I brought the point about forcing new immigrants to watch videos (a Danish government requirement) with unclothed women in it to illustrate the absurdity of such a policy. Any self-respecting, free and independent woman, never mind their race or religion, should find such a policy offensive. I suggested trying that in America - the response (rather the backlash) would be swift.
Go figure how you missed that glaring point - this isn't about when in rome, do as the romans do, as you had implied in your first response.
You wrote: "was referring to the "new immigrants" you mentioned in the above quote from your article...they are there by their own choice and not by invitation from the Danes, Ma'am".
I preceded that sentence with this: The crux of the matter is that this is all about race and the blatant lack of respect accorded to Danish citizens who are not blonde or blue-eyed (bluntly said, but you know what I mean). Denmark has had to deal with its Muslim immigrants, especially with the younger generation of Muslims who were born and bred in Denmark, but who are now asserting their religious identity. The Danes are reluctant to accept the concept of multiculturalism as have successful multi-ethnic countries such as Singapore - why you have to ask them.
You wrote: "It would be silly and foolish for an entire community of one billion people to react if muslims who respond to silly cartoons with bombs are called fanatical"
Silence of the majority would be far worse in the long-run.
I wrote in the blog: Mr. Westergaard (the cartoonist) admitted openly that “cartoons always concentrate and simplify an idea and allow a quick impression that arouses some strong feeling".
What he did was not "fiction" - it was a statement on his perception of a reality.
Again read what I wrote:" Taken in that context, the bomb in the Prophet's turban, signified the Danes assertion that the Prophet taught Muslims to be a violent and murdering people - that violence is at the cornerstone of the religion. But anyone who has studied the religion would tell you differently.
In effect, the Danes were saying that all Muslims are inherently violent because of their faith. They were tarring all Muslims with the same brush".
"If that person offers you a gift, it becomes yours, only if you accept it...so also with an insult...it becomes yours only if you accept (in our MODERN context "react" is the word I am looking for)it......."
Tell it to the person with a Muslim sounding name who gets randomly selected for extra security checks each time he boards a plan, and tell that to the person who is prevented from flying because his name resembles someone on a list.
In general, people who often see "jealousy" in others are themselves feeling inadequate in some way.
Lots of married women work and they are not childish enough to carry such belittling ideas.
Your blog was an amateurish work with lots of immature ideas.
Bharatborn, I think that's too simple a litmus test for what would be acceptable or not acceptable.
Anyway, the Da Vinci Code was a work of fiction. Portraying Muhammad with a bomb in his turban is whole different ball game because of the implication one draws from the cartoon. I have already given a discussion in the blog of why this is offensive, especially in this political climate.
When someone thinks it fit to tar an entire (one billion people) community with the term "fanatical Muslims", I think it becomes imperative on logical people to counter such negative perceptions.
"the fanatical Muslims (not all Muslims)!".
I have found in my experience that racists will usually apply exceptions (like not all, or except him or her etc) at the end of their offensive judgements that tar an entire community.
Well done.
Danish Cartoons Outrage
You wrote: Silence of the majority of muslims for the unislamic acts of the terrorists (compd to loud demonstrations by muslims against a silly cartoon) would indeed be harmful in the long run".
Muslim religious leaders do speak out. But I (as many educated and thinking individuals) find it unneccesary because the people who engaged in terror acts, IMO, happen to be Muslims, and are NOT my religious leaders, much less my political representatives. They as much connected to me as they are to you.
But I don't need to tell you this - after all, didn't a Gujerati leader who was implicated in ordering the massacres of Gujerati Muslims, get re-elected to office last year? Electing into office a murderer, and I didn't hear any Indian dismay or outcry. And the man is an Indian political representative. This was the same man who deemed by the US state dept as being unworthyto enter the country.
You wrote: "Cartoon is not only perception of reality. it is an exaggerated perception of reality by an individual. it is a caricature. if you are offended, ignore. or one can try go to court about it."
Demonstrations and the media publicity etc were necessary to highlight the issue. You wouldn't be aware of it ,if it was not done. When someone is offended, something is done to seek redress. I am not going to educate you on what has been (and is being done) In Denmark by Danish-Muslim citizens.
My little part is to write about it - it has been nice to see the genuine reactions of Hindus.
You wrote:" A rather crude method. but if the new immigrants can't bear to watch unclothed females, if they are offended by it, they might be perhaps better off seeking refuge in soudi arabia, pakistan, bangladesh etc etc etc."
That is really weak argument. It is sexist, racist and discriminatory. Period. It was a practice that was recently enacted, and as with all legislation, it is open to debate and repeals. And if you cannot figure out why, please enroll at your local university and take a course in politics and government 101.
Not a single one of you came forward with intelligent arguments. The Danes did a much better job arguing their point than the Indians here at Sulekha.
Block this user | Report AbuseReply