Terrorist attacks and beheadings in France

[littlebabyjesus]

give over with your melting pot of theoretical framework.

Fucking theoretical framework bingo over here, and legs 11, you almost got a full house.

The people who are abandoned to their fate within reactionary power structures by your brand of top-down multiculturalism are far from theoretical. They are all too real.

 

[Smokeandsteam]

the murder is what most people came here for, but now it’s turned into a tug-of-war between people believing that it’s cool to goad an already marginalised ethnic demographic,

I’ve just waded through this thread. I’ve seen plenty of relativism, plenty of confusion and plenty of diversions. But I haven’t seen anyone stating it’s cool to ‘goad‘ anything

 

[danny la rouge]

The cartoon has been posted on this thread

 

[Spymaster]

Homogenising groups to an assumed reactionary “authenticity”, and abandoning oppressed groups to the fundamentalist right wing that the process appoints as their rightful leadership.

Those of us disagreeing with you aren't doing this though. You're suggesting that we are because it gives your argument an element of validity but nobody has suggested that all muslims are reactionary. Again, not even close. Pickman's model made the very valid point that many were offended by the cartoons and I missed out a "some" at one point iirc, but you're arguing against points that haven't been made.

 

[danny la rouge]

And what about it? What’s your take on that speculation?

Gita Sahgal is a writer I very much admire. She and other writers in the excellent collection Women Against Fundamentalism - stories of dissent and solidarity are very much my touchstones in debates like this. She lives through the struggle that your approach would just write off in the name of not wanting to cause offence.

I found her sardonic aphorism to strike at the heart of the gulf here.

 

[Pickman's model]

It really is. It's about the right of children to see the material they're being taught about, versus the right of others to demand that material isn't shown to anyone because it contravenes their religious rules.

It's not

It is right for all the children to be treated equally within school. You wouldn't I hope make children watch shoah or read reams of nazi propaganda when being taught about the holocaust. Equally here there is no reason to introduce material which would offend many people in the class when you haven't actually adduced an actual reason for the cartoons to be there. No actual pedagogical reason. Just some right you've come up with which I don't ever recall seeing in any of the big lists of rights. Sure you can point me to the containing document tho.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Gita Sahgal is a writer I very much admire. She and other writers in the excellent collection Women Against Fundamentalism - stories of dissent and solidarity are very much my touchstones in debates like this. She lives through the struggle that your approach would just write off in the name of not wanting to cause offence.

I found her sardonic aphorism to strike at the heart of the gulf here.

And not so far-fetched either. When Mariam Namazie (another who lives through that struggle) was shouted down at Goldsmith's, the college's LGBT group came out in support of the men who shouted her down. Stupid students, perhaps, but really you couldn't make it up sometimes.

 

[danny la rouge]

Those of us disagreeing with you aren't doing this though. You're suggesting that we are because it gives your argument an element of validity but nobody has suggested that all muslims are reactionary. Again, not even close. Pickman's model made the very valid point that many were offended by the cartoons and I missed out a "some" at one point iirc, but you're arguing against points that haven't been made.

You’re abandoning those who are struggling against the forces of reaction because you don’t want to offend a section. You then call that section “Muslims”.

 

[Pickman's model]

This is where top down multiculturalism and moral relativism has left us. Homogenising groups to an assumed reactionary “authenticity”, and abandoning oppressed groups to the fundamentalist right wing that the process appoints as their rightful leadership.

It’s liberal cowardice, and it walks away from struggles within communities in the name of anti racism, when actually it is a terrible form of exactly that: racist essentialism.

who is oppressing these oppressed groups? Why, prominent among them is the french state! And yet they still oppress these groups. Any abandoning took place some time ago.

 

[butchersapron]

the murder is what most people came here for, as it’s both terrifying and extremely close to the bone for us in the UK. Only 3 years ago an unhinged kid blew himself and 23 others up in my hometown.

the murder is what most people came here for, but now it’s turned into a tug-of-war between people believing that it’s cool to goad an already marginalised ethnic demographic. And those who clearly see that the images didn’t have to be shown, nor did an atmosphere of ‘us and you‘ need to be cultivated by the teacher.

What fucking teacher encourages students to sling it anyway? Alright they always used to make me stand outside or go to the Headmaster’s office but I was taking the piss. I never have witnessed an educator tell their kids ‘if you don’t like this obscene shit I’m gonna show then do one’

Always interesting that - rightly- demands on Jewish people to be held accountable or to justify the israeli state are recognised as racist shit ye the same with muslims is offered as some sort of defence. This is a very bad thread. Toxic liberalism meets hang 'em high panto from all directions.

 

[Jay Park]

The people who are abandoned to their fate within reactionary power structures by your brand of top-down multiculturalism are far from theoretical. They are all too real.

I don’t think I’m driving towards, nor lending weight towards top-down multi-culturalism though.

 

[danny la rouge]

You wouldn't I hope make children watch shoah or read reams of nazi propaganda when being taught about the holocaust.

Mate, that’s how I was taught about the Holocaust. It’s also how my kids were taught about it. We were shown pretty harrowing materials and discussed them.

My experience of educating is in adult and further education, so I haven’t brought my own teaching into this, but the teaching I experienced as a secondary pupil very much did use “controversial” sources.

 

[Athos]

It's not

It is right for all the children to be treated equally within school. You wouldn't I hope make children watch shoah or read reams of nazi propaganda when being taught about the holocaust. Equally here there is no reason to introduce material which would offend many people in the class when you haven't actually adduced an actual reason for the cartoons to be there. No actual pedagogical reason. Just some right you've come up with which I don't ever recall seeing in any of the big lists of rights. Sure you can point me to the containing document tho.

All children could be treated equally; all offered the chance to see the material or not, as they prefer.

I'm not a teacher, but, if I was, I imagine I'd be inclined to use images of the Holocaust or nazi propaganda if I was delivering a lesson about those topics (again offering the opportunity for those who don't want to see them to absent themselves from that part of the lesson).

The reason being the pedagogical benefit of better understanding the subject.

The right in question is the right not to be subject to the rules of religion you don't follow.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I don’t think I’m driving towards, nor lending weight towards top-down multi-culturalism though.

You don't just drive towards or lend weight towards it. You exemplify it.

 

[butchersapron]

I don’t think I’m driving towards, nor lending weight towards top-down multi-culturalism though.

I don't think that you're driving towards anything other than inchoate accusations of generalised racism. And to do that you're using the ideas of the far right.

 

[Spymaster]

You’re abandoning those who are struggling against the forces of reaction because you don’t want to offend a section. You then call that section “Muslims”.

No. We're questioning one man's prudence in a very specific situation. That situation being the showing of clearly inflammatory images to a group of people, some of whom are highly likely to take offence, when it's wholly unnecessary to do so, and telling those who are likely to take offence to leave if they don't like it.

 

[chilango]

I've done training with the Hocaust Educational Trust about the use of images etc. in teaching. It's not a simple or straightforward yes/no decision.

 

[planetgeli]

You wouldn't I hope make children watch shoah or read reams of nazi propaganda when being taught about the holocaust.

Pupils today are shown Nazi propaganda as part of GCSE history.

Nobody makes them read 'reams' of it.

There were not 'reams' of cartoons being shown here.

Just one primary source.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Mate, that’s how I was taught about the Holocaust. It’s also how my kids were taught about it. We were shown pretty harrowing materials and discussed them.

My experience of educating is in adult and further education, so I haven’t brought my own teaching into this, but the teaching I experienced as a secondary pupil very much did use “controversial” sources.

Actually horrifying images, not merely conceptually horrifying to some. Like conceptual art, you have to bring a hell of a lot of your own ideas to that cartoon of Muhammad to find it offensive.

 

[stethoscope]

Meh, slightly rambling philosophical post which doesn't really contribute much...

 

[Jay Park]

Ppp my

Always interesting that - rightly- demands on Jewish people to be held accountable or to justify the israeli state are recognised as racist shit ye the same with muslims is offered as some sort of defence. This is a very bad thread. Toxic liberalism meets hang 'em high panto from all directions.

I agree about the thread, shitshow, I’m nonplussed now.

I haven’t seen myself as a liberal for sometime. I’m open to where my ideas may be toxic in whichever way though.

 

[chilango]

Actually horrifying images, not merely conceptually horrifying to some. Like conceptual art, you have to bring a hell of a lot of your own ideas to that cartoon of Muhammad to find it offensive.

...and that is exactly what is happening.

(and I could go off on tangent about reading signs and signifiers in images but I won't )

 

[Jay Park]

I don't think that you're driving towards anything other than inchoate accusations of generalised racism. And to do that you're using the ideas of the far right.

well if I am then fuck me sideways. Maybe you could offer some readings for me about this... I don’t wanna be going that way, BA.

 

[Jay Park]

You don't just drive towards or lend weight towards it. You exemplify it.

show me how, please. I’m listening

 

[xenon]

give over with your melting pot of theoretical framework.

Fucking theoretical framework bingo over here, and legs 11, you almost got a full house.

you must have sobered up by now, you still haven’t made an actual coherent point.

 

[bimble]

It's not

It is right for all the children to be treated equally within school. You wouldn't I hope make children watch shoah or read reams of nazi propaganda when being taught about the holocaust. Equally here there is no reason to introduce material which would offend many people in the class when you haven't actually adduced an actual reason for the cartoons to be there. No actual pedagogical reason. Just some right you've come up with which I don't ever recall seeing in any of the big lists of rights. Sure you can point me to the containing document tho.

My 45 minute lesson on the holocaust used no source materials at all, no images no examples of what sort of propaganda led to the piles of corses nothing at all just some statistics on the board. That class was deeply offensive memorable (for me ) because of how it utterly failed to convey to my classmates what had happened. This was gcse level and I strongly think that there should have been a hell of a lot more disturbing material shown. Obviously age appropriate material is key, they were teenagers that the decapitated teacher was talking to but not sure what age.

 

[Pickman's model]

Gita Sahgal is a writer I very much admire. She and other writers in the excellent collection Women Against Fundamentalism - stories of dissent and solidarity are very much my touchstones in debates like this. She lives through the struggle that your approach would just write off in the name of not wanting to cause offence.

I found her sardonic aphorism to strike at the heart of the gulf here.

Jesus Mary and Joseph

Back when I was in my early 20s I got the best piece of advice I've had (barring suggs' always go to the loo before leaving the pub), which was to think about what you want from a meeting before going into it. What would you want the outcome of this class to be? I would hope one thing would be a more united set of young people, who had discussed a divisive topic without causing unnecessary offence. You see, I don't think it is necessary to show these cartoons. Sure, you can argue for the right to offend if you want. But I'd expect in a school, in mandatory education, the right to an education trumps the right to offend. And as part of this right to an education which I am pretty sure is in the big lists of rights you might expect an inclusive education in which matters were presented so as not to lead the teacher to say students they could step outside.

 

[Brainaddict]

Actually horrifying images, not merely conceptually horrifying to some. Like conceptual art, you have to bring a hell of a lot of your own ideas to that cartoon of Muhammad to find it offensive.

Which cartoons are you referring to? I find the image of Muhammed with his hat/turban depicted as a terrorist bomb to be offensive.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

My 45 minute lesson on the holocaust used no source materials at all, no images no examples of what sort of propaganda led to the piles of corses nothing at all just some statistics on the board. That class was deeply offensive memorable (for me ) because of how it utterly failed to convey to my classmates what had happened. This was gcse level and I strongly think that there should have been a hell of a lot more disturbing material shown. Obviously age appropriate material is key, they were teenagers that the decapitated teacher was talking to but not sure what age.

Yep. I don't see how you can teach about the Nazis without showing some examples of their propaganda. Just saying 'they drew grotesque dehumanising caricatures of Jews' does not get across their grotesqueness. Only showing the images does that. And at a certain age, of course children are ready to see them. They need to see them.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Which cartoons are you referring to? I find the image of Muhammed with his hat/turban depicted as a terrorist bomb to be offensive.

I'm referring specifically to the image shown in the classroom. It's been posted here twice now.