Sunday, July 24, 2011

The Norway Tragedy, Fear and Loathing.......and Turner Classic Movies

The elements in my title may seem an odd grouping to readers, but I will make clear how they link together.

The (alleged) shooter, who is reported to have turned himself in to police and confessed, has stated through his lawyer that what he did was 'atrocious but necessary'.  Other translations of what his attorney said used the words cruel but necessary.  Anders Breivik will explain himself at greater length in court on Monday, and whichever words characterize his thinking on the subject, we will have more of them then.
From AJE:  Lippestad said: "He has said that he believed the actions were atrocious, but that in his head they were necessary."

For any reader who might raise an eyebrow at my quoting from Al Jezeera English as a reporting source, let me elaborate.  I like to review a wide range of sources, and to then evaluate them for their accuracy and bias.  What I do not want to do is to rely on only one segment of the media for information, so I don't want to rely exclusively on U.S. media to cover the U.S., but instead look at international media coverage of us as well.  On the topic of Islam-related subjects, and our international policy, particularly in the area of our conflicts in predominantly Muslim countries, I don't like to rely exclusively on western media.  This doesn't mean that I take the information any of those sources provide without critical thinking, but rather that I look at them as sources to be evaluated. 

Looking at AJE, they impressed me with having done some good reporting.  In contrast, we have the Telegraph from the UK, which did not do nearly as well in their response to the Norway tragedy.  They went with an presumption of an "Islamoterrorist" attack, at some length from the site zerohedge:
As of June 2011, there were still six F16 fighters from the Royal Norwegian Air Force operating in Libya, which is a possible motive for the attack. However, it is unlikely that Colonel Gadhafi has the ability to mobilise such an attack.
Norway has deployed around 500 troops in Afghanistan, and three Norwegian newspapers (Aftenposten, Dagbladet and Magazinet) published the controversial Prophet Muhammad cartoons in 2005-2006, providing another possible motive.

There is precedent for jihadist targeting of Norway, with public spaces, government offices and media targets most at risk.
One possible culprit is the Pakistan-based core al-Qaeda group, which has previously shown interest in attacking Norway. In July 2010, three Norwegian residents, one of whom had received explosives training with al-Qaeda in Pakistan, were arrested on suspicion of plotting attacks against unspecified targets. One of them had attempted to construct the same hydrogen peroxide-based explosives as used in the 2009 al-Qaeda bomb plot against the New York subway and the 7/7 bombings in London.
Nevertheless, Norway is not a priority country for jihadists, and any al-Qaeda targeting of Norway would probably be opportunistic, based on the fact that they had happened to recruit a Norwegian national. We also assess that any plans for spectacular attacks in Western Europe would probably have been altered or put on hold following bin Laden's death, pending internal security reviews. A further possibility, therefore, is that the attack was led by Norwegian jihadist sympathisers acting on their own initiative, possibly after receiving basic training from jihadist groups overseas.
This pattern was seen in Stockholm in December 2010, when Swedish citizen Taimour Abdulwahab al-Abdaly blew himself up in a busy shopping street. He had visited Iraq for jihad, but appeared to have received minimal, if any, external training and guidance when planning the Stockholm attack. One possible training provider would be Somalia's al-Shabab, which maintains fundraising networks among Norway's Somali community and has proven attractive as a destination for Swedish and Danish jihadist sympathisers, though it has not so far shown interest in deploying its foreign fighters back home to conduct attacks.
I think it is safe to say that the Telegraph's leap to a conclusion impressed me less.  For those unfamiliar with the press in the UK (from wikipedia):
The Daily Telegraph has been politically conservative in modern times.[27] The personal links between the paper's editors and the leadership of the Conservative Party, along with the paper's influence over Conservative activists, has resulted in the paper commonly being referred to, especially in Private Eye, as the Torygraph.[27] Even when Conservative support was shown to have slumped in the opinion polls and Labour became ascendant in them (particularly when leader Tony Blair rebranded the party as "New Labour" on becoming leader after the death of John Smith in 1994), the newspaper remained loyal to the Conservatives. This loyalty continued after Labour ousted the Conservatives from power by a landslide election result in 1997, and in the face of Labour election wins in 2001 and the third successive Labour election win in 2005.
But it wasn't just the Telegraph that 'went off the rails'; from the Think Progress by way of the site Dump Bachmann, writing about the Washington Post:
When news began to unfold on Friday of the terror attacks in Norway that has left more than 90 dead, many blogs and Twitter accounts immediately lit up with speculation about who was behind the massive bombings in Oslo and the subsequent attack on a youth camp 20 miles away.

But some pundits, mostly right-wing neoconservatives, proclaimed that this bore all the hallmarks of Islamic terrorism, even going so far as to draw policy prescriptions. At the Washington Post, normally a well-respected news outlet, Jennifer Rubin quoted the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies‘ Thomas Joscelyn and AEI scholar Gary Schmitt to say that the attacks were the result of Islamic terrorism. She then concluded the “jihadist” attack on Oslo means the U.S. shouldn’t cut military spending:

This is a sobering reminder for those who think it’s too expensive to wage a war against jihadists. [...] Some irresponsible lawmakers on both sides of the aisle…would have us believe that enormous defense cuts would not affect our national security. Obama would have us believe that al-Qaeda is almost caput and that we can wrap up things in Afghanistan. All of these are rationalizations for doing something very rash, namely curbing our ability to defend the United States and our allies in a very dangerous world.
Until Monday's elaboration in court, I think it is safe to characterize Anders Breivik, based on the information currently available through the press, as a dangerously Islamophobic man.  This is a man who has asserted in the past that there is a danger of Islamacisation of Europe, as well as being concerned about too lenient immigration, and supporting a national identity.  He characterizes himself as a Christian whose views on religion appear to be fundamentalist, and he characterizes his views as conservative.

I would characterize Breivik's views as afraid, and as ignorant about the people from Islamic countries who have immigrated to Norway and other parts of Europe.  And I would assert that not only our news media, but especially the right wing mouthpiece media, has contributed heavily to those misinformed views. 

More than that however are the more subtle ways in which our OTHER media has contributed to a skewed and biased viewpoint.  This is where Turner Classic Movies has come in.  Most of us think of TCM as simply that delightful cable network that shows old movies, including old silent movies.  A network which eschews politics in celebrating entertainment oriented content.  Yes, they are that, but the network also promotes a very legitimate understanding of ourselves by looking at the history of images in film. For the past several years they have used two nights a week throughout the month of July to look at how different groups have been portrayed in films over time, how stereotypes have changed and evolved, even what actors have portrayed those roles.  For example, there have been largely caucasian actors who portrayed American Indians / native americans on screen over the years, and many caucasian actors who have portrayed Asian characters as well.

What could this possibly have to do with the Norway tragedy?  This year the month of July was dedicated by Turner Classic Movies to examining the images of Arabs and Muslims in film.  The analysis was thoughtful, not at all 'preachy', and was fact based, with an analysis preceding the showing of a cross-section of films. Their selection includes old and new movies, cartoons, dramas and comedies, full length movies and shorts, even the silent films of Rudolph Valentino, The Sheik,  and the subsequent The Son of the Sheik, to illustrate the analysis. 

Viewed together, with the introductions, they demonstrate how powerful those images in entertainment rather than news are in affecting our thinking, and our feeling, about groups of people.  These are influences where we have less conscious awareness of an effect compared to the way we filter and absorb the information from news.  That gives those images a different, but very real power to influence us, including to predispose us to the kinds of fears evident in the Telegraph, and evident in the alleged actions of Anders Breivik.

The primary host for Turner Classic Movies is the urbane and polished Robert Osborne.  For the series Race and Hollywood: Arab Images on Film, his co-host is the equally erudite and well spoken Dr. Jack Shaheen.  His bio on the Turner website is impressive.  But what has impressed me so much more is how eloquently he speaks to the stereotypes, as an individual included in those stereotypes.

I learned my greatest understanding and appreciation for the subtleties and destructiveness of racism when I employed a black handler to show my dogs.  I watched the occasional racist dog show judges who would for example, shake the hands of every exhibitor but this extremely talented and professional man who was showing my dogs, along with other more subtle slights.  During those incidents, I came to see that racism through the eyes of my friend, which is what that handler came to be.  We even had a code between us, a gesture to underline those events: two fingers of one hand rubbed across the back of the other hand, signifying that color, race, doesn't 'rub off'.  That was a reference to a belief by my very much loved, intelligent maternal grandmother who was, frankly, a racist.  She didn't like black people touching her things, or in her home, because she had an unreasonable fear that their color would rub off on things, a belief based on the fact that some parts of their bodies, like the palms of their hands, were lighter.

The Turner Classic Movies introductions, where the comments about the images that are shown are made through the very gentle and dignified insights of Dr. Shaheen affect me the same way.  They underline for me the importance of seeing ourselves and our views through the eyes of someone else, someone who is affected by those views in very serious and potentially damaging ways.

Robert Burns in his poem, To a Louse, penned these words:
O would some power the giftie gie us to see ourselves as others see us.
(O would some power the gift to give us to see ourselves as others see us.)
Those words sum up perfectly for me the value of including Al Jezeera English in the sources I review for news, and they sum up perfectly the value of seeing our stereotypes through the eyes of those demeaned and demonized by our stereotypes, as reflected in the exceptional presentations of Turner Classic Movies.

I hope Penigma readers will check out both, and in depth. The Turner Arabs in Images nights are Tuesday and Thursday, but excerpts are shown periodically between other movies as well, as part of their between-movie 'filler'.  They have tremendous power to change us in large and small ways, to make us more insightful, more objective, more aware, and more intellectually critical.  Perhaps most of all, I believe both have the power to make us all less fearful, less unreasonably and unreasoningly fearful.

If there was ever an occasion for the necessity of doing that, the events in Norway are an excellent example of why you should do so.  They are the best 'push back' against Anders Breivik and those who think like him that exist in a world where we strive to be factual and objective, not fearful.

12 comments:

  1. Very interesting … the connection of movies and politics … Ed Feulner, President of The Heritage Foundation, just wrote a commentary citing a movie reference in discussing the Debt Ceiling debate :
    The men and women thinking of compromising at this point are not bad or unpatriotic; they simply have lost their way. Those of us who still watch old movies can compare the present situation to the 1957 classic “The Bridge on the River Kwai.”
    In the film, an upright British colonel who had become a prisoner of war forgets temporarily the principles he was sworn to uphold and—to show his Japanese captors the professionalism of British soldiers—puts his men to work building the best bridge possible.
    In the end, he recovers his sanity and realizes he is only helping the Japanese war effort, and he helps destroy the bridge.
    It isn’t too late for us yet. Government spending is currently at 24.3 percent of GDP, and U.S. debt held by the public stands at 69.1 percent of GDP. This bridge needs to be stopped.
    Congress should not raise the debt limit without getting spending under control.


    My interpretation of Mr. Feulner’s premise is that if the US economy is destroyed by failing to address the debt ceiling in a manner acceptable to him … well, that’s 'atrocious but necessary'.

    ReplyDelete
  2. This goes further Pen. There is an underlying set of assumptions through which we view the world.

    Our deomonazing portrayal of Arabs and muslims goes much deeper than the obvious history elements you cite - elements I am familiar with from my arab history class back in college.

    In the past we have characterized asians as the yellow peril, in creating villains like fu manchu.

    We've done similar things to how we view those from the arab world and from muslim countries. It makes us see those people as one or two dimensional, as card board cut outs, not as real people who have much more in common than different from ourselves.

    I would strongly encourage you to take a look at the turner site, and watch and listen to the interviews. I believe doing so will take you a greater distance beyond the bare facts you recited, and that you might be surprised at how far.

    It will change how you look at the news, particularly the news of the right wing political campaigns, which thrive on this demonizing.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I think you didn't see my point.

    I am/was making the point that there is NO difference between Wahabism and Christian fundamentalism. I use the word Christian under some reservation as I do NOT think their views are Christian in any way, much like most Muslims view Wahabism as a perversion of Islam.

    My point was that the US and western powers didn't use terrorism because they could abuse their power and dominate the world without needing to use terrorism, they could do so through direct applciation of power.

    Just as we see the PLO, Red Brigade, etc.. as murderous and unscrupulous, much of the wider world sees us as craven, corrupt and abusive and abjectly willing to allow our corporations to exploit their workers, our banks to bankrupt their treasuries.

    We can CLAIM the moral highground by wrapping ourselves in supposed religious superiority, but we have little evidence to support it. It could be true that at least on Christianity's side their are unifying voices (in some cases) of leadership, but there are also the Jerry Falwell's of the world.

    ReplyDelete
  4. By the way, I appreciate the need to be legally careful, but this guy isn't "alleged" as the shooter any longer. He fully admitted his acts in open court. Whether he's guilty of the crimes for which he'll be tried is as yet not determined.

    ReplyDelete
  5. The problem is that there is a serious right wing terroristic strain in the US, which tends to be overshadowed by "Al-Queda".

    Prior to 9-11, a white male was responsible for the most destructive act of terrorism on American soil, The Oklahoma City Bombing of the Murrah Building. Of coure, the suspect in that action was originally an Arab, possibly the same people who tried to bomb the World Trade Centre in NYC on February 26, 1993.

    While right wing violence may not be on the scale of 9-11, it does have a persistant quality to it of assassinating abortion doctors and those who pose a threat.

    Anyway, FAIR has a post Seeing 'Islamic Terror' in Norway--Learning no lessons from Oklahoma City mistakes that points out that US Media is all too happy to see evil Arabs lurking in the shadows, yet ignore the homegrown threat.

    ReplyDelete
  6. ttuk wrote:
    "I saw the other day that 100% of the rapes committed in the Norwegian capital last yr were committed by Arab males."

    I don't know where you saw that figure, but I tried to verify your figure Tuck. And as usual with claims like that, it is not only incorrect, it has a notoriously inaccurate far right wing source behind it.

    Here are the actual figures, from the Norwegian press (Aftenposten):

    Oslo rape statistics shock

    Two out of three charged with rape in Norway's capital are immigrants with a non-western background according to a police study. The number of rape cases is also rising steadily.The study is the first where the crime statistics have been analyzed according to ethnic origin. Of the 111 charged with rape in Oslo last year, 72 were of non-western ethnic origin, 25 are classified as Norwegian or western and 14 are listed as unknown.

    Rape charges in the capital are spiraling upwards, 40 percent higher from 1999 to 2000 and up 13 percent so far this year.

    Nine out of ten cases do not make it to prosecution, most of them because police do not believe the evidence is sufficient to reach a conviction.

    Police Inspector Gunnar Larsen of Oslo's Vice, Robbery and Violent crime division says the statistics are surprising - the rising number of rape cases and the link to ethnic background are both clear trends. But Larsen does not want to speculate on the reasons behind the worrying developments.

    While 65 percent of those charged with rape are classed as coming from a non-western background, this segment makes up only 14.3 percent of Oslo's population. Norwegian women were the victims in 80 percent of the cases, with 20 percent being women of foreign background.

    Larsen said that since this was the initial study examining ethnic make-up there were no existing figures to put the numbers into context.

    "Meanwhile, it is our general experience that this is an increasing tendency. We note this by the number of time we need to use interpreters in the course of an investigation," Larsen said.

    from:http://www.vnnforum.com/showthread.php?t=42082

    ReplyDelete
  7. So....where did Tuck's statistic originate?

    It is part of yet another inaccurate Islamophobic rant from the 'FREEPERS' ( ) by way of one of your fellow Texans apparently:

    "Incredible Multiculturalism Stat: 100% of Rapes in Oslo in last five years by Muslim Immigrants
    The Voice of Reason ^ | May 29, 2011 | Texas Peartree

    Posted on Sunday, May 29, 2011 10:38:24 AM by Texas Peartree

    It has been said that there are three kinds of lies in this world; lies, damned lies and statistics. However, sometimes statistics really do tell the full story.

    When issues of immigration, race and religion are involved, some very awkward questions arise and our political elites in the West are ready to use the full force of their intellect to confront these issues head-on. I'm kidding of course. Our political elite would rather do anything than confront hard questions of culture. How else can one explain President Acorn plumping for an amnesty for 14 million illegal aliens while America suffers from 9% unemployment? On no other issue is the disconnect so great as between elite opinion and popular opinion.

    America is not alone in this polite ignoring of facts. Almost all Western countries make this mistake. Let us take a hard look at Norway. Rarely does a statistic stand out as jarringly as this: a study by Norwegian police has shown that over the past five years 100% of rapes in the capital of Oslo were committed by Muslim immigrants. Yes, they come from nation that hate women and see free females with their careers and uncovered faces as fair game. But can anyone explain what Norway has gained from inviting in this group? Other than the shattered lives of Norway's native-born female victims, that is.

    Norway has brought into an otherwise stable society 32,000 Pakistanis, 28,000 Iraqis, 28,000 Somalis, 17,000, Iranians, 16,000 Turks, 16,000 Bosnians, 13,000 Kosovars, and 12,000 Afghanis. Other than bankrupting Norway's welfare system, nothing good has come from this. Rape is one terrible cost, but there are others, including no-go zones in major cities, and a lack of social cohesion.

    Never before has the heartbreak of sexual assault been so convincingly put at the feet of a specific community that had no right to be in the country, but was invited in by good liberals. Interestingly 61,000 Poles have immigrated to Norway, but not committed a single rape in the past five years. Politically correct immigration laws impinge on the rights of the native-born. That is something we might want to consider as we use liberal notions of “fairness” to decide who gets to live in our communities."

    www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2726786/posts

    I assume that what this really does is underline the point I just made in the post, and I hope it further serves to caution readers like Tuck to fact check before they believe this kind of racist garbage.

    I couldn't have asked for a better example if I'd gone looking for it before writing this post.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Now, to offset the Freepers, and the youtube videos, and the right wing blogosphere misrepresentation of fact and islamophobia, what are the factual stats for Oslo specifically, and Norway generally, for crime, including rape? Not what the freepers et al would have you believe:

    "CRIME: Norway still has a relatively low level of crime in comparison to the United States and Western European countries with large populations. The most likely forms of crime, especially in the Oslo metropolitan area, include residential and office burglaries and petty thefts. In Oslo and the other major urban areas, crime has predictably been centered in the inner city and high transit areas. As in any other Western country, especially in urban areas, you should exercise basic security awareness. Although rare, violent and weapons-related crimes are growing in frequency and receiving intense media coverage. These crimes usually occur in areas known to have drug trafficking and gang problems, such as certain parts of eastern Oslo. Reports have shown an increase in rape in Norway, with parts of eastern Oslo, such as Grünerlokka, being an area of particular concern when it comes to this violent crime. You should be aware that instances of pick-pocketing and petty theft are predictably common in major tourist areas, hotel lobbies, train and transit stations, and surrounding areas.

    Don't buy counterfeit and pirated goods, even if they are widely available. Not only are the bootlegs illegal in the United States, if you purchase them you may also be breaking local law."

    from: http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/cis/cis_990.html

    Travel.State.Gov, A Service of the Bureau of Consular Affairs, U.S. Department of State

    I hope that puts a solid spike in the "OH NO! Those-arab-men-are-rapists!-It's-their-religion" hysteria.

    Shame on you Tuck for believing that crap for even a moment. But hey, I'm always glad to use Penigma for a fact checking platform to debunk this kind of garbage. I just wish more people would do it for themselves.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Tuck,

    I know you occassionally listen to Limbaugh (or at least I recall you mentioned such I think)...

    The question beyond, "Why would you accept this as true without checking?" and which isn't personally directed is this.

    The $10 Million question, Why is it that the conservative blogsphere would forward such information/propogate it further?

    I think the answer to that question is very illuminating.

    First, in an effort (seemingly) to explain WHY some right wing wacko would shoot 68 liberal school kids, FreePress (or someone) is trying to justify, in some way, the anger of the ultra-right wing. As if there is ANY justification for mass murder. Further, what the hell do liberal school kids have to do with it? It's trying to justify murder which the right wing said steadfastly, no matter the provocation, Muslims are NEVER justified in engaging in terrorism.

    The second seeming part of the answer to the question is this. The right wing press feels its audience is so willing/likely to accept a basely racist message "Dirty, nasty arabs are raping our white daughters" that they both put this out there AND hope that it will inflame their sense of outrage.

    Both things should really give you pause, Tuck, really. They should give you pause about the people who you seem to align with, they should give you pause about the nature of the propoganda presented by the likes of Limbaugh (or Free Republic Press), and mostly they should give you pause to consider what kind of sick, twisted people need to foment fears of their "pure, white daughters" being raped by dirty non-whites (whether they are black, middle-eastern, or asians) all of which have been done by the right in the past 100 years.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Hi Pen,

    I, too, listen to Rush (and even Glenn Beck, but in my area the local station dropped him so I have to pick-up an Iowa station … believe it or not, they are both BIG in Iowa) … it’s always entertaining … but when listening, be sure to apply a little inverted Ronnie Reagan’s advice … “ never trust and always verify” … I find that I have to do the same thing with Keith Obermann.

    DogGone does a valuable service to your site by referencing Politifact stories … most recently on John Boehner’s mis-characterization of the stimulus jobs.

    After reading your commentary, I thought of the recent Carl Bernstein piece in NEWSWEEK (it’s the issue with Sarah Palin on the cover pronouncing “I Can Win”) concerning Murcoch’s Watergate.
    Taking a little license from what Bernstein wrote, here are some of the key assessments :

    More than anyone, Murdoch invented and established this culture in the newsroom, where you do whatever it takes to manage the story, take no prisoners, destroy the competition, and the end will justify the means.”

    the unfair and imbalanced politicized “news” of the Fox News Channel—showing (again) Murdoch’s genius at building an empire on the basis of an ever-descending lowest journalistic denominator. It, too, rests on a foundation that has little or nothing to do with the best traditions and values of real reporting and responsible journalism: the best obtainable version of the truth. In place of this journalistic ideal, the enduring Murdoch ethic substitutes gossip, sensationalism, and manufactured controversy.

    The result is a product that is “emblematic in its carelessness about accuracy or truth or context.

    And, when threatened, Murdoch did what was in his best interest … bury the story regardless of the cost … one news media outlet or another it does not matter … the message will be carried by someone (i.e. Rush) … and regardless of the consequences to the innocent workers … as proven by “The shocking July 7 announcement that the paper would cease publication three days later, putting hundreds of employees out of work.

    = = =

    The Norway tragedy deserves attention … yet for some, I will bet, the opportunity to discuss something other than “Murdoch empire in crisis” is welcoming … thus, the inaccuracies may be necessary to the focus on the story that they want emphasized.

    Mac Hall

    ReplyDelete
  11. I did specifically mention that I did not recall where I read that and it was late so I didn't really look for it. However the basic point is the same even with DG numbers, 65% of rapes committed by non western males who make up 14% of the population. Any way you look at that Norwegian women are going to be afraid of Arab males. That causes tension and crazy people feed on it. This guy is the same as Loughner here in the US. He is nuts. Even the people we regard as right wing extremists wanted nothing to do with him.

    ReplyDelete
  12. 1. It doesn't matter where you saw the figure Tuck, what is at issue is why you would accept it as face value rather than skepticism.
    2. tuck wrote: "However the basic point is the same even with DG numbers, 65% of rapes committed by non western males who make up 14% of the population. Any way you look at that Norwegian women are going to be afraid of Arab males."

    No Tuck, first of all, the definition of rape in the scandinavian countries is significantly different from what it is in the U.S. (I'd refer you to the conflicting allegations re Julian Assange for an example, although Sweden rather than Norway)

    Don't miss that the overwhelming of these do not reach prosecution because of lack of evidence, putting these somewhat in the category of he said she said in a number of cases.

    And don't forget this part of what I quoted: "Larsen said that since this was the initial study examining ethnic make-up there were no existing figures to put the numbers into context."

    I would suggest context is very important here, and the notion that Norwegian women should automatically be afraid of Arab/muslim men is ludicrous. We don't know for example how many or how few of these reported rapes were one man or a few men, rather than one man / one rape. I found that this was occurring predominantly in one high crime area to be significant as well.

    More importantly though Tuck, don't accept stuff like this without asking yourself first if it is true, and doing a bit of looking. It took me maybe five minutes to check this out, although I'll admit to being an unusually fast reader. So....give it a whole ten minutes of checking before buying into this kind of stuff. Because too often it is substantially wrong, inaccurate, or woefully incomplete.

    ReplyDelete