Imágenes

Mahoma,desbordado por los integristas:  Lo de las caricaturas de Mahoma.

Aquí , una opinión al respecto que suscribo completamente.

A través de escolar.net he encontrado esta galería de imágenes, un recorrido histórico por diferentes representaciones -muchas de ellas musulmanas- de Mahoma.

Muy ilustrativo (nunca mejor dicho).

Anuncios
39 comentarios
  1. A mí todo este affaire de las caricaturas me parece muy positivo. Así cada uno se retrata y se ve con qué civilización medieval quiere el hippy de COU que nos gobierna que nos aliemos. Por mí que quemen todas las embajadas que quieran, cuantas más mejor.

  2. reyego dijo:

    Religión = Destrucción.
    Cada vez lo tengo mas claro, si bien este caso es mas complejo (lo reconozco).

  3. Vicente dijo:

    Dos artículos de opinión sobre el tema:
    1. Robert Fisk en La Vanguardia.
    2. Andrés Ortega en El País.

    Me gusta el segundo, sobre todo porque no pierde de vista una cuestión esencial de este asunto: hay unos tipos que hacen unas caricaturas (de peor o mejor gusto); hay otros que están dispuestos a matar por esas imágenes (qaue ya han matado, de hecho).

    1.ROBERT FISK – 05/02/2006

    IRRITACIÓN EN EL MUNDO ISLÁMICO. La reacción occidental
    El peligro de atizar la hoguera con caricaturas

    El tema de actualidad, innegablemente, son las caricaturas sobre el profeta Mahoma tocado con un turbante en forma de bomba. Se retiran los embajadores de Dinamarca, los saudíes protestan, los países del Golfo estanterías de productos daneses, los militantes armados de Gaza amenazan a la Unión Europea y a los periodistas extranjeros. En Dinamarca, Fleming Rose, responsable de las páginas de Cultura del insignificante periódico que publicó las necias caricaturas – ¡en septiembre pasado, por Dios!- declara que asistimos a un choque de civilizaciones entre democracias occidentales laicas y sociedades islámicas. Hecho que demuestra – aventuro- que los periodistas daneses avanzan por la senda de la auténtica tradición de los cuentos de Hans Christian Andersen. ¡Señor, Señor…! Más bien diría yo que presenciamos la infantilización de las civilizaciones. Empecemos, pues, por el Departamento de Verdades de Perogrullo… Veamos. No se trata, en este caso, de una cuestión de laicismo frente al islam. Para los musulmanes, el Profeta es el hombre que ha recibido las palabras divinas directamente de Dios. Solemos ver a nuestros santos y profetas como vagas figuras históricas, a la greña con nuestra época de alta tecnología preocupada por la defensa de los derechos humanos y las libertades: casi unas caricaturas de sí mismos. El hecho es que los musulmanes viven intensamente su religión. Nosotros, no. Ellos han conservado su fe a través de innumerables vicisitudes históricas. Nosotros hemos perdido la fe desde que Matthew Arnold escribió sobre el melancólico y dilatado fragor del mar en retirada de la fe… A ello se debe que hablemos de “Occidente contra el islam” en lugar de “cristianos contra el islam”, porque no es que actualmente los cristianos en Europea seamos precisamente legión… No podemos eludir la cuestión simplemente preguntándonos, a la vista del resto de las religiones del mundo, por qué no se nos permite reírnos de Mahoma.

    Naturalmente, podemos seguir haciendo gala de nuestra propia hipocresía sobre los sentimientos religiosos. Recuerdo al respecto que hace más de un decenio la película La última tentación de Cristo mostraba a Jesús haciendo el amor con una mujer. En París alguien prendió fuego al cine que proyectaba la película y murió un joven francés. Recuerdo también que una importante universidad norteamericana me invitó a dar una conferencia hace tres años. Acepté. Se titulaba 11 de septiembre del 2001: pregunten quién lo hizo pero ¡por Dios! no pregunten por qué.A mi llegada pude comprobar que las autoridades académicas habían suprimido la frase “¡por Dios!”, porque – afirmaron- no querían “ofender ciertas sensibilidades”. ¡Vaya! ¡Así que nosotros también tenemos sensibilidades!

    En otras palabras, y mientras sostenemos que los musulmanes deben comportarse como perfectos laicos cuando se trata de libertad de expresión – o, para el caso, de caricaturas jocosas-, también merece la pena que nos preocupemos por el número de adeptos que posee nuestra propia y estimada religión… En fin, he disfrutado con esas ampulosas e hinchadas declaraciones de estadistas europeos en el sentido de que no pueden reprimir la libertad de expresión ni de prensa. Esto también es una necedad. Si la caricatura del Profeta hubiese mostrado en cambio la imagen de un importante rabino tocado con un sombrero en forma de bomba, habríamos oídos los gritos de antisemitismo – con justicia-, como solemos oír a los israelíes protestar por las caricaturas y viñetas antisemitas en la prensa egipcia. Además, en algunos países europeos – Francia es uno de ellos, y hay que añadir a Austria y Alemania- está penada la negación de los actos de genocidio. En Francia, por ejemplo, es ilegal afirmar que el holocausto judío o el holocausto armenio no tuvieron lugar (aguarden a comprobar los problemas de Turquía a propósito del segundo si ingresa en la UE). Por tanto, en los países de Europa de hecho está proscrito efectuar determinadas afirmaciones o declaraciones. No se toleran. Abrigo aún mis dudas de que estas leyes alcancen sus objetivos: por más que se legisle sobre la negación del holocausto, los antisemitas siempre tratarán de esquivar la cuestión.

    El factor clave, no obstante, estriba en que difícilmente podemos aplicar nuestros frenos, restricciones y controles políticos o nuestras leyes para impedir la publicación de caricaturas antisemitas o negacionistas del holocausto para, acto seguido, empezar a chillar sobre el laicismo al descubrir que los musulmanes protestan contra nuestras imágenes provocativas e insultantes del Profeta.

    Para numerosos musulmanes, la reacción islámica frente a este miserable asunto es un auténtico engorro, un serio apuro. Resulta plenamente plausible considerar que los musulmanes verían con agrado la introducción de algunas reformas en su religión. Si esta viñeta hubiera favorecido la causa de quienes quieren debatir la cuestión – si hubiera permitido y propiciado un diálogo serio-, a nadie le habría importado. Pero la intención era claramente provocativa. Fue tan ofensiva que desencadenó irremediablemente una reacción. Por otra parte, tampoco es el momento adecuado para remover de nuevo en la vieja basura de Samuel Huntington sobre el choque de civilizaciones. Irán vuelve a tener un Gobierno clerical. Como, prácticamente, Iraq (país que no se suponía que fuera a acabar gobernado por una Administración religiosa democráticamente elegida, pero eso es lo que pasa cuando uno derroca dictadores). En Egipto, los Hermanos Musulmanes ganaron un 20% de los escaños en las últimas elecciones parlamentarias. Ahora tenemos a Hamas al frente de Palestina. Aquí hay un mensaje, ¿verdad? El de que las políticas estadounidenses – cambio de régimen y democracia en Oriente Medio- no están alcanzando sus objetivos. Estos millones de votantes han preferido el islam a los corruptos regímenes que les hemos impuesto. De modo que añadir a esta hoguera la caricatura danesa resulta realmente peligroso.

    En cualquier caso, la cuestión en liza no versa sobre si el Profeta debería o no ser representado. El Corán no prohíbe imágenes del Profeta, aunque lo hagan millones de musulmanes. El problema es que estas caricaturas presentaron a Mahoma en una imagen violenta, a lo Bin Laden… Presentaron el islam como una religión violenta. No lo es. ¿O es que nosotros queremos presentarla así?
    Traducción: José María Puig de la Bellacasa © The Independent 2006

    2. ANDRÉS ORTEGA

    Choque de ignorancias

    EL PAÍS – Internacional – 06-02-2006

    Las caricaturas sobre Mahoma, que han enfurecido a masas de musulmanes en todo el mundo contra Dinamarca y otros países europeos donde varios medios han reproducido esas viñetas, se han transformado en un encontronazo entre la libertad de expresión y el respeto a las creencias diferentes, en un choque de culturas religiosas, pero también de ignorancias. El Vaticano ha afirmado que “la libertad de expresión no da derecho a herir el sentimiento religioso”, mientras la canciller alemana, Angela Merkel, aseguraba en la Conferencia de Seguridad de Múnich que debe prevalecer esta libertad, que comprendía los sentimientos de los ofendidos, aunque consideraba “inaceptable” el uso de la violencia para protestar contra estas viñetas.

    Se publicaron en septiembre en Jyllands-Posten, un diario danés segundón. Los nuevos medios de comunicación, como Internet y la televisión por satélite han facilitado su difusión desde un medio local a un Islam globalizado. El Gobierno danés se negó a presentar excusas considerando, con razón, que éste no era asunto de su competencia en una democracia, pero el diario sí se disculpó. Para nada. Las masas musulmanas, sin embargo, han esperado hasta finales de enero para levantarse. ¿Por qué? Algo o alguien las han agitado, y no parece casualidad que todo esto haya ocurrido cuando Irán se encuentra en la picota, acosado por la cuestión nuclear, Hamás ha ganado en Palestina, la guerra de Irak sigue y hay un terremoto sociopolítico en el mundo árabe y musulmán. Irán ha hecho bandera de esta protesta. En la aún oficialmente laica Siria, cuyo régimen también está en aprietos, las manifestaciones han sido especialmente virulentas.

    Son caricaturas de mal gusto y el ejercicio de la libertad de expresión debe ir también acompañado de un sentido de la responsabilidad. La religión islámica prohíbe las representaciones de personas y animales. Algunos islamistas han cometido crímenes culturales, como la destrucción de los grandes budas en Afganistán por los talibanes. Y conviene recordar que no ha mucho, varios destacados predicadores de la nueva derecha cristiana en EE UU, como Pat Robertson o Jerry Wines describieron a Mahoma, el uno como “un fanático, ladrón y asesino”, y el otro como “pedófilo poseso”. Peor que las viñetas. Afortunadamente, en Europa no tenemos (¿aún?) este tipo de movimientos que marcan la política de EE UU.

    Preocupa también la ignorancia de lo que está ocurriendo en el mundo musulmán. La elección a la presidencia de Irán de Ahmadineyad sorprendió a la Administración Bush. El triunfo electoral de Hamás en las elecciones palestinas, también. Tanto que Condoleezza Rice reconoció haber preguntado “por qué nadie lo había visto venir” y que no se había tomado suficientemente bien “el pulso de la población palestina”. En Múnich, el presidenciable senador republicano John McCain, generalmente mejor informado, afirmaba haber estado convencido de que Fatah ganaría fácilmente las elecciones. Y es sobre este desconocimiento que toman decisiones estratégicas, que no sorprende que fracasen.

    Hay claras asimetrías en lo ocurrido estos días con las viñetas. No hay una equivalencia de tolerancias, ni del sentido de la crítica. Los ofendidos asaltan y queman embajadas danesas u otras. Mientras, el presidente iraní, Mahmud Ahmadineyad, se permite abogar por “borrar a Israel del mapa” y negar la existencia del holocausto, y ninguna masa se subleva, aunque se proteste. Otra diferencia, es que en nuestros países puede uno criticar o bromear sobre cualquier religión cristiana, y no pasa de un intercambio de palabras (aunque ahora las leyes contra los odios puedan judicializarlo todo). Pero con las protestas por las viñetas, se ponen en peligro vidas.

    Ante las caricaturas, ha habido más solidaridad entre medios de comunicación que entre Gobiernos europeos, que, quieran o no, se ven afectados. Algunos medios han preferido no publicar estas u otras viñetas, por ser de mal gusto, por respeto a una religión que es ya muy importante en suelo europeo, pero, también, por miedo. El miedo también aparece frente a unas malas caricaturas. Tras el 11-S, el 11-M, el 7-7 y otros atentados, o lo ocurrido con Salman Rushdie o el Nobel de Literatura, el egipcio Naguib Mahfuz, desgraciadamente no hay lugar para sonrisas. aortega@elpais.es

  4. La comparación entre la religión (o religiones) que se profesa en occidente y el islam no me concierne a mí. Puesto que yo creo que occidente es superior en una medida exactamente paralela a la medida en que ha sabido alejarse de su religión (o religiones). Yo soy agnóstico y trato con igual asco a un fundamentalista cristiano que a uno musulmán. La realidad, sin embargo, es que hay muchos más de los segundos que de los primeros. De hecho, dado que definición de “fundamentalista” es muy poco restrictiva, es decir, por muy poco que sigas los preceptos de alguna de las supersticiones organizadas que emponzoñan la humanidad ya te ganarás que yo te cuelgue el apelativo, para mí, el 15% de la población española es fundamentalista católica (mostly abuelos). Ese 15% es la medida de mi asco o mi afinidad por la cultura española. Ahora bien, utilizando exactamente el mismo rasero, sitúo al 90% de la población, digamos, marroquí en el fundamentalismo y, como consecuencia de ello, los desprecio mucho más, siento mucha menos afinidad por ellos y me permito afirmar que España es una sociedad mejor que la de Marruecos en una proporción igual a la de sus porcentajes de subnormales oscurantistas. Cualquier argumento del tipo “es hipócrita defender la publicación de las caricaturas de Mahoma y condenar una caricatura de Jesús haciéndose una paja” me resbala hasta límites extraterrenos, ya que yo defiendo las dos cosas y es por ello que manifiesto mi desprecio intenso, culto, meditado, coherente, justificado, racional y sincero hacia la mayoría del pueblo musulmán. He dicho.

  5. Vicente dijo:

    Yo tampoco creo que haya que comparar religiones. De lo que se trata es de ver cómo están integradas éstas en determinada sociedad . En eso divergen “occidente” y muchos -no todos- los países de tradición islámica. Coincido contigo: para mí uno de los elementos que miden la situación de una sociedad es su alejamiento (o no) de lo religioso. Tampoco me atrevería a decir exactamente que “occidente es superior” por ello. Aunque desde luego, en bastantes cuestiones, no me cambiaría por un habitante de allí. Y no me refiero a la evidente mala situación económica, a la escasez (provocadas a su vez, en buena parte, por Occidente) sino a estas cuestiones religiosas que derivan en políticas. Opciones religioso-políticas que los votantes de esos países han elegido muchas veces con entera libertad. Son respuestas a la situación en que Occidente les ha dejado, pero esas respuestas no se justifican sólo por eso.

    No sé si me explico.

  6. Allan dijo:

    Hey… Vicente you asked me for “the parameter of discussion in Denmark”, concerning the »Mohammed cartoons« and I believe that I did not get around this subject in my letter to you, so why not take the discussion out here! As I wrote in my letter, the main reaction in Denmark has been astonishment mainly because of the excessive reaction and the way the truth has been modulated and spun around. In retrospect, though, the discussion has centred around our conception of freedom of speech. Personally, I thought from the beginning, that it was a bit stupid to print the cartoons, since people outside Denmark or new in Denmark, probably was not able to distinguish the self-ironical elements in them, i.e. that reducing an entire culture to terrorism, is pretty simpleminded. For many Danes, this was a clear element in the cartoons, due to our tradition for satire. But this was not at all obvious to Muslims, it would appear.

    Most of, the chock lies in the realisation that Denmark is so entirely infected by the globalization that we can no longer restrict ourselves to our own satirical standards but seemingly have to take a lot of other ethical standards in considerations in our domestic debates. From here the question arises: Is the freedom of speech only a right, or does it come with a responsibility? My take on this question, is that we of cause have to take peoples sentiments into consideration, and that this responsibility is an essential part of the freedom of speech. Rights are given with responsibility.

    Contrary to this claim, many in Denmark have argued that any restriction of the freedom of speech is an annihilation of this principle as such, and that it is vital condition for a sound democracy that we are allowed to offend. Against this claim, I think it is obvious to remark that democracy is also conditioned on peaceful conversation, and this again is more important than the right to offend.

    All in all a very fundamental discussion is in play I Denmark, which I think you can reformulate I this more academic way: What are the conditions and actualities of Critique. With Adorno you could argue, alongside the Danish right-wing, that “negativity” is the most fundamental and only actuality of critique. The sea must be stirred up once a while, in order to stay vital, as Hegel remarked. But is this true? Are there no limits to Critique, and if so what are they.

    What are your views? I would love to receive some Spanish insight…

  7. reyego dijo:

    “Astonishment mainly because of the excessive reaction”
    I agree, that’s the point (and cartoons were published in september, right?)

  8. Allan dijo:

    Yes, and at the beginning of october, the cartoons were published in an egyptian tabloid without any reaction. So from a danish point of view, the whole mess must stems from another conflict.

  9. Vicente dijo:

    First, an obvious consideration: this polemic shows the nature of some aspects of globalization. Everything must be done with a lot of care, as is exposed to be received in other countries. No one can be sure that what he does will just stay within his own frontiers. Specially if it´s something regarded with the media. Conflicts like this are, and will be thrown always in this new globalized space.

    Of course, in this concrete case, there is another important aspect (and, by the way, this has been ostensibly ignored by spanish press). It´s the manipulation done by those imans that went on tour to Middle East (and added some extra images). Iran attitude also, is anything but innocent. In this sense, as you Allan say, the polemic about these drawings come from another place.

    There is another point: the islamist reaction is no doubt absolutely excessive. No ofense can justify such a reaction.

    As many other polemics today, this is an artificial one, although it shows very interesting aspects.

    Allan, you´re right when you focus the problem on freedom of speech and its limits. I´m not sure of what to answer.

    As a personal attitude, I would say I try always not to ofend. I really don´t look for conflicts, and try to give my opinions in a polite way. More general, I would like that opinions couldn´t injury anyone, but I think that this is a bit difficult, specially when opinions are taken seriously and not just as a concession. I mean, when opinions are also thrown with a sense of responsibility, as a strong proposal to society.

    (I will continue. Now it´s a bit late, ok?)

  10. Allan dijo:

    Holá, again…

    I am very surprised to hear that the manipulative aspects of this ”artificial polemic” have been ignored in Spain, that’s terrible! In Denmark it is a given that the different European countries know this, it is so to speak the foundation upon which the discussion has to move.

    I really liked Vicentes description of the polemic as “artificial”, it’s very telling for the series of events as we construe them from the far north. A very clear indication for this is, as I noted earlier, that the cartoons were published in an Egyptian newspaper in October with no reaction at all.

    Nevertheless, I would like to get back to the more principal matter: The cartoons were published as a critical remark to both Muslim extremist as well as to European simple mindedness (of which we have our share in Denmark) that all Muslims are terrorists. Is such critique allowed with no restrictions?

    In the critical tradition from Adorno through Foucault, critique is decisive in order to avoid frozen structures and to set power relations of all kinds in movement. If we allow the Muslim sentiments an untouchable sphere, are we the not avoiding a revision of their dogmas and power relations? And is the Muslim communities not in need of such critique most of all?

    I seem to have contradicted my own previous entry, or perhaps just criticised it……

    Any thoughts?

  11. Vicente dijo:

    Then I see I abolutely agree with that critical tradition.

    I´m very interested in the consequences of this debate for European or West, left-wing. As a leftist, I´m really surprised (or maybe not so much, actually) by the analysis of this conflict given by some socialdemocratic and left media and forces.

    Paradoxically, all this left-wing people so influented by (they say) Foucault and other authors. I think this conflict shows the irresponsability of some conclusions of the so-called “multiculturalism”, and that sacred postmodern category called “identity”. I don´t know if this will sound a bit conservative, or old fashioned, but I think that this debate shows some consequences of a certain postmodernist abandon of the Enlightenment´s values, of the Aufklärung´s project. Even the late Foucault talked about it, but it seems that many of his followers have not read this.

    If someone says that this is conservative, as many left people use to do, I will refer to Zizek´s “Multiculturalism, or the cultural logic of Multinational Capitalism”. Jameson and other authors, have also give some approaches in this direction.

    Of course, we must try to understand different cultures, and try to respect them. That´s out of discussion. The problem is that “multiculturalism” (or at least, the most extended versions of it) tries to keep the differences in an artificial and acritical. Dissensions are then reduced to polite concessions: “Let them talk, they have the right to. But what they say will bring no change”. This shows a kind of fear to polemism, everything must stay in the limits of the “politically correct”. Opinions, then, are devaluated: just interchangeable monologues, with no consequence.

    This multiculturalism is sustained by the notion of “identity”. I´m very sceptic about this category. As far as I can know, a person´s identity is something so complex that it stays in a very obscure space, and I´m not sure if we should try to generalize about it. It almost stays out of the scientifical limits of the human sciences. The rise of this concept, and its fixation by a lot of authors and schools, is another methodological consequence of a certain individualist ideology.

    Some of these notions are in the roots that bring, surprisingly, to some European left, to be more tolerant with some dogmatic discourses than with the values that, traditionally, tried to build throughout centuries.

    I don´t know if I´m gone a bit far of the initial theme, but I think that all these questions are related.

    That´s all, by the moment.

  12. I’ll tell you the problem. It’s 0.1% of clever people talking about the behaviour of 99.9% of idiots. I think there exists a branch of zoology very analogous to this.

    Regarding freedom of speech, if I should take into account all points of view, all concerns, all religions and all possibilities of offending, I would never say a word. Another option is to respect only those that are noisy or have oil to sell or are powerful in any sense or are just nasty idiots that believe their truth is unique and that are prepared to defend it violently. Why the fuck should I respect muslims and not the lost tribe of the Wankachpee who are very offended if I use the word “dolphin”?

    No bounds for the freedom of speech, nobody forces nobody to read nothing, if I don’t like what the Coran says, I just don’t read it. And if they get too violent, let’s bomb them. Nobody sane could say that we started the fight. I don’t know why should we respond with friendly words to clear and direct agression.

    Of course, the fact that we are talking about muslims is just chance. I think the same about catholics or voodoo followers. The point is that they seem to be more quiet at the present moment of history.

    Each concession to religious beliefs is a step back to Middle Age.

  13. Vicente dijo:

    Another point (I wrote it in Spanish on the post “More cartoons”):

    Not to criticize the islamist reaction about the cartoons (and many other reactions) bring to a double simplification:

    1. To think that what Iran’s government (for instance) says it’s the same that what Iran people think. It’s an old leftist argument, but it seems forgotten by many people today.

    2. To asume that terrorism is REALLY an expresion of whole Islam.

    With that attitude, multicuralists fall paradoxically in the same conception of Huntington and all that extreme-right thinking that conceive whole Islam as a bunch of terrorists. Sometimes I wonder if they are not really both sides of the same thing, two complemmentary views that design the ideological parameters within our “society of spectacle” (Debord), representing a combat between themselves which, actually, does not exist.

    But let me say to all you (as I said on the other post) that we all, and our arguments, and of course the cartoons, are “morally reprehensible”, as our president Zapatero said the other day. A socialist.

  14. Islamic people are just non-educated people living in non-developed countries. Just as Bolivians. The difference is that they have found the absurd uniting flag of religion to be stupid as a whole and to behave like a stupid-super-entity. There is also the other difference, of course, that they have oil under their feet. When you unite non-educated people under an appealing symbol, you have an army of blind idiots that would fight for ridiculously abstract concepts but not for their own practical happiness. In brief, among all the sets of non-educated puppets that you can find in this funny planet, the muslims are the noisiest one. Nothing more, nothing less.

    Regarding the abstractness of the nonsense in which religious people believe, it has also stroken me as highly ironic that the war-cry of muslims “Ala is big (great, whatever)” states the large size of something that does not even exist. Is like a weeping child threatening people by saying “Superman is very very very powerful and will put you in your place” just before bursting into tears.

  15. Vicente dijo:

    I don’t agree with the comparison Islam-Bolivia, sorry. And it’s not because the new Bolivian government is, or could be, left sided (we will see what they do, and what they can do). There are very different problems in each zone, I think.

  16. Allan dijo:

    I was very amused when reading Pablo’s entrys, and in light of the current situation, I tend to agree to what we perhaps could call the more “formal aspects” of the remarks. But placed in our current climate in Denmark, it is unfortunately an approach that probably won’t help in the long run.

    Our problem, which I assume cannot be the exactly the same in Spain due to the historical relations to the Arabic culture, is that we have failed perfectly in creating some sort of common identity cross the cultures. We have so to speak, not accomplished a “fusion of horizons” in Gadamers terms. Though I agree to some extend to the description made by Pablo, I think the constructive discussion must take place within the framework of what Vicente discusses (though I am not perfectly clear on our argument…).

    The problem of identity is with out a doubt an ambiguous one, as Vicente remarks, most of all in determining the use of the concept. But as the hermeneutic tradition tells us, that’s often the case, but not necessarily always a problem. Accepting this, I must insist that the problem with integration in many european countries is exactly a problem of Identity. How do we create a sense of “We” between the different cultures, when muslims hesitate so much to adapting to the country they are in? The muslim tradition is, though currently very impotent, situated in a powerful collective identity, that drives on the self-sacrifice of individual identity and high demands on living up to dogma. How can a fusion of horizons be accomplished under these circumstances? Perhaps we should accept that this cannot be done, as a Danish commentator remarks: “It does not make sense to call for a dialog of values, as is common in these days. All that matters, is that the immigrants accept our fringe-values, and accept to live by them, if they expect to life in our society. Hereby meaning our constitution, including right to criticize and offend”. But as appealing as it may sound nationally, how does it apply it inter-nationally? What could the strategy be for reconciliation between the madmen in middle-east and the nihilists in Europe? Ay caramba……..

  17. Allan dijo:

    I just caught attention to Vicentes argument that not critizicing the muslim reaction, is to take part in the reduction of muslims to terrorists. Very good point indeed! have not thougth of it in this way…

  18. Vicente dijo:

    I need some time to give a proper answer to your questions. Very complex and interesting (and important, of course) themes. Maybe tomorrow.

  19. reyego dijo:

    Maybe the main problem in the creation of the “WE” is religion (all religions), for me is an obstacle because its roots are faith and dogma, it’s very difficult to grow up (as a society, as an individual) with those barriers (for me religion is a barrier, because of his irrationality, and idea that “21th lefties” that call themselves socialdemocrats, have forgotten).
    Sorry for my english, it’s not my better week to have intelectual fights in english.

  20. The problem of identity as I see it: only simple-minded people need such an abstract, self-relieving, stone-carved thing as identity. I am very comfortable about having no identity whatsoever. It is enriching, honest and amusing. To have identity (or to claim that one has it) is, accordingly, static-conservative, dishonest and boring. I am sorry, I cannot help feeling pity for those that feel that they are part of a group intensely.

  21. Allan dijo:

    Your very post-modern attitude to personal identity remind me of Richard Rorty’s »Ironic«, who claim to be entirely his own “poet”. I really have difficulties meaningfully to construe such an entity. As far as I can see, the notion of a person or a self is essentially interweaved with his social context, that is his entire horizon of understanding, let alone the language within which he describes himself as an independent original poet.
    Not reconciling with one’s own historical being is from my point of view the extreme expression of a liberal ontology, which sees individuals as self-relying atoms. You are raised in a society, given language in society, acquired beliefs in society, and formed values in society. Accomplishing to transcend this sphere, you only accomplish distance, a kind of dislocatedness that makes you able to deliver critique from an ironical safespot, but through all this you remain within the borders of the “We”.

    A Wittgensteinian question to Pablo: Are you capable of a private language? And if not, how does this affect your thinking? Is your acclaimed personal non-identity not an acceptance of a post-modern ideal constituted by the values of the society you have been raised in? An aesthetic ideal.

  22. Allan dijo:

    by the way: Congratulation in spite of the 4-0 loss against Real-madrid.

  23. Vicente dijo:

    Crazy football days, believe me! Well, we are in the final.

    Allan, in your last entry you made a wonderful description of the need of a such identity. I agree with Pablo, as a personal view, that people that need build their individual identity through being in a collective have maybe a problem (well, Pablo would say this in a bit less polite way), but in fact we all have, more or less, such needs. Even if we express our reject to collectives, we are expressing our joining to an hypothetical “community of individuals”.

    Maybe I focused too much the problem in that “multiculturalism”. What I wanted to express is that this intellectual movement have shown many deficiencies. I see it as a kind of “cultural mechanicism” so to say. A very common academic attitude is to think that our descriptions of social reality ARE this reality.

    One cause of the raise of such ideas, it is evident, is in the abandon of the “great narrations” of modernity. In our postmodern time, one of that great modern ideas were the universal values. As in many other fields, I tend to think that a critic of such values was necessary. For example, to show that those universal values, given to “the human”, in which is based the whole emancipatory discourse of Modernity, were in fact an abstraction, and were used as an excuse for European Imperialism.

    Ok, that’s a good side of that critic. The problem is that, through this critic, we have arrived to a very nihilist state. We have lost some kind of “historical sense” (anothe taboo concept for postmodern thinking). We have condemn the whole Enlightment proyect, the capabilities of reason. In my opinion, we have to take a more constructive attitude, assume the terrible things happened in Modernity, but also the dialectical role played by it, which have conduct us to our present state.

    Another problem of Multiculturalism is, at the end, its weakness that brought it to get used by Power. Differences are just placed aside, and there is no possibility of a real polemic between themselves. Different cultures are the reduced to a static abstraction. Isn’t it also an abstraction, similar to the old modern abstractions that multicuralists denounced? By this way, cultures are seen as a whole, with no dialectical processes within them. Of course, with this conception cultures are easier to know, ad we can keep going to know the other. That’s in fact a an intellectual fallacy, a lie. If we really want to know the othe, we must know that we are not like him. Nobody said that were easy to know the other, specially if we try not to reduce him, but multiculturalists seem to do so.

    (I think I’m leaving a lot of themes opened. I’m not sure if I am explaining right).

    About the construction of WE:
    I will say something a bit old-fashioned (and obvious). I’m really concerned with a such construction. The leaving of the great emmancipatory discourses has led to our present state, in which it seems impossible to build a new sense of community. I would say, in a very general way, that such new sense should be built, if possible, in universal values. Maybe not exactly the old ones, but we should try to recover some of them, or a tendence to them. Religion is not one of them.

    (I will try to continue. I just wanted to contribute with this notes, but maybe I will find a better formulation later).

  24. Allan dijo:

    I think my point is, that I do not have the same ”faith” in such a pure, abstract reason as you all seem to argue. Of cause reason is needed, but it must be a “dirty”, situated concrete, historical reason, and such a notion is probably not immune to religion. This does on the other hand not mean that religion is a necessary constituent of reason as such, that just seems to be a historical fact. A fusion of horizons between a multiplicity of cultures must therefore take religion serious, and not just write it off in search of some common reason that does not exist – at least not if you believe that values can be deduced from and is a expression of reason.

  25. Vicente dijo:

    It’s very surprising. I still remember our discussions in Jena, which I use to end almost always with the same desperate (and desperating, maybe) cries:”Geschichte! Geschichte!”.

    Now seriously. Of course we must base our argumentation in concrete contexts, and in historical reasons. Precisely what I find in some sorts of acritical multiculturalism (my black beast, or so it seems) is that they renounce to historical developments of that identities they talk about. Most of the constructions, images of culture, that muticuralists have built, I think, don’t leave a space for history. That’s why I talked about a “cultural mechanicism”. many “multicultis” are saying these days that we have to respect Islam because of its greats values in the past. In the Middle Age, for instance (and you know how much I am interested in such Islam, as a Spaniard). The problem is that this discourse make a “weak favour” (as we say in Spain) to moderate islamic people that are really trying to build a new discourse within islamic boundaries, because that idea draws a line of continuity from Middle Age to today’s Islam, as a whole, with no ruptures or variations within.

    I was maybe too radical by saying that religion is unacceptable for building a dialog. Actually, I think I have a great respect of religion as an historical reality, as a very important dimension and expression of human life. Churchs, any church, as an institutional incarnation of religion, are another story, precisely because they tend to fix the values of a religion in a power dimension. The problem in islamic culture is that Church is still a very powerful entity (Vatican is also, but not so much, fortunately)(We have achieved this state after a long historical time). I would like to dialog with an islamic follower, of course, but not so much with an Iman who tries to impose his values in the social life we share.

    What I want to say is that we have to build values through a dialog. And this dialog should be expressed through “reasonable” concepts, not dogmatic. I’m very skeptical of dialogical tendencies of religion: religions tend to exclude each other, each one with its own revelation, and so on. Of course, I extend this dialogic exigence to “Reason”. We can’t keep, for instance, a closed concept of reason, such as in 19th century. Precisely because of the historical nature of almost everything, we have move from some concepts of reason to another.

    Is this a right answer?

  26. Vicente dijo:

    The Google advertisements at the top of the screen are really funny. They use to change, I don’t know with wich criteria (do they depend of which themes in the blog are?) but know they say:

    Oriental Culture-Religion-Culture-Catholic Religion.

  27. reyego dijo:

    Surely they change depending on the themes you talk about, and some kind of key-words like “muslims” “mahoma” “west” etc.

  28. Allan dijo:

    It’s indeed a very good and well balanced answer…. Your point, that thinking historically must be dynamic, and avoid the inherent danger of becoming static, is the quintessence of the problem (a very Heideggerian point, I am sincerely proud of you Vicente).

    The problem of “understanding” is always double bounded in a tension between awareness of the historicity of our thinking, and allowing a place for critique. Heidegger finds the capacity of such an intermediary movement in a mood, namely Anxiety. This is due to the fact, that in anxiety we are individuated and distanced from our everyday “going aboutness”, where we are sucked in to public moods (Das Man) such as religion.

    But the distance, which anxiety allows, is always only a modification of our primary mode of relation to the world; and not everybody reaches a state of anxiety. Especially not people who have found escape in religion from the very same anxiety.

    Well enough Heidegger, though I believe that you can explain a lot from his view of social life and its connection to our thinking.

    I assume that we can agree on a model of historical situatedness that allows room for independent critique, as the framing horizon of reason. But what if the people, to whom you wish to dialog, are thinking from a very specific cultural and public mood, and that these people have not experienced the unpleasant, distancing favour of an individual anxiety? Can you expect to arrive at a “reasonable dialog”? After hearing interviews with leading Muslims in London, I am not very hopeful.

    I really think that we have to accept some very fundamental restrains on intercultural dialog and thereby integration. Dialog and a fusion of horizons demands of the participants, that they can revise their own standing point in the “confrontation”. I do not see this happening in extreme parts of Islam. Not all horizons can be fused.

    For this very reason I agree that any dialog with Muslims, must take place with moderate Arabs, and not with the representatives of the established church. The draw site of this is, from my point of view, that not many moderate Muslims dare take this debate. We are in need of a revolution of the Muslims from within in order to establish dialog. Untill this happens nothing good can come from dialog.

    This is of cause a very pessimistic (and polemic) view, so I hope to be contradicted.

  29. Vicente dijo:

    About islamic moderates: Have you seen the other post above, “Muslim blogs”? It could be a good example, at least in this concrete context of cartoons polemic.

    Actually, I think my argumentation is more inspired by Bakhtin than by any other author. I think Bakhtin could interest you.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikhail_Bakhtin

    Later I will try to explain it better.

  30. Allan dijo:

    The different things you refer to at the top of the page is not available to me, for some reason.

  31. Vicente dijo:

    The page make some weird things these last days. I will try to give you the exact links.

  32. Allan dijo:

    Have you seen the new Terrence mallick movie “The new world”? It rocked my world. The man is a genius! I was sincerly happy for 2 hours and 25 minuts…

  33. Vicente dijo:

    I really want to see it, I read something about today. Maybe this week I will go to cinema.

  34. Allan dijo:

    I really recomend it. The cinematography is absolutely fantastic. I had not seen any of his previous films, so it was a genuinely new experience for me. Not only the filming, but also the storyline and the way life were portrait through Pocahontas, was an absolute masterpiece.

    The only thing that spoiled my experience was the constant fear that some Hollywood cliché would ruin perfection. But arguably, that did not happen. I disagree with the reviews that proclaim it “two hours of pure masturbation”. I see where the complaint comes from, but…. Can’t come pass perfection.

    Maybe I am biased, knowing the fact that he wrote his thesis on Heideggers concept of “World”, which was indeed very present through the movie. Notice the actress that plays the role of Pocahontas, Q’Qrianka Kilcher. She is only 16 years old…. I am Baffled!

  35. Vicente dijo:

    I saw The thin red line, and I think is one of the best war films ever. At that I time I also heard that critic of masturbation and so on, and I also can understand it, but I think that’s none compared with the reflective mood that comes slowly throughout the film. It’s also an expression of human fears and doubts in a limit experience such as war. Really good!

    You can read the following posts if you click above, at the title Einbahnstrasse. (Maybe you saved this page at favourites and now you can’t reach what was included later). If it doesn’t work, try with these links:

    http://einbahnstrasse.bitacoras.com/archivos/2006/02/17/muslim-blogs

    http://einbahnstrasse.bitacoras.com/archivos/2006/02/19/el-poema-de-los-domingos-sunday-s-poem-10-kavafis

    http://einbahnstrasse.bitacoras.com/archivos/2006/02/17/50-anos

  36. Vicente dijo:

    I saw The New World two days ago. Really interesting! I will try to formulate a good explanation on the next days.

  37. Allan dijo:

    Do that… i would love du discuss it!

  38. Johng841 dijo:

    I just couldn’t go away your web site before suggesting that I really enjoyed the usual information an individual provide on your visitors? Is gonna be again continuously in order to check up on new posts agekeeggkkdd

Responder

Introduce tus datos o haz clic en un icono para iniciar sesión:

Logo de WordPress.com

Estás comentando usando tu cuenta de WordPress.com. Cerrar sesión / Cambiar )

Imagen de Twitter

Estás comentando usando tu cuenta de Twitter. Cerrar sesión / Cambiar )

Foto de Facebook

Estás comentando usando tu cuenta de Facebook. Cerrar sesión / Cambiar )

Google+ photo

Estás comentando usando tu cuenta de Google+. Cerrar sesión / Cambiar )

Conectando a %s

A %d blogueros les gusta esto: