4 ms·
An art treasure long cherished by Muslims is deemed offensive. But to whom?
- RobotToaster 4y agoI notice that the guardian didn't have the balls to use the painting as the featured image for the article.
- eternalban 4y agohttps://newlinesmag.com/wp-content/uploads/1wb-1024x766.jpg https://newlinesmag.com/wp-content/uploads/1wb-1024x766.jpg
- bell-cot 4y agoWhy should they? The Guardian is not Charlie Hebdo, where giving offense & generating outrage are parts of their business model and cred with their audience.
- HarryHirsch 4y agoWhat? The article isn't discussing the question of whether the Mohammed images from Hamline are offensive, it's about the unholy confluence of liberal wokeness and conservative political agenda. So the absence of imagery is fine. But anyone who argues that these illustrations are in fact offensive argues that the artists and those who commissioned those artworks were apostates and renegades, and there is no evidence whatsoever of that.
- eternalban 4y agoThey did provide the link. The image is apparently from a period predating the time when the current consensus that disallows depiction of the Prophet originated. Back then it was ok; now it isn’t. Were The Guardian to print the image, it could be construed by some interested party (of various possible affiliations) as a willful act intended to cause offense. For precedent predating our current excessively charged social environment, the film The Message (1976), starring Anthony Quinn, does not show his person at all. https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0074896 https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0074896
- LatteLazy 4y agoI think I am finally getting old: It's so unambiguously obvious to me that the lecturers actions were fine that I cannot fathom who would object, let alone who in any position of power would entertain such an objection...
- sn0w_crash 4y agoThis is absurd but not surprising. The people calling stuff “offensive” are often not even the people who are supposed to be offended. In this case, woke activist students are speaking on behalf of a people/culture/religion that doesn’t even consider this offensive. I suspect there are a couple of reasons for this 1. Some of these people are made extremely uncomfortable by other cultures and genuinely don’t know how to act. A lot of these activists tend to be high income whites. It is unsurprising they genuinely don’t know what other cultures are thinking/feeling? 2. They want to DO good but they end up using other people/cultures/groups as a tool to make themselves LOOK good.