It's the thought that counts...
So what do a British historian, a Californian archaeologist and a Danish cartoonist have in common?
Well, aside from the amusing prospect of them simultaneously walking into a bar, they provide interesting case studies into the idea of moral relativism.
Lets start with the most morally defensible of the three, the archaeologist, namely Jack Broughton from the University of Utah. Now, this guy's spent the past ten years picking through Californian bird bones in an attempt to determine the effect of european arrival upon their numbers. Surprisingly, what he found was that the high numbers that were reported by early settlers were not the natural state of affairs. In fact, Native Americans had hunted them severely, to the point of local extinction in some cases over a period of two thousand years prior to european arrival. It was only the diseases the Europeans brought with them, which decimated the Native American hunting population, that were responsible for the observed numbers.
Ok, so scientist spends best years of life uncovering some obscure fact that nobody cares about, right? Well, for the most part, this is a legitimate scientific study. However, read between the lines, and one finds that many of these "myth of the noble savage" type papers are funded by hunting societies and real estate developers.
Which brings us to David Irving (the British historian for those of you who haven't guessed). Again - one may claim - a legitimate academic exercise aimed at eludicating the truth. But this guy's no ordinary curious mind, but rather, he's a dangerous neo-nazi agitator, who not only idolizes the original Nazi party, but also encourages racism and antisemitism in european youths. On the one hand, I can't help feeling a little edgy at the prospect of a researcher being silenced for disagreeing with the accepted version of history (how many steps from the ministry of truth is this?), but one look at this muthafucker's Blog and i say: "academic freedom be damned - this guy deserves a dungeon".
So if academic freedom isn't absolute, how about freedom of the press?
This is where a lot of people got a little confused about the danish cartoons. On the one hand "freedom of the press" is one of the cornerstones of western democracy (or so the newspapers tell us), and we're sure as hell not going to let a bunch of roving fundies take that away from us!
On the other hand, you know, and I know, that the newspapers only printed those cartoons to piss off the muslims. Not exactly the most responsible use for this God-given freedom.
Now, I'm not going to defend the status of Muslim fundamentalist suicide bombers. But one has to appreciate that non european people living in europe tend to get a bit of a bum rap. Mostly they live in slums surrounding the major cities, and as the French riots last year demonstrated they live under constant police harassment. So it's a bit like laughing at the fat kid on school sports day.
All things being equal, newspapers should be able to take the piss out of whatever deity they choose, historians should be able to re-examine historical events, and scientists should be able to spend years cataloging bird bones. One scientific theory should be placed equal to the next, history should belong to the masses, religion should stay the hell away from our news. But these aren't absolutes. Blindly crying for press freedom makes one just as much of a zealot as those who marched upon the papers in protest. Academic freedom ends when that freedom is used to encourage the actions of violent, racist fanatics. Freedom of the press ends when that freedom is used to portray people as violent, racist fanatics.
So where do you draw the line?
Is it ok to shoot a duck in California?
Well, aside from the amusing prospect of them simultaneously walking into a bar, they provide interesting case studies into the idea of moral relativism.
Lets start with the most morally defensible of the three, the archaeologist, namely Jack Broughton from the University of Utah. Now, this guy's spent the past ten years picking through Californian bird bones in an attempt to determine the effect of european arrival upon their numbers. Surprisingly, what he found was that the high numbers that were reported by early settlers were not the natural state of affairs. In fact, Native Americans had hunted them severely, to the point of local extinction in some cases over a period of two thousand years prior to european arrival. It was only the diseases the Europeans brought with them, which decimated the Native American hunting population, that were responsible for the observed numbers.
Ok, so scientist spends best years of life uncovering some obscure fact that nobody cares about, right? Well, for the most part, this is a legitimate scientific study. However, read between the lines, and one finds that many of these "myth of the noble savage" type papers are funded by hunting societies and real estate developers.
Which brings us to David Irving (the British historian for those of you who haven't guessed). Again - one may claim - a legitimate academic exercise aimed at eludicating the truth. But this guy's no ordinary curious mind, but rather, he's a dangerous neo-nazi agitator, who not only idolizes the original Nazi party, but also encourages racism and antisemitism in european youths. On the one hand, I can't help feeling a little edgy at the prospect of a researcher being silenced for disagreeing with the accepted version of history (how many steps from the ministry of truth is this?), but one look at this muthafucker's Blog and i say: "academic freedom be damned - this guy deserves a dungeon".
So if academic freedom isn't absolute, how about freedom of the press?
This is where a lot of people got a little confused about the danish cartoons. On the one hand "freedom of the press" is one of the cornerstones of western democracy (or so the newspapers tell us), and we're sure as hell not going to let a bunch of roving fundies take that away from us!
On the other hand, you know, and I know, that the newspapers only printed those cartoons to piss off the muslims. Not exactly the most responsible use for this God-given freedom.
Now, I'm not going to defend the status of Muslim fundamentalist suicide bombers. But one has to appreciate that non european people living in europe tend to get a bit of a bum rap. Mostly they live in slums surrounding the major cities, and as the French riots last year demonstrated they live under constant police harassment. So it's a bit like laughing at the fat kid on school sports day.
All things being equal, newspapers should be able to take the piss out of whatever deity they choose, historians should be able to re-examine historical events, and scientists should be able to spend years cataloging bird bones. One scientific theory should be placed equal to the next, history should belong to the masses, religion should stay the hell away from our news. But these aren't absolutes. Blindly crying for press freedom makes one just as much of a zealot as those who marched upon the papers in protest. Academic freedom ends when that freedom is used to encourage the actions of violent, racist fanatics. Freedom of the press ends when that freedom is used to portray people as violent, racist fanatics.
So where do you draw the line?
Is it ok to shoot a duck in California?