 |
|
« "Help Wanted..." | Main | Quick Links » February 07, 2006
"Tolerance Towards Intolerance[?]"
Posted by Bill Thomas Kleine-Brockhoff, an employee of a German newspaper that republished the Mohommed cartoons, pens a column that doesn't directly contradict my position, though it causes me to carefully consider its distinctions: When the cartoons were first published in Denmark in September, nobody in Germany took notice. Had our publication been offered the drawings at that point, in all likelihood we would have declined to print them. At least one of them seems to equate Islam with radical Islamism. That is exactly the direction nobody wants the debate about fundamentalism to take -- even though the very nature of a political cartoon is overstatement. We would not have printed the caricature out of a sense of moderation and respect for the Muslim minority in our country. News people make judgments about taste all the time. We do not show sexually explicit pictures or body parts after a terrorist attack. We try to keep racism and anti-Semitism out of the paper. Freedom of the press comes with a responsibility. Indeed, context matters. Kleine-Brockhoff goes on: Much of the U.S. reporting about the fracas made it appear as if Europeans just don't get it -- again. They struggle with immigration. They struggle with religion. They struggle with respect for minorities. And in the end they find their cities burning, as evidenced in Paris. Bill Clinton even detected an "anti-Islamic prejudice" and equated it with a previous "anti-Semitic prejudice." I don't assume that Bill Clinton's position (if it echoes mine, and I don't know the full context) counsels "tolerance towards intolerance." It's true that much of the Western media, specifically the US media in this case, treats both repellant actors and Western audiences like children; assigning disproportionate respect to those who commit violence, when they happen to have the cover of a different culture. This destructive relativism deserves sound rejection. But at the same time, there's a point where our reaction to the actions of those grabbing easy headlines by burning and threatening falls into the trap of viewing an entire religion or people as a monolithic evil. This arbitrary line, where appropriate revulsion for terrible acts, upholding the concept of free speech and a practical evaluation of the Islamic world's systemic problems morphs or extends into easy bigotry, is murky and sometimes difficult to spot. But it's happening. And my very specific point is this: to the extent that this line is enthusiastically crossed - especially among a right-wing pundit class that's politically fueling the altruistic and strategic portions of our foreign policy in the war on terror - we're undermining ourselves, and the job of those fighting for us. UPDATE: Rick Moran voices similar thoughts. Posted by Bill at February 7, 2006 08:02 AM | TrackBack (2) Trackback PingsTrackBack URL for this entry: CommentsStop stealing my thoughts, you bastard! Part of the problem is that your position seems to be considered by some as 'nuanced' in a time and on a subject where 'nuance' is a BAD thing. Of course, my interpretation of your views leads me to conclude that they are not 'nuanced' inasmuch as they make a fine distinction. Rather the perception of 'nuance' is a group-think mentality. You are either for us or against us. It is very easy for good people to fall into this group think. I am not trying to be glib about this, nor am I casting aspertions on the motives or on the intelligence of the individuals who do not see your point. Posted by: Kav at February 7, 2006 10:46 AM Come back Hubris, Puncture the pomposity of the punditry to reveal their righteousness for what it is: mistaken. Posted by: Kav at February 7, 2006 10:49 AM You're absolutely right. What's more, we're spending assloads of money and even the lives of our soldiers to make certain it is understood that we get the distinction. I'm not saying all that hoped-for goodwill gets undone by some inflammatory posts from attention-seeking bloggers, but to what purpose? The only minds that'll change, the only persuasion being done here is hardening the mindset of those who want to believe there's nothing to gain at this point by understanding Americans. Everybody else piles on for laughs and to reinforce stereotypes. Posted by: spongeworthy at February 7, 2006 10:50 AM Kav - It's all about binary thinking. Posted by: Bill from INDC at February 7, 2006 10:57 AM ...to the extent that this line is enthusiastically crossed - especially among a right-wing pundit class that's politically fueling the altruistic and strategic portions of our foreign policy in the war on terror - we're undermining ourselves, and the job of those fighting for us.
Posted by: Rick Moran at February 7, 2006 11:01 AM Right on. I haven't watched 24-hour cable news for several years, but I've tuned in to the coverage of the 'cartoon controversy' as CNNi puts it. Man, talk about insulting their viewers' intelligence -- they are blurring out the offensive cartoons, but proudly showing pictures of rioting mobs, lingering on the shots of their threatening signs. I don't understand it, myself -- it seems like the cartoons are offensive in exactly the same way as these shots are. They're oversimplified and imply that all Muslims are violent extremists. If you refuse to show the cartoons then it only stands to reason that you should refuse to show the mobs as well. Although it seems that CNN does not think much of their viewers' analytical capabilities, so I suspect they are trying to draw us a map. Especially disturbing is the lack of any coverage at all of context to the riots. Simply repetition of the phrase 'cartoons' over and over, with no interpretation of the fact that there were no riots in the 4 months after the cartoons saw publication. Once the newscaster said 'there may be local politics at work here,' but did not elaborate. Posted by: neil at February 7, 2006 11:36 AM I detect a great similarity between the tolerance required to deal with the followers of Islam and the nature of bi-partisanship as exercised by members of the Democratic party. Posted by: Neo at February 7, 2006 01:05 PM The cartoons aren't even the point now, so I would say that displaying them —even proudly and defiantly— is indeed distinct from any endorsement of their crude message. The debate now has come down to the extent to which we will prostrate our most sacred freedoms before a medieval totalitarianism that seeks to dominate the world, but cannot even take on tiny Israel, and thus settles for acting childish and petulant. Like any spoiled toddler, the Muslim world has become accustomed to the fact that if they scream, throw a fit, and threaten violence, they will extort concession after concession out of a West that no longer finds it values worth defending. Just wait, two years from now BBC reporters will be forced to say "peace be upon him" whenever they mention Muhammad. Posted by: Jason at February 7, 2006 03:22 PM This has been an interesting discussion. One point: How many Muslims are rioting/burning things in Europe or the States? If the response on the Arab street is supposed to be emblematic of the unsalvagability of Islam, why does the level of violence seem to be (negatively) correlated with democratic institutions? As the French learned last year, it certainly isn't out of fear of European rule of law. Posted by: moebius at February 7, 2006 09:21 PM buy valium ViaValT8898111-01-01-22 Posted by: valium at June 15, 2006 07:29 PM We recommend you to visit excellent books site. qY0ptan0x Posted by: books at July 15, 2006 01:53 AM We recommend you to visit excellent daddy yankee site. qY0ptan0x Posted by: daddy yankee at July 15, 2006 02:25 PM We recommend you to visit excellent free email site. qY0ptan0x Posted by: free email at July 16, 2006 02:53 AM |
