der > Sturmer was tried at Nuremberg and executed." Mamdani* > > Sublimal messages are as worst as open bigotry. > > *The Kerner Commission Report made a distinction between what it called > the trigger and the fuel: The trigger was an incident of petty racism, but > the fuel was provided by centuries of racism. The lesson was clear: The > country needed to address the consequences of a history of racism, not just > its latest manifestation. Bob Gibson, the St Louis Cardinals pitcher, wrote > about the Watts riots in his book ‘From Ghetto to Glory’. He compared the > riots to a ‘brushback pitch’ – a pitch thrown over the batter’s head to keep > him from crowding the plate, a way of sending a message that the pitcher > needs more space. CBS withdrew Amos ‘n’ Andy after the long hot summer of > 1965. The compelling argument that the NAACP and other civil rights groups > could not make, was made by the inarticulate rioters of Watts." Mamdani* > > How revealing. Rome wasn't built in a day. Slow poisoning is equally bad. > This is why, defining our problems according to ethnic lines is > counter-productive. > > *"The irony is that a growing number of mainstream European politicians, > perhaps nostalgic about empire, are experimenting with importing these same > time-tested rhetorical techniques into domestic politics: The idea is to > compile a list of barbaric cultural practices among immigrant minorities as > a way to isolate, stigmatise, and frame them." Mamdani* > > This statement is examplify with the attempt by the right wing Daily > Express news paper's attempt to block the visit to U.K of Dr Naik. > Misquoting him, taking his lectures out of context and then branding him a > terrorist. No one ever read them doing likewise for Christain groups, Hindu > or even Jewish preachers*.* > > *Thanks to Mamdani, Pambasuka and Mboge.* > > *Suntou* > > > On Mon, Jun 7, 2010 at 9:30 AM, Modou Mboge <[log in to unmask]>wrote: > >> Features Beware bigotry: Free speech and the Zapiro cartoons Mahmood >> Mamdani 2010-06-03, Issue 484 <http://www.pambazuka.org/en/issue/484> >> http://pambazuka.org/en/category/features/64923<http://www.pambazuka.org/en/category/features/64923>[image: >> Bookmark and Share]<http://www.addthis.com/bookmark.php?v=250&pub=fahamutech> Printer >> friendly version<http://www.pambazuka.org/en/category/features/64923/print> >> >> *cc D B* <http://www.flickr.com/photos/dblackadder/166701361/>Zapiro’s >> controversial cartoon featuring the Prophet Mohamed, published in South >> Africa’s Mail & Guardian, prompts Mahmood Mamdani to ‘reflect on times and >> places when humour turned deadly’. Speaking at the University of >> Johannesburg, Mamdani explores the relationship between ‘two great liberal >> objectives, freedom of speech and civil peace’. Zapiro’s cartoon, Mamdani >> argues, has misread the real challenges we face today: The intellectual >> challenge of distinguishing between ‘two strands in the history of free >> speech – blasphemy and bigotry’, and the political challenge of building ‘a >> local and global coalition against all forms of bigotry’. We need to learn >> ‘how not to respond to a changing world with fear and anxiety, masked with >> arrogance, but rather to try a little humility so as to understand,’ Mamdani >> writes. >> It warms my heart to see these flowing gowns. I congratulate you on work >> accomplished! For over a millennium, these gowns have been a symbol of high >> learning from the Indian Ocean to the Atlantic. Should anyone ask you where >> they came from, tell them that the early universities of Europe – Oxford, >> Cambridge, le Sorbonne – borrowed them from the Islamic madressa of the >> Middle East. If they should seem incredulous, tell them that the gown did >> not come by itself: Because medieval European scholars borrowed from the >> madressa much of the curriculum, from Greek philosophy to Iranian astronomy >> to Arab medicine and Indian mathematics, they had little difficulty in >> accepting this flowing gown, modelled after the dress of the desert nomad, >> as the symbol of high learning. Should they still express surprise, ask them >> to take a second look at the gowns of the ayatollahs in Iran and Iraq and >> elsewhere and they will see the resemblance. Education has no boundaries. >> Neither does it have an end. As the Waswahili in East Africa, which is where >> I come from, say: Elimu haina muisho. >> >> Today, I want to talk to you about the core value of the liberal >> university, critical thought, not just any thought, but thought which dares >> to stand up to the dictates of power and to the embrace of wealth, even to >> the seduction of popular prejudice. >> >> Yesterday, when I was in Cape Town, a friend gave me the week’s edition of >> Mail and Guardian. I went straight for my favourite section, the cartoon by >> Zapiro. To my surprise, Zapiro featured a cartoon of Prophet Mohamed, >> agonising: ‘OTHER Prophets have followers with a sense of humour! …’ I want >> to take this opportunity to reflect on times and places when humour turned >> deadly. Such a reflection should allow us to think through the relationship >> between two great liberal objectives, freedom of speech and civil peace. >> Since Zapiro seems to present his series of cartoons as a second edition of >> the Danish cartoons, I shall begin with a reflection on the original. >> >> When the Danish cartoon debate broke out I was in Nigeria. If you stroll >> the streets of Kano, a Muslim-majority city in northern Nigeria, you will >> have no problem finding material caricaturing Christianity sold by street >> vendors. And if you go to the east of Nigeria, to Enugu for example, you >> will find a similar supply of materials caricaturing Islam. None of this is >> blasphemy; most of it is bigotry. It is well known that the Danish paper >> that published the offending cartoons was earlier offered cartoons of Jesus >> Christ. But the paper declined to print these on grounds that it would >> offend its Christian readers. Had the Danish paper published cartoons of >> Jesus Christ, that would have been blasphemy; the cartoons it did publish >> were evidence of bigotry, not blasphemy. Both blasphemy and bigotry belong >> to the larger tradition of free speech, but after a century of ethnic >> cleansing and genocide, we surely need to distinguish between the two >> strands of the same tradition. The language of contemporary politics makes >> that distinction by referring to bigotry as hate speech. >> >> Just a few weeks after the Danish cartoons were published, the German >> writer Gunter Grass was interviewed in a Portuguese weekly news magazine, >> Visão. In that interview, Gunter Grass said the Danish cartoons reminded him >> of anti Semitic cartoons in a German magazine, Der Sturmer. The story was >> carried in a New York Times piece, which added that the publisher of Der >> Sturmer was tried at Nuremberg and executed. I am interested less in how >> close was the similarity between the Danish and the German cartoons, than in >> why a magazine publisher would be executed for publishing cartoons. One of >> the subjects I work on is the Rwanda genocide. Many of you would know that >> the International Tribunal in Arusha has pinned criminal responsibility for >> the genocide not just on those who executed it but also on those who >> imagined it, including intellectuals, artists and journalists as in RTMC >> (Radio-Télévision Libre des Mille Collines). The Rwandan trials are the >> latest to bring out the dark side of free speech, its underbelly: How power >> can instrumentalise free speech to frame a minority and present it for >> target practice. >> >> To understand why courts committed to defending freedom of speech can hold >> cartoonists responsible for crimes against humanity, we need to distinguish >> between bigotry and blasphemy. Blasphemy is the practice of questioning a >> tradition from within. In contrast, bigotry is an assault on that tradition >> from the outside. If blasphemy is an attempt to speak truth to power, >> bigotry is the reverse: An attempt by power to instrumentalise truth. A >> defining feature of the cartoon debate is that bigotry is being mistaken for >> blasphemy. >> >> The history of blasphemy as a liberating force is particularly European, >> not even American. To understand the political role of blasphemy in Europe >> we need to appreciate the organisation of the Church as an institutional >> power. Institutionalised religion in medieval Europe was organised as a form >> of hierarchical power, with an authority from the floor to the ceiling. >> Institutional Roman Catholicism mimicked the institutional organisation of >> the Roman empire, just as the institutional organisation of Protestant >> churches in Europe borrowed a leaf from the organisation of power in the >> nation states of Europe. >> >> The European example was not emulated in the United States of America. >> Though blasphemy marked the moment of birth of the New World, the New World >> was not particularly receptive to blasphemy. The big change was political: >> Puritans and other Protestant denominations were organised more as >> congregations and sects, more like voluntary associations, than as >> hierarchical churches. There was also a change in religious practice: The >> puritans shifted the locus of individual morality from external constraint >> to internal discipline, displacing both the Pope and the Scriptures with >> inner conscience. Pioneered by the Quakers, the Christ of scriptures became >> the ‘Christ within’. Unlike in Europe, religion in the rapidly developing >> settler democracy in the United States was very much a part of the language >> of the American Revolution and of the public sphere. The European experience >> has to be seen more as the exception than the rule. >> >> And yet, the European experience is not without a lesson for the rest of >> us. It is precisely because of a history of opposition between organised >> religion and political society, and the consequent history of religious >> civil wars, that compromises have been worked out in Europe, both to protect >> the practice of free speech and to circumscribe it through laws that >> criminalise blasphemy. When internalised as civility, rather than when >> imposed by public power, these compromises have been key to keeping social >> peace in European societies. Let me give two examples to illustrate the >> point. >> >> My first example dates from 1967 when Britain’s leading publishing house, >> Penguin, published an English edition of a book of cartoons by France's most >> acclaimed cartoonist, Siné. The Penguin edition was introduced by Malcolm >> Muggeridge. Siné’s Massacre contained a number of anticlerical and >> blasphemous cartoons, some of them with a sexual theme. Many booksellers, >> who found the content offensive, conveyed their feelings to Allan Lane, who >> had by that time almost retired from Penguin. Though he was not a practicing >> Christian, Allen Lane took seriously the offence that this book seemed to >> cause to a number of his practicing Christian friends. Here is Richard >> Webster’s account of what followed: >> >> ‘One night, soon after the book had been published, he [Allen Lane] went >> into Penguin’s Harmondsworth warehouse with four accomplices, filled a >> trailer with all the remaining copies of the book, drove away and burnt >> them. The next day the Penguin trade department reported the book “out of >> print”.’ >> >> Now Britain has laws against blasphemy, but neither Allan Lane nor Penguin >> was taken to court. Britain’s laws on blasphemy were not called into action. >> I want to point your attention to one issue in particular. Allan Lane was >> not a practicing Christian but he had internalised legal restraint as >> civility, as conduct necessary to upholding peaceful coexistence in a >> society with a history of religious conflict. To put it differently, the >> existence of political society requires the forging of a political pact, a >> compromise. >> >> My second example is from the United States. It concerns a radio show >> called Amos ‘n’ Andy that began on WMAQ<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WMAQ_(AM)>in Chicago on 19 March 1928, and eventually became the longest running radio >> program in broadcast history. Conceived by two white actors who mimicked the >> so-called Negro dialect to portray two black characters, Amos Jones and Andy >> Brown, Amos ‘n’ Andy was a white show for black people. Amos ‘n’ Andy was >> also the first major all-black show in mainstream US entertainment. The >> longest running show in the history of radio broadcast in the US, Amos ‘n’ >> Andy gradually moved from radio to TV. Graduating to prime time network >> television in 1951, it became a syndicated show after 1953. >> >> Every year, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People >> (NAACP) protested against the racist character of the portrayal that was the >> show. Giving seven reasons ‘why the Amos ‘n’ Andy show should be taken off >> the air,’ the NAACP said the show reinforced the prejudice that ‘Negroes are >> inferior, lazy, dumb and dishonest,’ that every character in the all-Black >> show ‘is either a clown or a crook.’ ‘Negro doctors are shown as quacks and >> thieves,’ Negro lawyers ‘as slippery cowards, ignorant of their profession >> and without ethics,’ and Negro women ‘as cackling, screaming shrews … just >> short of vulgarity.’ In sum, ‘all Negroes are shown as dodging work of any >> kind.’ >> >> But CBS disagreed. You can still read the CBS point of view on the >> official Amos ‘n’ Andy website which still hopes that black people will >> learn to laugh at themselves: ‘Perhaps we will collectively learn to lighten >> up, not get so bent out of shape, and learn to laugh at ourselves a little >> more.’ I was reminded of it when I read the Zapiro cartoon in Mail & >> Guardian yesterday. >> >> The TV show ran for nearly 15 years, from 1951 to 1965. Every year the >> NAACP protested, but every year the show continued. Then, without >> explanation, CBS withdrew the show, in 1965. What happened? In 1965 the >> Watts riots happened, and sparked the onset of a long, hot summer. The Watts >> riots were triggered by a petty incident, an encounter between a racist cop >> and a black motorist. That everyday incident triggered a riot that left 34 >> persons dead. Many asked: What is wrong with these people? How can the >> response be so disproportionate to the injury? After the riots the Johnson >> administration appointed a commission, called the Kerner Commission, to >> answer this and other questions. The Kerner Commission Report<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerner_Commission>made a distinction between what it called the trigger and the fuel: The >> trigger was an incident of petty racism, but the fuel was provided by >> centuries of racism. The lesson was clear: The country needed to address the >> consequences of a history of racism, not just its latest manifestation. Bob >> Gibson, the St Louis Cardinals pitcher, wrote about the Watts riots in his >> book ‘From Ghetto to Glory’. He compared the riots to a ‘brushback pitch’ – >> a pitch thrown over the batter’s head to keep him from crowding the plate, a >> way of sending a message that the pitcher needs more space. CBS withdrew >> Amos ‘n’ Andy after the long hot summer of 1965. The compelling argument >> that the NAACP and other civil rights groups could not make, was made by the >> inarticulate rioters of Watts. >> >> Why is this bit of history significant for us? CBS did not withdraw Amos >> ‘n’ Andy because the law had changed, for no such change happened. The >> reason for the change was political, not legal. For sure, there was a change >> of consciousness, but that change was triggered by political developments. >> CBS had learnt civility; more likely, it was taught civility. CBS had learnt >> that there was a difference between black people laughing at themselves, and >> white people laughing at black people! It was like the difference between >> blasphemy and bigotry. That learning was part of a larger shift in American >> society, one that began with the Civil War and continued with the civil >> rights movement that followed the Second World War. This larger shift was >> the inclusion of African-Americans in a re-structured civil and political >> society. The saga of Amos ‘n’ Andy turned out to be a milestone, not just in >> the history of free speech, but in a larger history, that of black people’s >> struggle to defend their human rights and their rights of citizenship in the >> US. >> >> Can we deal with hate speech by legal restriction? I am not very >> optimistic. The law can be a corrective on individual discrimination, but it >> has seldom been an effective restraint on hate movements that target >> vulnerable minorities. If the episode of the Danish cartoons demonstrated >> one thing, it was that Islamophobia is a growing presence in Europe. One is >> struck by the ideological diversity of this phenomenon. Just as there was a >> left wing anti-Semitism in Europe before fascism, contemporary Islamophobia >> too is articulated in not only the familiar language of the right, but also >> the less familiar language of the left. The latter language is secular. The >> Danish cartoons and their enthusiastic re-publication throughout Europe, in >> both right and left-wing papers, was our first public glimpse of left and >> right Islamophobia marching in step formation. Its political effect has been >> to explode the middle ground. Is Zapiro asking us to evacuate the middle >> ground as testimony that we too possess a sense of humour? >> >> If so, Zapiro has misread the real challenge that we face today. That >> challenge is both intellectual and political. The intellectual challenge >> lies in distinguishing between two strands in the history of free speech – >> blasphemy and bigotry. The political challenge lies in building a local and >> global coalition against all forms of bigotry. The growth of bigotry in >> Europe seems to me an unthinking response to two developments: Locally, the >> dramatic growth of Muslim minorities in Europe and their struggle for human >> and citizenship rights; globally, we are going through an equally dramatic >> turning point in world history. >> >> The history of the past five centuries has been one of western domination. >> Beginning 1491, Western colonialism understood and presented itself to the >> world at large as a civilising and a rescue mission, a mission to rescue >> minorities and to civilise majorities. The colonising discourse historically >> focused on barbarities among the colonised – sati, child marriage and >> polygamy in India, female genital mutilation and slavery in Africa – and >> presented colonialism as a rescue mission for women, children, and >> minorities, at the same time claiming to be a larger project to civilise >> majorities. Meanwhile, Western minorities lived in the colonies with >> privilege and impunity. Put together, it has been five centuries of a >> growing inability to live with difference in the world, while at the same >> time politicising difference. The irony is that a growing number of >> mainstream European politicians, perhaps nostalgic about empire, are >> experimenting with importing these same time-tested rhetorical techniques >> into domestic politics: The idea is to compile a list of barbaric cultural >> practices among immigrant minorities as a way to isolate, stigmatise, and >> frame them. >> >> But the world is changing. New powers are on the horizon: Most obviously, >> China and India. Neither has a Muslim majority, but both have significant >> Muslim minorities. The Danish case teaches us by negative example. To the >> hitherto dominant Western minority, it presents a lesson in how not to >> respond to a changing world with fear and anxiety, masked with arrogance, >> but rather to try a little humility so as to understand the ways in which >> the world is indeed changing. >> >> There is also a lesson here for Muslim peoples. The Middle East and Islam >> are part of the middle ground in this contest. Rather than be tempted to >> think that the struggle against Islamophobia is the main struggle – for it >> is not – let us put it in this larger context. Only that larger context can >> help us identify allies and highlight the importance of building alliances. >> Perhaps then we – and hopefully Zapiro – will be strong enough to confront >> organised hate campaigns, whether as calls to action or as cartoons, with a >> sense of humour. >> >> BROUGHT TO YOU BY PAMBAZUKA NEWS >> >> * This article comprises the text of talk given by Mahmood Mamdani on >> receiving an honorary doctorate at the University of Johannesburg on 25 May >> 2010. >> * Mahmood Mamdani is director of the Makerere Institute of Social >> Research <http://misr.mak.ac.ug/>, Makerere University, Kampala, Uganda. >> * Please send comments to [log in to unmask] or comment online at Pambazuka >> News <http://www.pambazuka.org/>. >> >> * >> >> * >> * >> * >> >> *Hmm, Mamdani is on to something here. I like this analysis and the way >> it exposes the hypocrisy of the so-called custodians of free speech, >> especially how the Left liberals connive with Right in the name of "secular >> tyranny" to demonise "others". * >> ** >> *Mamdani himself on occasion is somewhat controversial especially in the >> way he analyses the alleged genocide being committed by the Sudanese >> government against the people of Darfur. * >> >> ** >> *Mboge* >> >> ** >> ¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤ To >> unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L Web >> interface at: http://listserv.icors.org/archives/gambia-l.html >> >> To Search in the Gambia-L archives, go to: >> http://listserv.icors.org/SCRIPTS/WA-ICORS.EXE?S1=gambia-l To contact the >> List Management, please send an e-mail to: >> [log in to unmask]¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤ >> > > > > -- > Surah- Ar-Rum 30-22 > "And among His signs is the creation of heavens and the earth, and the > difference of your languages and colours. Verily, in that are indeed signs > for men of sound knowledge." Qu'ran > > www.suntoumana.blogspot.com > > ¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤ To > unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L Web > interface at: http://listserv.icors.org/archives/gambia-l.html > > To Search in the Gambia-L archives, go to: > http://listserv.icors.org/SCRIPTS/WA-ICORS.EXE?S1=gambia-l To contact the > List Management, please send an e-mail to: > [log in to unmask]¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤ > ¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤ To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L Web interface at: http://listserv.icors.org/archives/gambia-l.html To Search in the Gambia-L archives, go to: http://listserv.icors.org/SCRIPTS/WA-ICORS.EXE?S1=gambia-l To contact the List Management, please send an e-mail to: [log in to unmask] ¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤