This article by a friend of mine Forest Rain Marcia certainly gives food for thought. (Incidentally, she is American!)
Are the French braver than the americans? The US government is making excuses for the attacks on American embassies across the Middle East, ignoring the defilement of American sovereign territory and the US flag, ignoring the flying of the enemy flag on American soil and worst of all – the murder of Americans (including a US ambassador). Moreover the government is blaming and apologizing for a silly movie that supposedly was the excuse to begin riots across the Middle East.
Lynch mobs have become "demonstrators". Rioters are now "protesters".
A movie is "despicable". Murder is excusable.
Outrage is directed at the disrespect to Mohamed. Where is the outrage for the disrespect to America? Where is outrage for the lives of the murdered – who were murdered only because they symbolize freedom?!
On the other hand there is France.
Stephane Charbonnier, editor of French satire magazine Charie Hebdo knew what he was doing when he decided to publish cartoons ridiculing Mohamed. The offices of the magazine had already been firebombed once – by angry Moslems. Ever since, he's been under police protection.
It seems the government, possibly the police requested that the new cartoons not be published – understandably, they did not want to have to deal with more riots and violence.
Instead of being afraid, giving in, giving up, Charie Hebdo decided to publish: "When we attack the Catholic hard right...nobody talks about it in the papers. It's as if Charie Hebdo has official authorization to attack the Catholic hard right. But we are not allowed to make fun of Muslim hardliners. It's the new rule...but we will not obey it," says Stephane Charbonnier, Charie Hebdo editor.
The French government resignedly announced that freedom of speech will be protected, the magazine can publish what they like and violent riots will not be tolerated.
What a contrast!
The quality of the YouTube clip or the French satire is not in question, that is not the point. They may be rude, lewd or stupid – that doesn't matter. Outrage should be at those who believe it is reasonable to murder, burn and destroy as a reaction. Outrage should be at those who use violence and threats to shut up people with a different opinion.
Different opinions are important. We need to be able to voice crazy ideas. We need the silly, the idiotic, the rude and the stupid crazies because with them we get the brilliant crazies, the revolutionaries who won't sit down, shut up, move to the back of the bus. The brave and the morally correct. The trail blazers. Like the man who was brave enough to stand in front of America and the world and say that he dreams of a time when people are judged by the content of their character and not the color of their skin. And the man who decided that slavery should be abolished and that it was important enough to fight for. An entire way of life was wiped away when American slaves were freed. That was crazy – but it was also the right thing to do.
Without the low you do not get the sublime. People who want to make idiotic clips or rude cartoons need to be free to do so.
Without the ability to say wild things no one would ever speak of the idea that one day we would use computers that could "talk to each other" at a distance. Or ride in rolling metal boxes instead of using horses, donkeys and camels.
I grew up on an America with ideals. Freedom, justice and liberty for all.
Where is the freedom of speech?
Where is the justice for the murdered?!
And liberty? Where has America gone? What is left?
Vive la France!
Showing posts with label USA. Show all posts
Showing posts with label USA. Show all posts
Saturday, September 22, 2012
Tuesday, March 20, 2012
American Textbooks Adopt the Arab Narrative
Thirty-eight textbooks used in American schools were reviewed recently by ACT for American Education. There are key problematic areas in the treatment of Islam in 6th through 12th grade American textbooks. The full 229 page report http://tinyurl.com/7l3gm2b reveals a pattern of historical revisionism, omissions, and bias in the presentation of all aspects devoted to Islam in these textbooks.
Differences in presentation of key problematic areas lie primarily in the nature of the wording or the degree of historical revisionism, omission, bias, sanitization, and misrepresentation. A shortened 31 page Executive summary can be read at http://tinyurl.com/7nqeqoq
The list that follows highlights some of the problematic areas identified in the treatment of Islam as a world religion and of events in past and recent history when Islam and the West have come into conflict. Please note that not all of the points listed below are addressed in this Executive Summary, but they are all covered in the full Report.
· The doctrine of jihad is omitted, incorrectly defined, inaccurately described, or understated.
· Faulty description of women's rights under Islam: The oppressive and discriminatory nature of Shari’a law with respect to women is omitted, mischaracterized, or understated.
· Omission or minimization of the Islamic slave trade, in sharp contrast with what is typically an extensive and appropriately critical examination of the Atlantic slave trade operated by Europeans.
· Aggrandizement and elevation of Muhammad's character that is contradicted by accepted historical facts.
· Misrepresentation of Shari’a Law in such areas as its applicability to non-Muslims and the separation of Church and State.
· Faulty historical narrative of the Crusades. Muslims in the Holy Land are commonly depicted as innocent victims of unprovoked aggression who were defending “their” lands against Christian invaders, rather than what is historically accurate:
(1) that Muslims invaded and conquered the Holy Land centuries prior to the Crusades;
(2) that Christians and Jews were victims of Muslim conquest and aggression centuries prior to the launching of the Crusades; and
(3) that the Crusades were launched to wrest back control of the Holy Land from the Muslim
invaders and conquerors.
· Chronological revisionism of the historical development of Judaism, Christianity
and Islam which incorrectly portrays Islam as preceding Judaism and Christianity and the Muslims/Arabs as the indigenous people in the Holy Land, resulting in
the delegitizimation of Israel.
· Omission of the fact that the United Nations created a two-state partition for Palestine, one for the Jews and one for the Arabs.
· Omission of the fact that the Arabs refused to accept the offer of an independent Arab state contained in the 1947 United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine.
· Omission of the fact that the PLO’s recognition of Israel’s right to exist was and remains a verbal recognition only, contradicted by the unrevised PLO charter.
· Inaccurate claim that most Middle Eastern terrorist groups have roots in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
· Omission of the fact that Islamic Jihadists target Americans not only for their support of Israel but also for what they consider the “decadent nature” of Western way of life that threatens the spread of Islam throughout the world.
· Failure to identify the terrorists who perpetrated the September 11, 2001 attacks on America as Muslims or Islamic Jihadists.
· Failure to explain why the Islamic Jihadists targeted the World Trade Center and the Pentagon and to identify the fourth target as the White House.
With regard to the techniques used to implement the historical revisionism common in these textbooks, some are blatant and obvious, while others are subtle and deceptive. Three articular categories of techniques stand out:
(1) Errors of omission, in which information crucial to gaining an understanding of the topic is left out: e.g., omission of the historical fact that the Arabs refused the offer of an independent Palestinian state as part of a two-state solution proposed by the United Nations in 1947.
(2) False statements or claims, presentation of facts that are demonstrably false and/or unsupported by historical or other evidence: e.g., the false assertion that Islam has historically been tolerant of Jews and Christians.
(3) Partial truths, or the inclusion of some facts while omitting others that might be quite relevant to interpreting and understanding the issues at hand: e.g., asserting that under Islam women had certain “rights” and/or “spiritual equality”, while omitting the facts regarding the many restrictions and legal disabilities imposed upon women in the Qur’an and under Islamic Shari’a law.
Saudi Arabia’s plan, implemented in the mid-1970s, focused on changing how America looked at the Arabs and the Middle East. It focused as well on undermining American support for Israel. Islamist revisionism of Middle East history grew out of this plan, which has without a doubt significantly influenced the material in today’s textbooks.
Perhaps the senior editors who work for the textbook publishing houses do not know the history. Perhaps they check only for spelling and grammatical errors but not for historical inaccuracies and bias. Perhaps they have accepted, with little criticism or examination, material that has been provided them by Muslim organizations, such as the CIE, that lobby publishing houses.
Perhaps these inaccuracies reflect the biases of the writers and editors. Perhaps it is a combination of all of the above. Whatever the reason, the errors must be corrected so that history is recorded accurately and passed on to generations of students who must learn from the past if they are to become the leaders of the future. They can only learn from the past if the history that they study is accurate and unbiased, if the history they receive is “education” rather than “indoctrination.”
Differences in presentation of key problematic areas lie primarily in the nature of the wording or the degree of historical revisionism, omission, bias, sanitization, and misrepresentation. A shortened 31 page Executive summary can be read at http://tinyurl.com/7nqeqoq
The list that follows highlights some of the problematic areas identified in the treatment of Islam as a world religion and of events in past and recent history when Islam and the West have come into conflict. Please note that not all of the points listed below are addressed in this Executive Summary, but they are all covered in the full Report.
· The doctrine of jihad is omitted, incorrectly defined, inaccurately described, or understated.
· Faulty description of women's rights under Islam: The oppressive and discriminatory nature of Shari’a law with respect to women is omitted, mischaracterized, or understated.
· Omission or minimization of the Islamic slave trade, in sharp contrast with what is typically an extensive and appropriately critical examination of the Atlantic slave trade operated by Europeans.
· Aggrandizement and elevation of Muhammad's character that is contradicted by accepted historical facts.
· Misrepresentation of Shari’a Law in such areas as its applicability to non-Muslims and the separation of Church and State.
· Faulty historical narrative of the Crusades. Muslims in the Holy Land are commonly depicted as innocent victims of unprovoked aggression who were defending “their” lands against Christian invaders, rather than what is historically accurate:
(1) that Muslims invaded and conquered the Holy Land centuries prior to the Crusades;
(2) that Christians and Jews were victims of Muslim conquest and aggression centuries prior to the launching of the Crusades; and
(3) that the Crusades were launched to wrest back control of the Holy Land from the Muslim
invaders and conquerors.
· Chronological revisionism of the historical development of Judaism, Christianity
and Islam which incorrectly portrays Islam as preceding Judaism and Christianity and the Muslims/Arabs as the indigenous people in the Holy Land, resulting in
the delegitizimation of Israel.
· Omission of the fact that the United Nations created a two-state partition for Palestine, one for the Jews and one for the Arabs.
· Omission of the fact that the Arabs refused to accept the offer of an independent Arab state contained in the 1947 United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine.
· Omission of the fact that the PLO’s recognition of Israel’s right to exist was and remains a verbal recognition only, contradicted by the unrevised PLO charter.
· Inaccurate claim that most Middle Eastern terrorist groups have roots in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
· Omission of the fact that Islamic Jihadists target Americans not only for their support of Israel but also for what they consider the “decadent nature” of Western way of life that threatens the spread of Islam throughout the world.
· Failure to identify the terrorists who perpetrated the September 11, 2001 attacks on America as Muslims or Islamic Jihadists.
· Failure to explain why the Islamic Jihadists targeted the World Trade Center and the Pentagon and to identify the fourth target as the White House.
With regard to the techniques used to implement the historical revisionism common in these textbooks, some are blatant and obvious, while others are subtle and deceptive. Three articular categories of techniques stand out:
(1) Errors of omission, in which information crucial to gaining an understanding of the topic is left out: e.g., omission of the historical fact that the Arabs refused the offer of an independent Palestinian state as part of a two-state solution proposed by the United Nations in 1947.
(2) False statements or claims, presentation of facts that are demonstrably false and/or unsupported by historical or other evidence: e.g., the false assertion that Islam has historically been tolerant of Jews and Christians.
(3) Partial truths, or the inclusion of some facts while omitting others that might be quite relevant to interpreting and understanding the issues at hand: e.g., asserting that under Islam women had certain “rights” and/or “spiritual equality”, while omitting the facts regarding the many restrictions and legal disabilities imposed upon women in the Qur’an and under Islamic Shari’a law.
Saudi Arabia’s plan, implemented in the mid-1970s, focused on changing how America looked at the Arabs and the Middle East. It focused as well on undermining American support for Israel. Islamist revisionism of Middle East history grew out of this plan, which has without a doubt significantly influenced the material in today’s textbooks.
Perhaps the senior editors who work for the textbook publishing houses do not know the history. Perhaps they check only for spelling and grammatical errors but not for historical inaccuracies and bias. Perhaps they have accepted, with little criticism or examination, material that has been provided them by Muslim organizations, such as the CIE, that lobby publishing houses.
Perhaps these inaccuracies reflect the biases of the writers and editors. Perhaps it is a combination of all of the above. Whatever the reason, the errors must be corrected so that history is recorded accurately and passed on to generations of students who must learn from the past if they are to become the leaders of the future. They can only learn from the past if the history that they study is accurate and unbiased, if the history they receive is “education” rather than “indoctrination.”
Friday, April 2, 2010
We Can or We Can't
The phrase "YES WE CAN" caught the imagination of the American electorate. The following article applying this to the conflict in the Middle East, perhaps should cause Obama to read the following:-
YES WE CAN – hold on to Cuban territory (Guantanamo Bay), and refuse the demands of the Cuban administration to return the area – yet at the same time demand that Israel transfer Abu Dis (a neighborhood in East Jerusalem) to Palestinian Authority control BEFORE negotiations are even begun.
YES WE CAN – incarcerate Iraqi and Afghan POWs in inhuman conditions – stating that because Guantanamo is not on U.S. soil, the prisoners have no rights under the U.S. Constitution, and, at the same time, demand that Israel release Palestinian terrorists as a gesture of goodwill to Abu Mazen.
YES WE CAN – send U.S. military forces to fight against any regime deemed to endanger U.S. interests – Vietnam, Panama, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. – yet, in the same breath, demand that Israel relinquish Judea and Samaria without receiving any security guarantees.
YES WE CAN – treat the Israeli Prime Minister like the chieftain of an Indian reservation who has come to visit the White House.
YES … YOU … CAN – because you are a Great Power, for which everything is permitted and justified.
But let's point out what YOU CAN’T…
NO YOU CAN’T – understand the Middle East mentality. You are unable to understand this different culture; you cannot comprehend that as long as the Palestinian Arabs believe that the State of Israel can be destroyed, there is no reason for them to enter true negotiations on coexistence and a two-state solution.
NO YOU CAN’T – influence the Palestinian Authority to change its Charter, calling for the destruction of the State of Israel.
NO YOU CAN’T – influence the Palestinian Arabs to recognize that the people of Israel have the inalienable right to live within the 1967 borders.
NO YOU CAN’T – influence the Palestinian Arabs to accept the fact that the Jews have a centuries-old attachment to the Land of Israel.
NO YOU CAN’T – prevent the Palestinian education system from teaching hatred and jihad – holy war – against Israel.
Only if – and when – you are able to change the NO YOU CAN’T's into YES WE CAN's, will I believe in the U.S. commitment to the continued existence of the State of Israel.
YES WE CAN – hold on to Cuban territory (Guantanamo Bay), and refuse the demands of the Cuban administration to return the area – yet at the same time demand that Israel transfer Abu Dis (a neighborhood in East Jerusalem) to Palestinian Authority control BEFORE negotiations are even begun.
YES WE CAN – incarcerate Iraqi and Afghan POWs in inhuman conditions – stating that because Guantanamo is not on U.S. soil, the prisoners have no rights under the U.S. Constitution, and, at the same time, demand that Israel release Palestinian terrorists as a gesture of goodwill to Abu Mazen.
YES WE CAN – send U.S. military forces to fight against any regime deemed to endanger U.S. interests – Vietnam, Panama, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. – yet, in the same breath, demand that Israel relinquish Judea and Samaria without receiving any security guarantees.
YES WE CAN – treat the Israeli Prime Minister like the chieftain of an Indian reservation who has come to visit the White House.
YES … YOU … CAN – because you are a Great Power, for which everything is permitted and justified.
But let's point out what YOU CAN’T…
NO YOU CAN’T – understand the Middle East mentality. You are unable to understand this different culture; you cannot comprehend that as long as the Palestinian Arabs believe that the State of Israel can be destroyed, there is no reason for them to enter true negotiations on coexistence and a two-state solution.
NO YOU CAN’T – influence the Palestinian Authority to change its Charter, calling for the destruction of the State of Israel.
NO YOU CAN’T – influence the Palestinian Arabs to recognize that the people of Israel have the inalienable right to live within the 1967 borders.
NO YOU CAN’T – influence the Palestinian Arabs to accept the fact that the Jews have a centuries-old attachment to the Land of Israel.
NO YOU CAN’T – prevent the Palestinian education system from teaching hatred and jihad – holy war – against Israel.
Only if – and when – you are able to change the NO YOU CAN’T's into YES WE CAN's, will I believe in the U.S. commitment to the continued existence of the State of Israel.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)