As a follow up to my previous post about the Danish cartoon controversy, I have to say that although it's still frustrating to contemplate the needless harm Danish media caused to many peaceful and innocent people by its petty emotional reaction to a police action against alleged extremists; I am quite happy to see many Danish citizens condemning the childishly provocative actions of its media, showing solidarity with Muslims and taking the parameters of the debate out of the hands of the mainstream media and into their own. The Danes have sent a clear message to their media: "You don't speak for Denmark or Danish people and we have our own voices which aren't being heard. We will handle things from this point forward and speak for ourselves!"
Bravo Denmark!
I learned of these new developments in quick succession, first, reading this story about the reaction of Danish Muslims to recent events.
Hundreds of Danish Muslims were demonstrating peacefully in Copenhagen. They expressed frustration that the Danish media would harm and offend them once again, but seemed sadly resigned that their feelings, beliefs and concerns would continue to be ignored. They didn't blame the Danish people themselves, whom they find largely tolerant and liberal, but put the blame squarely on Danish media for having "stirred controversy instead of trying to help mend community relations."
Though, in fairness, some of the protesters stirred up some controversy of their own by carrying the flags of Hizb ut-Tahrir which certainly could play on some European fears of having their own traditional identities and values absorbed and erased by some medieval-like Islamic caliphate extending to their own countries.
After reading this story, I immediately followed the link of an even more interesting story, which portends to the silent revolution of social discourse and debate which continues to spread around the internet.
Danish people were cognizant of the fact that their media (much like America's, I might add) does not speak for Danish people, but is merely a commercial organization, which largely expresses the views and values of its owners and management.
In response, a Danish student named, Anders Boetter created a site where ordinary Danes could apologize to Muslims for the offense caused by their media and, more revealingly, to give them their own voices back, instead of just passively allowing their own government or media organizations to 'speak for them'.
As a side comment, I find it both amusing and frustrating when I read stories in the media about international relations. They speak of nations as if they were actually individual people relating (and often fighting) with one another. I find the whole concept of a nation so very abstract and fragile anyway. What the media should say is that the government of a particular nation is doing or saying something which may or may not reflect the attitudes and desires of its own people.
But to return to the student's efforts; he criticized the media for making a 'black and white' debate over the issue, where you had to be clearly 'for or against' the cartoons, instead of expressing the ambiguity, the doubts, the subtlety and nuance, which he felt were a more accurate reflection of Danish feeling on the subject. He expressed his awareness that regardless of the underlying debate over the principles of freedom of expression, the simple fact of the matter was that the cartoons had actually deeply hurt and offended many people, both in Denmark and across the world. He wanted Muslims to know that many Danes were sorry about that and wanted to apologize and express their own anger at the emotionally-charged recklessness of their own media.
A Danish woman, reacting to the student's efforts said, "being proud of being Danish is something I rarely feel lately but with your initiative we're finally having a dialogue and there's understanding between people which the media has not been able to show the public".
Being citizens of a free society, some Danes, or course, set up a rival site that argues against the needs to apologize to anyone. They spoke of 'tolerating freedom of speech'; of leaving the country if people didn't like the 'smell in the bakery'; and that traditional Danish norms and values weren't topics open for debate. A simplistic, 'deal with it or get out' mentality.
Although, I do actually agree with many of their views regarding freedom of speech, and of respecting the cultural norms of the societies which Muslims migrate into; still, there's a need to 'choose one's battles' wisely and of not 'stirring up the pot' just to demonstrate that it can be done on principle, without any regard to the global consequences or the harm it could cause innocent people.
What's most encouraging to me, though, is that the debate has shifted from the hands of the mainstream media and into the hands of ordinary citizens.
As the article finished:
"Ignoring the mainstream media, young Danes have found a new way to air their views and debate the future of their society."
I hope that the silver lining of all of this controversy will be the continual empowerment of individual citizens to work out all the social and political issues that are important to them without the bumbling interference and emotional propaganda of governments and corporate, profit-driven media companies.
Bravo Denmark!
I learned of these new developments in quick succession, first, reading this story about the reaction of Danish Muslims to recent events.
Hundreds of Danish Muslims were demonstrating peacefully in Copenhagen. They expressed frustration that the Danish media would harm and offend them once again, but seemed sadly resigned that their feelings, beliefs and concerns would continue to be ignored. They didn't blame the Danish people themselves, whom they find largely tolerant and liberal, but put the blame squarely on Danish media for having "stirred controversy instead of trying to help mend community relations."
Though, in fairness, some of the protesters stirred up some controversy of their own by carrying the flags of Hizb ut-Tahrir which certainly could play on some European fears of having their own traditional identities and values absorbed and erased by some medieval-like Islamic caliphate extending to their own countries.
After reading this story, I immediately followed the link of an even more interesting story, which portends to the silent revolution of social discourse and debate which continues to spread around the internet.
Danish people were cognizant of the fact that their media (much like America's, I might add) does not speak for Danish people, but is merely a commercial organization, which largely expresses the views and values of its owners and management.
In response, a Danish student named, Anders Boetter created a site where ordinary Danes could apologize to Muslims for the offense caused by their media and, more revealingly, to give them their own voices back, instead of just passively allowing their own government or media organizations to 'speak for them'.
As a side comment, I find it both amusing and frustrating when I read stories in the media about international relations. They speak of nations as if they were actually individual people relating (and often fighting) with one another. I find the whole concept of a nation so very abstract and fragile anyway. What the media should say is that the government of a particular nation is doing or saying something which may or may not reflect the attitudes and desires of its own people.
But to return to the student's efforts; he criticized the media for making a 'black and white' debate over the issue, where you had to be clearly 'for or against' the cartoons, instead of expressing the ambiguity, the doubts, the subtlety and nuance, which he felt were a more accurate reflection of Danish feeling on the subject. He expressed his awareness that regardless of the underlying debate over the principles of freedom of expression, the simple fact of the matter was that the cartoons had actually deeply hurt and offended many people, both in Denmark and across the world. He wanted Muslims to know that many Danes were sorry about that and wanted to apologize and express their own anger at the emotionally-charged recklessness of their own media.
A Danish woman, reacting to the student's efforts said, "being proud of being Danish is something I rarely feel lately but with your initiative we're finally having a dialogue and there's understanding between people which the media has not been able to show the public".
Being citizens of a free society, some Danes, or course, set up a rival site that argues against the needs to apologize to anyone. They spoke of 'tolerating freedom of speech'; of leaving the country if people didn't like the 'smell in the bakery'; and that traditional Danish norms and values weren't topics open for debate. A simplistic, 'deal with it or get out' mentality.
Although, I do actually agree with many of their views regarding freedom of speech, and of respecting the cultural norms of the societies which Muslims migrate into; still, there's a need to 'choose one's battles' wisely and of not 'stirring up the pot' just to demonstrate that it can be done on principle, without any regard to the global consequences or the harm it could cause innocent people.
What's most encouraging to me, though, is that the debate has shifted from the hands of the mainstream media and into the hands of ordinary citizens.
As the article finished:
"Ignoring the mainstream media, young Danes have found a new way to air their views and debate the future of their society."
I hope that the silver lining of all of this controversy will be the continual empowerment of individual citizens to work out all the social and political issues that are important to them without the bumbling interference and emotional propaganda of governments and corporate, profit-driven media companies.
No comments:
Post a Comment