September 29, 2012
Geller’s ‘savage’ ad displays the racism inherent in Israeli colonization
Shireen Tawil in Mondoweiss:
In her latest attempt to fan the flames of Islamaphobia, anti-Arab sentiments, and blind allegiance to Israel across America, Pamela Geller launched an ad campaignimploring Americans, “In any war between the civilized man and the savage, support the civilized man. Support Israel, defeat Jihad”. Published in August on buses and subway cars in San Francisco, the ad made its debut in New York City subway stations this week and is due to speckle the nation’s capital in the near future.
Geller’s vulgar and hateful ad campaign has rightfully received much resistance and heat from local populations, as well as the public transportation authorities whose vehicles it smuts. Local anti-hate activists’ creative and artistic responses have branded these ads as racist and hate speech. Her violent and distasteful language has been slammed for reeking of colonial racism and white supremacy. The San Francisco MTA refused to run the ad as it contradicts their stance against defamatory language, until Geller went to court and, winning the case, protected the ad under the First Amendment (much to their credit, in a refreshing reaction to being forced to post the ad, the SFMTA donated its proceeds from the ad to the San Francisco Human Rights Commission).
The language Geller employs in her ad is shocking, hurtful, divisive, violent, hateful, racist, and vulgar. But it is out there, and potentially spreading. The question now remains: what to do with it?
More here.
Posted by S. Abbas Raza at 11:43 PM | Permalink
Comments
I don't know why the add mentions "Support Israel" when all the latest "shocking, hurtful, divisive, violent, hateful, racist, and vulgar" murders and riots around the world have been directed at the US and the West in general, and while the Jihad is being waged in full force in Syria, Nigeria, northen Mali, Sudan, Somalia, Yemen....
Posted by: aguy109 | Sep 30, 2012 9:28:24 AM
"shocking, hurtful, divisive, violent, hateful, racist, and vulgar"
Is that all you got in your tired bag of knee-jerk cliches, Shireen? All because violent jihad is labeled as savagery? How else do you characterize the beheadings, floggings, acid throwings, shrouding-up of half the population, barbaric destruction of ancient graves and shrines and monuments, invocation of blasphemy to terrorize, virulent anti-semitism in the media and among the public, mindless mob violence that is almost guaranteed after Friday's "prayers", and children indoctrinated to glorify jihad and suicide bombers? However, it all magically balances out because "Israel" also happens to be mentioned. Because everything can now be conveniently swept under the rug as vulgar, hateful and racist by the outrage brigade.
Posted by: Sam | Sep 30, 2012 12:39:48 PM
Geller first surfaced above the noise of the extremist blogs she came from during the incident in which peace demonstrator Rachel Corrie was deliberately crushed by an IDF bulldozer.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rachel_Corrie
Geller, giggling, sent donations of pizza delivery to those responsible. (Get it? Pizza, flat?)
That's really all you need to know right there.
Posted by: melior | Sep 30, 2012 2:03:14 PM
There are savage Muslims.
There are savage Christians.
There are savage Jews (just not as many as there probably should be. Just enough to make us kind of weird and scary, in an abstract way).
There are savage Afghanis and there are savage Americans.
But wait. We're not savages. Not us.
Maybe when we get rid of our savages first we can ask others to get rid of theirs.
Because at the very least, everyone should be on equal footing.
We should all aspire to being Barbarians. It seems like that would be a giant step for human civilization to achieve full barbarianism.
Then we can worry about the next step.
We have a ways to go as a species.
But I don't know if we have enough time.
Maybe that's what they mean when they say time is speeding up. Maybe it is. Maybe time is running out on the whole Modern experiment.
Wow, that would fucking suck. Going back to pre-modern times. It seems like an impossibility.
But what if it isn't?
Posted by: Josef Stern | Sep 30, 2012 4:47:57 PM
"The language Geller employs in her ad is shocking, hurtful, divisive, violent, hateful, racist, and vulgar."
Well, yes. And yet...maybe 25,000 Bangladeshi Muslims burning down Buddhist temples while shrieking "God is Great" because of an allegedly offensive image on a Facebook page is a bigger problem than some hurtful language on a subway poster.
The language is hurtful and vulgar but, sadly, not without several grains of truth when it comes to identifying a savage streak of violent intolerance in Islamic adherents throughout Asia in the late 20th and early 21st centuries.
Posted by: Angling Saxon | Sep 30, 2012 11:20:56 PM
with the exception of Mr. Stern, all the remarks made so far are obviously from barbarians lacking any higher function of perception.
Posted by: jesyl | Oct 2, 2012 9:53:46 AM
Very reminiscent of posters from 1930s Germany vilifying Jews as subhuman subversives.
@Angling Saxon: no religious community has a monopoly on irrational violence. Even so-caled Buddhists have committed atrocities in Burma and Sri Lanka. To single out one religion as violent and intolerant is simply ignorant. If I had been a Jew living in the 16th or 17th century I would have been a lot safer in a Muslim country than in a so-called Christian one. Read some history.
Posted by: Arjun | Oct 4, 2012 4:13:19 AM
Come to think of it, the 19th century wasn't so cushy for Jews in 'Christendom' either.
Posted by: Arjun | Oct 4, 2012 5:01:49 AM
And the 20th century in Europe - certainly plenty of savagery there.
Posted by: Arjun | Oct 4, 2012 5:04:38 AM
Mildly astonished that you didn't regurgitate the Spanish Inquisition or the Crusades. What's your point, that Jews go better with dhimmitude?
Also, and bringing the conversation back to contemporary times, Buddhist jihadists don't cause me to get to the airport an hour earlier than I used to. Whilst the posters are platitudinous, they don't single out an entire religious community, they mention jihad. This is not reminiscent of the targeting of an entire race/religion for extermination during Nazi Germany. Those that engage in violent jihad are quite rightly labelled savages.
Posted by: Troy | Oct 4, 2012 6:06:40 AM
@Troy. Can you really be that naive to believe that this poster is not aimed at Palestinians in general, especially when this exact term "savages" has been used against them by Israeli politicians for years talking about ALL Palestinians not just a few suicide bombers.
The Nazis did not need to spell it out that ALL Jews are subhuman subversives because they knew that the mindless masses would interpret their posters that way.
Posted by: Arjun | Oct 4, 2012 6:58:02 AM
"Those that engage in violent Jihad are quite rightly labelled savages."
Meanwhile white terrorists, like Breivik, are labelled 'mentally ill', if not in court then by the public, because to call a white person a 'savage' is too unthinkable.
The poster will be read in the context of the colonisation of Palestine in which the colonised is referred to as an uncivilised savage unworthy of existing in their own homeland.
Posted by: Brena | Oct 4, 2012 7:29:18 AM
"Buddhist jihadists don't cause me to get to the airport an hour earlier than I used to."
And Al Quaeda don't cause me to have to do gun massacre drills at school once a month.
Posted by: Joline M | Oct 4, 2012 7:43:59 AM
Troy, Maybe if the US were supporting the victims of the Buddhist 'jihadists', as you call them, they might direct terrorist attacks at the US, and cause an extra half hour wait.
Posted by: Joline M | Oct 4, 2012 7:50:43 AM
Dennis the peasant:
Dennis: Ah, now we see the violence inherent in the system!
Arthur: SHUT UP!
Dennis: Oh! Come and see the violence inherent in the system! Help! Help! I'm being repressed!!
Posted by: Sundar | Oct 4, 2012 8:57:19 AM
Brena: I must have missed the footage of white people in London and Toronto dancing in the streets in celebration of Breivik's actions. I also don't recall the editorials in the mainstream press decrying the slaughter but explaining how it was "understandable considering the circumstances." I also, anecdotally, never came across a single white person who told me that the kids got what they deserved, though I imagine there probably were some people who said that in the backwoods of Idaho or in the darkest recesses of the paranoid rightwing internet.
Arjun: I don't live in 16th century Spain. Or 1943 Warsaw. I also don't think you'll find too many western people these days who would chortle heartily at what happened to Jews in those places. I think all religion is irrational, but if you want irrational religious violence these days, the followers of Mohammed in Asia and Europe are your best bet.
Posted by: Angling Saxon | Oct 4, 2012 1:30:29 PM
Another thing that bothers me about this: Israeli "colonization" is tarnished as inherently racist because of an admittedly offensive subway ad in New York City, and we all know that that word "colonization" is put there as a politically correct convenience to soft pedal the obvious intention of characterizing the Israelis themselves as racists (or, more properly, xenophobes), but woe betide anyone who sees an obvious pattern each time the next atrocity or idiocy is committed by Muslims while shrieking that "God is great."
It's a double standard. This demonization of Israel is a weird and pathological obsession of the far left. Never a word about the atrocities committed against Jews in Arab lands surrounding Israel, forcing them to flee places they've lived in for centuries, because when you've chosen sides in an ideological battle you can't show weakness or nuance.
They're utterly the same as Geller, except they're on the opposite side.
Posted by: Angling Saxon | Oct 4, 2012 2:04:21 PM
Arjun.
You didn't refer to the Palestinians in your original post, you said "To single out one religion as violent and intolerant is simply ignorant." The ads don't mention 'Muslim' or 'Islam', they refer to jihad and jihadists have had a monopoly on religiously inspired violence in contemporary times. You then proceeded to ramble through a history lesson on the persecution of Jews in 'Christian' lands stretching back centuries and compare it to the 'safer' treatment of Jews in Muslim lands. WTF? What does this have to do with the posters?
Brena.
White vs Brown?
The IRA, ETA and any number of Euro terrorist orgs from the 60s & 70s were labelled the same.
http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/ira-savages-murder-bert-mccartney-and-taint-sinn-fein-with-his-blood-464526.html
JolineM.
Do you seriously want to compare Buddhism and Islamism with regard to religiously inspired violence? I'll take my luck with the Buddhist jihadis. Where have Buddhists targeted Muslims based on their religious doctrine? Where are these 'victims'?
Also, I'm not sure of the parallel you draw between US teenage gunmen and politically/religiously inspired, organised terrorist organisations. Do you want to compare the Breslan Massacre with Virginia Tech?
Posted by: Troy | Oct 5, 2012 5:46:31 AM
Eric Hoffer writing in 1968:
The Jews are a peculiar people: things permitted to other nations are forbidden to the Jews. Other nations drive out thousands, even millions of people and there is no refugee problem. Russia did it, Poland and Czechoslovakia did it. Turkey threw out a million Greeks and Algeria a million Frenchman. Indonesia threw out heaven knows how many Chinese and no one says a word about refugees. But in the case of Israel, the displaced Arabs have become eternal refugees. Everyone insists that Israel must take back every single one.[23]
Posted by: Sundar | Oct 5, 2012 11:34:54 AM
In Myanmar, as we speak, Buddhist Burmese are setting fire to the homes of Muslims whose ancestors came there from what is now Bangladesh.
Om Supreme Truth, a Buddhist sect feted and funded naively by the Dalai Lama certainly made an impact on Japanese subway security.
These are not as widespread as Christian or Islamic atrocities, but they do show that any religious group is capable of violence given the right circumstances.
Posted by: Joline M | Oct 8, 2012 7:20:35 AM
The main point that Troy and Anglo have avoided is that Geller uses language that any Palestinian seeing the poster would know is directed at Palestinians as a race, not just 'Jihadis'. The poster is racist.
Posted by: Joline M | Oct 8, 2012 7:29:12 AM
@Angling.
What you say about the restraint of the western mainstream media is not always true.
Here in Australia, only a few years ago, mobs of white Islamophobic youths went on a rampage and bashed anyone they could find that looked vaguely Middle Eastern or Muslim. They were so stupid that they attacked Sikhs, thinking that anyone wearing a turban is a Muslim. Meanwhile one of the country's most popular radio hosts was on air fanning the flames of hatred. He is still on air.
Posted by: Joline M | Oct 8, 2012 7:43:41 AM
If you had taken the time to read the comments properly you would have understood that I was replying to Angling's implication that Islam is somehow unique in being innately violent, the history lesson was given to show the ignorance of this suggestion. The fact that other religious groups besides Islam have committed acts of violence and persecution is not an opinion it's in the historical record.
Surely comments can be replies to logical errors in other comments, and need not necessarily be specifically about the article.
Posted by: Arjun | Oct 8, 2012 7:53:51 AM
@ Sundar. What have Russia, Poland, Czechoslovakia etc, got to do with this racist poster?
If other countries have done the wrong thing it doesn't make it right for Israel.
Posted by: Arjun | Oct 8, 2012 8:04:03 AM
"I think all religion is irrational, but if you want irrational religious violence these days, the followers of Mohammed in Asia and Europe are your best bet."
That may be so, but if you take the time to read the history of Muslims in Asia and Europe you might see that, though violence is never justifiable, it rarely springs from thin air.
Just as a brief example:
Muslim violence in the Philippines began when Christian soldiers in the army started murdering their Muslim fellow soldiers.
Posted by: Arjun | Oct 8, 2012 8:28:37 AM
JolineM. Initially I thought you were taking the piss with the Buddhist victims comment. True, given the right circumstances any religious group is capable of violence but the Buddhists, seriously? Aum Shinrikyo has a miniscule amount of Buddhist doctrine in their ideology, they are hardly a 'Buddhist sect'. Wiki describes it as a "syncretic belief system that incorporates Asahara's facets of Christianity with idiosyncratic interpretations of Yoga, and the writings of Nostradamus". The violence in Myanmar is not based on Buddhist doctrine or done in the name of Buddha and the largely ethnic clashes have targeted both Muslims and Buddhists in Bangladesh and Myanmar. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-19074383
Posted by: Troy | Oct 8, 2012 8:38:00 AM
From the article: "The language Geller employs in her ad is shocking, hurtful, divisive, violent, hateful, racist, and vulgar. But it is out there, and potentially spreading. The question now remains: what to do with it? "
What to do? As in Spain of Civil War, as in WWII when Soviet Union of Stalin, USA and England aligned against Germany of Hitler...in the next war we all will have to decide on what side we are, who is the civilized man and who is the savage man and to fight.
Today , same as then, no side is perfect or untarnished. However you'll have to choose as the confrontation is near and inherent, mostly for the American people.
Use the common sense. See who wants you dead. This is enemy,the other your friend.
Posted by: mirel | Oct 8, 2012 9:00:37 AM
Buddhism is generally a peace-loving philosophy yet soldiers who would have described themselves as Buddhists, perpetrated the Nanking Massacre (arguably the worst single war crime in history). Sinhalese (Buddhist) soldiers committed war crimes in Sri Lanka, which are gradually coming out. Also the people who released sarin gas in the Tokyo subway described themselves as Buddhists, and the Dalai Lama endorsed their sect (admittedly before he knew they were terrorists). Buddhists in Myanmar are burning the houses of their Muslim neighbours, not in the name of Buddhism, but Islamism is also more about land than God.
When a Buddhist commits an atrocity, we say that he was not following the teachings of the Buddha (AND THIS IS TRUE, he is not following Buddhism's precepts) but when a person calling themselves Muslim commits an atrocity we say 'Islam is inherently violent', and that 'Muhammad promoted violence'. This double standard is simply because of prejudice.
The Buddha did not condone rape and murder, but neither did Muhammad. People will justify the use of violence, no matter what religion they claim to follow, if the the circumstances are right.
Posted by: Selene | Oct 18, 2012 12:22:35 PM
Shocking Islamophobia in some of these comments.
Posted by: Chen | Oct 18, 2012 12:24:39 PM
Buddhism is generally a peace-loving philosophy yet soldiers who would have described themselves as Buddhists, perpetrated the Nanking Massacre (arguably the worst single war crime in history). Sinhalese (Buddhist) soldiers committed war crimes in Sri Lanka, which are gradually coming out. Also the people who released sarin gas in the Tokyo subway described themselves as Buddhists, and the Dalai Lama endorsed their sect (admittedly before he knew they were terrorists). As we speak, Buddhists in Myanmar are burning the houses of their Muslim neighbours.
When a Buddhist commits an atrocity, we say that he was not following the teachings of the Buddha (AND THIS IS TRUE, he is not following Buddhism's precepts) but when a person calling themselves Muslim commits an atrocity we say 'Islam is inherently violent', and that 'Muhammad promoted violence'. This double standard is simply because of prejudice.
The Buddha did not condone rape and murder, but neither did Muhammad. People will justify the use of violence, no matter what religion they claim to follow, if the the circumstances are right.
Posted by: Selene | Oct 18, 2012 12:28:42 PM
@Troy:
"Aum's publications used Christian and Buddhist ideas" - This is a part of the Wikipedia entry you forgot to copy.
In any case, the Dalai Lama endorsed Aum as a Buddhist organisation, and funded it as such. There are documents and photos to prove this, and the Dalai Lama does not deny it. He says he made a mistake. Indeed.
Several Zen leaders in wartime Japan made statements condoning and supporting the Japanese invasion of China, saying that it was "a fight against evil." Later Zen patriarchs distanced themselves from these statements, but they remain on record. I am not saying that Buddhism is innately violent, I am saying that Islam is not innately violent or savage.
Posted by: Joline | Oct 18, 2012 1:03:55 PM
@ Mirel
What if, like Stalin, the ally becomes the enemy?
Posted by: Georg | Oct 21, 2012 5:37:39 AM
"The violence in Myanmar is not based on Buddhist doctrine."
Neither is terrorism perpetrated by people calling themselves Muslims based on the teachings of Muhammad.
Posted by: Georg | Oct 21, 2012 5:42:48 AM
Post a comment