Showing posts with label Labels. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Labels. Show all posts

Sunday, July 31, 2016

[Repost] Islamophobia: more mindless generalistic demonisation of religion

Honestly, I really do hope to put something up that isn't quite so heavy some time soon because I'm not loving the general wave of tone I've been posting in the last month or so. That being said, the current state in which the world is simmering, boiling, burning, however you want to put it, does lend itself to moments of unavoidable painful reflection and self-reflection so it simply is what it is.

In that spirit, current events, particularly in the US and Europe this last month, have only shown that despite the flurry of events, so many core realities don't change. In trying to find answers to the horrors of the world, people respond in a myriad of ways, some as hopeful and as positive as can be mustered under the circumstances, some innocently misguided and others resorting to outright hatred, anger and vitriol.

It is that last point my original post looked to address. Anger, fear and hatred are actually genuinely natural responses to horror. But at the end of the day, if we've voluntarily chosen to remain blind to any further human consideration for other individuals, we have to take responsibility for that and any damage it may cause which, let's be honest, it often will.

I don't condone the notion of never questioning the beliefs, backgrounds and histories that lead to acts of violence, in fact that can only be a huge step in hopefully addressing the roots of so many problems. However attacking genuinely innocent people is simply unjustifiable. We can argue till we're blue in the face about systemic ignorance leading to extremism going unchecked (has that peacefully practising Islamic family passively condoned acts of terror simply by being Muslim? I personally absolutely do not think so, but the scores who disagree will) but ultimately, those who acted and those who encouraged and trained them to do so are entirely responsible. Any retaliation aimed elsewhere is just wanton and pointless vengeance.

Though ideally, I identify as a pacifist, I do believe in fighting for what's right and fighting for what you believe in which is why I can often admire even those who fight vociferously for things with which I absolutely do not agree. However I definitely believe in fighting against those who decide to attack who we are and what we believe in.

What I will never believe in is attacking innocent people.

Originally posted October 6, 2014.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Over the last week, the two videos below have been all over my Facebook, Twitter and news feeds. Both tackle the question of Islam and Islamophobia and the impact generalisation has on how people view Islam. I finally got to watch them today and, well, let's be honest, I love watching spirited debate and both delivered, just in very different ways.


'Criticize the person doing it, not the [country]'

It is odd to find myself potentially siding with Bill Maher because in general, I've never liked the man. I'm not a fan of his smug, sarcastic brand of commentary and his 'documentary', Religulous, while certainly entertaining, could hardly have been called objective and the fact that it is now treated as a factual representation of all (not some, all) religious folk by some still makes my blood boil. 

However, at the beginning of the video, particularly in comparison to Ben Affleck heatedly spluttering his disgust for their views, it was difficult not to see Maher and Harris' calm reiteration of the statistics as more reasonable. It wasn't until further on in the video I was able to see what Affleck was trying to say underneath his irritation and that, I believe, is the same point that Reza Aslan was far more eloquently able to make in the next video.


'To say that 'Muslim countries' as though Pakistan and Turkey are the same, as though Indonesia and Saudi Arabia are the same... is stupid.'

His point was so very clear and yet Camerota insisted on using the term, 'Muslim countries' as though Aslan hadn't already pointed out that the term was invalid about 5 times. Within the first few minutes, he succinctly points out that the examples that Maher was using to criticise Islam are in fact not representative so much of the religion as they are of the countries in which they are practised. I understand the point that Maher and Lemon and Camerota were trying to make about the statistics of mainstream Muslim belief and their own belief that this is indicative of a faith that ultimately promotes violence at its core and not just in its extremes, however it still doesn't change the fact that they cannot use that to justify a broad judgement of all or even most of who identify as Muslim - and yet they continue to do so. 

People say statistics don't lie. I don't imagine they do, but they certainly don't always tell the whole truth. If anything, the picture they end up painting more closely resembles an incomplete puzzle than a crisp and clear photo of reality. 

People and statistics are two separate entities and one thing I've grown to hate is one being mistaken for the other. They are indicative of either what has happened or what people think but they don't determine everything. I don't care if say, for example, a lower socio-economic area in society has a statistically higher rate of crime, unemployment or teen pregnancy or any other category of marginalisation for that matter. If you live in that area, until you as an individual finally act in a way that makes you fall into one of those categories, those statistics do not represent you as a person and are therefore in no way a determinant of your future. They do not define you until you let them.

It is based on this point that I agree with Ben Affleck more than I did his counterparts (until Sam Harris acknowledged that they were speaking of ideas as opposed to people). His point was that judgement should always fall on those who are perpetrating disaster. Not the faith they claim to represent, not the race or country from which they came, but the perpetrators, the terrorists themselves. The end. To focus the blame elsewhere based on statistics is misguided and dangerous because then the victim count extends beyond those directly affected by terrorism or genocide to even more innocent people who had absolutely nothing to do with any of it.

I'm certainly not saying that we shouldn't condemn dangerous ideas. Ideas are what drive these attacks and to pretend they don't serve a vital role is naive. But that still provides no excuse to unfairly judge and demonise innocent people who haven't adopted those more violent ideas. The beheadings in Iraq do not make it ok for the beatings and harrassment of innocent Muslims in Australia to have occurred as they did after the police crackdown this last month. That they did is abhorrent and a tragic manifestation of blind and uninformed hate. No number of bombings, attacks, beheadings or kidnappings will ever justify retaliating against the innocent and I say this as someone who has lost a family member to a terrorist attack. 

As Aslan said, those individuals, those societies or those governments that actively oppress and abuse people should be condemned but to breed fear and misunderstanding based on blanket generalisations leads to discord beyond borders because therein lies a very dangerous idea - that we have the right to judge people based, not on their own actions, but on the terrible actions of someone else. 

Monday, October 06, 2014

Islamophobia: more mindless generalistic demonisation of religion

Over the last week, the two videos below have been all over my Facebook, Twitter and news feeds. Both tackle the question of Islam and Islamophobia and the impact generalisation has on how people view Islam. I finally got to watch them today and, well, let's be honest, I love watching spirited debate and both delivered, just in very different ways.


'Criticize the person doing it, not the [country]'

It is odd to find myself potentially siding with Bill Maher because in general, I've never liked the man. I'm not a fan of his smug, sarcastic brand of commentary and his 'documentary', Religulous, while certainly entertaining, could hardly have been called objective and the fact that it is now treated as a factual representation of all (not some, all) religious folk by some still makes my blood boil. 

However, at the beginning of the video, particularly in comparison to Ben Affleck heatedly spluttering his disgust for their views, it was difficult not to see Maher and Harris' calm reiteration of the statistics as more reasonable. It wasn't until further on in the video I was able to see what Affleck was trying to say underneath his irritation and that, I believe, is the same point that Reza Aslan was far more eloquently able to make in the next video.


'To say that 'Muslim countries' as though Pakistan and Turkey are the same, as though Indonesia and Saudi Arabia are the same... is stupid.'

His point was so very clear and yet Camerota insisted on using the term, 'Muslim countries' as though Aslan hadn't already pointed out that the term was invalid about 5 times. Within the first few minutes, he succinctly points out that the examples that Maher was using to criticise Islam are in fact not representative so much of the religion as they are of the countries in which they are practised. I understand the point that Maher and Lemon and Camerota were trying to make about the statistics of mainstream Muslim belief and their own belief that this is indicative of a faith that ultimately promotes violence at its core and not just in its extremes, however it still doesn't change the fact that they cannot use that to justify a broad judgement of all or even most of who identify as Muslim - and yet they continue to do so. 

People say statistics don't lie. I don't imagine they do, but they certainly don't always tell the whole truth. If anything, the picture they end up painting more closely resembles an incomplete puzzle than a crisp and clear photo of reality. 

People and statistics are two separate entities and one thing I've grown to hate is one being mistaken for the other. They are indicative of either what has happened or what people think but they don't determine everything. I don't care if say, for example, a lower socio-economic area in society has a statistically higher rate of crime, unemployment or teen pregnancy or any other category of marginalisation for that matter. If you live in that area, until you as an individual finally act in a way that makes you fall into one of those categories, those statistics do not represent you as a person and are therefore in no way a determinant of your future. They do not define you until you let them.

It is based on this point that I agree with Ben Affleck more than I did his counterparts (until Sam Harris acknowledged that they were speaking of ideas as opposed to people). His point was that judgement should always fall on those who are perpetrating disaster. Not the faith they claim to represent, not the race or country from which they came, but the perpetrators, the terrorists themselves. The end. To focus the blame elsewhere based on statistics is misguided and dangerous because then the victim count extends beyond those directly affected by terrorism or genocide to even more innocent people who had absolutely nothing to do with any of it.

I'm certainly not saying that we shouldn't condemn dangerous ideas. Ideas are what drive these attacks and to pretend they don't serve a vital role is naive. But that still provides no excuse to unfairly judge and demonise innocent people who haven't adopted those more violent ideas. The beheadings in Iraq do not make it ok for the beatings and harrassment of innocent Muslims in Australia to have occurred as they did after the police crackdown this last month. That they did is abhorrent and a tragic manifestation of blind and uninformed hate. No number of bombings, attacks, beheadings or kidnappings will ever justify retaliating against the innocent and I say this as someone who has lost a family member to a terrorist attack. 

As Aslan said, those individuals, those societies or those governments that actively oppress and abuse people should be condemned but to breed fear and misunderstanding based on blanket generalisations leads to discord beyond borders because therein lies a very dangerous idea - that we have the right to judge people based, not on their own actions, but on the terrible actions of someone else. 

Friday, September 26, 2014

Am I a Feminist?

My entry is late this week, albeit to a phantom deadline, but a deadline all the same. Although I can honestly say that this time around, it hasn't been out of sheer neglect or laziness. Since my last entry, I've had some difficulty trying to elucidate what I'm actually doing here and though the odd topics have definitely dipped into the periphery of my mind and rippled some mental (and at times, emotional) stirrings, none have actually felt like they belong here. While I didn't want an entry-empty week, I have also been resistant to the notion of just putting up any damn thing, just to have something up.

Hopefully what's below counts as more than just any damn thing.

Anyway, back on topic...

Am I a Feminist?


The question has (indirectly) been channeled to me by two people this last week, both whom I greatly admire and whom I recommend everyone watch (obliging links to videos below):

RE: Feminism (REQUEST) via hitRECord on YouTube:


'What does that word, feminism, mean to you?'


Yet another reason I love this guy. Aside from his amazing acting, his incredible creativity and artistic openness, his genuine interest in what people really think about things, whether or not he agrees with them, is plainly obvious whenever he releases these videos. As I've said countless times, I respect the respectful, regardless of their location on the belief spectrum and after following his work for years (and also ascertaining that we are certainly on opposite ends of certain beliefs), I honestly believe that JGL is a sincere and respectful guy who just wants more people to speak, more voices to be heard... and wants to listen

I actually plan to contribute to this REQUEST, alongside a few others (Yes, my profile, she finally exists!).
Are you RECording?


Emma Watson at the HeForShe 2014 Campaign - Official UN Video via The UN on YouTube:



'If not me, who? If not now, when?' - a question I should ask myself far more often about far more things.


What a beautiful young woman Emma Watson has become! Sure her voice shook at times, but considering her purpose, her audience and the sheer scope of what she was likely hoping to achieve, she still maintained that poise she's so masterfully developed over the years. She's bright, educated, articulate and clearly passionate and goodness knows we definitely need more people like that in the world; people who want to make a difference. I applaud her getting up there to speak because no matter who you are, that takes guts that most people would never bother to gather in a lifetime, yes, myself included.

Anyway... 


I've personally always had a difficult relationship with the term. When I was a child, it seemed uncomplicated enough. While I wasn't one to shy away from stereotypes - boys like playing with toy cars and trucks; girls loved their barbies, that sort of thing - I always believed that a girl should be able to do what the boys could. If she wanted to play sports with them, then she should. If she wanted to climb trees with them, then she should. To disallow this just because she was a girl was unfair (a favourite childhood term). Then a more adult perspective crept in after watching Mary Poppins for the first time and listening to Mrs Banks sing 'Sister Suffragette'. Votes for women! But of course! Why on earth should we be deprived of such a thing? The notion, if not the term, of feminism hit me then and I eagerly identified with it.

Then as I got older, I was introduced to the concept of the more she-woman man-haters club variety of feminist who even seemed to hate the notion of femininity itself. Women who scorned wives, housewives and mothers and seemed to look down on anyone whom they saw 'depended' on any male. Here I began to have reservations about the whole idea of feminism and eventually began to distance myself from it. I believed in equal rights for women and I admired and stood by the achievements of those who had laid the foundations for me to live the life I get to live now as a woman - but I had zero interest in flagrantly disparaging men or the women who supported them. I allow that this perception, sewn haphazardly together from a patchwork of negative experiences, was hardly a fair representation of all those who identified themselves as feminists and what they were fighting to achieve. However it was my perception for a very long time, sadly reinforced by bitter rants about 'patriarchal domination' and how all men are 'rapists'.

It's only in recent years that I feel I've drifted back to it again, although still not fully. From my experience, a very potent aspect of what I believe seems to, in some circles, lock me outside of the arena of being pro-woman and that is my anti-abortion stance (pro-life isn't a term I love - euphemistic, afraid of the word, 'anti', a glosser in a topic that calls for honesty. And while I don't want to assume pending judgement for my belief, please ask me why beforehand). Aside from that, however, minus the bitter extremes, I believe that although we aren't necessarily the same as men, we are equal as human beings and have the right to opportunity regardless of sex. We most certainly have the right to be paid the same as a man if indeed WE ARE DOING THE SAME WORK. And while I think that it is a much, much larger issue that society has historically treated women the way it has and treats both men and women the way it does now, I do hope that one day a woman can be her actual self - whether she be assertive, dominating or submissive - in the workplace, in sport, in the public, in her life, without being accused of betraying or misrepresenting her sex.

These are just a few bare examples, but I feel much more at home outlining them outright than I do labelling myself in order to find a definition that wholly encompasses who I am and what I stand for. No such label exists and I'm in no rush to cling to one anyway or use one to pigeonhole anyone else. Feminists of all varieties exist in the world and while I suppose I belong to one branch or another, I am simply someone who believes that our sex should never be an excuse to ever place unnecessary or unjust limits upon anybody - man or woman.