Friday, February 24, 2006

The fundamental difference between the Non-Sequitur and Jyllands-Posten controversies.

The difference is between losing face and having your principles violated.

It shames me that we cannot tell the difference. It should shame you too.

Blogger Jon said...

The thing that was different between Jyllands-Posten cartoon and Non-Sequitur was how rubbish the former was.

Seriously I was insulted that a person with no drawing talents can get a job in Denmark.

9:19 AM  
Blogger T-Boy said...

Jon: Technically the cartoons Jyllands-Posten published were solid work.

That says nothing of how valuable they were in terms of semantics and what they offered to the Muslim-West discourse, which I've compared to urine in a public swimming pool.

A better question they should have asked instead of "Why don't Muslims have a sense of humor?" would have been, "Why wasn't Jyllands-Posten fucking funny?"

9:28 AM  
Blogger Jon said...

That was what I meant. It wasn't funny.

But that was besides the point really - nobody should have given a shit about it.

Why all the sudden uproar in February?

It was like the whole Jerry Springer Opera debacle. It took months for Christian fundamentalist to register that the show may be offensive to Jesus. All it took was a couple of people at christianvoice.org to create a fuss.

10:00 PM  
Blogger T-Boy said...

Okay. People gave a shit about the Jyllands-Posten one because it violated a taboo, and violated it in a crude, unpleasant way.

We've had the taboo against representing Muhammad visually for a long while (it was argued that it could lead to idolatry, the way most Muslims see how Christians treat Jesus) -- as a matter of fact Aisehman gives an example of what could be considered a violation of that taboo, except, again, like I said, that particular violation cast Muhammad in a positive light, so, there were calls for it to be brought down, but that was it; no major protests.

The late reaction for this one is kind of typical of fundamentalists of all stripes and groups that see themselves 'embattled' by all sides by hostile forces -- all it takes is for someone to notice, and for someone to make a fuss, and for other people on both sides to over-react.

It would have been a lot milder if all the other publications in the other countries to have seen what JP was doing -- an insensitive piece of crap that wasn't funny in the first place and perpetuated negative stereotypes of a rather... sensitive minority. But no, they got stupid and posted it out of "solidarity". Cue shit-storm.

Eh, now, the Non-Sequitur one was hilarious because it was true. I have no problems with it.

10:30 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home