From Kesher Talk contributor "Ben."
As the cartoon story fades away, I find myself thinking of the consequences. More than a few veils have been stripped away, and not all of them have to do with the West vs Islam civilization clash.
For instance, the concept of bravery as it pertains to the arts is now redefined.
Courage, when considered of an artist, can mean one of several things, but it is the sense of risk that defines it.
It can mean a willingness to try what has not been done before. A chef may display courage, and risks the possibility that diners may gag on some brave new creation.
It can mean a willingness to risk the sacrifice of one's own career, like a pop musician being drawn to some other genre of music.
But it can no longer mean merely being offensive, engaging in political or social mockery, save in the case of a few certain targets, because now we all know where the risk is.
There is no risk in mocking politicians, now matter how intensively the abuse is served. There is no risk in mocking any establishements of American or Western culture- no harm will ensue. Performing the "Vagina Monologues" isn't an act of bravery, unless one does it in Saudi Arabia, perhaps. Every artist alive today now knows the limits: you can do this, which is as brave as taunting a stuffed teddy bear, or you can do that, which amounts to taunting a very hungry very uncaged bear.
Bravery, to an artist, is now an all or nothing thing. Leave the repressive regimes alone, and all your efforts, no matter how avante garde, provocative, or just plain offensive your work is, and you are just pretending at courage. Cross the line and say something about Islam, and your life is one the line.
All the gray areas have vanished in a week. It's as if mountaineers were to suddenly be faced with only two choices: Everest, or the plastic rock climbing wall. Long after this dies in the news, its going to echo in the heads of every writer, poet, standup comedian and performance artist- go after any target but the big one, and you're only faking it, playing it safe. It doesn't matter whether they admit it or not, whether they rewrite their material or not, it will be there, in their minds, and it will affect things. Even Margaret Cho knows she can curse Bush all she wants, but she'd better keep her mouth shut about you-know-who if whe doesn't want to bleed to death in the street. Speaking Truth to Power is only a heroic act if Power chooses to make an issue of it.
I have this rather demonic thought that if I were the Emcee of a comedy club, I'd make the situation plain as can be and start the evening with a warning: "We certainly don't want to see anyone hurt, or worse, so please, comedians, you are forbidden by the management from saying anything offensive about Islam. - well, umm, no, Sarah, a release form won't do it - But all other topics are okay."
I thought that would be the case after Salman Rushdie but nothing changed. What do you think?Ben:
I think there is a big difference- this time, the threat and warnings are not directed against an individual, but a civilization and everyone on it, very clearly. This is nothing less than an order given out to the artistic world of the west: You are hereby ordered not to mock us- and we have the power to enforce this ruling.
Sir, your comment is the most clarifying statement I have read to date. The cartoon war is not about religious respect. Moslems tell far worse jokes about their 'prophets' than any cartoon the West could produce. No, this is about an experiment in affecting the Western way of life. And much of the West is caving out of fear. Well, so much for the brave artistic Left and its more literate and refined leadership. The Left and its elite 'art community' would never dare to challenge the acts of one of their own, let alone some as dangerous as exteme Islam. The elite artistic Left only insults those who will never come after them. Creating a vision of a 'fearful the new theocracy' in Washington hardly establishes a realistic danger. You can't make up a fake danger and expect that we will see someone opposing such a fantasy as an act of bravery. Bravery is facing real danger, something that not only can kill you but may well actually follow through and cut your throat. The art community once again looks like a mere paper tiger in the broad arena of life. But never fear, my creative friends, the brave men and women from the backward Red State world will be standing close by to cover your 'brave' little behinds as you stand up to yet another 'dangerous' elected official in Washington.
Noticably missing from this debate are those that normally glory in 'speaking truth to power'.
From now on, 'speaking truth to power' only counts as brave if the person you are speaking to is willing to destroy you for it.
I agree with what Ben said, although I don't have any expectation that our artists will rise to the challenge. If they don't, of course, I won't be disappointed, because artists haven't been very important in the West for some time now, not in the sense of moving us forward, helping us escape our burdens, showing us that we are part of a larger world. As Glenn Reynolds has said (I'm paraphrasing here but fairly, I think), geeks with pencil holders in their pockets have done more to change the world than all the artists and political activists and anarchists and ngo hangers on combined. So the issue isn't really, what will artists do now? Who cares? The issues are, what will ordinary people do now? And what will the geeks do?.
OMG that's funny. I am immediately emailing it to everyone I know. Anyone have access to any jihad forums? Please post it there. Also to DU and Indymedia . . .
Why are you putting all the onus on artists alone? The American State Department has been horribly namby-pamby, too, and I'm reading that some companies in France are also pulling Danish items off their shelves and joining the Muslim boycott.
Mr. Bush should have immediately gone on a prime-time news conference broadcast, and said, "Hell, NO, we won't back down, and hell, YES, we'll support the Danes, and the Swedes, and the Norwegians and anyone else who values freedom of speech. America will throw the full weight of our economy and our military behind this issue, and if you want to riot in the streets and kill someone, you'd better keep those activities in your own lands. Because we don't behave that way here in the West."
I can't believe that our State Department grovelled, which made it so much easier for CNN, CBS, and the NY Times to follow their lead.
I’m a cartoonist myself and times are indeed a'changin'. The comments in the lead post hit the nail on the head. Fear is now part of the game, and yeah courage.
I don't know if those who are so magnanimous and concerned about the sensitivities of Muslims re this particular issue have ever actually lived in an Islamic country. I spent the greater part of my school years in one such country (N. Nigeria), and "blasphemies" directed toward the person of the prophet were not treated as mere infractions or artistic excesses. Muslim citizens do indeed suffer severe punishments for such "crimes" in those jurisdictions where Sharia law is practiced without deference to human rights concerns.
It is however one thing to subject the citizens of a Taliban-like state to the draconian rigors of Islamic justice, and quite another to attempt to export the same climate of threat and intimidation to Western countries under the guise of "righteous offence". In doing this, Islamic radicals seek to use our multi-cultural PC sensitivities against us and if that doesn't work there are always death threats and other types of intimidation.
There is nothing innocent about any of this; these taboos are deliberately evoked and used as a weapon to intimidate and silence.
Ironically (given that the issue of artistic rendering is central to this clash), there are quite a number of Islamic miniatures that portray a likeness of the prophet. Such representations are by no means unheard of.
This particular cartoon incident has been deliberately exploited as a political strategy in the struggle with the secular world. It is really only an early skirmish; the clash of values has just begun and those in the West who are already caving in and resorting to mealy mouthed rationales, simply don't get it.
It's not about being polite about the other guy's religion. Sure, if the other guy happens to be a mild mannered Buddhist, or any other believer whose religion is not being employed as an ideological weapon, I would agree that we should avoid giving unnecessary offence.
In the case of harder edged Islamic chauvinism with its characteristic insolence, it is naive to simply take the view that "we shouldn't offend". Excuse me - but when a Mullah in Iran issues a Fatwah on a Western based author, Rushdie, calling for his murder in a Western jurisdiction we know that it is about a hell of a lot more than wounded religious sensibilities. When a Dutch film maker, Theo Van Gogh, is slaughtered in the street for the crime of exposing injustices experienced by Islamic women, its not merely about offended male pride. When the Canadian refusnik Irshad Manji, has her life threatened for speaking about problems in her own religion, Islam, its not merely about offended orthodoxy. The impulse central to these protests is all about control and silencing any with the temerity to cross lines that have been have drawn for us, without even an attempt at polite consultation.
To simply say "we must not offend" is to be shockingly blind about what is actually going on here. Recently English Muslims were polled on the question of Sharia law, and close to 60% responded that they would like to see provisions from Sharia become a part of the English judicial system.
This is a very real fight, and those who blithely assume that we can afford to bend over backwards because our rights and freedoms in the West are immutable - or worse still - who argue for sub-clauses that designate "Muslim offence concerns" no-go areas, are in the business of selling out the very essence of what it means to be a free society.
I tip my hat to all those courageous editors in Europe - now also in the States and Canada - with the guts to do the right thing by publishing these cartoons.
The following comments are from a recent column by the Muslim refusnik Irshad Manji ...
"Muslims have little integrity demanding respect for our faith if they don't show it for others. When have we demonstrated against Saudi Arabia's policy to prevent Christians and Jews from stepping on the soil of Mecca? They may come for rare business trips, but nothing more. As long as Rome welcomes non-Christians and Jerusalem embraces non-Jews, we Muslims have more to protest than cartoons.
None of this is to dismiss the need to take my religion seriously. Hell, Muslims even take seriously the need to be serious: Islam has a teaching against "excessive laughter." I'm not joking. But does this mean that we should cry "blasphemy" over less-than-flattering depictions of the Prophet Muhammad? God no.
For one thing, the Koran itself points out that there will always be non-believers, and that it's for Allah, not Muslims, to deal with them. More than that, the Koran says there is "no compulsion in religion." Which suggests that nobody should be forced to treat Islamic norms as sacred.
Fine, many Muslims will retort, but we're talking about the Prophet Muhammad - Allah's final and therefore perfect messenger. However, Islamic tradition holds that the Prophet was a human being who made mistakes. It's precisely because he wasn't perfect that we know of the so-called Satanic Verses: a collection of passages that the Prophet reportedly included in the Koran. Only later did he realize that those verses glorified heathen idols rather than God. According to Islamic legend, he retracted the idolatrous passages, blaming them on a trick played by Satan.
When Muslims put the Prophet on a pedestal, we're engaging in idolatry of our own. The point of monotheism is to worship one God, not one of God's emissaries. Which is why humility requires people of faith to mock themselves - and each other - every once in a while."
When a culturo-military entity as vast and powerful as the US takes up a challenge, however seemingly trivial, the consequences are equally vast and powerful. Bush cannot just show a stiff chin to the cartoon challenge as quickly or as easily as many westerners would like.
The move, calling upon all US publishers to show western resolve and publish the cartoons, could and would be twisted by Muslims into a global effort by the West at anti Islamic mockery and supression. Fraudulant fantasies played and/or provoked on such a large scale can have unpredictable results -- all the more so with the Iran nuke question presently in high profile mode.
I think a certain parallel can be made with Bush's present passivity and Reagan's retreat in the aftermath of the Beirut bombing of the marine barracks in the eighties. Reagan had the Russians and Afganistan to think about. Bush has the Iranian Mullas.
Whether or not this justifies the State Dept's depraved, over-eager groveling in the face of the cartoon issue is another question.......
This was wonderfully put; thank you for posting it.
Since 9/11 western artists have indulged in cost-free criticism of the west/Bush et al, to a fare-ye-well and boy, has it ever gotten boring; now, thanks to the great cartoon upheaval, they know, we know, what the price of the new ticket is. Cowardice now has a big new name and face: it is You, editor, writer, actor, artist, mixed-media charlatan.
"Whether or not this justifies the State Dept's depraved, over-eager groveling in the face of the cartoon issue is another question....... "
From what I've seen that is always their job. Powell was supposed to toughen up the massive bureaucracy, and now after his failure, it's Condi's turn.
I suppose one can credit Porter Goss for actually doing something at the CIA, since we keep getting left press whines about another CIA person quitting or being removed. I don't appreciate the loss of experience, but it seems to me State is in as bad or worse a need of purging. Stangely, State provides some of the cover for CIA ops. Maybe the State Department should vocally stay wishy washy, and privately put the hammer down.
Now as far as putting the tiny hammer down here, I recall a college class on the religions of man. I will never forget the Priests strange reaction when we got to the chapter of Islam. It was telling indeed. This was well over a decade ago. Now I know what bothered him so much.
My belief now is Mohammed was an epileptic vagrant gold digging bandit pedophile. I don't believe he rose up at the black rock, and the dummies over there ought to stop killing eachother with rocks as they stand around that other "devil pole" hurling stones at it in a big circle.
If they aren't "accidentally" stoning eachother or trampling eachother to death, their religion provides many more public attendable opportunities. If it's short on that, dicing themselves with knives and bleeding all over the place seems to be another favorite pasttime.
Talk about a religion with a need for major reforms and upgrades, that is definitely one of them.
This obviously puts these Mohammed bandit followers in a bind.
I support anyone who prints, reprints, or massively sky-drops any of these or any other cartoons or pamphlets or anything on the internet or anything of the like into "Islamic" areas.
The more, the better, get it done already. Time to let the dome start cracking. Don't stop the process till a rebuild is needed.
I do not believe anything less will get the effect needed not only for the West, but especially for the poor people whom have to live under that crap every day of their lives.
An enemy is an enemy until proven otherwise. If it walks like an enemy, talks like an enemy and shoots back see rule 1.
Kept a goodly number of US serviemen alive so it must work.