On Cartoons and Conservatives
By Neil Stevens Posted in User Blogs — Comments (5) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
When I look around the Internet, and around the world, at the reactions to the now-infamous parodies of Muhammed by some previously-obscure Danish cartoonist, I can't find much that I like.
The sudden defiance of some European leftists, standing up to the radicals in favor of free speech, is a promising development, but that's not something I'm counting on to be permanent.
Of course, the violent overreactions by radical Islamists are typical for them. All these new protests, full of Danish flag burnings, are just a break from the usual American and Israeli flag burnings. Denmark is just the hate target of the week. Their open hatred of freedom is nothing new, though. This is our enemy once again making its hatred of our values plain.
This could have been what some people call 'a teachable moment,' in fact, were it not for the perplexing responses by the American right, even from usually-reliable conservatives. People like Michelle Malkin, who can usally be counted on to expect a certain amount of dignity and respect in our culture, are waving around the cartoons like they're wonderful things to see, while not showing much recognition of how hateful they really are. She's not alone, either. I just single her out because I read her site every day.
I understand the logic, and the reasons, for this 'blogburst,' but I think the enthusiasm is misplaced. We can celebrate freedom without holding up the worst of it as an example. We can even go farther than that, and condemn trash when we see it, while we mutter to ourselves that tolerating it is the price of freedom.
We can show solidarity with the Danes, in support for western values, without endorsing and integrating the 'art' at issue. These cheap scribbles, drawn up by a smirking 'artist' for the shock value, aren't worth the paper they were printed on. I think it'd do us more good if we remembered that in discussing this issue.
As appealing as it is, we can't fall into the trap of supporting the enemy of our enemy. The fact that the radical Islamists don't like these cartoons, doesn't imply that these cartoons are something that should be celebrated. If we want to celebrate somebody, how about paying tribute to Theo Van Gogh and Hirsi Ali, for making more honest portrayals of the worst of Islam, without slamming the whole, varied Islamic tradition in the process?
This could have been a teachable moment, where we on the right showed the world that we can support freedom from government intrusion, while still retaining social pressures against filth. We've failed, though, and I fear it's going to come back to bite us in the future.
As you said in your front-page post, you're barely acknowledging the cartoons. You've got your eye on the ball of alliances and war, which is a nice way to be focused.
You're not sounding like the EU branch of the ACLU at all. You're not supporting free speech for the worst speech, so my diary wasn't targetted at you at all. You're doing what I called on people to do - support the Danes without supporting the cartoons.
Sorry if I was too general in my language,
Michelle and other conservative bloggers did try to use those examples to show the dangers of radical Islam. They were warning signs which the left and the media of the world should indeed have heeded. But they didn't. The Muslim world did not explode over those films like they have over these cartoons, so very few people except conservative bloggers paid much attention. They would have been fine "teachable moments" had anybody who needed teaching been paying attention.
The value of freedom of speech is, to me, the bedrock of our society and culture. It's the First amendment for a reason. It also is something which hits most people very close to home... they've all been the target of some stupid editorial cartoon which they found offensive. And they know they didn't respond violently in any way, because that would just be stupid. Few understand or go to see indie films. Everybody has seen editorial cartoons. So the Muslim outrage and violence has been devoted to something normal and familiar to them. It hits home far more than the murder of an indie filmmaker could have. That's what makes this such a teachable moment.
Defending freedom of speech while it is under violent attack is sufficient virtue to publish even offensive things with which we don't agree. I don't agree with what you said, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it. Now is the moment when the world is paying attention to the real problems of the Muslim world. Now is the teachable moment.
Before your head explodes, let me explain.
The Islamofascists' nutty violent reaction to the dishwater Danish cartoons shows the world how intolerant and ugly their 7th century beliefs are. It drives the point home and brings, in a sense, the war home to them.
With every Danish and EU embassy attacked, the backlash against Islamic intolerance will grow. The backlash will help Europeans grow a spine (knock on wood) and maybe we'll finally be able to take some decisive, final action against the evil junta in Tehran which NO HONEST PERSON CAN DENY is a headquarters for international Islamist terrorism.
Anyway, the explosion was bound to happen eventually, so why not now.
I understand the logic, and the reasons, for this 'blogburst,' but I think the enthusiasm is misplaced. We can celebrate freedom without holding up the worst of it as an example.
In fact the enthusiasm is for the defiance of the Muslims, not for abstract freedom, and it is a heartening thing to see.
Not all Germans were Nazis in 1942, but my hunch is that most Americans were disinclined to worry about acts of defiance against the latter because they also might offend the former.
We can show solidarity with the Danes, in support for western values, without endorsing and integrating the 'art' at issue. These cheap scribbles, drawn up by a smirking 'artist' for the shock value, aren't worth the paper they were printed on. I think it'd do us more good if we remembered that in discussing this issue.
I have a hard time mustering much outrage, or even irritation, for what is, in comparison to the usual fare, a very mild piece of artistic shock; but that does not mean I am "endorsing and integrating" it.
It should be recalled that the same attitude as you express here was expressed in reaction to van Gogh's murder. It was said that he set out to deliberately inflame the Moslems, that he was a mere provocateur; implied was that vague sentiment which is often given the clumsy label "blaming the victim."
The point is that eventually men have to choose a side. The side Americans should choose here is that of the Danish people, against the street demonstrators calling for their heads.