<nettime> a letter to the editor
Via: Brian Holmes
Joanne Mule wrote:
>While I certainly think the
>Jyllands-Posten owes an apology to all those offended and I applaud them
>for doing so, I don't think that justifies a violent reaction the way that
>these people are doing. Certainly, a letter to the editor may have done
>the trick....
It would be useful to gather a selection of one-liners, plus
the complete documents from which they are excerpted, and
put them in a little time-capsule for three to five years,
before republishing - a time short enough so that we would
all still feel the sting of how foolish most of this
discussion has been.
Since eveyone must "weigh in," let me say that I appreciate
very much the angles taken by Gita Hashemi, Dan Wang, Coco
Fusco, Jody Berland, Aras Ozgun, Siraj Izhar, and Louise
Moana Kolff, among others. Maybe if Florian Cramer finally
realizes he has more to say about other subjects, the center
of gravity could shift a little here on nettime.
Freedom of speech is an extremely important right within the
shaky construct of "democratic citizenship." Particularly
when it must be defended against one's own government,
because it is in that relation of tension between citizen
and government that the right has its most positive effects.
However, the principle of free speech doesn't trump
international power relations of the kind that have
unleashed the full-blown war in Iraq, and also the irregular
war against the USA and its allies (known as Jihad or
terrorism). In this particular case of the cartoons, arguing
over free speech without addressing the growing problems of
armed violence, and their underlying causes, is fruitless
and just contributes to the ambient noise.
It also happens to be what the US has been doing since Cold
War days, while of course, simultaneously exerting power by
the multiple vectors open to it, including the use of the
world's biggest military. And that parallelism, between
one's own readiness todefend free speech in a racist context
and the way the US operates, should really give one pause.
Particularly to someone like Sascha Brossmann, who long ago
in the discussion wrote another of my favorite one-liners:
"bullshit. this is about the freedom of anybody to say what
he likes versus anybody who - naturally - does not like it.
with everybody being free to return anything *with the same
means*."
With the same means, Sascha? Did you think for a moment
about what that means, in the bigger picture?
The problem is that the constant circulation of people,
information, raw materials and manufactured goods from every
point on the globe to every other has made situations of
extreme inequality indefensible by any means accept the use
of armed force, whether of the military or police variety
(i.e. international or domestic, against foreigners or
against a state's own citizens). We see it in the way the US
and the British governments are operating internationally,
with unparalleled military means, and we also see it
differently in the way the Chinese party cadres, or for that
matter, the Saudi princes, are operating domestically, with
their incredible police apparatuses. As long as there is no
strong principled position on the need to lessen this
inequality, and no recognition that the root causes of
warfare lie there, the talk about free expression will
remain foolish and have no purchase in the face of rising
conflict. Of course that is disastrous, because freedom of
expression is a fundamental right and part of the very basis
of peaceful human coexistence. But it can't be defended when
you are willing at the same time to ignore, even
momentarily, the huge inequalities that are currently
structuring global social relations.
The point made very early on in this discussion by Louise
Moanna Kolff, namely that Danish society has become overtly
racist, is not a minor point. It is the real context from
which the entire discussion springs. Long historical
experience has shown that racism is a cultural strategy to
exert oppression on particular groups despite the safeguards
of human rights. It is urgent to focus on this concrete
situation, which is simply the most advanced point of a
gangrene that is spreading throughout Europe. Those who want
to protect the entire edifice of human rights must also
constantly look below them, to these kinds of cultural
strategies which undermine them, and above them, to the
sovereign relations of power which put entire populations at
gunpoint. Those who have been bombed in Bagdad or the WTC no
longer have their human rights. And the kind of racism that
is being expressed in Denmark and throughout Europe, not
only through the cartoons, is all too likely to foment our
"tolerance" for future bombings. When these factors are not
considered and made part of one's argumentation, the talk
about freedom of expression becomes shallow and
insignificant. I join many others in suggesting that we
defend our rights of free expression by using them for more
important subjects.
It's urgently important to make the ecologically viable
human development of all the regions of the planet into the
primary subject of our public debates. Which for those in
the Western countries, means criticizing the increasingly
naked imperialism of our governing elites. And which for
those in the Muslim countries, means criticizing your elites
for using these religious subjects as a smokescreen to cover
the real problems. Without some major efforts from the
citizenries, only war lies ahead.
best, Brian
Joanne Mule wrote:
>While I certainly think the
>Jyllands-Posten owes an apology to all those offended and I applaud them
>for doing so, I don't think that justifies a violent reaction the way that
>these people are doing. Certainly, a letter to the editor may have done
>the trick....
It would be useful to gather a selection of one-liners, plus
the complete documents from which they are excerpted, and
put them in a little time-capsule for three to five years,
before republishing - a time short enough so that we would
all still feel the sting of how foolish most of this
discussion has been.
Since eveyone must "weigh in," let me say that I appreciate
very much the angles taken by Gita Hashemi, Dan Wang, Coco
Fusco, Jody Berland, Aras Ozgun, Siraj Izhar, and Louise
Moana Kolff, among others. Maybe if Florian Cramer finally
realizes he has more to say about other subjects, the center
of gravity could shift a little here on nettime.
Freedom of speech is an extremely important right within the
shaky construct of "democratic citizenship." Particularly
when it must be defended against one's own government,
because it is in that relation of tension between citizen
and government that the right has its most positive effects.
However, the principle of free speech doesn't trump
international power relations of the kind that have
unleashed the full-blown war in Iraq, and also the irregular
war against the USA and its allies (known as Jihad or
terrorism). In this particular case of the cartoons, arguing
over free speech without addressing the growing problems of
armed violence, and their underlying causes, is fruitless
and just contributes to the ambient noise.
It also happens to be what the US has been doing since Cold
War days, while of course, simultaneously exerting power by
the multiple vectors open to it, including the use of the
world's biggest military. And that parallelism, between
one's own readiness todefend free speech in a racist context
and the way the US operates, should really give one pause.
Particularly to someone like Sascha Brossmann, who long ago
in the discussion wrote another of my favorite one-liners:
"bullshit. this is about the freedom of anybody to say what
he likes versus anybody who - naturally - does not like it.
with everybody being free to return anything *with the same
means*."
With the same means, Sascha? Did you think for a moment
about what that means, in the bigger picture?
The problem is that the constant circulation of people,
information, raw materials and manufactured goods from every
point on the globe to every other has made situations of
extreme inequality indefensible by any means accept the use
of armed force, whether of the military or police variety
(i.e. international or domestic, against foreigners or
against a state's own citizens). We see it in the way the US
and the British governments are operating internationally,
with unparalleled military means, and we also see it
differently in the way the Chinese party cadres, or for that
matter, the Saudi princes, are operating domestically, with
their incredible police apparatuses. As long as there is no
strong principled position on the need to lessen this
inequality, and no recognition that the root causes of
warfare lie there, the talk about free expression will
remain foolish and have no purchase in the face of rising
conflict. Of course that is disastrous, because freedom of
expression is a fundamental right and part of the very basis
of peaceful human coexistence. But it can't be defended when
you are willing at the same time to ignore, even
momentarily, the huge inequalities that are currently
structuring global social relations.
The point made very early on in this discussion by Louise
Moanna Kolff, namely that Danish society has become overtly
racist, is not a minor point. It is the real context from
which the entire discussion springs. Long historical
experience has shown that racism is a cultural strategy to
exert oppression on particular groups despite the safeguards
of human rights. It is urgent to focus on this concrete
situation, which is simply the most advanced point of a
gangrene that is spreading throughout Europe. Those who want
to protect the entire edifice of human rights must also
constantly look below them, to these kinds of cultural
strategies which undermine them, and above them, to the
sovereign relations of power which put entire populations at
gunpoint. Those who have been bombed in Bagdad or the WTC no
longer have their human rights. And the kind of racism that
is being expressed in Denmark and throughout Europe, not
only through the cartoons, is all too likely to foment our
"tolerance" for future bombings. When these factors are not
considered and made part of one's argumentation, the talk
about freedom of expression becomes shallow and
insignificant. I join many others in suggesting that we
defend our rights of free expression by using them for more
important subjects.
It's urgently important to make the ecologically viable
human development of all the regions of the planet into the
primary subject of our public debates. Which for those in
the Western countries, means criticizing the increasingly
naked imperialism of our governing elites. And which for
those in the Muslim countries, means criticizing your elites
for using these religious subjects as a smokescreen to cover
the real problems. Without some major efforts from the
citizenries, only war lies ahead.
best, Brian
comments
No new comments allowed (anymore) on this post.