The Danish Cartoons of Mohammed

Hypothetical idealized metaphor: Imagine how you would feel if a big bad bully in your block posted a caricature of your mother being raped. He posts it on the walls, but so high, that you can't possibly detach it. All the neighbors see it and laugh about it. You try to tell them that this is horribly insulting and amoral, but all the other neighbors start lecturing you about freedom of speech, and, in addition to this, they start copying the caricature of your mother being raped and post it on other walls. Then imagine you don't have the money to move out; there is no higher institution like the police to complain to; you are in a very bad economic state, poor, and maybe even hungry; and your mother is your dearest person in the world. But your neighbors can't understand this. They say "Why all the fuss about some comic of your mother? What's so horrible about it? It's just a picture?" And in fact, this ridicule, this politically correct hate has been going on for years now. And one day, you lose it. You can't take the shit anymore and break a window in the appartment because the bully still refuses to apologise. Then all the neighbors jump at you for breaking the window, calling you simple, aggressive and dangerous. Now imagine you had a gun.

[QUOTE=fattyowls]i think its intrinsically linked to quality of lifestyle and the perception of how people think their religion is seen in the general scheme of the world.

sure every religion is going to have extremists. but muslims have experienced sustained media scrutiny in recent history and this, i imagine, would explain for the high level of muslim discomfort. christians might have the occasion attack on their religion, but it pales into relation to that which muslims have experienced.[/QUOTE]
I take an historical perspective. Islam is a younger religion. Think about what Christians were doing 700 years ago or so. Although the world has changed immeasurably in terms of technology.

[QUOTE=meatthinker]I take an historical perspective. Islam is a younger religion. Think about what Christians were doing 700 years ago or so. Although the world has changed immeasurably in terms of technology.[/QUOTE]
If today, in 2006, you raise a child badly, it will still misbehave, regardless of technological improvement.

[QUOTE=meatthinker]I take an historical perspective. Islam is a younger religion. Think about what Christians were doing 700 years ago or so. Although the world has changed immeasurably in terms of technology.[/QUOTE]

im only thinking about the last 20 - 30 years roughly.

what do you mean about technology changing ? do you mean the level of information and news that is available these days through tv internet etc effecting religious perceptions ?

[QUOTE=stoyan]Hypothetical idealized metaphor: Imagine how you would feel if a big bad bully in your block posted a caricature of your mother being raped. He posts it on the walls, but so high, that you can't possibly detach it. All the neighbors see it and laugh about it. You try to tell them that this is horribly insulting and amoral, but all the other neighbors start lecturing you about freedom of speech, and, in addition to this, they start copying the caricature of your mother being raped and post it on other walls. Then imagine you don't have the money to move out; there is no higher institution like the police to complain to; you are in a very bad economic state, poor, and maybe even hungry; and your mother is your dearest person in the world. But your neighbors can't understand this. They say "Why all the fuss about some comic of your mother? What's so horrible about it? It's just a picture?" And in fact, this ridicule, this politically correct hate has been going on for years now. And one day, you lose it. You can't take the shit anymore and break a window in the appartment because the bully still refuses to apologise. Then all the neighbors jump at you for breaking the window, calling you simple, aggressive and dangerous. Now imagine you had a gun.[/QUOTE]

good metaphor except for the imagining having a gun bit (i really dont want to imagine that) but i get your general drift.
people need to appreciate the circumstances to understand the motivation for retaliation (though not necessarily agreeing with it).

I think only the Good Dr. got the point. This is a smokescreen. We have been had.

[QUOTE=McMuddle]I think only the Good Dr. got the point. This is a smokescreen. We have been had.[/QUOTE]

who is this doctor you speak of and what is the point he got?

He means Dr.Jekyll&Mr.Hyde, but I too fail to understand which point he means.

Did you guys read the article? There's a difference between political cartoonists and illustrators. They were hired and given "written prompts" as to what they were to draw. These weren't their opinions. If they were anyone's opinions they were the [I][COLOR=Red]newspaper's[/COLOR][/I]. You see it all the time in commercial art. The company gives an artist a concept and idea to expand on to further benefit the company. In this case whomever commissioned the work should stand in front of the firing squad not the illustrators. I admit, if it was something they were morally against then they should have refused, but then again, if your working to pay bills a lot of times you do shit you don't want to do.
[QUOTE]Two Kinds of Offensive Cartoonists
By Daryl Cagle

Crowds fill the streets in the Middle East, demanding the execution of the Danish cartoonists who drew caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad. Bounties for the murder of the cartoonists have been offered by Muslim extremists and have been trumpeted in the press as the poor cartoonists live in hiding, under 24-hour police protection.

[COLOR=Orange]Why did the Danish cartoonists draw the cartoons? To test the limits of press freedom? To show disrespect for Islam? Because a Danish author couldn't find an illustrator for his book about Muhammad? No, the Danish cartoonists drew "caricatures" of Muhammad because a Danish newspaper, the Jyllands-Posten, hired them and paid them $73 each, along with the promise that the cartoonists would get their names and photos in the local newspaper.[/COLOR]

The cartoonists knew they were being hired to draw provocative cartoons accompanying an article about the limits on press freedom, but they had no idea that they would be the tiny spark that lit a huge bomb in the Muslim world. (If they had known, they certainly wouldn't have done the drawings in exchange for getting their photos in the newspaper.)

Some of the cartoonists even made fun of the [COLOR=orange]assignment [/COLOR]they were given; one of the offending cartoons shows a man looking at a police line-up who asks, "How can I identify Muhammad if I don't know what he looks like?" Another offending cartoon shows a turban-wearing cartoonist holding his drawing of a stick-figure Muhammad while an orange, labeled [COLOR=orange]"PR Stunt[/COLOR]," drops into his turban. (Dropping an orange refers to a Danish idiom and expresses the cartoonist's disdain for his assignment.)

As condemnation rains down on the Danish cartoonists an important distinction is lost - the difference between cartoonists who are [COLOR=orange]illustrators and political [/COLOR]cartoonists.

[COLOR=orange]I'm a political cartoonist; I draw cartoons that convey my opinions[/COLOR]. Anyone who sees my cartoons will know what I think on a wide range of issues. [COLOR=orange]Political cartoonists are journ[/COLOR][COLOR=orange]alists[/COLOR], [COLOR=orange]just like columnists we decide for ourselves what we want to say, and we are responsible for what we say[/COLOR]. Editors don't tell political cartoonists what to say (although editors sometimes stop us from saying things that are offensive).

[COLOR=orange]The Danish cartoonists are illustrators[/COLOR];[COLOR=orange] they are given assignments by clients who pay them for their work[/COLOR]. [COLOR=orange]Illustrators draw what they are hired to draw[/COLOR]. [COLOR=orange]No one can look at the work of an illustrator and discern what the illustrator's opinions are[/COLOR]. [COLOR=orange]Illustrators usually draw pictures that go with an author's words; they might be creative and inject their own ideas, but still they are working at the direction of a client[/COLOR]. [COLOR=orange]The Muhammad cartoons are not political cartoons, they are illustrations drawn to accompany a newspaper article about press limits, an issue that arose because an author couldn't find an illustrator for his book about Muhammad.[/COLOR]

[COLOR=orange]The Danish Muhammad cartoons are broadly - and wrongly - described as political cartoons by pundits and politicians who don't understand the difference between one kind of cartoonist and another. The "political cartoon" label unfairly condemns the Danish cartoonists, none of whom would have chosen, on their own, to express any opinion about Islam, press freedom or the Prophet Muhammad.[/COLOR]

The perception of the Danish Muhammad cartoons as "political cartoons" is chilling to real political cartoonists who are suddenly perceived as ticking time-bombs that can explode at any time. Editors, who were already uncomfortable reining-in their unwieldy, bomb-throwing cartoonists, are now more timid than ever.

Everyone asks me why I don't draw Muhammad in a political cartoon - am I afraid to give offense or am I afraid for my own safety? I'll draw whatever I want; I'll be offensive if I want to be, but I want my cartoons to effectively convey my opinion, and my opinion about the Danish Muhammad cartoons issue is that the violent response to the cartoons is wrong and is far out of proportion to the provocation. If I were to draw a cartoon depicting Muhammad now, the only message the cartoon would convey is: "Hey, look at me, I can offend you too." That is not what I choose to say.

[URL=http://cagle.com/news/blog/]http://cagle.com/news/blog/[/URL][/QUOTE]

It doesn't matter about the difference between cartoonists and illustrators. The decisions always lie at an editorial level. I thought this was clear from the outset. To me this doesn't change my take on things one bit.

[QUOTE=stoyan]Hypothetical idealized metaphor: Imagine how you would feel if a big bad bully in your block posted a caricature of your mother being raped. He posts it on the walls, but so high, that you can't possibly detach it. All the neighbors see it and laugh about it. You try to tell them that this is horribly insulting and amoral, but all the other neighbors start lecturing you about freedom of speech, and, in addition to this, they start copying the caricature of your mother being raped and post it on other walls. Then imagine you don't have the money to move out; there is no higher institution like the police to complain to; you are in a very bad economic state, poor, and maybe even hungry; and your mother is your dearest person in the world. But your neighbors can't understand this. They say "Why all the fuss about some comic of your mother? What's so horrible about it? It's just a picture?" And in fact, this ridicule, this politically correct hate has been going on for years now. And one day, you lose it. You can't take the shit anymore and break a window in the appartment because the bully still refuses to apologise. Then all the neighbors jump at you for breaking the window, calling you simple, aggressive and dangerous. Now imagine you had a gun.[/QUOTE]
This is a good analogy.

And Riddle, yes, that's what I'm poking at, "The decisions always lie at an editorial level." But the blame is falling on the cartoonists, they're the ones the protesters want beheaded.

My point is that it was the paper's initiative to produce and publish offensive material just to antagonize a reaction. They’re motives were by far justified, if perhaps they could fall on the recourse of [I]freedom of speech[/I], or on the belief that it is the right for a cartoonist to express their opinion. But this is far from the bucket. Point is, the only motive behind this was to instigate a reaction, as far as I can see, on an [I]editorial level[/I].

[QUOTE=Dr.Jekyll&Mr.Hyde]What kills me is that the cartoonists were commissioned. All of this was a setup. [B]The Illustrators put their reputations and lives on the line for something they didn't even believe in. They were simply doing a job. In that sense I hold the paper responsible for employee malevolence (or whatever the term is).[/B] The paper’s intention was to start shit, and they put their Illustrators on the chopping block.:crucified[/QUOTE]

Exchange "paper" for "Government" and "illustrators" for "soldiers": then you have basically what the Nazis on trial in Nuremburg said...

"[I]Sayin' it's your job don't make it right, Boss.[/I]" -- Cool Hand Luke

In its own way, this [I]is[/I] a smokescreen though.

Carry on with the discussion.

[QUOTE=stoyan]Hypothetical idealized metaphor: Imagine how you would feel if a big bad bully in your block posted a caricature of your mother being raped. He posts it on the walls, but so high, that you can't possibly detach it. All the neighbors see it and laugh about it. You try to tell them that this is horribly insulting and amoral, but all the other neighbors start lecturing you about freedom of speech, and, in addition to this, they start copying the caricature of your mother being raped and post it on other walls. Then imagine you don't have the money to move out; there is no higher institution like the police to complain to; you are in a very bad economic state, poor, and maybe even hungry; and your mother is your dearest person in the world. But your neighbors can't understand this. They say "Why all the fuss about some comic of your mother? What's so horrible about it? It's just a picture?" And in fact, this ridicule, this politically correct hate has been going on for years now. And one day, you lose it. You can't take the shit anymore and break a window in the appartment because the bully still refuses to apologise. Then all the neighbors jump at you for breaking the window, calling you simple, aggressive and dangerous. Now imagine you had a gun.[/QUOTE]
The problem I have with this analogy is that it begins with the assumption that "I" am an innocent victim. It does not mention that for decades "I" have been making similar portraits of all my neighbors mothers. In many cases far more inflamatory and far less based in reality.

[ATTACH]6367[/ATTACH]

[ATTACH]6368[/ATTACH]

[QUOTE=McMuddle]The problem I have with this analogy is that it begins with the assumption that "I" am an innocent victim. It does not mention that for decades "I" have been making similar portraits of all my neighbors mothers. In many cases far more inflamatory and far less based in reality.
[/QUOTE]

do you mean that muslims have been offending other religions for decades ?

cheers

[QUOTE=fattyowls]do you mean that muslims have been offending other religions for decades ?

cheers[/QUOTE]

Yup.
A lot of those Middle Easterners can be a tad anti-semitic with that whole "Down with the Nation of Isreal" thingy.

Someone should do a story about all of the anti-semitic cartoons that Arab publications have already published, before this incident.

[QUOTE=Lazlosdead]Yup.
A lot of those Middle Easterners can be a tad anti-semitic with that whole "Down with the Nation of Isreal" thingy.[/QUOTE]

im not doubting that muslims are responsible for similarly racist material against jewish folk. i just dont think they have as much power creating media propaganda against jews as "the west" has created against them. this is why i think there is a greater occurance of islamic extremism.muslim nut jobs who feel like everybody is hatin on em. jewish people are quite justified in being outraged at any slight on their religion, but the occurance of jews being painting in a negative fashion in the "mass media" is far less than what muslims experience.

but what it really boils down to is, the closer you get to "god town" the nuttier people get.

i remember reading that worshipping false idols is a sin. if only temples, localitys and pilgrameges to mecca were classed as sinful then everybody might calm the fuck down and stop putting so much emphasis on some shitty little piece of land.

why is this piece of the globe any more impressive than the rest ?

subway, eat fresh !!!!!!!!!

[QUOTE=fattyowls]im not doubting that muslims are responsible for similarly racist material against jewish folk. i just dont think they have as much power creating media propaganda against jews as "the west" has created against them. this is why i think there is a greater occurance of islamic extremism.muslim nut jobs who feel like everybody is hatin on em. jewish people are quite justified in being outraged at any slight on their religion, but the occurance of jews being painting in a negative fashion in the "mass media" is far less than what muslims experience.[/QUOTE]
Are you suffering over how you are being portrayed in the arab media, which is written in a language that (I am guessing) you don't even know how to read? At some intellectual level, yeah, it probably bugs you that arabs don't like you, but you don't really know what they are or aren't saying, and on a day to day basis, you probably don't even think about it.

If you go to the Middle East, where the arabs live, I doubt they are portraying themselves negatively in their own media. I bet the majority of arabs normally don't even give a shit about American and European media, and the only reason they knew or cared about the Danish cartoons is that specific people went out of their way to introduce that information to them and to get them riled up about it.

[QUOTE=meatthinker]
If you go to the Middle East, where the arabs live, I doubt they are portraying themselves negatively in their own media. I bet the majority of arabs normally don't even give a shit about American and European media, and the only reason they knew or cared about the Danish cartoons is that specific people went out of their way to introduce that information to them and to get them riled up about it.[/QUOTE]
i might not read arabic, but the difference between living in my country and in arab countrys is i have greater freedom in my life.
and your right i dont think about it and i dont really care. im not bound by religious indoctrination and the occurance of religious fanatics in my country is near nothing to influence and interpret other cultures opinions of me, and instruct me what actions to take in defence of my religion.
because i have greater control of my personality that is how i see myself different as some one of my age living in a arabic country. sure it doesnt bug me at all even if i could speak arabic, because i am in control of my destiny to a greater level.
on the other hand because jews are native to this region arabic literature is a lot more relavent than what i would consider for my region. .

i dont doubt that the arabian media is very positive towards its own people.
the only reason they knew about the danish cartoons was indeed that someone went out of their way to plant the seeds of suggestion that the media in europe is anti muslim.

i dont believe that the arab community are essentially happy about how they are reported about in the western media. and, although the proportion of extremists is not in the majority of people, enough people have combined to protest this cartoon in not so passive ways to deem it a significant event.

other protests to western occupation and western literature have also created the same outcome in the last few decades.

this cartoon says it all.

Holy shit, an anime Jesus!

People get to publish cartoons. Yay.

People get to protest something offensive. Yay. ("Is this not democracy?")

People getting violent while protesting. Nay.

I didn't see buildings getting burned down of a cartoon portrayal of a [URL=http://www.penny-arcade.com/images/2004/20040804h.jpg]Christian messiah[/URL].

[QUOTE=Michael]People get to publish cartoons. Yay.

People get to protest something offensive. Yay. ("Is this not democracy?")

People getting violent while protesting. Nay.

I didn't see buildings getting burned down of a cartoon portrayal of a [URL=http://www.penny-arcade.com/images/2004/20040804h.jpg]Christian messiah[/URL].[/QUOTE]

In Penny Arcade, Jesus plays videogames and like rock music.

In Danish cartoons, The prophet is portrayed as a terrorist with a bomb about to go off on top of his head.

Big difference my friend.

[QUOTE=Zaki]In Penny Arcade, Jesus plays videogames and like rock music.

In Danish cartoons, The prophet is portrayed as a terrorist with a bomb about to go off on top of his head.

Big difference my friend.[/QUOTE]
My point is... I have no point.

Hmm... Even though its about my country and all, and I do feel like I should say something very wise and head-turning... Im not gonna. Because honestly, I don't care. That debate is STILL going on over here, every single day. -____- Im actually a little suprised to find the subject in here but yeah, oh well.

There have been no posts in this thread for like two months.

DAMMIT! -____- why the fuck am I posting then?... gaah... never mind. I need to catch up...

So, do danishes really come from Denmark, or is that just another misconception to make Americans feel more worldly, like French Toast and English Muffins?

Yes... the pastries we refer to as "Danishes" are flown in by supersonic jets from Denmark into the US in the darkness of the midnight hour for our enjoyment the following morn..

do they run the bottle water through some kind of mega giant straw filter contraption that runs across multiple continents to super purify the awesome force of spring water as well?

So, how about an update on this merry little story?

Well, it was only a matter of time.

I think I might target Gary Larson. I don't like the way that fucker degrades cows.

I didn't know you were Hindu.

It was a toss-up between that and Scientology.

Harper's had a very good article about the cartoons (and the after math) in 2006:  "Drawing Blood, Outrageous Cartoons and the Art of Outrage" by Art Spiegelman.

Harper's is farily stingy with their online content, but I'm a subscriber and would be happy to share the PDF that's available, so PM me if anyone's interested.  If I recall correctly, there were several bookstores and newstands that refused to carry the issue (thankfully, you can still rely on the US Postal service for some things).

I have not read all these posts, and the issue was so long ago, but I remember studying it in a class that was about "Constructing Islam," A religious studies theory course about identity and culture.. and in that course I am pretty sure we read evidence that proved the cartoons were drawn and distributed by radical muslim imamas with the intent that they would be published and then serve as a rallying cry for Islam around the world... I am actually almost positive of this, though I have not read the Harper's article and I am not sure what it says on the issue... Was this fact ever published in mainstream media, or was it only in academic religion journals?

Hmm, I've not read that anywhere myself, but the Harper's article was published in 2006, so perhaps that's something that came to light since? 

They weren't drawn by Imams, but they were published quite some time before the real furore caught on. They basically took the cartoons around parts of the Middle East, presented them in rallies and whipped up a frenzy. However, there is some suggestion that they added a few extra cartoons, including one of Muhammed fucking a goat, or somesuch thing, but the basic cartoons (the Muhammed with a bomb for a turban etc) were drawn by Danish illustrators.

The reason I brought this thread back again (check the link a few posts up) is because the Danish authorities have apparently prevented a plot to murder the cartoonist who drew the turban/bomb picture. If anyone remembers the Theo van Gogh killing a few years back, you can probably guess that this was likely to be a very brutal, symbolic killing, designed to send a message as much as punish the cartoonist.

Yeah, I saw the article and that is why I was confused...

And yes, you're totally right, there were twelve cartoons or so that were making the rounds, and 4 of them were drawn by the imams, and they were the most offensive ones, and obviously those ones were never published in the Danish newspapers but the imams preented all 12 of the cartoons as if they were.  Thanks, Riddlegimp, I knew it was something along those lines but my memory is riddled with holes and sometimes I only remember parts of the story.  But, even with that being said, was it ever really advertised in the American mainstream media that the most offensive cartoons were never published and were added into the mix later by the imamas themselves?

anyone see this: http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/02/13/denmark.cartoon/index.html

Since the murder-plot arrests, the paper has re-printed his cartoon, the of Mohammed with a bomb in his turban, as a matter of showing support and solidarity for their cartoonist