At the moment, the most salient front of conflict is the Mohammed cartoon issue. Some Muslims seem to think that THEY get to decide what kind of cartoons Americans get draw - on pain of intimidation and death. Putting it mildly, this is obviously utterly unacceptable. However, it is having the practical effect right now, already. An American university press publishing a book on the Danish Mohammed cartoon controversy dare not include the actual cartoons. Comedy Central is grotesquely and stupidly censoring South Park. But then, you can't entirely blame them. People could get killed.
But of course there's going to be pushback from the public. The most obviously direct and mildest, utterly non-coercive form is that a goodly number of individuals are just constitutionally going to insist on publishing various kinds of Mohammed caricatures. There was recently a great deal of grief over having a "Draw a Picture of Mohammed Day." The usual death threats and what not, however will not dissuade everyone.
For my part, I commissioned this pair of original drawings to depict the relationship between the prophet Mohammed and his six year old wife Aysha. I wrote A LITTLE ARTICLE to go with them, and of course commercial button, magnet and keychain versions of the groovy caricatures.
However, in the interest of being fair and balanced like Fox News, some nice Americans like Ann Althouse don't think the likes of me ought not be doing the likes of that.
I have endless contempt for the threats/warnings against various cartoonists who draw Muhammad (or a man in a bear suit who might be Muhammad, but is actually Santa Claus). But depictions of Muhammad offend millions of Muslims who are no part of the violent threats. In pushing back some people, you also hurt a lot of people who aren't doing anything (other than protecting their own interests by declining to pressure the extremists who are hurting the reputation of their religion).
I don't like the in-your-face message that we don't care about what other people hold sacred. Back in the days of the "Piss Christ" controversy, I wouldn't have supported an "Everybody Dunk a Crucifix in a Jar of Urine Day" to protest censorship. Dunking a crucifix in a jar of urine is something I have a perfect right to do, but it would gratuitously hurt many Christian bystanders to the controversy. I think opposing violence (and censorship) can be done in much better ways...
People need to learn to deal with getting mad when they hear or see speech that enrages them, even when it is intended to enrage them. But how are we outsiders to the artwork supposed to contribute to the process of their learning how to deal with free expression? I don't think it is by gratuitously piling on outrageous expression, because it doesn't show enough respect and care for the people who are trying to tolerate the expression that outrages them.
Dear Miss Althouse - I appreciate your genteel nature, but this is absolutely not a moment where Miss Manners should have top say. Sonsabitches are threatening us with death for sitting in our homes in America making cartoons they don't approve of. If their cousins and neighbors just get their FEELINGS hurt, then they should count themselves fortunate in the context.
This situation is NOTHING like the stupid Piss Christ nonsense. For starters, no one was putting out a fatwa on the "artist" involved. The only real public controversy was that some Christians understandably did not appreciate their tax money being used to sponsor this in any way. Also, the Piss Christ was not in any way an artistic statement. It was merely desecration of an icon. Any moron could go #1 or #2 even on any religious icon, to up the ante on such a thing. Nice Christians writing disapproving letters to the editor would not suggest the need for being smacked back at.
How are we outsiders supposed to contribute to the process of their learning how to deal with free expression? It would seem to start with giving them some free expression to learn to tolerate. This expression from civilization to these barbarians is NOT gratuitous - nor would most of this qualify as "outrageous" under any reasonable standard. Desecrating a crucifix with human waste to smack at people who aren't doing anything to you is gratuitous outrage. Writing articles and making cartoons criticizing the prophet Mohammed's questionable behavior and teachings from their holy book - and the violent modern fruits of that - is NOT gratuitous outrage.
Plus, there's all this stuff about how Mohammed cartoons "hurt" innocent people. Leapin' Allah Playing Leapfrog With Alysha, but grow up. You think you just get to claim that your itty feelings are hurt over absolutely any thing you arbitrarily decide you don't like? Well yeah, you do - but you HAVE to understand and totally accept that this does not in the least imply that I have some duty to not do anything just because you decide that it will hurt your feelings. I've got more important things to worry about.
I was real interested in one particular statement in Miss Althouse's piece, "In pushing back some people, you also hurt a lot of people who aren't doing anything (other than protecting their own interests by declining to pressure the extremists who are hurting the reputation of their religion)."
Ah, now that right there is the nub of a lot of the problem. Perhaps those people need to be persuaded to change their calculations about what exactly would constitute "protecting their own interests." Muslims need to start worrying themselves a little bit more that not provoking or hurting US is more important to their interest (never mind their proper moral obligation) than appeasing their radical brethren - or positively helping them by knowing inaction.
They need to deal with this stuff in house, if they're mostly all so innocent as is claimed. If they don't, and one or two of these idiots manage to actually set off their car bombs or such, there will inevitably be some awful payback far worse than a handful of cartoons. US fumbling Americans can't know your culture and your people well enough to deal with this other than somewhat ham handedly. It's not our culture.
Unlike when the Japanese were so wickedly and unnecessarily interred during World War II, we really DO have a Fifth Column today within the Muslim community. You simply cannot plausibly deny it.
Considering the stakes, hurting people's arbitrarily defined little feelings is somewhere near the bottom of my list of concerns. If some Mohammed cartoons start to give the Muslim community in the US and abroad the idea that the temperature is dropping, then that is good information that they need to be getting.
Cartoons and criticism, including mockery and derision toward their religion is but the least of what will descend on the Muslim community when a couple of these attacks actually succeed.
It is important that the Muslim community get this in fact still mostly fairly respectful and high minded criticism and take from it the chilly temperature. Not to be flippant or belligerent, but Muslims need to get that they're really pushing their luck. Withholding this criticism now would be exactly the wrong message, and unfair to them to just not give them a clue until something really bad happens and they say "Why didn't you warn us?"
A couple of successful jihadist attacks in the US, and the Muslim community will have a lot worse to worry about than some totally harmless cartoons. This is regardless of what any blogger says, and won't necessarily even be significantly motivated by anger or vengeance. However nice we may wish to be, at some point self-preservation is going to put us in the position of truly and not just by words hurting however many of their people is necessary to stop this sedition and violence. It's important and only fair that we communicate some boundaries and warnings - starting with some gentle cartoons.
No comments:
Post a Comment