Wednesday, July 12, 2006
“The ability to dehumanise large tracts of fellow human beings..”
While there’s always been an ebb and flow in the quality and quantity of comments on Slugger over time, in recent weeks, and perhaps months, I’ve certainly got the impression that there has been an increasing tendency among some commenters to slip too-readily into sweeping, and offensive, characterisations of the other side - whichever that other side might be. At CiF today, John Lloyd picked up on the same R4 interview Mick noted yesterday, with Ayaan Hirsi Ali, and drew parallels between her criticism of the fundamentalist nature of radical Islamism and other ideologically driven movements.. and highlights the tactics they share.. as well as the danger.
From John Lloyd’s CiF article:
I am with Hirsi Ali on this. As I argued in a piece on Ken Loach’s film The Wind that Shakes the Barley on Cif two weeks ago, ideology - uncompromising, appealing to purity of thought and action, murderous - is required to give real or imagined wrongs a framework, a cause and both a battle cry and a battle order. You must fight for something as well as against something. And one of the most powerful of such ideologies has been, in very different forms, an appeal to oneness: oneness of nation and ethnos (Nazism); one-ness of class and party (communism) and oneness of faith, state and thought (Islamism).
The ability to dehumanise large tracts of fellow human beings, because they are non-Aryan, or bourgeois, or non-Muslim, lends great strength to the cause: strength enough to cause adherents to gladly murder, and willingly die, for it.
I looked more closely at the earlier article John Lloyd references, and drew some conclusions, here - The best we can hope for?”
And his warning on ideology being used to dehumanise large tracts of fellow human beings was, I’d suggest, a concern shared by Stephen Fry in his recent speech at the Why History Matters campaign launch, when he argued that:
“History is not the story of strangers, aliens from another realm; it is the story of us had we been born a little earlier. History is memory; we have to remember what it is like to be a Roman, or a Jacobite or a Chartist or even - if we dare, and we should dare - a Nazi. History is not abstraction, it is the enemy of abstraction.”
Pete Baker @ 12:01 PM
Interesting Pete.
I’ve only been visiting the blog from around the time of the last westminster elections.
Have you noticed any pattern to the ebb and flow that you mention?
For example, does the personal/group abuse increase at this particular time of the year?Posted by on Jul 12, 2006 @ 01:49 PMjoe.
It has, in the past, been more to do with the main topics being covered, especially if those topics dominate the posts here for any length of time - that isn’t necessarily dependent on the time of year.
Posted by on Jul 12, 2006 @ 01:55 PMCertainly the number of posts making cheap tribal points has increased.
In that sense Slugger has become very sectarian.
Posted by on Jul 12, 2006 @ 01:59 PMDehumanisation/demonisation is one side of the coin; sanitisation of paramilitary fascism and mafiaism is the other. It’s a funny old world.
Posted by on Jul 12, 2006 @ 02:00 PMThanks Pete.
I haven’t lived in N.I. for about 25 years although I do return for a couple of weeks every second year or so. I mainly meet with my siblings and their spouses who are, apart from one, all from one tradition. This is quite unlike the situation when I lived there and worked mainly with people who came from the other tradition and I lived with my opposite religion wife in a mixed area.
How representative of their various traditions do you think the people who post here are?Posted by on Jul 12, 2006 @ 02:04 PMI think the question is whether the cheap, ‘tribal’ insults and interactions on slugger are of any more benefit than people shouting insults over a peace wall?
Posted by on Jul 12, 2006 @ 02:09 PMIt’s straying a little off-topic, Joe, but it’s important to remember that a public forum such as Slugger - although private property - is similar to a phone-in poll. The numbers are not reliable indicators of how representative the opinions are because those voting are, although for widely different reasons, essentially a self-selecting group.
That’s why it’s better to try to encourage a discussion rather than opposite sides ranting at each other.. and it’s why we try to enforce the Commenting policy.. which can be best summed up by “Be blunt, but be civil!”
Posted by on Jul 12, 2006 @ 02:11 PMIf there is a tendency for ‘some commenters to slip too-readily into sweeping, and offensive, characterisations of the other side’, surely this tendency is no more than an accurate representation of the real world outside the virtual one of Slugger, in which the six county society is riven by deep sectarian fault lines. It would be all too easy to sanitise the comments, to pretend perhaps that such deep seated offensive characterisations of one side or the other do not exist…however, the reality is that they do and therefore, for Slugger to be an accurate gauge of ‘Northern Ireland politics and culture’ (as it says in the title) then it must accept that culture as it is, warts and all. Or are we to expect that Slugger can be a cure for all of the historical sectarianism present in the 6 counties?
This is hardly realistic…
I, for one, am being educated by reading the comments on this site, and feel that it provides a useful window into the thinking of the ‘other side’, no matter how hard or offensive some of the comments may be at times. In fact the idea of sanitising comments (apart from the libelous, perhaps) goes against the point made by Stephen Fry above, ‘History is memory; we have to remember what it is like to be a Roman, or a Jacobite or a Chartist or even - if we dare, and we should dare - a Nazi.’ If the comments are too heavily sanitised by some arbitrary ‘commenting policy’ then how is one to see in to the other side, their thinking no matter how offensive (I mean, Stephen Fry mentions Nazis!)?
I feel that the different threads on Slugger would be much improved if they were guided instead more carefully by a moderator, who could guide different commentators back to the issue being commented on, and stop the usual tendency for the threads to go off-topic after the first 10 comments (if lucky) or so. Of course, this would require perhaps less issues being discussed and more work for moderators!Posted by on Jul 12, 2006 @ 02:50 PMI’ve been reading slugger for about 16 months now (very rarely contribute); I loved it, found it really informative to read diverse opinions and views from both sides. But over the last few months it has gone awry, it has basically turned into an arena for one side to bash the other and score points.
I would suggest that recently it has unfortunately enforced stereotypes for readers from all viewpoints more than understanding. I would certainly put myself into that category. Sad I know but the lack of understanding and pure hatred often displayed simple suggests to me there will be no (or at most token gesture) reconciliation.
I can of course only assume, but I reckon I’m not alone.
Posted by on Jul 12, 2006 @ 02:50 PMI want to add that (as ss has already suggested) it couldn’t be any other way really, we need to see these views and opinions warts and all.
An eye opener for everyone really.
Posted by on Jul 12, 2006 @ 03:00 PMLike G, I have been reading for quite a while, only recently posting. I don’t take quite as dismal view of the prospect of reconciliation—as Pete notes, this is a self-selected group and the most vocal are not necessarily the truest measure of opinion.
Much of the sectarianism leaves me…bemused, like Guliver watching the argument over which end of the egg to break. Just fry the fool thing and be done with it!
(Not saying that the issues involved in NI can be so easily dismissed, but it is nice when we see more folks working on the important things…like which meats to have with the egg)Posted by on Jul 12, 2006 @ 03:07 PMFor anyone to think Hirsi Ali and John Lloyd could put manners on anyone must be scraping around the bottom of the bucket, both of these disreputable individuals acted as cheer leaders for Bush and Blairs criminal war on the Iraqi people and in the process Hirsi Ali has demonized millions of Muslims.
I have just written a reply to Mr Lloyds grubby little attempt to re-write the history of British imperialism in Ireland when he reviewed Ken Loachs latest film, it will appear in the next Blanket update.
Posted by on Jul 12, 2006 @ 03:11 PMPete,
It’s not only ideologically driven movements (not a phrase I like by the way as everybody is driven by some ideology, even nice wishy-washy, happy-clappy hippies and liberals) that have the ability to dehumanise and demonise. All shades of opinion are more than capable of doing it, and have done it consistently for centuries.
To take the most recent and clear example, are the only people demonising say Muslims rabid neo-cons? I think not. To start from the premise that this is something confined to movements famous for principle rather than pragmatism is to start from a mistaken, and by now I would have thought rather tired, assumption.
Posted by on Jul 12, 2006 @ 03:48 PMposted by Kathy C
Hi all,
What I find fascinating…especially on this board, how if I state the british gov’t is anti-Catholic due to their laws which state the monarch can be any religion in the world…EXCEPT Catholic…then I’m derided and mocked and told I’m a bigot… But hasn’t the british gov’t by the very nature of this law…demonized Catholics as not fit…or situable to be the monarch thus demonizing those who follow the Catholic faith? I find it sad that it is acceptable behavior to demonize Catholics and if a Catholic speaks out…heaven help him or her because there won’t be an outcry of disgust…just nod of agreament….
Posted by on Jul 12, 2006 @ 03:57 PMExactly kathy,
You have hit the nail on the head, what all this nonsense is really about, i e the UK [and the US] can demonize who they like from their position of power, but via pens for hire like John Lloyd they are saying woe be-tide anyone who has the British States heel upon their throat doing the same.
Lloyd approvingly quotes Ms Ali in his Guardian piece, despite knowing full well what the silly and opportunist woman says is rubbish.
“In an appearance on BBC Radio 4.s Start the Week program on Monday, Hirsi Ali said: “Muslim women must remain virgins, and are confined to their houses; they are beaten; they can be murdered in honour killings and suffer mutilation.”
Yes like christians/who-ever, some muslim men mistreat their women folk, but take the overwhelming majority of muslims in the West, Turkey, India, the far east etc, their women are not confined to the house, nor do their fathers practice mutilation on their children, which is something almost unique to countries on the horn of africa were Ali grew up and is certainly not confined to those who practice the islamic faith, but is an obscene practice carried out by christians in that part of the world also.
For example Turkey has had a women muslim as prime minister MrsTansu Ciller , Lloyd is well aware of this, as to is Ms Ali, yet they both claim muslim women are not allowed to leave there homes.
In other words they have no problem demonizing people themselves but wish to lecture other people on this subject, what does that make them pray tell?
Posted by on Jul 12, 2006 @ 04:22 PMThe naked hatred shown by those who delighted in the burning of orange halls last night (or ‘gang huts’) has been illuminating. The dehumanisation of loyalists and unionists on this board is rampant. It’s best we know our enemy though, so thanks.
Posted by on Jul 12, 2006 @ 04:23 PMpeter fallow: “The naked hatred shown by those who delighted in the burning of orange halls last night (or ‘gang huts’) has been illuminating. The dehumanisation of loyalists and unionists on this board is rampant. It’s best we know our enemy though, so thanks. “
As opposed to, say, the Unionist attitude that “spides will be spides” when Loyalism’s “naked hatreds” are pointed out? There is no shortage of Unionists who dehumanize Loyalist’s less socially-presentable exponents.
mickhall: “For example Turkey has had a women muslim as prime minister MrsTansu Ciller , Lloyd is well aware of this, as to is Ms Ali, yet they both claim muslim women are not allowed to leave there homes. “
Point of fact, mickhall—Turkey was a militantly secular country since Ataturk and has only recently been allowing more Islamic influence into the state. Ms. Ali’s characterization about women not being able to leave their homes for most of the religious-oriented states in Africa and the Middle East, such as Saudi Arabia. Iran has a “age of consent” at age 9, which the mullahs interpret that, in the case of rape of a female aged 9 or older, the burder on proof is upon the individual you and I would recognize as the victim of the crime. Honor killings occur even in “cosmopolitan” areas Lebannon and the west, let alone in North Africa and Middle East.
Ms. Ali says what she knows to be true because she’s experienced it. he knowledge may not be universal to the whole of the religion, but it is closer to the reality of the Muslim world than your examples from secular Turkey are.
Posted by on Jul 12, 2006 @ 04:54 PMhirsi ali has been lauded as some kind of ‘reformer of islam’ by sections of the european and US media when really, in the eyes of the muslim community, she has about as much credibility as fr pat buckley has as a reformer of catholicism.
oh, but she’s photogenic and tells people what they want to hear about ‘islamic’ barbarity…nuff said.Posted by on Jul 12, 2006 @ 04:57 PMGeorge Washington and Thomas Jefferson among many others were successful terrorists . But don’t tell GW Bush that ! So to was Eamon De Valera and Oliver Cromwell, Menachim Begin , and Nelson Mandela. But you won’t find too many Irish, English , Israelis or South Africa terming their ‘founding fathers’ terrorists . The preferred term is either freedom fighter or patriot.
All of the above were ‘rebels’ against the political status quo . If there were no terrorists/freedom fighters/rebels we’d have no democracy and europe would still be ruled by feudal age monarchs .
Communist, Nazi and one party Fascist rule can be seen as State sanctioned terrorism .
Fundamentalism be it of the Islamic or Christian variety contains within it the seed of intolerance which could conceivably follow the path of horrors of Communism, Fascism and Nazism .
Paisley’s faith tells him that RC’s are destined for hell and that the Pope is the Whore of Babylon . The Islamic suicide bombers believe that ‘infidels’ are Satan’s followers on earth . Once people get to that level of fanaticism then you can forget any hope of ‘compromise’ . There are no half way houses between Heaven and Hell except of course for a few Catholics who struggle with believing in a purgatory or a limbo .
Posted by on Jul 12, 2006 @ 05:01 PMive been reading slugger for the last 12 months and like many people do not often comment (IMHO im not qualified to enter into some discussions). but i have most definitly noticed an increase in less than level headed comments. this may be in part to an increased usage of the site.
Although i personally disagree with many of these comments, i feel that the fact that a discussion about extreme views highlights the existence of a moral high ground on which some of us sit.
That is that there exists an intelectual snobbery and attitude of ‘if only i could make them understand’. We must remember that a more liberal view point is just that, a view point. It is only more valid in our liberal opinion. Ergo, if we are to be totally pragmatic then we must accept that liberalism and extremism are both equally valid view points and must be treated with equal respect.
alas, this means that i must give somone spouting SF or DUP propaganda the same time of day as say ... the greens, or the SDLP. But, such is life.
i dont think that really went anywhere, but that my two cent!
Posted by on Jul 12, 2006 @ 05:12 PM‘George Washington and Thomas Jefferson among many others were successful terrorists .’
Greenflag:
No they weren’t. What evidence is there that they attacked civilians and/or civilian targets?
You fall prey to the old nonsense that terrorist is just another alternate name for freedom fighter or patriot. It isn’t. One can be a freedom fighter and never engage in terrorism, so one in that case wouldn’t be a terrorist.
Thus we have some freedom fighters who are not terrorists, simply because they didn’t engage in terrorism. And we also have some freedom fighters who are terrorists, simply because they did engage in terrorism.
The point is that a person can be both a freedom fighter and a terrorist. They are not words for the same thing.
‘terrorists/freedom fighters/rebels’
These are not the same thing, as explained above.
‘Once people get to that level of fanaticism then you can forget any hope of ‘compromise’ . There are no half way houses between Heaven and Hell’
Is the Pope a fanatic too? Doesn’t he believe in heaven and hell? Doesn’t he believe that certain people are destined for hell?
Why pick on Paisley as if he is the only Christian who meets your definition of fanatic, when his religion is Christianity just like the Pope?
Posted by on Jul 12, 2006 @ 05:30 PMDread,
Turkey may well be a secular state, more so than the UK incidentally, but I do not wish to get bogged down here over an argument about turkey, although I would just add the current AKP government was elected by a very large majority and whether one supports it or not, [I do not] has been a real breath of fresh air to Turkey and you will find it very hard to get many turks to admit otherwise, as it is the most honest since Ataturk ruled and it is far more openly democratic than any previous government. I never thought I a lefty would say this, but the AKP government is one of the best things that has happened to Turkey in the last 20 years.As to Ms Ali, the fact she was a muslim does not make here an expert on all the countries where that religion is practiced, I come from a jewish background, but I have no idea how Jews live in Russia or even Australia, I can make a guess but that is all it would be. All she has experienced is life as a muslim in Holland and Somalia and from what I have heard she herself has not suffered discrimination in either places. although of cause this does not mean another muslim woman does not, it is just to hold up this particular woman as a living example of oppression is just plain daft..
If you have an argument with my claim that the over whelming majority of muslims do not mutilate their daughters then bring it on, we can debate it by looking at the facts.
yes honor killing occur in many countries including ireland and the UK when they are not only practiced by muslims, now are they, but we would call them something different. but the fact is in the majority of countries there is no such thing legally as an honor killing, this violent act is considered murder and correctly so.
There are certain rural communities where these violent acts still occur, the kurdish areas of Turkey and other countries in that region, the horn of africa, India and pakistan and within some tribes within arabia and of course Afghanistan. but even in these out of the way place the governments are trying to bring such barbaric practices to an end. to tar all muslims with such behavior is like saying all Loyalists are reactionary b i g o t s, which as I hope you will agree is absolute nonsense.
Regards.
Posted by on Jul 12, 2006 @ 05:32 PMI too have been reading Slugger for a while, only contributing recently and not very often.
I think Slugger is one of the most superior blogs out there. I read some others, they will remain nameless, and I am horrified at the personal attacks on any dissenter. Name calling e.g plastics ( whatever they may be), endless pedantry which usually become the aforementioned name-calling. It is mind boggling really. We all lose the bap sometimes, but what’s the point really?
I realise there is some slagging here on Slugger, and even the odd vile attack ( by those who shall remain nameless also), but overall I find the standard of discussion here excellent, from all sides.
Naturally I have my own political opinions, but being fair, there are some thought provoking posts from ‘the other side.’
Well done to those in charge, I say.Posted by on Jul 12, 2006 @ 05:39 PMmickhall: “yes honor killing occur in many countries including ireland and the UK when they are not only practiced by muslims, now are they, but we would call them something different. but the fact is in the majority of countries there is no such thing legally as an honor killing, this violent act is considered murder and correctly so. “
they are pre-dominantly Muslim, although I will agree that there may be identification issues. That said, while the laws say it is illegal (and I agree—rightly so), the law is poorly enforced, with killers receiving exceedingly light sentences on those occasions they are brought to trial. Many of these cases are swept under the rug or poorly tried by prosecutors.
mickhall: “tar all muslims with such behavior is like saying all Loyalists are reactionary b i g o t s, which as I hope you will agree is absolute nonsense. “
What I am saying is that the truth may not be what Ms. Ali has trumpeted, but it also is not the small potatoes you’ve made it out to be. I have not said “all” in my post in this thread. I have studiously avoided Asians, such as Idonesians, who, at least until recently, had a very cosmopolitan interpretation of Islam. that said, there are Indonesian Muslim agitating for Sharia law being applied to both Muslims and non-Muslims alike. I agree its not as cut and dried as some would make it, but its also not nearly as a matter of isolated incidents as you seem to want to believe. I would not say all Unionists and reactionary b####s… I am less sanguine on Loyalism, although that seems to be as much a class distinction as anything else.
Posted by on Jul 12, 2006 @ 05:43 PM‘What evidence is there that they attacked civilians ‘
The very country Canada in which you live Harpo no less. Canada would probably have been just another State/States of the USA had it not been for the mass exodus of Empire Loyalists fleeing from the American Revolution post 1786. I’m not saying that Washington or Jefferson personnally attacked Empire Loyalist civilians but the same cannot be said for their followers. Your attempt to distinguish between terrorist and freedom fighter/patriot is disingenous . I suppose you as a Unionist will now be telling us that Patrick Pearse was a freedom fighter and James Connolly was an Irish patriot ? This will be a change from your more usual denuciation of the former two ‘terrorists’ ?
‘Is the Pope a fanatic too? ‘
SFAIK neither the present Pope nor the previous Popes have allowed their faith to prevent them from meeting with and discussing religious and secular matters with a wide variety of world leaders from almost every State and religious denomination . Doesn’t sound fanatical to me .
Doesn’t he (the Pope ) believe that certain people are destined for hell?
Possibly . I may even be on the list . Nevertheless in so far as I can remember ‘other christians a.k.a protestants are not routinely condemned to everlasting hell fire simply because they are protestant . Paisley’s true believers apparently think that being an RC good , bad or indifferent is all that’s required for the one way trip to heaven’s gate where they will be refused admittance by a suitably reformed Peter the Protestant and then directed to the hell’s gate entrance where they will be welcomed by hordes of fellow Fenians etc etc.‘Why pick on Paisley as if he is the only Christian who meets your definition of fanatic, ‘
I’m not saying he’s the only one . He’s just the one who comes most readily to mind in a discussion on Islamic fundamentalism . The mindset similarities are scary . About on a par with the medieval RC Church . Islam is in need of a Reformation and so too is Paisleyism.
Posted by on Jul 12, 2006 @ 06:21 PM
