In the space of two weeks, the world has seen an uproar raised by the actions and drawings of cartoonists. In the first example, a seemingly insensitive portrayal of a crippled U.S. veteran was used to take jabs at the policies and perceived indifference of Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld. It predictably angered and vexed many veterans, conservatives, and myriad Republican supporters. However, despite this, generally the response by such pundits as Sean Hannity and various radio moguls was that the cartoonists had the right to do so, however poor in taste. This was seen as a necessary price and cost of having freedom of speech and expression. Especially regarding the political sphere, which is the arena the Founding Fathers most wanted protected from censorship.
Though many on the `Right' were deeply offended, and did in fact call for retraction or not running the cartoons, these were outnumbered by conservatives equally determined to permit the expression, and remaining content to censure and lament the lack of class involved on the part of the cartoonist. As a result, the affair quickly died down and things moved on.
However, shortly afterward, in an unrelated incident, Dutch cartoonists ran some cartoons that cast the role of the Prophet Muhammad in the role of a terrorist or other such objectionable purveyor of violence. When this provoked an outcry, these cartoons were then picked up and reproduced by various other European papers. In the time since, the world has seen some extraordinary scenes of Muslims demanding reprisal and demonstrating with actual destructive riots and burning of property in response to the perceived offense. The rogue Presidency of Iran has even sponsored a tacky counter-protest of anti-Jewish cartoons related to the Holocaust. The bottom line is a clear fundamental rejection of the concept of the freedom of speech, and serves to remind that in the Mideast, such expression generally takes a back seat, if seat at all, to ideology and religion. There is no doubt, no disputing, that the cartoons were offensive (as political satire often can be) and even stupid to issue, given the possible provocation. However, there is another component to consider.
What makes this remarkable is the comparative lack of a Western response pointing out that it is precisely such violent demonstrations, threats, and burnings that fuel the characterizations the cartoonists portray. It is correct to regret and recant any real offensive literature, but in free countries the governments have little say in such matters and beyond official mollifying statements like Chirac of France chose to make, its not really their place to do so. Especially in the face of such belligerent displays. There really needs to be a general global call by the international community for responsible Muslim leaders to make a clear censure and condemnation of such behavior and to distance themselves from it. The equation of their beliefs with violence and terrorism is becoming too strong and too reflexive. In turn there should be clear recognition that such mocking of a religious founder is not only inviting unrest, but is painting with a broad brush. It is on a different level of trespass altogether from rightful satirizing of a current ruler engaging in demogoguery like the leaders of Iran and North Korea.
Yet in essence the real problem is one of cultural disconnect. Leaving aside those who intend to impose their views by violent terror - which can only be dealt with by like force, at the core of the matter would seem to be a failure to recognize the old maxim, "in Rome, do as the Romans do". Europeans often fail to respect Mideast traditions and habits when in the Mideast, and Muslim immigrants to Europe appear to be failing to respect the free expression and traditions of their hosts. At a glance, though there is much to mull here, it appears that imposition of multiculturalism and failure to assimilate are the true culprits. In many ways, the tendency these days is for opposing or differing cultures to `export' too much one's own set of values and paradigms to a place, without taking effort to avoid disturbing those of the host nation involved. This holds true for an immigrant or representative both.
- Anthony
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I would agree that the issue here is one of cultural disconnect, though we may differ in our reading of that. I have been fortunate in the last week to have had the opportunity to have a series of discussions with a Muslim woman about the cartoons in particular and the (mis)understanding of Islam in the West. So, to take this in a couple of points: first, there is cultural import to these cartoons and the response that is not readily apparent to non-Muslims; second, we must address the issue of mainstream vs. minority vs. pluralist understandings of free culture.
My conversation with F. began when I asked her what she knew about a religious scholar named Reza Aslan (USC) who I had seen promoting his book [i]No god but God[/i] on some late-night talk show. I had been impressed with Aslan’s evenhanded evaluation of radIslam and, most especially, with his expostulation of the problem that “mainstream” Islam would have with the likes of bin Laden and Zaqari. Aslan explained that only scholars with reputable, traditional training have the authority to issue a fatwah. The actions of OBL & Zaqari in this mode represent an erosion of traditional clerics’ power base, and so there is an expectation that they will move to correct that influence. In short, the brand of religious extremism practiced as radIslam represents a “protestantization” of Islam (my words, not Aslan’s). F. wanted to be sure that I understood that it is the right of every Muslim to read and interpret the Koran for themselves (so long as it is read in the original language), but that it takes the discipline and insight of rigorous training to interpret the Koran for and teach others.
F. indicated that the root problem with the terrorist movement and with the cartoons is one and the same. She explained that to understand the Muslim world requires understanding of (post)colonial politics and power struggle. Muslims have experienced centuries of oppression at the hands of Europeans (we can table the rule of Muslim invaders for later) and even though not still technically under colonial rule, most middle-eastern countries have corrupt governments with puppet heads of state. Terrorist organizations are attractive to young Muslim men because they are poor, angry, and have little to lose. The cartoon imbroglio was easy to stir up because it ignited a deep-seated resentment of oppression.
F. said that she had been discussing these cartoons with her network of friends for several months now, and has been participating in the peaceful protests that have been ongoing since the original publication of these cartoons back in November (?). F. was in general agreement with me that the best response to bad speech is not less, but more speech. I was in agreement with her that the freedom of speech, like any other freedom, needs to be tempered by thoughtful consideration of the consequences of said speech. The perception of the worldwide Muslim community is that Denmark and the European community are debasing Islam not so much by publishing offensive cartoons (though that is certainly a concern), but because of the elitist dismissal of Muslim peaceful protest.
Our conversation took an interesting turn when F. said that she believed that, based on her experience of a populace in abject terror of the sitting government, violent demonstrations such as those seen in Syria could not occur except with the blessing of the government. Her take is that these corrupt governments have pounced on a free opportunity to play pretend that they have no ties to the West and are willing to act on their own. She said it is telling that the Danish cartoons were fed as fuel to the people when many other instances have occurred in American papers, but see no such demonstrations (F. indicated that CAIR and other Muslim organizations object to these here in the states and word rarely, if ever, reaches Muslims outside of the country).
My conversations with F. this past week have been very educational, and suggest to me that there is more to the story than what is reported in our media outlets (go figure). I also discovered an important difference between Shiite and Sunni culture in that depicting the Prophet (pbuh) is not as much of a taboo for Shiites as for Sunnis (as evidenced in the editorial contributed to Slate.com by Reza Aslan, “Depicting Muhammed” Wed. Feb. 8, 2006). This difference in belief is perhaps akin to the difference between different Christian sects on the use of [i]ikons[/i] in worship, and leads me to my next point about what I think our expectations ought to be with respect to assimilation.
Without question, the USA has set the gold standard for personal freedom. While there has been, historically, a disconnect between our rhetoric and custom regarding who has access to those freedoms, the prevailing definitions (including, apparently, those held by Bush43 with his intent to spread American-style democracy to the middle east) are inclusive of all humanity. Neo-conservatives want to define American culture as a monolithic structure that privileges European-derived ways of thinking, acting, creating, and relating. However, as late as the 1980’s, we’ve seen great waves of immigrants that have brought with them new ways of thinking, acting, creating, and relating. These non-European, syntagmatic cultures have been adopted into (suggesting at least partial transmission) American culture, not assimilated (suggesting obliteration) and have distinctly and significantly altered what it means to be American.
To say that Muslims need to adapt to “host” countries and assimilate means that they are somehow less permanent, less prominent, and less equal participants in the European countries that they have settled. I would argue that requiring Muslims to ditch their own culture instead of creatively weaving it into the fabric of their new home will be perceived as more of the same kind of oppression that fuels violent backlash.
P.S. I had a couple more points that didn’t fit well, but are pertinent. 1) F. stated that she recognized that violent reaction (even to oppression) perpetuates the stereotypes depicted in the cartoons; 2) that it is the responsibility of properly trained clerics to proactively educated Muslims and non-Muslims as a positive reaction to negative portrayal (CAIR is, in fact, doing this…see the latest press releases at cair-net.org), and; 3) “official” reprimand of terrorists, radIslamists, and the like are not able to be captured in sound-bytes for Western audiences and as such often are perceived as terrorist apology. It is considered a sin for a Muslim to say that another person (who claims to be Muslim) is not…it’s apparently an injunction that they take more seriously than do most Christians.
Peace!
JK
I think it is also interesting to attempt to understand what the purpose was of the Danish cartoonist. It’s well-known that European countries, for the most part, have not worked to integrate their increasing Muslim immigrant populations into the existing social, political, and economic fabric. I consider that more attributable to Europeans defining themselves more by shared cultural values that rest in a shared history than Americans do, who share cultural values of opportunity and other economic incentives much more so than religious or historical ones. Instead, many European countries have Muslim populations that live in ghettos and are not allowed to integrate into the predominant culture, which would involve sacrifice of aspects of Muslim culture. Such sacrifice (yes, obliteration) is necessary to preserve aspects of European culture, with its dwindling native population, than is necessary in the U.S. Where Europeans unite through shared history (you and yours were either there or you weren’t), we unite through shared ideals of freedom. There are worlds of difference in the ability of other cultures to be accepted in those two different environments.
I do not think that the violent demonstrations could be fairly interpreted to endorse the view of Islam that the cartoon was portraying – for that to be true, there would have to be widespread violent demonstrations across the Muslim world. However, these violent protests aren’t occurring in the UAE, or Kuwait, or Qatar, or Turkey, or even India, a country that has a huge Muslim population, and Jon K presents possible reasons why. Doesn’t such a reflexive assumption make Westerners guilty of trying to disparage an entire religion based on the actions of a few adherents of that religion? Why can we/do we not also engage in condemning such displays, and recognize that portraying M. in such a way may antagonize the much larger percentage of peaceful Muslims? I happen to believe in such an antiquated notion that standards of decency should be followed, and extremist displays invite extremist reactions (I’m not condoning them) particularly among oppressed groups being baited by their own governments.
It might be the greatest fear of certain Mid-East governments to see the West actually attempt to address those populations that live under their tyranny.
You've also got to realize the infowar aspect of this whole kerfuffle. The cartoons ran back in September of 2005. It wasn't until the Hajj when Danish imams took the 'toons and faked some others to the Islamic gathering and spread the anger in that concentrated environment. It was after that that we saw various imams take this back to their countries and spread the anger to all-too-willing and swayable crowds. Col. Austin Bay's done some good writing on this angle of the story and there are several aspects to this. There's the cultural disconnect, the information war being waged, the American and Western media's dhimmi-like attitude towards Islam, and the cowering attitudes EU nations are taking in the face of Islamist anger.
I am not in favor of coddling the enemy, but I am in favor of discovering who IS the enemy, and what groups are working in conjuction to exacerbate the problem and a violent agenda towards the West, so that they can be addressed without antagonizing or condoning hatred of peaceful people.
It may be that Islam is incompatible with western civilization, as Roger Kimball has written about in his article entitled "Why the West?" but I do not believe this current ruckus over the cartoons speaks to a clash between the Muslim world and the Western world. It says nothing about whether Western ideas of the individual and secularism are incompatible with Islam's "totalitarian ideology" to use Kimball's phrase. It's not reflective of anything other than manipulation by the imams who have an agenda, manipulation by oppressive Muslim regimes with the help of Arab media, manipulation by the Western media, and so on, as elgato mentioned (I apologize if I've taken your statements out of context, elgato).
clay, in my opinion, freedom is nothing when separated from both truth and responsibility. Is Mohammed's religion one of only suicide bombers? Were the cartoonists attempting to address such a question? Or did they deliberately mean to offend in that depiction? What do we gain from having an idea of freedom that is not only offensive to Muslims in what it produces, but is untenable as a foundation for our own civilization? This is no more a valid use of "freedom" than the Western press' frequent use of the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuses. Offending someone else's 'sensibilities' to use the genteel phrase, can only be condoned when truth and responsibility are also taken into account.
Post a Comment