The Silent Treatment (about cartoon controversy)

This is from today's NY Times:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/17/opinion/17Wright.html?th&emc=th

The Silent Treatment
By Robert Wright

Selected paragraphs follow:

THE American left and right don't agree on much, but weeks of demonstrations and embassy burnings have pushed them toward convergence on one point: there is, if not a clash of civilizations, at least a very big gap between the "Western world" and the "Muslim world." When you get beyond this consensus — the cultural chasm consensus — and ask what to do about the problem, there is less agreement. After all, chasms are hard to bridge.

snip

Defenders of the "chasm" thesis might reply that Western editors practice self-censorship to avoid cancelled subscriptions, picket lines or advertising boycotts, not death. Indeed, what forged the chasm consensus, convincing many Americans that the "Muslim world" might as well be another planet, is the image of hair-trigger violence: a few irreverent drawings appear and embassies go up in flames.

But the more we learn about this episode, the less it looks like spontaneous combustion. The initial Muslim response to the cartoons was not violence, but small demonstrations in Denmark along with a lobbying campaign by Danish Muslims that cranked on for months without making it onto the world's radar screen.

Only after these activists were snubbed by Danish politicians and found synergy with powerful politicians in Muslim states did big demonstrations ensue. Some of the demonstrations turned violent, but much of the violence seems to have been orchestrated by state governments, terrorist groups and other cynical political actors.


I have said before that I think the importance of this matter is not the so-called "chasm" between Muslims and non-Muslims (which is debunked in this article), but the reasons behind the bruhaha erupting now. I hope you go read all of the article-it's free, though you have to register.

Personally, I support any group who believes in non-violent protests of things they don't like. If you are objecting to the violence, realize I agree with you-but ask you to take one step beyond and figure out why the provocation happened now. Realize that many in the Muslim world are not educated and don't have access to unbiased news outlets, and therefore are easy to manipulate by persons with nefarious purposes.

No really deep thoughts here. They faced a question of how to react to being offended; a small, but not very small, subset chose violence. Yes, they do live under entirely foreign cirucumstances, of the sort that we'd probably find intolerable. If we really did walk a mile in their shoes, that is, if we were them--then naturally, we would react as they did. Muslims generally associate what they see in publications as being the voice of or tacitly agreed to by their governments. Thus, they conclude that since the Danish government didn't act to stop the publications, then it must reflect national policy. They don't understand, for not having experienced, free speech. They haven't had to deal with the dark side of free speech and haven't developed thick skins or tolerance for those whose beliefs are effectively the polar opposite of their own. Muslims are not innocent in terms of abusive, defamatory, offensive and violent hate speech themselves. Major Muslim publications commonly carry equivalently awful smears/cartoons defaming the Jews and America. They just can't tolerate the same abusive speech when directed against them. Even then, it's just some of "them".

However, from our perspective, speech we find offensive is simply not an excuse for a violent reaction. As you say they don't have access to unbieased news/speech. So too, as you say, they are easily manipulated (though, really, we ourselves don't appear to be any less easily manipulated by those who control our government/economy). Alas, it's all too often the case that they are led to nefarious behavior (be it taking hostages in Tehran or Bagdad/IRAQ or... or resorting to terrorism, or whatever). Of course, apparently "we" engage likewise in nefarious behavior, case in point: the IRAQ war of choice. Violence done in our name at the behest of our so-called leaders is, on a scale, larger even. Indeed, we as a nation, a citizenry have a short memory--we forget the violent breakdowns of social order that occur in our own streets when, say, a court fails to charge policemen who are apparently guilty of physical abuse... Our own failures tend to spring from our own minorities, who, in their defense, don't really live in the same country--in a sense--as we do. They have their motivations I'm sure. Viewing such things from the outside, it seems petty, senseless, violent. Human nature is to condemn not just the actions, but to make an association in our minds with the identifiable group and the behavior. Therefore it would be natural enough for caucasions not involved in the L.A. riots to wrongly presume that a whole group of people, in this case identified by skin color/race, as being uncivilized, prone to violence and both dangerous and self-defeating. Such thinking may be common or natural, but it's frought with errors. Group violence clearly isn't caused by race, unless one considers the citizens of Ireland to be a different race from that of European and American caucasions.

All that said. Clearly there's been an effort by some to more or less deliberately enflame Muslims. It's as though some group with power to influence some publications realized that many Muslims lack the kind of self-control that's become relatively common in Western nations... and feeling put upon by the immigration of so many Muslims into their countries and societies, and further angered by the fact that these groups tend to keep to themselves, exclusively pursue their own cultures and either aren't bothering to try to assimilate into the host culture, or are doing so very slowly... So, feeling something like why should we have to suffer to put up with and adjust to a group that thinks itself superior to others and thus refuses to even bother trying to fit in--instead even complains about their host's culture as it has always been; then why not use their own culture's against them. Why not "push their buttons"... When the react violently, even just a minority of them doing so, it will show them for what they are: intolerant, prideful, and prone to violence. Whether or not there is an element of truth in these assertions and whether or not there really is a group of provocateurs behind the "intentional" publishing of materials that are sure to be considered offensive... while worth knowing, misses the point.

The point being a terribly over-simplified one. The people involved in the violent actions had a choice. No offensive speech, cartoons or art can "make people react violently". It's merely a matter of self-control, impulse control and restraint. It's a lesson that many Muslims seem to already understand, but it's a lesson that all groups of people who have to live in societies where there are different groups--or a world where there are different nations, need to learn. Just say no--to violence. If physically attacked, a physical response may be called for... but attacked by words, pictures or thoughts... civilized people need to learn to respond in kind if at all. There's much value in the ability to ignore others and leave them unto their stupidity. There's more value in reaching out and communicating with them to gain a mutual understanding and respect. In the end, however, it really is as simple as this: there's no excuse for reacting violently (to this kind of provocation).

If I said "interesting provocation", it merely means that it's interesting to know as much as possible about the people behind the provocative publications and their thinking and motivations. Believe it or not, they do have reasons for what they do... we may not understand or agree with them, but they exist. Again, if we were them--we would act as they do (almost too obvious to state with words, but true--even if "we" can never, ever "be them" or truly 'walk in their shoes').

I keep hearing things like "free speech comes with responsibility". No, not so much as you think. To imply you have to print only certain things that won't offend, is censorship. Who's to decide what's offensive--a thing that's defined in the eye of the beholder. Free Speech is at it's most important when it's daring to offend... The law provides for remedies for certain harms caused by free speech--such as libel. In some cases and some places, Free Speech is limited in some ways, such as where certain things can be agreed upon for the entire populations--such as foul language (which is debatably something that should not be censored) or certain forms of graphic sexual materials (again debatable, to some extent, but a strong majority can agree that certain things would be offensive to most people, and or agree that certain material actually involves harming some people (such as chi_d po_n, the making of which involves harming the helpless subject/model)) can be limited. However, most speech must be tolerated in order that Freedom of Speech doesn't gradually become Controlled Speech. People, in general, need to "grow up", become more mature and develop "thicker skins". The rest of the world need not continually worry itself with efforts to avoid offending you. Many things simply cannot be discussed without someone, somewhere being offended in some way. That you (anybody) are emotionally or intellectually "offended" or "don't like" certain things, speech, art, whatever... must not become the standard by which all speech is judged.

So, again... interesting provocative activity, but it's not a viable "excuse" for violent reaction. Of course, within "their" countries/cultures, perhaps it's a "valid" cause for such actions--but if they wanted to avoid all the pain and harm involved, if they want to "get along" with the rest of the world... it shouldn't be.

I quote your words:

That you (anybody) are emotionally or intellectually "offended" or "don't like" certain things, speech, art, whatever... must not become the standard by which all speech is judged.

Merely being offended or not liking a particular speech doesn't imply that that speech needs to be censored. But if you think it is, then you are taking away MY free speech to say that I don't like something. Is that what you mean? Are you saying that anything MUST go and that people should just develop thicker skin, or sue someone for libel? If that is the case, then I guess I shouldn't have gone out in the winter of 2003 and protested the coming Iraq War, that I shouldn't have told people that I felt the whole argument of WMDs, etc, was a lie. That I should have just smiled and waved my flag as we marched off to war, and maybe sued Bush for lying to the American people at some later date.

This is what I don't get about the reaction to the peaceful reaction to the cartoons here by some at DU. Again and again, I've been told that it was silly for Muslims to even register a mild protest in the form of a LTTE or a petition, because the cartoons were "no big deal". It appears that there are some who just think that nothing should have been done-and if Muslims try to express their dislike of these cartoons, they are totally wrong to do so, even peacefully, because somehow, we are saying that free speech should be censored. This attitude does not make sense, and it is not helping those moderate Muslims who are saying that peaceful protest is the way to go.

I don't really follow much of your response. Really, had you not quoted me, I would have thought you were commenting on someone else's post. Perhaps I wasn't clear, explained too much, mentioned too many different aspects... alas, I will try to clarify. I think I followed your last paragraph, but while I've not been closely following the DU responses on this topic, it doesn't really match what I have seen (more later).

The quote you singled out merely says that you can't limit free speech just because someone somewhere is offended by it. When you say "Merely being offended or not liking a particular speech doesn't imply that that speech needs to be censored.", you're basically restating in a, well, more easily understood way.

I am indeed saying that pretty much anything goes, as far as speech anyway--within the reasonable and stated boundaries of the law. If it is libelous, then sure, you can respond by suing (or giving a public speech, or carrying a protest sign, or appearing on Oprah, or writing your Congressman, or writing your Grandma, or standing on your head, or... what have you) if appropriate.

Aside from insisting people, and you, have the right to employ any number of approaches in response to feeling offended, short of violence, I don't think anything in my post had any relevance to you telling others you thought the argument about WMDs was a lie or with your participation in a protest against the war. However, if it bothers the people who see you in the protest or offends the people who believed in WMDs, then they should develop a thicker skin or tell you their opinion or hold their own protest or go home and cry or whatever... if, on the other hand, they choose to hit you or smash your car or whatever--then they've gone too far. Likewise, if you added to your comments about the WMDs a hearty slap or you decided to spraypaint the steps of the capitol when you protested... the you'd have gone too far. So, I support your free speech--I'm glad you saw through the lies and told others and am glad to
hear you participated in protests against the war! All within your rights to free speech and freedom of assembly and... importantly, all done without resorting to violence.

I am fully in favor of free speech and that includes the right of whomever to protest, write letters, articles, make speeches, videos, cartoons or whatever. It's okay to offend someone, just as it is to be offended. It's okay to express yourself. The point being merely that resorting to violence (whether against others or in the form of destroying public or private propery (except your own)).

Having a "thick skin" applies in this way... If a Rethug heard you implying his Master, Shrub was lying about WMDs and then called you ugly, heartless names and impugned your honor, you personality, your intelligence, you patriotism.... Having a "thick skin", you'd probably just ignore him (and really not let it bother you). Even if you responded with some choice words, that would be okay. So long as you didn't resort to violence and/or criminal behavior. Having a "thin skin", however, means you probably would have either become enraged and engaged him on the same level, the gutter, or you would have taken it personally and felt deeply hurt. Having a thin skin leaves you likely to respond emotionally and that means you'd be more likely to have become violent (due to the rage) or vengeful (owing to the deep hurt). So, having a thick skin just means you don't loose your temper or otherwise overreact to simple verbal attacks--you don't let their words (or images or whatever) "get to you". It's harder to "scratch" through thick skin while it's easy to draw blood from thin skin (which tends to escalate a conflict). Surely you already know all this? Anyway, if the jerk in question, instead of just calling you names, he had gone around telling everyone you were a thief and often steal things, especially if he told your employer and/or potential employers... then yes, in that case I would suggest suing for libel (especially if it cost you your job or kept you from getting a job). Thick skin or thin skin doesn't have any bearing on whether or not you can or can not "respond" to being offended--merely in how you go about it. Short of violence, you're free to respond in any legal way (protesting, writing letters to anyone who might be concerned or potentially provide relief, talking to other people, calling people names, writing articles for publication, create clever art-work, cartoons or images that convey your complaint, contacting your Congressman, Governor, Mayor, Police Chief, or anyone else and so on, and so on...)(potential non-legal/ill-advised responses: m_rder, assault, theft, vandalism, spreading libel, threats of harm, etc...). A thin-skinned, immature or uncivilized person is more likely to respond in the non-legal/illegal/ill-advised way. If people can learn to be more tolerant of other's insults and react in a more considered way (a thing called "Emotional Intelligence"), there would be less violence and harm in the world.

As noted, I haven't been following in any great detail, the DU response to the cartoons issue. To the extent I have and as far as what criticism I see in the media, the problem--the objection as it were, isn't the "peaceful" demonstrations--it's those reactions that are not peaceful. The violence, the people being killed, the public buildings vandalized, death threats etc... that's what's most egregious and unacceptable. I haven't seen a single complaint about those Muslims who've responded peacefully (via letters, articles, complaints, boycotts, peaceful protests, or by merely ignoring it). Otherwise, there does seem to be some surprise at the enormity of the outrage--which is news primarily only because of the violence. Well, that's not the only reason... When a country decides to eject diplomats and/or breakoff diplomatic relations over a few offending cartoons--not even published by the government in question, well, that is newsworthy.

Alas, the excessive reaction actually damages the Muslim's cause in the U.S. and other western countries since it reinforces the stereotype of Muslims being ignorant and uncivilized with a tendency towards violence. Nevertheless, I'm comfortable with--and can't imagine that most DU'ers wouldn't likewise--be comfortable with truly peaceful demonstrations (let them knock themselves out; get it out of their systems)--though this approach is probably neither the smartest (for public image reasons) nor the most effective approach to resolving the problem since, in the end, they will probably have precious little effect on causing other countries to refrain from engaging in free speech. Actually, it's likely there isn't all that much they can hope to do about the matter, one way or another--but all of that is a whole other matter.

One engages in setting up a strawman, and twisting violence (ill-begotten) that yielded greater civil rights into a good when it calls for fewer civil rights. How illiberal and dishonest.

Khrushcheva wrote on another point. How one editorialist could write something that rings true, while the other blathers things that so many so want to be true--but they'll settle for truthy, if actual true things aren't available--is amazing. Perhaps it's because one's staff, the other's not.

'... nearly 50 years to the day from that speech, my great-grandfather has become a scapegoat for many of the perceived ills of post-communist, "democratic" Russian society. And Stalin, the man he exposed as a brutal dictator who terrorized and oppressed the nation, is enjoying a virtual rehabilitation, with opinion polls revealing his shocking popularity, especially among the young.

'It's not surprising. After the anarchy that followed the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, a period when democracy came to represent confusion, crime, poverty, oligarchy, anger and disappointment, it turned out that Russians didn't like their new, "free" selves. Having for centuries had no sense of self-esteem outside the state, we found ourselves wanting our old rulers back, the rulers who provided a sense of order, inspired patriotic fervor and the belief that we were a great nation. We yearned for monumental -- if oppressive -- leaders, like Ivan the Terrible or Stalin. Yes, they killed and imprisoned, but how great were our victories and parades! So what if Stalin ruled by fear? That was simply a fear for one's life. However terrifying, it wasn't as existentially threatening as the fear of freedom, of individual choice, with no one but oneself to blame if democracy turned into disarray and capitalism into corruption.

"This is why the country rallies behind President Vladimir Putin. Putin promotes himself as a new Russian "democrat." Indeed, Russians view him less like the godlike "father of all nations" that Stalin was, and more like a Russian everyman -- a sign of at least partial democratization. Putin often notes that Russia is developing "its own brand of democracy." Translation: His modern autocracy has discovered that it no longer needs mass purges like Stalin's to protect itself from the people. Dislike of freedom makes us his eager backers. How readily we have come to admire his firm hand: Rather than holding him responsible for the horrors of Chechnya, we agree with his "democratic" appointment of leaders for that ill-fated land. We cheer his "unmasking of Western spies," support his jailing of "dishonest" oligarchs and his promotion of a "dictatorship of order" rather than a government of transparent laws.'

Khrushcheva must like Dostoevsky.

All the rest of the problem boils down to fellow-travellers. Most Muslims are just that; somewhat fewer aid and abet, through ignorance or blindness. I've read Wright-like things from Russian fellow travellers. A lucky few wrote late enough in life to die before the other fellow travellers either converted or were killed. With people like Wright defending our freedoms, I fear for the kind of world my kid's going to live in.

Personally, I find your remark about Muslims being fellow-travellers aiding and abeting because of stupidity or lack of insight to show a lack of knowledge of Islam or what it is about, or how it is being manipulated by those who wish to do things that have nothing to do with Islam, which I think is the real point.

But as long as people paint Muslims in general with a broad brush, assuming we are all violent and all wanting to take over the world (both of which are against the teachings), then the neocons and their allies in the Muslim fundamentalist ranks are winning.

Yeah, the lobbying campaign churned along. And then European media suddenly decided they just hadn't had near enough Islamofascist humor and went on a mass publishing spree; which is what triggered the violent riots. NY Times, a real liberal bastian of truth.