Film protests: What explains the anger?
POSTED BY: Niki2
UPDATED: Tuesday, June 4, 2024 20:42
VIEWED: 7574
PAGE 1 of 5
Quote:
More than three years ago, President Barack Obama famously told a Cairo audience that "we meet at a time of great tension between the United States and Muslims around the world".
His speech, titled A New Beginning, sought to transcend the acrimony of the Bush era.
This week, as violent protests rage across the Middle East and beyond, the president might ask himself: What went wrong?
The truth is that there is no single explanation.
One answer is that last year's wave of political uprisings, the so-called Arab Spring, is responsible.
After all, protests began in Egypt, which last year became the most populous Arab democracy, and spread to Libya, which became the largest by area.
The Arab Spring did indeed invigorate a range of Islamist movements and weakened the law enforcement capabilities of the affected states.
However, this cannot explain why some of this week's most serious violence took place in Sudan, and other protests in places normally calm, as Qatar.
Additionally, such violence long pre-dates the Arab Spring and frequently took place under dictators, the most prominent examples occurring in the Middle East in 2006 after a Danish newspaper's publication of cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad.
The second argument is that we are witnessing profound anti-Americanism, dormant for much of last year, fused with religious extremism - with the controversial Innocence of Muslims film merely a trigger.
According to a June 2012 Pew survey, just 15% of those in Muslim countries held a favourable opinion of the United States, compared to 25% in 2009.
Polls indicate that anti-Americanism stems from a variety of grievances, including US policy towards the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, American wars in the Middle East, and US backing for friendly dictators.
The irony is that, whereas Barack Obama is sometimes pilloried by critics in the West for naively supporting the revolutions, most Arabs see his actions as too late and too little.
Although Arab ideas about freedom of expression are fundamentally divergent from Western ones - 84% of Egyptians want the death penalty for those who leave the Muslim religion - there are big generational gaps.
Those under 35 - the generation widely held up as the engine of the Arab Spring - are far less likely to pray several times a day, attend the mosque regularly, or read the Koran daily. They are being catalysed less by religion, and more by politics.
Furthermore, anti-Americanism is not universal.
Despite the widespread xenophobia evident in Egypt, 35% of Egyptians actually want Egypt-US relations to remain as strong as they were before the revolution, and a surprisingly high 20% want them to get even better. Sixty percent of Tunisians say that they like American ideas about democracy.
A Gallup poll this year showed that 54% of Libyans approve of American leadership, near the highest approval ever seen in the region.
Indeed, Libya has seen a series of protests supportive of the US, and against the attack on the US consulate in Benghazi.
Even where it is widespread, anti-Americanism is simply not a sufficient explanation for outbreaks of violence.
In many cases, protests might have had little energy had local religious and political entrepreneurs, eager to bolster their following and create disorder, not exploited them.
In Khartoum, for instance, local buses were laid on to transport prayer-goers to protest sites.
In Libya, to speak of a protest is misleading. The assault in which US Ambassador Chris Stevens died was probably a co-ordinated, complex undertaking by an organised militant group, perhaps in concert with al-Qaeda's North African affiliate. It represents broader Libyan opinion no more than Anders Breivik did that of Norway.
This wave of violence will have longer-term repercussions.
The US has no legal mechanism to censor the provocative film. American freedom of expression cannot be a subject of comp
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Well, I have some suspicions about that whole mess, but in regards to the notion of violence and rage...
That comes from not having a sense of humor about it.
In mine own beliefs, the diesms are not infallible, are flawed, and prone to double-dealing (which is obviously, blatantly true even in systems where they are pretended to be!) and one is ENCOURAGED to mock them because taking it all too seriously results in violence and needless slaughter, most especially when your belief system favors the Asura rather than the Deva, as the former don't even hold a pretense of benevolence, nor in many cases do the deisms of voodoun, for another example.
As an Outsider-Theory Maltheist, I also believe that not only are the "gods" inimical to Man in the error of his creation, they also feed on misery and suffering - thus taking them too seriously gives them power and influence by which they warp the perceptions of the weak and gullible into of course causing more misery and suffering.
Laughing in their faces, metaphorically, is the noblest act of Mankind, for it is our very ability, and willingness, to commit Heresy that is our primary virtue, and the sole root of every ounce of progress as a species we've ever made, for Dogma has never not once advanced our improvement of conditions here, our understanding of the universe, or the betterment of our own lives - never not once, if anything, the opposite.
Annnnd that's as far as I can go on this without technially proselytizing, which is explicitly forbidden.
(As in dogma-level forbidden, which is a deliberate in-joke and irony)
-Frem
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
...US policy towards the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, American wars in the Middle East, and US backing for friendly dictators.
That should cover it, I'd say. And YouTube. The power of the internet is immense, and just getting started, particularly in the Arab world. We fucking run their people over in our humvees. We target children from our gunships. We are the most powerful nation on Earth and we treat them like animals. We've killed HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE (very conservative estimate) over there in just the last ten years and we're still at it.
I'll never understand America's eternal conundrum, "WHY DON'T THEY LOVE US???" WE'VE KILLED HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF THEIR PEOPLE. All those people we've killed HAVE LIVING RELATIVES. And now, thanks to the internet, they can all communicate with each other and watch YouTube videos of us slaughtering them and laughing about it. I love my country, but our military domination of the globe is, right now, the gravest evil facing the human race. And, just to be clear, I include the citizens of the United States in the human race. Our adiction to military supremacy is absolutely destroying our nation.
HKCavalier
Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
What explains the protests... religious fervour, ignorance and naivete about Western free speech traditions, a belief that their religion should get special treatment...
It's not personal. It's just war.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Yes, it's all because of this film. I'm not going to bother putting up the photo of the dead Ambassador, I'm sure he'd blame the film too.
High gas prices, problem, Big oil
High unemployment, problem, Bush and Republian Congress
Forenign policy disaster, problem, Really bad movie.
It'll never be Barry's fault....NEVER!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The problem's a little bigger than one man, Whoz. Just a little.
HKCavalier
Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
A bit of what everyone has said, but a lot about modern media capacity. You used to be able to mock far off nations, religions etc etc because they were exactly that...far off. Now everything has the capacity to be broadcast around the world very quickly. Your audience isn't just the small sub group you were possibly aiming at, but everyone. And not everyone shares the same sense of humour when it comes to their sacred cows.
I can think of a number of instances where things got a wider audience than intended. There was a tv show here where people got up and made foos of themselves in a mock talent contest, 'Red Faces' and a group of men did a foolish blackface routine and caused an outcry amongst African americans, when the segment was taken out of context and broadcast on news channels in the US. Of course the biggest difference being that they didn't burn down the Australian embassy in protest.
I think these instances expose the capacity of media to manipulate to get a reaction, and that is exactly what has happened in the Muslim world. It's definitely been used for a purpose, by people who have an ulterior motive. And then that rage is kind of infectious. And I guess what also happens is that is also manipulated by western media who fuel that rage also for their agenda (ie painting all muslims as extremists).
We really are experiencing an uncomfortable collision of different cultures, thanks to modern media.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Facebook was used to rally the protesters who gathered in Sydney's CBD to demonstrate against an anti-Islam film but the rally was hijacked by "extremists", says Muslim community.
About 300 people demonstrated in Sydney's CBD yesterday, the latest in a spate of protests at US embassies and consulates in the Middle East, Africa, Britain and elsewhere over a film that ridicules Prophet Mohammed.
The film, Innocence of Muslims, has been condemned by governments across the world, including the White House.
Eight people were arrested and six police officers were injured during the demonstration, which turned violent before police managed to disperse the crowd.
Advertisement
Protester Abdullah Sary said the protest had mainly been organised through social media sites, such as Facebook.
Another protester, who didn't want to be named, said it had also been discussed in several mosques, but declined to say which ones.
Facebook has also generated heated post-demonstration debate.
A Facebook site, "Violent protesters don't represent us", proposing a counter-protest to the Saturday demonstration has already attracted 75 likes.
Writer Randa Abdel-Fattah feared the Sydney protest would tarnish the Muslim community.
"Unfortunately when a fraction behaves badly, every Muslim stands accused. Let's not let the extremists and unthinking people on all sides control the political and religious discourse," she said.
Ms Abdel-Fattah said Facebook updates from friends at the protest depicted a demonstration that had started peacefully until a minority of extremists hijacked it.
"The first victim of these protests is Islam. That's the irony. The angry, ranting man and woman on the street is dishonouring the example set to us by Prophet Mohammed."
Sydney woman Asme Fahmi said she felt her worst fears had come true while walking in the city yesterday.
"I am sick of these ill informed, reactionary people hijacking Islam. This reaction is an insult to the Prophet Mohammed and they just played into the hands of the filmmakers," she said.
However Ms Fahmi said she understood heavy-handed police tactics were used in the protest.
"The majority of hard working, good, honest Muslims are now going to suffer as a result of the actions of a few."
Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/technology/technology-news/sydney-protest-org
anised-over-social-media-20120916-25zye.html#ixzz26ayTVhkq
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Anyone who supports the religious rightwing here.... for example, those who were REALLY concerned that the Democratic platform neglected to mention "god"... can hardly claim to be an objective observer. From my vantage point, one religion is like another, and all are equally deserving of either mockery or respect, whether the object of veneration is Harvey the six foot rabbit, the son of god, god's chosen prophet, a slew of warring supernatural powers, a Reese's peanut butter cup or Ayn Rand. All. The. Same. (Show otherwise.) In other words, I'm with Frem!
But just as it is here and everywhere, religion is a TOOL. Religion in the Mideast (just as here) is a vehicle for those who want to gain power... religious leaders are often also associated with corruption. The real problem in Egypt, in Iran, in Tunisia and elsewhere is corruption, combined with high bread prices thanks to commodity (wheat) costs, thanks to crop failtures, thanks to global warming. (But that's another story) The religious leaders at the top of the heap truly do not want to lose their vaunted status. And Democracy is not the solution if ideas are not able to be freely discussed. Facing the point of a sword for having the wrong opinion is a true disincentive for disagreement. Altho in my personal opinion, if you have to FORCE someone to agree with you, you have truly lost in the marketplace of ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I agree, Quote:
Also that none who were used by that tool to get riled up about "god" in a platform are only different from what's happening elsewhere becasue they live in supposedly "civilized" countries. But to me, religion is just a small part of it. The fact that religion has been part of government in Islamic countries for so very long and they've been so brainwashed by the mulahs into accepting that religion is "all" certainly plays it's part, but it's more than that.
But just as it is here and everywhere, religion is a TOOL
Yes, the internet has played its part, as have many other things, and people have been manipulated, AND our own actions have come back to bite us in the ass. In my opinion, a lot of it has to do with cultural differences and the fact that the Middle East, having been run by dictators, kings, shahs and so forth practically since the beginning of time, have no concept of the idea of free speech, that painful as it is to let things like that exist, it's a basic principle for some countries (even tho' THOSE, like us, have their own forms of censorship and propaganda). Given the movie was made in America, by an American (and so obviously so!), it's only natural they would feel America was responsible, and our not censoring it and punishing the people behind it would obviously seem like complicity. I don't think we're capable of grasping what life would be like under a system which allowed no dissent and clamped down HARD on those who dared, any more than they're capable of grasping what it's like to have to allow such things, difficult as that is. Hopefully, if things really do change over there, someday they will understand, but I doubt it will be in my lifetime, if ever.
Had an interesting thought; Raptor and his buddies keep saying we "apologized", when in actual fact the "movie" was "condemned". I'd like to ask: does that mean they DON'T condemn the "movie"? I'd also be interested in hearing what they think SHOULD have been done by an embassy which is tuned into the country it's in when they hear about and sense the unrest around them and want to do something to hopefully ease the tension. Do they think we should have sent in massive military force, just stayed silent, or come out with some kind of message threatening the populace if any action were taken? I can't quite figure that out.
Fifty years ago, when I was in Afghanistan, there was no such thing as even the concept of protest or dissent. I'm not sure how they would have understood it, or if they would have at all, if we'd tried to explain the concept to them. It was not only unheard of, it was never conceived. Now countries like that understand the idea of having their voices heard, but they still don't fully understand it and, since the only thing approximating it in their history is violent takeover, I don't find it particularly surprising that they would interpret it that way. After all, many of OUR protests turn violent, and we DO supposedly understand the concept. How would we react if it was new to us, if we expected violence if we stood up for what we believed, if we had a history of factions, being totally controlled, turnover in power only being achieved by violence, secret police, etc., etc.?
I believe they have plenty of reason to hate us; after all, we either propped up or stood behind the very people who had oppressed them for centuries. We invaded, bombed the hell out of some of their countries, they saw and understood the corruption they saw around them committed by us in the name of "nation building", the paid mercenaries not held accountable for their actions, and so much more. THAT is familiar to them. They saw the violence we've used against individuals, detention, torture, the overwhelming use of our strength to, in our way, oppress them as much as those
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME