![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
I just got around to watching the Top Gear Boxing Day Special. There were a couple of places visited which looked quite interesting, and I wanted to look up more on the show. Instead of finding discussions on the — to me — interesting content of the show, there was, not unexpectedly, offense taken. At this juncture, I suggest you watch the show first before reading other commentary, because there are some spoilers that I think would rather lessen the surprise and jokes if known ahead of time. I'll avoid putting any of the spoilers here, but be warned.
Primarily, it sounds, a segment where the hosts, or presenters, wear burqas has raised ire. Again, I'm not surprised that someone would find it offensive, but frankly, it's one of the least offensive bits in the program. I'm also a little dubious about the Daily Mail article, because a lot of other papers seem to print the more or less same syndicated copy, and it fails to cite any useful references — surely it's not just a transparent attempt by a news outlet to generate an artificial controversy?
No matter. Jeremy, Richard and James drive from Iraq through Turkey, Syria and Jordan to Israel in a motor-head inspired nativity play. The political commentary, by and large, is left for the viewers to decide, they mostly mention things such as "For political reasons, this used to be Syria, but is now Israel." Yet, as in their Africa episode, when you peel away all the juvenile stunts and jack-a**ery, what the viewer is left with is generally a rather better and more humane view of a part of the world that is reduced to a hopeless war zone based on the news. Where the presenters elect take off their flak vests is a case in point.
Now, James paints his car in a way that ought to have offended a lot of people, especially with his additional comments. Richard's disguise probably could be construed as making fun of a specific culture. Clarkson's antics by the Sea of Galilee are quite specific to yet another faith. The ending itself is blasphemous. The hosts take all manner of cultural and religious stereotypes and make fun of them. Of course you should be offended by the show, that's what it's there for; but you should also recognize that it's not intended to be propaganda, and pretty much every major religion in the region is treated with the same satirical style. It doesn't go out of its way to make fun of any one religion, and it certainly doesn't seem to try to denigrate anyone's faith.
In the realm of religion and culture you can't draw clear lines of "this is OK, and that isn't." What to someone his hilarious good fun at the expense of quirks of a religion or culture, could be offensive to someone else. Yet, in the values I choose to call mine, unless the intent is to hurt a specific group out of meanness, you can make fun of religion. It's educational, as people of other customs and faiths may learn new things through the jokes. It's educational, as it should make people of the culture and faith being made fun of step back a little and place themselves in a larger context, it should help people learn to see themselves through the eyes of others. If that offends you, perhaps it's time to think why.
When does good-natured poking fun at each other turn into demonizing the other and denying their worth? That is often in the eye of the beholder, but in the case of the Boxing Day / Middle East special I think the BBC remained pretty well on the safe side of the line.
On the same note, I also watched Machete last night. I'm sorry I missed it in the theaters, as it was very entertaining indeed, and quite irreverent. Very gory, and you have to like the B splatter movie genre, but if you do, and you haven't seen it, by all means do. Yes, Rodriguez threw in his political opinions. I can't claim to exactly know what they are, and I suspect I disagree with them somewhat. Yet, he makes a lot of useful political commentary that should make one think, regardless of your stance on immigration. If its portrayal of white politicians offends you, consider whether its portrayal of Mexican immigrant stereotypes would offed them. And it has Michelle Rodriguez (no relation) being way too hot.
More seriously, I've been watching the news out of Pakistan and elsewhere, and I'm deeply disturbed. There is a country with a predominant religion. The country passes a law that allows the mere accusation of blasphemy to get someone killed. A (more or less) democratically elected representative says they think blasphemy should be a crime, but that the existing law is draconian and is being misused by callous people for their personal or perceived vendettas (which it is.) This man is shot by his own security guard, who upon arrest is showered with flowers and given overwhelming support in the media and streets. The victim cannot find a member of the clergy to preside over his funeral rights.
Perhaps my view of the events has been biased by viewing it through the filter of Western media. Yet, even allowing for that, I find the entire chain of events utterly abhorrent and disgusting. I cannot help but to think that something like this does more damage to the idea that the gap between the Islam and other faiths can be bridged than a brigade of suicide bombers. I dearly hope that there is a lot of moderate opinion expressed, and simply not reported because anything in the middle is not news, but the mere fact this kind of events and behavior end up being glorified gives me a feeling of dread.
If there really are people dancing in the streets and burning another country's flag or desecrating their holy books or symbols, they have to realize how wonderfully easy it is to demonize them.
Trying to think five, ten years to the future: what can possibly be done to peacefully coexist with people who grow up in this kind of environment and express these kinds of opinions? What can be done to bring people to moderate their tone? This all is a much larger problem. It's not just the Pakistanis against the Indians, it's not just Al Qaeda against the West. It's Democrats versus Republicans. It's neo-nazis versus the gays. Obviously the degree is vastly different, but the lack of respect for the other, and unwillingness to engage in dialogue, police facts and act civilized tends to lead to problems, yet once the cycle starts it appears very difficult to halt.
What is so worrisome about this is that these kinds of events destroy democracies. We look at the U.S. and Western Europe, and think that once you have a nice set of democratic institutions, things will stay as they are. Then you remember Nazi Germany, Lebanon, look at Pakistan, consider Algeria's 1991 elections, Venezuela, and suddenly the stability of democracy becomes a lot less comfortable. When the majority of people elect to live in a tyranny, of whatever flavor, what can you do? When a country is sliding towards populist or extremist poles, what can you do to defend the center?
It's for developments like these that I feel so strongly about the responsibility of the media to stick to facts and broader analysis on the pros and cons, and the educational system and academia to teach children and students according to the best of our academic integrity.
Primarily, it sounds, a segment where the hosts, or presenters, wear burqas has raised ire. Again, I'm not surprised that someone would find it offensive, but frankly, it's one of the least offensive bits in the program. I'm also a little dubious about the Daily Mail article, because a lot of other papers seem to print the more or less same syndicated copy, and it fails to cite any useful references — surely it's not just a transparent attempt by a news outlet to generate an artificial controversy?
No matter. Jeremy, Richard and James drive from Iraq through Turkey, Syria and Jordan to Israel in a motor-head inspired nativity play. The political commentary, by and large, is left for the viewers to decide, they mostly mention things such as "For political reasons, this used to be Syria, but is now Israel." Yet, as in their Africa episode, when you peel away all the juvenile stunts and jack-a**ery, what the viewer is left with is generally a rather better and more humane view of a part of the world that is reduced to a hopeless war zone based on the news. Where the presenters elect take off their flak vests is a case in point.
Now, James paints his car in a way that ought to have offended a lot of people, especially with his additional comments. Richard's disguise probably could be construed as making fun of a specific culture. Clarkson's antics by the Sea of Galilee are quite specific to yet another faith. The ending itself is blasphemous. The hosts take all manner of cultural and religious stereotypes and make fun of them. Of course you should be offended by the show, that's what it's there for; but you should also recognize that it's not intended to be propaganda, and pretty much every major religion in the region is treated with the same satirical style. It doesn't go out of its way to make fun of any one religion, and it certainly doesn't seem to try to denigrate anyone's faith.
In the realm of religion and culture you can't draw clear lines of "this is OK, and that isn't." What to someone his hilarious good fun at the expense of quirks of a religion or culture, could be offensive to someone else. Yet, in the values I choose to call mine, unless the intent is to hurt a specific group out of meanness, you can make fun of religion. It's educational, as people of other customs and faiths may learn new things through the jokes. It's educational, as it should make people of the culture and faith being made fun of step back a little and place themselves in a larger context, it should help people learn to see themselves through the eyes of others. If that offends you, perhaps it's time to think why.
When does good-natured poking fun at each other turn into demonizing the other and denying their worth? That is often in the eye of the beholder, but in the case of the Boxing Day / Middle East special I think the BBC remained pretty well on the safe side of the line.
On the same note, I also watched Machete last night. I'm sorry I missed it in the theaters, as it was very entertaining indeed, and quite irreverent. Very gory, and you have to like the B splatter movie genre, but if you do, and you haven't seen it, by all means do. Yes, Rodriguez threw in his political opinions. I can't claim to exactly know what they are, and I suspect I disagree with them somewhat. Yet, he makes a lot of useful political commentary that should make one think, regardless of your stance on immigration. If its portrayal of white politicians offends you, consider whether its portrayal of Mexican immigrant stereotypes would offed them. And it has Michelle Rodriguez (no relation) being way too hot.
More seriously, I've been watching the news out of Pakistan and elsewhere, and I'm deeply disturbed. There is a country with a predominant religion. The country passes a law that allows the mere accusation of blasphemy to get someone killed. A (more or less) democratically elected representative says they think blasphemy should be a crime, but that the existing law is draconian and is being misused by callous people for their personal or perceived vendettas (which it is.) This man is shot by his own security guard, who upon arrest is showered with flowers and given overwhelming support in the media and streets. The victim cannot find a member of the clergy to preside over his funeral rights.
Perhaps my view of the events has been biased by viewing it through the filter of Western media. Yet, even allowing for that, I find the entire chain of events utterly abhorrent and disgusting. I cannot help but to think that something like this does more damage to the idea that the gap between the Islam and other faiths can be bridged than a brigade of suicide bombers. I dearly hope that there is a lot of moderate opinion expressed, and simply not reported because anything in the middle is not news, but the mere fact this kind of events and behavior end up being glorified gives me a feeling of dread.
If there really are people dancing in the streets and burning another country's flag or desecrating their holy books or symbols, they have to realize how wonderfully easy it is to demonize them.
Trying to think five, ten years to the future: what can possibly be done to peacefully coexist with people who grow up in this kind of environment and express these kinds of opinions? What can be done to bring people to moderate their tone? This all is a much larger problem. It's not just the Pakistanis against the Indians, it's not just Al Qaeda against the West. It's Democrats versus Republicans. It's neo-nazis versus the gays. Obviously the degree is vastly different, but the lack of respect for the other, and unwillingness to engage in dialogue, police facts and act civilized tends to lead to problems, yet once the cycle starts it appears very difficult to halt.
What is so worrisome about this is that these kinds of events destroy democracies. We look at the U.S. and Western Europe, and think that once you have a nice set of democratic institutions, things will stay as they are. Then you remember Nazi Germany, Lebanon, look at Pakistan, consider Algeria's 1991 elections, Venezuela, and suddenly the stability of democracy becomes a lot less comfortable. When the majority of people elect to live in a tyranny, of whatever flavor, what can you do? When a country is sliding towards populist or extremist poles, what can you do to defend the center?
It's for developments like these that I feel so strongly about the responsibility of the media to stick to facts and broader analysis on the pros and cons, and the educational system and academia to teach children and students according to the best of our academic integrity.
