The Cowards of Yale University Press

RevolutionPlease wrote:

Meh.  This is not needed on babble.

Huh?

Why is it that important for you folks to see Muslims insulted yet again? Haven't you had your fill with Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo fun and games? "A sense of principle" indeed...

Of course not. I am merely referring to the cartoons. A valid publication would offer space to offended Muslims and would avoid reiterating their outrage. Depending on whether the editors are interested in a balanced, respectful perspective.

Because if you're talking about cartoons that became highly controversial all over the world, ignited riots and caused numerous deaths maybe you'd actually want to show readers what the fuss is about...

It would be like doing a book on the painting of the Sistine Chapel or the Mona Lisa and not actually showing them. It's completely absurd.

And reprinting them is not eendorsing the content. When dicussing current events or historical events, offensive and hurtful images are reprinted all of the time. I mean, if you were doing a book about Nazi propaganda in the lead up to the Holocaust, you'd see some very crude stereotypical caricatures of Jews from Nazi publications. That doesn't mean the historian is endorsing such ideas. But that would never be an issue. You know damn well the reason they're not publishing these images has nothing to do with sensitivity and everything to do with fear and cowardice because of the implicit threat against them. Sharia law has triumphed in New Haven, Connecticut.

martin dufresne wrote:

A valid publication would offer space to offended Muslims and would avoid reiterating their outrage. Depending on whether the editors are interested in a balanced, respectful perspective.

Martin's point seems sensible enough, if we're interested in advancing open debate an understanding rather than getting outraged in racist ways, which seems to be the main concern of the Hitchens link posted above. 

--

"One law for the lion and the ox is oppression" - Blake

I know that academics, kinda like insects, glory in specialization. On one level I suspect that is the cause of what I am taking as the extremely narrow focus of the book in question (hard to form a clear judgment, the material I have been able to find on the book in question seems to be polarized and from sources I either don't recognize or find somewhat dubious). But I am going to grant the benefit of the doubt for a moment in order to press on with a point I would like to see raised in this discussion.

I think the book might have been of greater value had the focus been on religious-motivated reaction to uses of "forbidden" religious imagery across major religions, rather than singling out this specific image, and rather than confining itself to Islam. I don't have access to the book itself, but from the descriptions I have seen, it doesn't appear to compare and contrast reactions to the cartoons in question to (for example) Islamic reactions to Rushdie's Satanic Verses, Greek Orthodox reactions to Kazantzakis' books (and the Hollywood adaptations), Roman Catholic reaction to the Madonna sculpted in elephant dung that was exhibited a few years ago, to Anglican and Evangelical reactions to allusions of Christ being gay in various publications going back a little further...

If the author is given the benefit of the doubt as to her motivations in authoring the book... that her academic tunnel vision is just that, tunnel vision on a topic and not an indication of some underlying anti-Islamic agenda -- I would fall on the side of saying that Yale University Press is pretty clearly on the wrong side of this issue. It is not the role of a publisher to censor discussion of items that might be considered "blasphemous". Free inquiry always runs the risk of being judged blasphemous by one sect or another. But it is not the role of any secular institution to enforce the dictates regarding blasphemy issued by any sect.

For those who are most concerned about the ongoing campaign against Islam in the west, I would suggest a better tactic (and a more honest one) would be to put on the spot those who are defending the right of anyone to indulge in "blasphemy" against Islam to demonstrate they are just as concerned about the right of those who blaspheme to do so against the dominant religious belief where they are (in most instances Christianity). Expose the hypocrisy of those who only defend freedom of expression when it is in conflict with Islam... and let those whose commitment to freedom of expression is more sincere write, debate and publish without impediment.

From the latest posting in a book attempting to deal with Muslim contradictions...next door in the book lounge.  It might be more informative than Dante in the subject area you are treading,  TP.

From the Hamilton Spec:

"Today, in a time when Islamic reforms are needed, we don't find any notable momentum across Muslim nations."

martin dufresne wrote:

Of course not. I am merely referring to the cartoons. A valid publication would offer space to offended Muslims and would avoid reiterating their outrage. Depending on whether the editors are interested in a balanced, respectful perspective.

Muslims are perfectly able to defend themselves on this issue. No colonialist patronizing is needed:

Reza Aslan, a religion scholar and the author of "No god but God: The Origins, Evolution, and Future of Islam," is a fan of the book but decided to withdraw his supportive blurb that was to appear in the book after Yale University Press dropped the pictures. The book is "a definitive account of the entire controversy," he said, "but to not include the actual cartoons is to me, frankly, idiotic."

"It's not just academic cowardice, it is just silly and unnecessary."

Dante might be more informative, Revolution Please? That's like saying Yale University had not sold its soul to the empire long ago. Or perhaps you could expand on your revolutionary and enlightening expletive of "bullshit" ?

Sorry George, I guess I didn't get it.  Won't be the last time.

And I like to swear.  Kind of unread, hanging out with the people.

Seriously, sorry, but you are a hard read.