Somali axe man attempts to kill 75 yr old Danish cartoonist for Muhammad cartoon

I hope the irony of your comments isn't lost on you.

But this is what I was thinking of when I posted that. It is an article from a US military publication called Military Review from 2008. Undoubtedly the article is simplistic, and doesn't apply as much to non-Arabian Peninsula Arabs. The authors are clear about this in the introduction. But here it is anyway. These are just excerpts which may be at least marginally relevant, as the article was too long to post in its entirety.

[rquoter]
Through an Arab Cultural Lense

Retired Major General Robert H. Scales has described how in today’s world, military victory “will be defined more in terms of capturing the psych-cultural rather than the geographical high ground.” It is in this spirit that we look at the Arab Middle East.

U.S. military and civilian personnel are increasingly sensitive to customs, social organization, leadership, and religion as aspects of Arab culture. It is clear that, with international events as they are, America and its allies need to appreciate how Arabs think. When we misunderstand the Arab perspective and fail to see events through Arab eyes, we can make costly mistakes. To this end, the U.S. Air Force commissioned a study of the Arab mind to identify key differences between Arab and Western thinking. Study members reviewed research literature, religious texts, and even business and travel guides. The United Nation’s report on Arab culture proved particularly valuable. The group conducted in-depth interviews with 16 Arabs from Egypt, Israel’s West Bank, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, and Syria, and with 6 Westerners with extensive experience in dealing with Arabs from Bahrain, Egypt, Iraq, Israel, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates.

Based on their research, the study group identified differences that can fuel misunderstanding and hostility during Arab-Western interactions. Knowing these differences will help us cultivate an appreciation for Arab thinking and improve negotiation, coordination, and planning with Arab nations.

Several caveats should be noted. In every region, some people are bound to be atypical, so we can’t expect every Middle Easterner to show the features we describe below, particularly those who have interacted extensively with Westerners or the Internet. Further, the region is not culturally homogeneous, so thinking patterns may vary somewhat across and even within nations. This article is really just a starting point for observing and learning about the way Arabs think. It should sensitize readers to features they might otherwise not notice.

We found that Arabs and Westerners define their roles in society in very different ways. This is particularly true in regard to personal identity, social behavior, and the manner in which they reason.

Independent versus interdependent. Westerners typically believe that they have unique traits and values, and so we attend to our own needs and interest. In contrast, Arabs value interdependence and collectivism, identifying themselves in relation to their family and tribe rather than to individual traits and experiences. These connections offer the social support that secular institutions and government provide in the West. The people we interviewed noted, “Retirement villages were unheard of in the Arab world where families take care of the elderly and infirm.” Another interviewee captured this sense of community: “AAA[American Automobile Association] would go out of business in the Middle East. If your car dies, people stop and help you fix it.” Interdependence provides social support and nurture. Arabs are often repelled by the sense of isolation and lack of caring they perceive in Westerners.

The downside of interdependence is that it can make people reluctant to show initiative; it can constrain the flow of ideas and stifle debate. Arabs, and indeed any interdependent people, may not strive for new discoveries and knowledge because their group identity is more important to them than technological growth. Raphael Patai, a noted ethnographer and anthropologist, speculated that the weakness of the Arab military stems from stifled thinking rather than from a lack of courage or intelligence. When we Westerners interact with Arabs, we should remember that families and tribes factor into every decision. If we believe we are just dealing with an individual, we will not appreciate the dynamics and power of the social network surrounding decision making and leadership.

Honor and the concept of self. A sense of honor permeates Arab self-concept and motivation. A man’s honor reflects on his kin and is a measure of his worth. For example, one man we interviewed explained how his friend wanted to marry a neighbor but his family persuaded him to marry his cousin instead. Marrying kin is more important than personal choice. In the Arab mind, such a marriage brings harmony and protects property, power, and honor. Similarly, another interviewee explained that a person who disgraces his family might be excluded from the family or even killed. Honor can compel families to protect kin at great cost and to retaliate for harm inflicted.

Honor drives many life choices. An interviewee told us, “When I came to the United States to study it is [sic] a source of pride for my family.” Another reported, “My sister married a high status man. This brings honor to my family.” A third said, “What kind of car I drive and how big my house [sic] are all important. They make my family higher.” Providing hospitality, either to benign strangers or potential adversaries, brings honor, as well. Influential Arabs consider manual labor shameful; thus, Westerners lose respect when they engage in physical work.

Because honor is critical for high self-esteem, disapproval can be excruciating. People compromise or endure harm to conceal errors. A Western contractor explained, “We needed employees to clean a building. I described the requirements and they said, ‘Yes, we understand.’ But when I checked, they hadn’t done it because they didn’t understand. They’ll say ‘Yes’ because it’s dishonorable to admit limitations.” Arabs avoid directly criticizing each other and may postpone decisions to save face for those involved. They can harbor anger at constructive criticism, which they see as insulting and demeaning. Westerners may interpret this anger as an inability to learn from others and see postponement as indecisiveness or incompetence. To be more effective, Westerners should offer indirect feedback and respect face-saving gestures.

...

Social Behavior

Differences in social behavior are relevant to this discussion as well. They include focusing on achievements versus relationships, concepts of time, and power-distance relationships.

Achievement versus relationship. Westerners tend to be achievement-oriented while Arabs focus more on relationships and social connections. Arabs try to avoid doing business with strangers. Because developing relationships is more important to them than the pressure of deadlines, they are disturbed when Westerners disregard relationships to save time. An American interviewee explained, “You can’t say ‘we’ve got to resettle the displaced persons; that’s the task, now how are we going to do it?’ You have to let people get to know the others—their roles and power status. Once you’ve established relationships, they can work on the problem.” Decisiveness, a virtue in the West, may seem rude to Arabs. For them, a decision’s value increases with the time spent making it, so the pace is slow. Arabs cultivate long-term relationships that lead to reciprocal concessions. One interviewee told us, “Because relationships are important, we will pay a higher price at a friend’s business. My uncle had a taxi office that all his friends go to. If all the taxis are out, they will walk or take a bus rather than call another taxi service. A Westerner might take another taxi, but not my uncle’s friends!” Decisions are personal as well as pragmatic.

Westerners typically work to reach goals and define themselves by their accomplishments. The Arab emphasis on relationships can be frustrating. We may see it as wasteful and unprofessional to depend on “old boy” networks rather than on competence and outcome. Arabs view Westerners as impersonal and disrespectful. Many Arabs told the study group that “All [Westerners] care about is the work,” and “they don’t care about us as people.” This can cause ill will during collaborations. If we want cooperation with Arabs, we need to acknowledge relationships as we also work to accomplish goals.

Power distance. People differ in the extent to which they accept and expect uneven distribution of power. Westerners are more egalitarian in their social and work practices. Leadership is generally based on merit, and leaders often consider the input of subordinates. In contrast, groups in Arab culture observe high power distance: they accept inequality between subordinates and superiors; those in power make decisions, with intermediaries facilitating and implementing. This saves face if a request or idea is rejected. Westerners
often confuse these functionaries with the actual leader. High power distance speeds decision making. When coordination fails, however, intermediaries may be reluctant to act and progress can stop.

In the Middle East, power generally comes from family and tribal membership, and it increases with education, professional attainment, and age. Our research uncovered a variation on power distance described as “first among equals.” Here, in a way that is familiar to Westerners, power in politics, commerce, and the military comes from personal strength. People jockey for power through strategic manipulation—voice tone, body language, and shows of generosity. As one interviewee described the dynamics of generosity: “It brings you status to pick up the check. It shows that you have power. But you must do it with great humbleness. Otherwise, the others might reject you.”

Powerful people assume privileges, but also responsibility for subordinates. Because leaders must provide services to maintain their position, leadership is unstable. A second-in-command does not necessarily replace the leader. Westerners can be surprised when alliances, formed for mutual interests, disappear as interests and power change. During joint operations, Arabs watch how Western leaders assert power or defer to others before they decide who is strong and worthy of respect.

Forms of Reasoning

...

Direct versus contextual language. Westerners equate accurate, direct communication with honesty. People are expected to say what they mean. In the Middle East, meaning and intent are judged by the speaker’s words, but also by status and nonverbal cues such as tone, gesture, and circumstance. An interviewee reported, “Rumors become truth without having to be confirmed if they come from someone that is trusted and respected—in a position of authority.” Arabs sometimes use exaggeration to voice emotional reactions. One Arab interviewee explained, “If an Arab says, ‘My uncle has a dog that is as big as a donkey,’ what he means is that his uncle has a big dog. If he says ‘The Palestinians have no food to eat and no water to drink,’ he means that there is some poverty in the community. People understand and don’t see it as a lie.” Westerners can hear exaggerations as lies because they tend to take words more literally.
Arabs can hear public directness as rude and threatening to their honor and social cohesiveness.

For example, several Arab TV producers were working on an Arab-language version of The Apprentice. They decided to replace the show’s hallmark phrase of humiliation “You’re fired!” with a more characteristic Arabic phrase roughly translated as “May Allah be kind to you.” Arab viewers, who expect respectful subtlety and indirectness, would understand this to mean “You’re fired.” When Westerners ignore context, they misread meaning; when they speak or respond directly, they can create embarrassment and anger.

Westerners and Arabs also differ in how closely they expect words and actions to correspond. For an Arab, an enthusiastic statement of intention may serve as a symbolic substitution for action. A desired goal may be stated as an accomplishment. Because it is impolite to directly deny a request, a person might say “Inshallah” instead of “No.” One interviewee explained, “If you mean ‘no,’ you wouldn’t exactly say it. There are nice ways to say ‘no.’ You soften it by not being completely honest.” Showing respect and saving face are valued over accuracy. Unfortunately,
Westerners who are insensitive to the nuanced ways of the Middle East often assume Arabs are dishonest when they renege on agreements.

Analytic versus holistic thinking. Westerners, typically analytic, use Aristotelian logic to categorize attributes of objects, people, or events. We connect causes to specific attributes. Arabs, typically holistic, also attribute cause to attributes, but they consider other features of the situation, such as personal relationships, too. Arabs are more sensitive to secondary variables and relationships than are Westerners.

Arabs are troubled when Westerners limit consideration to specific attributes. They think we are naïve when we ignore wider issues such as the emotions and dynamics of the situation. Westerners, on the other hand, report frustration when Arabs bring up seemingly extraneous details. For example, an American interviewee who works with international students in the United States complained, “When Arab students are doing poorly, they often explain the complexities that make it impossible to improve—a bad landlord, trouble back home, a nagging cold. They just don’t look for the problem and try to solve it. They’re looking for excuses!” Military personnel also report frustration with the myriad of seemingly irrelevant details that Arabs deem important. Westerners focus narrowly on the problem. When Arabs define a problem broadly, they seek more complex solutions. Solutions deemed appropriate by analytic Westerners appear shortsighted and insufficient to Arabs; those proposed by Arabs may seem poorly focused and unjustified to Westerners. These differences can derail negotiations and strain collaborations.

[/rquoter]

 

Fair enough.

DD

 

if someone were to draw a cartoon showing black people as monkeys would he goto jail?


If someone were to hold a kkk rally would he?


But if a black person were to find out about his personal views/ actions some how would you be surprised reading about an act of violence committed?

Then again this does not vindicate islam. The cartoonist was TRYING to incite the response, and the idiots that responded were the ones that helped him out. I wish people were smareter.

 

LOL- this is pure gold.



DD

 

great article. thanks for posting, ottomaton.

 

typo.

 

It's more of a goal than a designation I guess lol

 

Wow I find this article to be as racist as "The Arab Mind" by Raphael Patai.

Here's a brief summary of why:

The people described here are people you will never interact with and are people who have had absolutely no role in the international community to date. It is limited to Arabian Peninsula bedouins - 5-10 million people at best. Yes the authors state that it doesn't apply to all, but you have to go further to see that it applies to very few.

The attributes stated here go a long way in shredding the relationship between Arabs and non-Arabs. They are so outdated, it's not even funny.

As a general overview, it can describe some Arabs. But I'm Arab/Turkish/Persian, live in Dubai now (citizen), I spoke English first, I watched the same TV programs you did, I went to a school where the teachers (in Turkey) were from all over the world, my brother's wife is American, etc etc etc... If tomorrow I fly to America, I am "Arab" and these attributes suddenly are slapped onto me like a sticker. That is sick and disturbing behavior.

Why would the author go out of his way to define a set of attributes which apply to a culture which does not exist in the same form anymore? Does he think that people here, a region historically prone to mingling with non-Arabs, do not KNOW that Americans seem impersonal due to their commitment to work? We're wandering around the desert wondering "uhhhhhh duhhhhhhh why are those white blue-eyed people so impersonal??". No, it's not like that.

This kind of work really disturbs me because even if the author has no ill-will, the idiots on the Arab side and the idiots on the non-Arab side will have found a gold mine to solidify their racist hatred.

Be careful with this kind of stuff dude. Nothing good comes of digging up out of date information and presenting it as still relevant.

 

I have a low opinion of certain people, and these two people from the article are two of them.

I don't think you are saying that violence over words can never be justified? If so, I disagree as well. Self-control is something we exercise, and I didnt describe a situation where I would lose self-control. That's a cop-out, because I'm fully in control and responsible for my own actions. If my actions result in lifetime jail, so be it. That is my choice. I won't whine about it, I'll accept my responsibility in the matter - I did something which I knew would result in these circumstances (jail).

Also, the way I behave has absolutely nothing to do with what clothing Muslim women wear or how other Muslims behave in a similar situation. If you want to know why Muslim women wear what they do, I suggest you read up or ask. However, it has nothing to do (or should have nothing to do) with lack of self-control as you seem to have deduced for yourself.

If this cartoonist had just come out and said "I'm so sorry, I didn't realize my personal opinion would offend so many people" as a normal CIVILIZED human should do, he would avoid a lot of these problems. No one is taking away his freedom to speak, it is just demanding some civility (is that a word?) from a fellow human being in exercising freedom of speech.

 

Ok I see the confusion now. My comment was meant to show that I would retort appropriately and not necessarily in a violent or vulgar way. It doesn't HAVE to be a physical beatdown to be memorable lol

 

For the most part I agree with you. Except that I see an intention to anger 1+ billion people intentionally should definitely fall under abuse of free speech.

If I got on united airlines and screamed "bomb" jokingly, there wouldnt be very many people protecting my constitutional right to do so. If I had a real suspicion, I'd probably be let go. If I was joking, my life would be made a living hell forever. Now imagine I go around selling t-shorts replicating the incident and sell them at $200 a piece? T-shirts of me on a plane screaming bomb, after it scared the entire country?

Again, I can do it. Doesn't mean I should. It DOES mean that I should accept the consequences. One of the consequences of slandering the Prophet PBUH is that you're going to have people try to kill you. I'm glad this guy has freedom to speak, but one thing he'll never have again is the feeling of security, and that is a fair trade-off for what he did IMO.

 

I don't know if other Muslims see the intense irony in this picture lol. At this point in time, Jihad actually IS everything that's described there rather than war.

 

You'd have to be an idiot to not be able to correlate the difference between speech that offends or speech that endangers. Please show me where in the constitution, you are expressly granted the right to yell bomb on an airplane.

Also, you would NOT be able to sell "t-shorts" or any other dumb merchandise you can think of. SeeSon of Sam Law.

 

<br>
No DD. I think if you would actually read any of the posts here instead of just randomly saying stuff that you've been repeating over and over again, you would understand that almost no one is saying that. The point remains that just because we have freedom of speech, one should not abuse it. There is no need in doing obviously (whether you want to admit it or not) controversial things that you know are going to offend people. That's basic life knowledge. I'm sure you teach your kids not to chastise people. Freedom of speech is awesome. Without it, our world would perhaps be years behind where we are in terms of technology and advancement. But, that doesn't mean that people should be douches and try to hide behind the first amendment as their shield. It's not cool.

 

<br>
Ok, so what about racial slurs? Should we just "let [them] go" as DD says? I mean, according to you, they don't endanger. They just offend.

 

How does it endanger if I'm joking?

 

That's right. Racial slurs do not inherently endanger anyone, and unless you support reverse-lynching, a slur alone would not constitute any breach of law or personal safety, and those are the people you let go on their merry, ignorant way.

 

Do I really have to draw a picture for you to understand how that would create an atmosphere of rabid fear, and thus danger to everyone on the plane? You are not the first person to make this argument with reference to the first amendment. It does not protect your misguided sense of humor, specifically in crowded, closed environments where panic is inevitable. Google "Clear and Present Danger."

 

I think it's fine to offend people if it's your opinion. I think it's not fine if your only intention is to cash in on offending a lot of people and expect that no one will retort inappropriately. That's plain stupid.