Webster defines "pornography" as creative activity of no literary or artistic value other than to stimulate sexual desire. What do you call "political satire" devoid of any constructive or meaningful message other than mocking provocation? Such content shouldn't be outlawed, but it should be given a similarly unsavory label to make people think twice (or at least recognize the social ramifications) before perusing or peddling in it. Fox News, Halliburton, and Wal-Mart are not illegal entities (though they do break laws and ethical standards at times), but they have a stigma associated with them that compromises their business somewhat. Similarly, cartoonists and journalists should pay a social price for their tasteless yet legal handiwork. We are all responsible for making sure our democracy and free market work as they were intended. We need to be diligent and careful, otherwise the system malfunctions. Then we end up celebrating our freedoms and fighting for our values by making a farce of them.
Self-serving journalists and conservatives are rallying to the support of the European press under fire, and some publications even reprinted the inflammatory images as a show of solidarity. Of course a number of people in the press claim that they are defending our values. But no one likes to see their livelihood in jeopardy, including journalists. I'm not saying that all of them think this way and are purely self-absorbed, but various retail corporations squash labor unions, politicians and lobbyists resist campaign finance reform, medical researchers dispute stem cell restrictions, and media affiliates naturally oppose external censorship. People don't like obstructions to their professional success. But are they willing to insult a worldwide religion, upset millions, and put innocents at risk, just to prove a point and protect the business?
The EPA hounds industry, the FDA watches pharmaceutical companies, and the SEC scrutinizes the stock markets (in theory). Apart from the threat of various lawsuits and fairly toothless government bodies (FCC, MPAA, etc.), speech is unregulated in the USA – as it should be. But we don't really have "free speech" in America, the Middle East, or anywhere else in the world (and it will never truly exist) because we regulate ourselves – again, as it should be. Corporations (including media corporations) won't produce material that will lose them money. Politicians won't say things that will cost them net votes. People in public won't behave in socially unacceptable ways, in general. Occasionally, individuals take a stand despite overwhelming disapproval and whatnot, because they believe that their message is worth the cost. But cost to whom? The Danish press and others made their point, but it benefited no one, and other people suffered who weren't even involved. No one asked the Danes to do this, maybe apart from a few anti-Muslims circles. No one asked for their help to reform the Muslim world and address Europe's immigrant tensions in the form of disrespectful cartoons. On the other hand, the people of Darfur are crying out for international involvement that the press often ignores. I suppose racy, stirring content sells, and other content is uninteresting or a downer. But let's be clear that the staff of Jyllands-Posten isn't heroic like Woodward and Bernstein in righting a wrong or fighting for civil liberties under siege. They did it of their own free will and probably cognizant of the risks, in order to focus on an issue that they instigated and exaggerated. That is pretty irresponsible to me, and betrays the very nature of the free press and journalistic ethos.
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0713-06.htm
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?040830fa_fact1
http://www.hrc.utexas.edu/exhibitions/online/woodstein/
Supposedly, our love of freedom is stronger than intimidation of censorship and external backlash from fear-mongering "Islamofascists". The causes and repercussions of violence, ignorance, and protest in Islamic societies is a very valid and pertinent topic of debate/research. Discussions relating to the life of Mohammad are almost as ubiquitous and controversial to religious scholars as his Christian counterpart Jesus. Most journalists attended university, so they should be able to distinguish between productive discourse and petty lampooning. One is more valuable than the other in most situations. If you want to make a statement about Jihad or Mohammad or anything, there are dignified, educated, and USEFUL ways of doing so. Conduct some inquiries and do your homework, interview and take polls, analyze and form intelligent conclusions. Satirize all you want if it helps enlighten your audience. The press should know this already, and they probably do; but I guess it's easier for some people to merely attack, sensationalize, and caricature what they don't understand or accept. I value and defend freedom of expression (heck, I'm practicing it with y'all every week), but I won't support an idiotic, rabble-rousing stunt that doesn't edify, doesn't help anyone, and makes peaceful understanding all the more difficult.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ucac/20060209/cm_ucac/calvinandhobbesandmuhammad
I don't think European-American media and governments have behaved as good ambassadors of Western values and freedoms, in general and especially during this fiasco. We're not setting a good example, and we're not helping the efforts of reformist Muslims, nor convincing their hesitant compatriots under repressive regimes, harboring radical beliefs, or with little access to alternative viewpoints. We assure them that no "Clash of Civilizations" à la Samuel Huntington really exists, and we do want to make their lives better. Yet we have a shaky record in cultural tolerance and mutual understanding. The fact that the reasonable Muslim masses have chosen to support religious extremists over their pro-Western rivals time and time again is a sad testament to our failings. And still today, it seems that we haven't learned from our mistakes. It's hard to build trust and persuade foreign peoples to embrace an unfamiliar concept like free speech, especially when they witness us using that freedom to satirize and gravely insult the standard-bearer of their religion.
http://www.historyorb.com/world/clashofcivilizations.shtml
http://www.georgetown.edu/faculty/irvinem/CCT510/Sources/Huntington-ClashofCivilizations-1993.html
I can understand why moderate, reformist Muslims are really frustrated. They have the precarious duty to bridge the gap between hostile worlds, they have no trustworthy allies, and yet they must denounce and answer for bad behavior on both sides. Basically, they are the divorce court delegated to broker a fair outcome among bitter adversaries with a rocky past. But when things fall apart, they're blamed for not doing a better job. They are sandwiched in between the extremist, militant, and ignorant wing of their faith and their Western partners who much too often stab them in the back when they should be helping. The former may alienate them as phony Muslims and Infidel sympathizers, and the latter has trouble distinguishing them from the radicals (or doesn't bother to try). The West claims to desire to work hand-in-hand with them to improve human rights, oppose fundamentalist Islam, and promote democracy in the Muslim world, yet sometimes we don't show up. In addition, Western regimes often think of their own political survival, and may abandon progressive Muslims in preference of corrupt oil despots. Our inflammatory, insensitive actions have made their difficult job all the more challenging.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/london/4700482.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/london/4705342.stm
However, if some Muslims are tired of being labeled as violent terrorists by the West, then maybe they shouldn't freak out and destroy things every time a controversy breaks. They have the universal right to defend their dignity, culture, and all else they hold dear. But how they go about such defense is a more complicated affair. The different codes of law in different nations permit various forms of defense, protest, and justice. Of course certain people take matters into their own hands and forge their own solution. Actions deemed acceptable, heroic, or criminal are constantly varying with time and place. History and posterity can judge the merits of each decision, depending on who remembers and who writes history. Rosa Parks refused to give up her bus seat in defiance of the status quo, Black September felt that taking Jewish athletes hostage would advance Palestinian liberation, Greenpeace advocates chained themselves to old-growth trees despite pepper spray attacks from the police, the Bush Administration persuaded the country that we needed to invade Iraq to prevent another 9/11, and some newspapers reprinted the Mohammad cartoons despite Muslim condemnation. The diversity of such defensive actions mirrors the diversity of human life. But good defense need not involve the hurting of others.
How do Muslims defend Islam? It's the billion-dollar question. If the goal is peaceful coexistence and acceptance with the Judeo-Christian West (if they trust us to honor our part of the bargain), then violent reactions do more harm than good. They only reinforce the "angry, barbaric Muslim" stereotype in the West that contributes to xenophobia, distrust, and aggression. We're even less willing to make concessions to Muslim states if they behave in ways we find deplorable. If fundamentalists like Osama label the West as the unremitting enemy of Islam, then their followers must resist by any means necessary, including the vile yet effective practice of suicide bombing. Therefore, we shouldn't act the part either, validating Al Qaeda's intolerance and giving them a reason to hate and attack us. The more military presence we pour into the Middle East, and the more threats our leaders make on camera, the more Muslims will be edgy and oversensitive. Conversely, if some Westerners think that Islam is incompatible, if not outright antagonistic, with our way of life, they choose to fight back as well. Preemptive doctrine was established in the National Security Strategy because the Bush Administration felt that we must destroy terrorists and unfriendly regimes before they do the same to us. The president recently stated that intelligence groups had thwarted at least ten major attacks on Western soft targets. That is delightful news, but we will be hard pressed to maintain such a stellar security record if we plan to continue the preemptive doctrine.
Unfortunately, it's a slippery slope with mutual distrust and hostility. People retaliate by hurting innocents who had nothing to do with the original insult or crime. Ignorant persons may victimize whomever is available and resembling their perceived enemy. During World War II, the US government decided to imprison and dispossess Japanese-Americans on the West Coast who had nothing to do with Pearl Harbor, yet did nothing to ethnic Japanese in Hawaii because they were essential to the territory's economy. Among many such incidents in the 1980's, laid-off autoworkers in Detroit beat a Chinese-American to death because he resembled the Japanese that were out-competing US auto companies. Post-9/11 hysteria generated assaults on Sikh-Indian-Americans, because their tradition headwear fit the generic Middle Eastern stereotype. And now, Vandals defaced Muslim graves in Denmark after the overseas embassy attacks and flag burnings.
http://www.infoplease.com/spot/internment1.html
http://us_asians.tripod.com/articles-vincentchin.html
http://gbgm-umc.org/umw/legislative/hatecrimes.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4708312.stm
So obviously, Ann Coulter and others are wrong if they think that vengeful extremists only come in dark-skinned, Allah-praising form. But how do we stop angry people from striking out against innocents? I think it starts with honest leadership, which can be in short supply during conflict times. Governments and executives need to spread awareness, fess up to their involvement in the problem, and make a plea, or better yet, a mandate for temperance. For example, former General Motors Chairman Roger Smith should have cut the excuses and reminded people that it was his decision to lay off thousands of employees to increase profits. Bush and his supporters have done a poor job in assuaging anti-Arab/Muslim sentiments and activities in this country. Token condemnations of hate speech won't do. Leaders have to communicate and people have to realize that it's unpatriotic, unbecoming, and terribly ignorant (not to mention unlawful) to abuse people as some did after 9/11, or destroy property as others did in the wake of the cartoon outrage. Vengeance and hate crimes must be punished to the fullest extent of the law, not merely downplayed or swept under the rug. This also applies to misconduct by our intelligence and military forces abroad. But I know of no regime or leader that would sacrifice eminence and accept blame just to protect some minorities or foreign nationals from harm.
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/B8A7432E-F762-4287-9DA4-30D354FC23B4.htm
http://www.amperspective.com/html/the_fbi_witch_hunt.html
Surely Islam is not aiding its cause when some of its followers overreact with counter-productive vengeance, even to such terrible and unnecessary humiliation from the Mohammad cartoons. Justice is vital to many people, and it can either be earned through dignified behavior or imposed by force. As we have seen during the World War periods, only one type of justice is genuine and lasting. Proper justice must be consensual from all parties involved, which makes it very difficult to achieve, especially when adversaries continue to be hostile, small-minded, and distrustful. The West has wronged the Muslim world time and time again, and sometimes their radical fringe has sought justice by responding to the West with more wrongdoing. Some hardliners would argue that Islamist intolerance and violence is unprovoked and inexcusable under all circumstances. This may be true, but does that justify our aggressive retaliation in turn? From a cynical perspective, why should they respect and accept our values when we don't seem to respect and accept theirs? Why should they shun violence and practice tolerance when we don't seem to either? Conversely, why should we give them the benefit of the doubt when all we hear from the Middle East are riots, human rights abuses, and bloodshed? Why should we embrace Islam when many of its followers do disservice to the faith? Obviously, we need to look past these incompatible typecasts and engage in real discussion. Ideology and stereotypes aside, what do Westerners want, and what do Muslims want? I think we'll be surprised how much we have in common, and how much of the conflict is just political muckraking between rival ideologues.
As we all know, "an eye for an eye" makes the world go blind. Unfortunately, many of us have not realized the blind folly of our actions and prejudices. Sometimes conservative elements in the West and the fundamentalist Muslim world act like two blind men flailing in a fistfight (I hope they do not draw the mainstream into the fray as well). They can't knock each other out, but still swing away (via words, bombs, oil, sanctions, etc.). With each punch that doesn't connect, they get more and more frustrated and angry. Yet with every miss, innocent bystanders have the chance to be hurt instead. In turn they get pissed off too, and maybe take sides against the person who hit them. This is not the way to conduct diplomacy and cultural outreach.
Regardless of who is our real enemy, we should try to ascertain how we can prevent such an enemy from hurting us, with the minimum sacrifice possible on our part. This is equally valid from the Muslim world's perspective. It makes no sense to become vengeful, harsh, and violent if it only serves to strengthen your enemy's resolve to oppose and defeat you. This is what the USA and other nations didn't understand in previous conflicts in Algeria, Vietnam, Palestine, and Afghanistan, and what we still haven't figured out in Iraq and the larger War on Terror. The terrorists responsible for 9/11 also maddened a sleeping giant and put the entire Middle East in the crosshairs. Scores of Muslims have suffered and died because of what they did and the anticipated American countermeasures – how does that glorify Allah and defeat the "Great Satan"? However, the overly aggressive US response has played into their hands in Iraq, as our military forces have bogged down battling another elusive, zealous insurgency and our diplomatic credibility has greatly waned. And let us remember what Abraham Lincoln said: "I destroy my enemies when I make them my friends." Violent reprisal is not the only response at our disposal for dealing with hostile forces, and may render both Muslims and Westerners less safe in the end.
Those with cooler heads and enlightened sensibilities should try to persuade their fellow Muslims that angry retaliation erodes sympathy and turns people off from their argument. They don't want to behave like imperialistic Yankees, do they? We don't want to sink down to the level of Islamist militants, do we? Nonviolent resistance is a very daunting task that involves much personal risk, but it's probably vital. I am sure that MLK, Nelson Mandela, Mahatma Gandhi, the Dalai Lama, and their followers wanted to ring the necks of their American, Apartheid, British, and Chinese oppressors on many occasions. But they knew that such moves would betray their core beliefs, play into their opponents' hands, and forfeit the moral high ground that they needed to garner widespread protest and achieve victory. I know that we moderates and progressives in the West are asking a lot of Muslim reformers. Maybe we're asking too much and not doing enough to help them. But if moderate Muslims do believe in their movement, they must find a way to persuade the mainstream to shun the extremists, calm down, and pursue peaceful alternatives. Imagine the worldwide shockwaves of a billion Muslims united in a peaceful "for shame" protest of the cartoons and Western racism/ignorance. Jyllands-Posten and their supporters would be up a creek. Imagine the impact of the USA and her allies withdrawing soldiers and aid from repressive Middle Eastern regimes after 9/11. Extremists like Al Qaeda would have much less traction with everyday Muslims. Americans strongly believe in self-empowerment. If we want change, understanding, and peace, we can start by practicing it.
No comments:
Post a Comment