An American Indian's View of the Cartoons

[sasha031]

Reading the first news reports about the cartoons depicting Muhammid as a terrorist reminded me of the unfriendly media that printed the then Attorney Gerneral of for South Dakota, William Janklows` vigilante order, "The only way to deal with the Indian problem in South Dakota is to put a gun to the AIM leaders' heads and pull the trigger." Such ethnically hostile and abusive reporting by mainstream media was what helped to kill more than 60 American Indians and assault hundreds more during the federal governments reign of terror that occurred between 1973 and 1975 on the Pine Ridge Oglala Lakota reservation.
With all the comparisons that have been made and continue to be made between the struggles of Muslim people and North American Indian people, it did not come as a surprise to find similar cartoons historically used to create racism, hatred and war against American Indians. Portraying the popular sentiment about Indians in the 1800`s. A cartoon by Grant Hamilton, called the, "The Nation's Ward" portrayed the Indian as a savage snake constricting a pioneer family. It shows further the American Indian being fed by Uncle Sam while the pioneers' home burns. This cartoon and others like it protested the U.S. treaty promise of giving out food rations to Indians through hard winters. Political propaganda fed through various printed media has helped to create the mentality that allowed wholesale, systematic and frenetic killings of Indian men, women and children. One example of such an atrocity took place at Sand Creek when Phil Sheridan gave U.S. soldiers permission to butcher women and children and to hang their sexual body parts on public display at the Denver opera house. Such atrocities have occurred in today,s modern wars currently being waged against Muslim people under Bush,s doctrine of ´preemptive strike´ that has killed more civilians then fighters.

Freedom of speech and of the press has been used as a weapon against oppressed people for centuries. It has been nothing more than a smokescreen to justify the actions of a few but in reality incite religious and ethnic hatred. The editors knew these cartoons were clearly drawn as deadly propaganda tools, created with malice and forethought, to neutralize Muslim groups in struggle and deny them "respectability" in the world community. Who now should be charged for inciting a riot? Who now should be held accountable to the Muslim communities for these slanderous, racist cartoons that has forced communities to take sides against each other? How can we share this world, respecting the diversity of ethnic origins if the powers on hand continue to pump the public with hate filled propaganda! It is time for the media to step up to the plate accepting responsibility for their actions and what better place is there to start than in Denmark!

http://www.counterpunch.org/robideau02092006.html

[sandnsea]

1. Good piece

k&r

[doublethink]

2. A needed perspective.

"Freedom of speech and of the press has been used as a weapon against oppressed people for centuries. It has been nothing more than a smokescreen to justify the actions of a few but in reality incite religious and ethnic hatred." -snip-

I agree, irresponsible journalism in these trying times is something aiken to throwing fuel on the fire. K&R Peace. :)

[sasha031]

5. I thought so to

I am amazed that there are people even on DU that don't see this as racism, probably because they haven't seen their reflection in the mirror to discover that they are the racist.

[Sequoia]

3. Thanks, that was a good read.

[fishnfla]

4. I fail to see the correlation

For one I dont see how freedom of speech and freedom of the press are used as weapons, thats nonsense

Secondly, these cartoons were published in Sept. What, exactly has happened since then? I just read where these cartoons were packaged in a dossier with other inflammatory material which was never published and sent throughout the ME, especially in Egypt to influyence the recent elections there. Now who is using propaganda and just why?

If the Muslims are hacked off because they are oppressed, how come it takes a bunch of lame cartoons to set them off? I mean should not world-wide Islam be more pissed off b/c we are bombing the crap out of Iraq? How come the cartoons set them off more than that?

Who, exactly, said that images of Mohammud are idolatry? Prove to me who said this and why. Some dude made up a story 3,00 years ago and a bunch of fanatics are killing each other over a book and cartoons. Why?

[girl gone mad]

6. Freedom of speech used as a weapon?

Speech does not kill people. Racism is not created by speech, and will not be eradicated by any ban on speech.

Freedom of speech is not a weapon, it is a basic human right.

No one should be held accountable for drawing cartoons. However, people should be held accountable for murdering, looting, burning, rioting.

Also, let's remember that the cartoonists and those supporting the free spech and/or POV of the cartoonists are not the ones doing the murdering and rioting. So, I fail to see how this relates to the story referenced in the piece.

[Igel]

7. You seem to know more about the cartoonists' motivations

and thoughts than I thought humanly possible. You even know things that contradict what was said before they were solicited. All without needing to offer a shred of evidence.

Another thing that's allegedly been used to oppress, however, even when there's been relative liberty, is intimidation and the fear of violence. Sometimes, the myth goes, it's enough just to assault, or even kill, one or two representatives of the community being targeted. It's even possible for a small number to engage in this sort of thuggery, the myth continues This is obviously a grievous falsehood perpetrated by those who hate freedom and love oppression. After all, saying or printing things that can be taken, out of context, to be offensive is true oppression, for words hurt far more than knives, and there's no defense against them, or possibility of responding in kind; fear of violence is, on the other hand, a foretaste of paradise, true liberty and freedom.

[girl gone mad]

9. Isn't it interesting...

the timing of this campaign?

Now we're being told we need to have more of our freedoms taken away, specifically our freedom to criticize institutionalized religion.

Something isn't right here.

[H2O Man]

8. Well said.

Thank you.

[tocqueville]

10. what a load of bull

"Freedom of speech and of the press has been used as a weapon against oppressed people for centuries. It has been nothing more than a smokescreen to justify the actions of a few but in reality incite religious and ethnic hatred."

maybe as a side effect. What conclusion shall we draw of that ? forbid freedom of speech because it can be misused ?


"The editors knew these cartoons were clearly drawn as deadly propaganda tools, created with malice and forethought, to neutralize Muslim groups in struggle and deny them "respectability" in the world community."

There is not a single proof of that. It's only the author subjective interpretation.

What I know of American Indians were not trying to IMPOSE their religious views on the settlers. I was the other way around. The Danish cartoons were an attempt to discuss the following :

can religious beliefs ask for exceptions in the rules and laws of a secular society ? that's the whole point. Because it's exactly what some (minor) Islamic organisations try to impose in Europe : my religion and its rules are superior to your separation of church and state.

It has NOTHING to do with racism. Except that it is the easy argument.

[sasha031]

11. self delete

[IndyOp]

12. Speech is behavior. Hate speech gives permission/encourages more hateful

action. Freedom of speech by the majority must be balanced by the rights of the minority to live free of harassment and fear of worse.

From Wikipedia:
"Proponents of limitations on hate speech argue that repeated instances of hate speech do more than express ideas or expresses dissent; rather, hate speech often promotes and results in fear, intimidation and harassment of individuals, and may result in murder and even genocide of those it is targeted against. As such, historical revisionism is thought to be a form of propaganda which, deleting memory of real events, allows them to repeat themselves (as in the: "Never more!", following World War I... and then the Holocaust)."

[sasha031]

13. thank you IndyOp

:hi:

[druidity33]

14. hard to determine for me...

because i haven't seen the cartoons. Hate-speech and comparing them to the radical destruction of the NA peoples by the US government seems like a stretch to me. I understand the analogy, just am unwilling to commit to condemnation without more facts. Where can i see these cartoons?

[girl gone mad]

15. Here you go.

[druidity33]

17. ugh, i don't know...

I guess the one with the bomb in his turban is pretty rough and the one with the knife and the blacked out eyes is wicked, but it's hard for me to jump in their shoes. Wrapping my head around it... the idea of blasphemy. To me, it is mountaintop removal, rainforest clearcuts, or old growth harvests... not cartoons. Hope this blows over. Too many other things that need attention.

peace outward
peace inward

[genie_weenie]

16. your analogy is clumsy

the Danish cartoonists don't hold any power over the "group" they are angering. They can't order the Cavalry to ride out and shot Muslims or give them small-pox infected blankets.

I think a better place to start is with the impoverished nations, whose leaders, trumpet this "outrage" as though it were the worse insult ever. The leadership of the Islamic nations are then able to claim European Islamophobia as the reason for the woes bestriding the Middle East and other ISlamic nations.

IMO, this comes down to a theological battle:

This can be broken down into two premises (This can of course be applied to other religions/Prophets):
1) Muhammad was right about Allah
or
2) Muhammad was wrong about Allah

1) If Muhammad was right about Allah, then Allah's most perfect word is recorded in the Koran and the reaction of the Islamic world (violence included) is upheld in Islamic law/tradition.
2) If Muhammad was wrong, well...

I really never understood why the Word of God, needed protecting, or someone to fight for it, or proselytizing.

If it really *IS* the Word of God, it can not be defeated by lies or obfuscation or Man's deeds, it'll all come out in the wash.