Blogcritics: Comments on "Gratuitous anti-Arab rant"?

Comment by Eric Olsen

Thu, 15 Jan 2004 22:12:22 EST

Hardcore techno - now there's some uncivilised beats.

Comment by Mac Diva

Thu, 15 Jan 2004 16:24:28 EST

The Barking Basher has barked.

Comment by Gary Reed

Thu, 15 Jan 2004 13:10:35 EST

Arabs are uncivilised beats and so are all other muslims if they all died tommorow the world would be a better place.

Comment by jadester

Wed, 14 Jan 2004 19:23:03 EST

there is a difference between Islam itself, and the way people choose to put it into practice, as with any religion. Kilroy's major mistake was getting caught up in his own vitriol and forgetting to make clear his meaning (assuming he really didn't mean to be religionist and/or racist). Fair enough, journalists and celebrities can make mistakes, but other journalists have been castigated for making such a mistake when the subejct matter is so sensitive. When you are in the public eye, you should be aware that you have to be more careful than the "average" member of the public

Comment by Mac Diva

Mon, 12 Jan 2004 21:00:08 EST

Here is the entry I promised. Once the news item about the Muslim insurgency in Thailand was up, it struck me I had opened the door for people to misinterpret it. So, some clarification was needed. The current atmosphere really is starting to chill speech.

Comment by phantomposter

Mon, 12 Jan 2004 19:37:41 EST

People just aren't going to be nice. Whether I see the world as half full or half empty or whatever, that doesn't change the reality that this world is completely empty. Nothing that's in it will ever make me happy. But then I'll die anyway, right? And after that...? Hmm?

Comment by bhw

Mon, 12 Jan 2004 19:00:58 EST

I also believe some fights that have little or nothing to do with jihad are getting subsumed under that label. Absolutely. In my earlier comment, I should have put the word "justified" inside quotation marks.

Comment by Mac Diva

Mon, 12 Jan 2004 17:06:11 EST

Wealthy Saudis and the Kuwaitis, though allegedly our allies, do most of the funding of Muslim terrorists. So, for the rich, at least, the motivation is murkier than escaping poverty-ridden lives. I also believe some fights that have little or nothing to do with jihad are getting subsumed under that label. I will be posting a news item about the Thai Muslim insurgency, which I'm sure some people will misinterpret as being related to international terrorism, today at Mac-a-ro-nies. It isn't, so I will have to explain it in a later entry.

Comment by Eric Olsen

Mon, 12 Jan 2004 14:19:06 EST

bhw, I think it's all tied together: the culture, the religion, the politics, the economy. I don't know the order, but improving the political situation and encouraging economic development rather than grim atavisim is critical. Islam is clearly much more liberal here than it is in, say, Egypt, but that doesn't explain the radical fundamentalists who ARE here and in Europe. it's a very thorny problem, but one we can no longer ignore.

Comment by Eric Olsen

Mon, 12 Jan 2004 14:06:59 EST

I am sorry to hear you that down, Nat. There is much ugliness in the world but much beauty too, and you seem to appreciate the beauty more than most. It really comes down to temperament: is the world half-full or half-empty? I feel compelled to see it as half-full.

Comment by bhw

Mon, 12 Jan 2004 14:06:19 EST

Yes, "fundamentalism and apolalyptic thinking" are exactly the problems, but a much greater problem with Islam than any other religion. I wonder how much of the correlation with Islam has to do with the abject poverty in which so many Muslims live and have lived for so long. Part of the problem might be that jidhadists think they have no place to go but up, so they find an enemy that has been, in their minds, keeping them down and then fight the bigger bad guy. Of course, Atta and some of the other 9/11 perpetrators were not from poor backgrounds. Hm. Still, I wonder about the poverty/powerlessness/anger connections. That and the fact that jihad *is* part of the religion, whether or not it's being interpreted correctly these days. So it's justified, religiously speaking, in Islam, whereas in Christianity, Jesus was all about the love and turning of the cheek.

Comment by Natalie Davis

Mon, 12 Jan 2004 13:08:04 EST

I adore my kids, but I know how the world situation as is causes me much anguish and torment. I sometimes believe I should not have given birth, if only to spare them the horror of this world -- and I believe that because I love my kids so much. I believe I did them a massive disservice by brining them into this hellish place.

Comment by Eric Olsen

Mon, 12 Jan 2004 09:56:08 EST

Dirtgrain, what you say is basically true but somewhat beside the point. It doesn't have anything to do with the acceptance of Islam as a minority religion in the US: please recall that prior to 9/11 Americans held a basically benign view of Islam - recall Bush's "religion of peace" statement in the aftermath. The question is what percentage of adherents subscribe to unreasonable, fundamentalist, fanatical, dangerous points of view and ascribe it to their religion? The percentage is much higher for Islam than it is for Christianity, and a general tolerance for fundamentalism as "the answer" is much higher in Islam than in Christianity or Judaism, or any other mainstream religion with which I am familiar. THAT is the problem and the central issue: why is Islam like this and what can be done about it, AND is there something inherent to Islam that encourages this kind of thinking? Yes, "fundamentalism and apolalyptic thinking" are exactly the problems, but a much greater problem with Islam than any other religion.

Comment by Dirtgrain

Mon, 12 Jan 2004 09:44:58 EST

You make me think about the difference between a religion and a cult. The word "cult" has negative connotations. But weren't most of the accepted religions of today considered to be something like cults when they first developed? What happened to Jesus is a good example. Upstart religions have often been treated terribly because they defy the religion of the majority. Then when these new religions finally become established, they look down on other religions as cults. The same thing happens when we consider religions that are not part of the majority in our country. When I hear about people complaining about Islam, it seems to me that they view it as something like a cult. It is practised by a small minority in the US, so maybe it does not gain acceptance. But in countries where Islam is the dominant religion, what do they think about Christianity? One complaint about Islam is that it emphasizes Jihad. People have pointed to Muslim religious texts that show "barbaric" practices. Cannot one find the same faults with the Bible (keeping in mind that Christianity and Islam overlap and share some texts)? Fortunately, most people don't adhere to everything that is in the Bible. I think that the same can be said for Islam. Yes there is a Taliban. But there were also the Puritans and the Branch Davidians. Perhaps it is fundamentalism and apocalyptic thinking that some should be focusing on--rather than on an entire, widespread religion that has many variants. See Culture, Religion, Apocalypse, and Middle East Foreign Policy.

Comment by Eric Olsen

Mon, 12 Jan 2004 08:17:07 EST

Regardless of its truth or advisability, is calling a religion "backward and evil" actually racism? Again, Kilroy made the mistake of vast overgeneralization, but theree is much about the way Islam is practiced today that IS backward and evil.

Comment by wendy

Mon, 12 Jan 2004 05:14:40 EST

I hope people don't assume the Kilroy gate to be mainly due to paranoia. There were suspicions of his profesionalism in 1995 when he wrote: "they (Muslims) are backward and evil, and if it is being racist to say so then I must be and happy and proud to be so." Sorry to pacify the "do-gooders". This guy is very proud of his racism. (The Daily Express, 15th January 1995)

Comment by jadester

Sat, 10 Jan 2004 07:04:42 EST

MD, you are forgetting that when *you* have a child, *you* can teach it what your moral values are. The chances are, at least something will rub off Humans are as diverse as any species. Because we can think a little more than most (all?) other animals, we have more arguments, but all animals have factions and conflicts and that ingrained survival instinct. The only differences are 1)we have invented some nasty weapons to help us in our conflicts 2)because we can think more than most or all other animals, we should be able to at least tolerate each other better. Some topics here at Blogcritics do fall into namecalling, but that's better than trigger-pulling. I'd rather be called names by an entire country than be nuked by them.

Comment by DSN

Fri, 9 Jan 2004 21:56:04 EST

It may not be possible to achieve peace, but we might as well try. There's nothing wrong with trying, I guess...the worst you can do is fail.

Comment by Eric Olsen

Fri, 9 Jan 2004 20:25:55 EST

yes, of course it is

Comment by Chris

Fri, 9 Jan 2004 20:17:19 EST

MD -- we have been combative, and, gasp, actually agreed about things. You think I am an apologist for really weird things, and I think you are a tool . . . ok, ground rules set. Let me just say this: despite our political/ideological/personal differences there is nothing better on earth than having a child. I have two, a 13 year old boy and a 16 month old little girl. You could torture me until I die, and you will never be able to erase things that go down what I call the parent memory hole. So, it is worth it.

Comment by Dirtgrain

Fri, 9 Jan 2004 20:15:50 EST

DSN: Beware of absolutes. Take two points in time in the relationship between two countries/cultures/peoples. One would most likely be a relatively more peaceful time than the other. These things vary from day to day, year to year. To argue that on a grand scale people will always hate each other, and that it is futile to attempt to make the world a more peaceful place because we can never achieve an absolutely peaceful world, is absurd. We as individuals and we as groups can make the world more, or less, peaceful based on how we act, both on an individual basis (which you do argue for) and on a political level. We may never reach the absolute that you write about, but we don't give up on something just because an absolute ideal is unattainable (we assume it is unattainable, of course, by looking at the continuous array of violence throughout human history--but this array also shows that people can affect the relative level of peace on earth). There are varying degrees of peace and violence on a grand scale, and we can impact them by being compassionate (locally and in your global attitudes), by being politically active, and by trying to change people's minds for the better--even if it's just one mind. Then again, I don't see too many people changing their minds on Blogcritics, but I have seen some points conceded. It's that whole "the wind from a flea fart (or is it butterfly flapping its wings?) in Africa could start a hurricane on the other side of the globe" idea and that six degrees of separation idea (which I think you addressed by emphasizing compassion in personal interactions).

Comment by Mac Diva

Fri, 9 Jan 2004 19:46:06 EST

I can't say you're wrong, but it makes me sad about human nature. With the old biological alarm clock ticking, I will have to make a decision soon. It is disheartening when I see how awful people can be.

Comment by DSN

Fri, 9 Jan 2004 19:37:36 EST

Hey Mac Diva, I think the problem here is that every person on this earth, Arab, white, or whatever, is screwed up in some way. Why can't we all get along? I think the answer is simple: because we can't. If the whites kept to themselves and the Arabs kept to themselves that wouldn't work either; not only is there division between races but there's division among races. If we split people into groups, sooner or later one group is going to run out of resources and go steal from/beg from/contact the other group. And then trouble. A'ight. You can't solve this problem! People aren't innately inclined to be nice to everyone! People are inclined to look out for themselves. I can only make sure that I look to the needs of others. Even so, how can I be sure my subconscious racism isn't affecting what I do? Just worry about getting along with the people around you, your fellow people. A'ight. If we can't agree here on this website and resort to obscene language rather than reason, what makes us think anyone can get along? If you can't get along with your neighbor, forget the Arab world! Solve that problem first. Once you're friends with your whole nation you can claim that Arabs and whites should be at peace without being a total hypocrite. A'ight. So, man, I respect you, but there's no solution. Consider Arabs as full people, consider them inferior, consider them superior, there's still going to be someone out there who hates you and is out to kill you. A'ight. I'm not saying that in the West, there aren't white people or whatever race who isn't just as screwed up as Arabs may be. There's killer psychos from every race. A'ight. So, when you are talking about ways to make peace with the Arabs, it probably does more if one just is friendly to an Arab just like he would be to someone of his own race, then if he throws around grandiose ideas about whole nations on the internet. A'ight. What I'm saying is, if there's anything that brings us to peace, (which I think there probably won't be) it is the day-to-day, small things. A'ight.

Comment by Mac Diva

Fri, 9 Jan 2004 15:47:10 EST

I must direct non-liberals to Jade's comments. He is pretty conservative, but he sees right through the scrim. Halliburton wlll profit from the occupation of Iraq. The people of Iraq will be poorer and in worse health even than the blockade caused as a result of the invasion. Just wait and see. Eric, you can't have it both ways. You agreed with someone who said Arab and/or Muslim persons are subhumans barely on the map of existence. It is strange to turn around and acknowledge Muslim culture was a dominant influence on how the rest of the world developed. Heck, the zeroes and ones we rely on to be here on the Internet can be traced back to the very people you are deriding. You seem to have bought into the notion that considering Muslims full human beings means hating Jews. It does not. Grow up, new daddy. Granted, James. Some of the others are/were equally barbaric. My point is that the notion savagery is the province of Second and Third World peoples so often promoted in the West is horsefeathers. On the scale of lives lost and blighted over even the last 500 years, the New Guineans can't hold a candle to the Brits. I am going to blog that fellow's silly piece if I find time. My focus will be ignorance about the relationship between cause and effect in world history. For example, the numbskull would say English is the dominant language in the world because the English are a superior race, substituting 'culture' for race if he is sneaky. Wrong. English is the dominant language because of the reach of British colonialism and imperialism and wealth of America, Canada and Australia. In fact, I don't know that there is such a thing as a superior language. I invite other people to steal this idea for a blog entry if they want to.

Comment by Dirtgrain

Fri, 9 Jan 2004 14:52:04 EST

How is, "BITCH SHUT THE FUCK UP! YOUR REACTIONARY PRATTLE IS AT ONCE BOTH IMMATURE AND UNDER RESEARCHED.YOU HAVE SOME REAL OBVIOUS MENTAL HEALTH ISSUES THAT SHOULD BE ADDRESSED BEFORE YOU ARE ALLOWED TO CONTINUE YOUR ONLINE NONSENSE YOU CHOOSE TO PERSONALLY ATTACK (HOW"S IT FEEL TO BE ON THE OTHER END OF IT???)" an example of "COMMON DECENCY AND LOGIC?" My response to this debating about who is more evil than who, is to say that we as human beings all have the capacity for evil. To focus intently on this or that group as the most evil perhaps allows some people to disregard the evil that they themselves and their group/culture/country are capable of doing. Scapegoating, projecting, and misleading, this type of thinking is what allows a country to persecute and oppress another in the name of culture, righteousness, or God. We all have the capacity to be as bad as the Nazis, and most governments in the world sanction equivalent evil, although at a much smaller scale (e.g., our ally Turkey killing hundreds of thousands of Kurds, our old ally Iraq killing Kurds, Rwanda, Burundi, Nigeria, Columbia, Nicaragua, Serbia, Israel vs. Palestinians, China vs. Tibet, Russia vs. Chechnya, and the list goes on).