More provincial ignorant backstabbing from people on the left, this time Jon Wiener in the Nation replying to Katha Pollitt.
The headline is terrible, for a start.
Defend Charlie Hebdo’s Publishing Disgusting Cartoons About Muslims? Yes. Give Them an Award for It? No.
That’s probably an editor, because Wiener said “about Islam,” not Muslims. Bad editor. Bad headline.
It’s a simple distinction, but somehow it’s been overlooked by a lot of those who support the decision by PEN to give its “Freedom of Expression” award to Charlie Hebdo. Those who signed the protest against the award (I was one of them) agree that Charlie Hebdo had a right to publish cartoons about Islam, no matter how disgusting, and not be killed for doing it. The question is whether Charlie Hebdo should be given an award for publishing them.
I don’t think people did overlook that distinction. I think we understood that was what the anti-Charlie people were saying, and disagreed with them.
The issue is the cartoons. We are told we don’t understand them; Katha says they are really “indictments of the racist and anti-immigrant views of right-wing French politicians.” Others have said the cartoons “speak truth to power.”…
The Charlie Hebdo cartoons, Katha says, are really “the opposite of what they seem to American readers”; you have to be “immersed in French cartoon culture” to understand them. Maybe so—I’m certainly not.
So then maybe he should pay attention to people who are? Maybe he should stop trusting his gut reactions and listen to people who are immersed in French cartoon culture? Maybe he should grasp that the gut reactions of Americans who know nothing of French cartoon culture are not particularly useful or interesting?
No, apparently not, because he goes right ahead and insists on his own admittedly uninformed hunches.
Garry Trudeau and others criticized Charlie Hebdo for ridiculing the weak and the powerless in France today. In response, Katha argues that the cartoons in fact mock the powerful—fundamentalist Muslim authorities who oppress women. But take a look at those cartoons again; they’re not about defending Muslim women from fundamentalist imams; they are about “Mohammed” inviting anal sex. I doubt that secular or moderate French Muslim women would see these cartoons as representing their views or defending their position; I imagine it would have the opposite effect and draw them back into the fold to defend Islam.
So he apparently doesn’t even know enough about this to remember Zineb El Rhazoui. He thinks he gets to judge the cartoons without knowing anything about their context, and then surmise how “secular or moderate French Muslim women would see these cartoons” and then stab Charlie in the back based on that wild surmise.
And yes it’s true that Charlie Hebdo also ridiculed Christianity and Judaism. But they are not getting an award for ridiculing Christians—and PEN would never give them an award for having the courage to ridicule Jews.
Oh, maybe he did write that headline himself after all, given how easily and apparently unconsciously he shifts from ridiculing Christianity and Judaism to ridiculing Christians and Jews.
The left has to be able to think better than this.
I think we understood that was what the anti-Charlie people were saying, and disagreed with them.
I don’t see how you can say this. Rushdie and even Neil Gaiman said it was a matter of free speech not a matter of approving the content and thats what a good number of people are saying (You aren’t) – so when you say “we” thats a subset of people.
and then surmise how “secular or moderate French Muslim women would see these cartoons”
Fair point – but didn’t you see many people on your side stating how they spoke to their french friends and all was good ? Did they actually speak to a good number of French Muslim women especially those who are not well off?
Where did Rushdie say that? I’ve been following him closely on this, including on Facebook, and I haven’t seen him say that at all. I did see PEN say that, and regretted it, and I saw a few others say it – I disputed at least one such here. But mostly no, the people who have been objecting to the protests disagree on the content and not just the free speech principle.
Second question – but the point is that Wiener said himself he knows nothing of the French context.
Wiener doesn’t need to know anything. Muslims murdered Westerners and Jews, therefore they are heroes of the ‘progressive’ left. At least as it shows up in certain venues.
The tone is not really all that different from the passive pro-Nazism of the twenties and thirties. More about a ‘just world’ fallacy than any actual events.
Well I’m pretty sure Wiener isn’t as simple-minded as that. But he apparently is too simple-minded to get past what many of the Charlie cartoons look like to us Murrikans and accept that that doesn’t have to be what they look like to everyone everywhere.
@Ophelia
I think it was heavily implied in the pussies comment -basically they don’t have the courage to stand up for free speech in the face of violence. If he wanted to say that the dissenting authors are wrong in the way they are interpreting the Charlie Hebdo content , he wouldn’t have used the word “pussy”(synonymous with coward)
or here
http://www.theguardian.com/books/2015/apr/27/salman-rushdie-pen-charlie-hebdo-peter-carey
If PEN as a free-speech organisation can’t defend and celebrate people who have been murdered for drawing pictures
He doesnt say anything that the content is also great (I do know he has also said satire is almost always pro liberty and anti-tyranny).
deepak – yes but the fact that he said X in one or two places doesn’t mean he didn’t say Y in other places. Also “heavily implied” is in the eye of the beholder – I don’t read the “pussies” tweet that way at all. (And, again, it was only one of many.)
I don’t buy it; in light of everything I know of him, I don’t buy it. (Having been re-reading Joseph Anton probably helps.) I’m quite sure he sees Charlie Hebdo as comrades, and was happy to appear in photos with them. I don’t believe he would see them that way if they really were racist, Der Stürmer types. I’m sure he wouldn’t.
How is a cartoon about “Mohammed inviting anal sex” an example of “punching down”? It looks to me like it’d be about Mohammed or the tenets or history of Islam.
And kee-ripes! Getting an award for ridiculing Islam? So *that’s* what the award is supposed to be for?
@Ophelia
I don’t read the “pussies”
How else is pussy used as an insult , other than weak , cowardly?
I don’t believe he would see them that way if they really were racist, Der Stürmer types. I’m sure he wouldn’t.
Thats not what Im saying though. Im saying that his major issue is the Free speech point – The content is secondary , unimportant.
One of the writers who objected made the point that CH thought of themselves as equal opportunity offenders -but while a minority is oppressed you cannot really “equally offend” – (Just as calling a guy a dick doesnt mean that now I get to call a woman a cunt ) – not everyone is accusing CH of being racist after all. And the same old- Neither Rushdie , nor you nor I are part of the targetted group , and hence in a not a very good position to judge how CH would be perceived – even if their motives were pure. Nor are arguments of the type “this satire is distinctly french” any use to new , un-assimilated immigrants.
deepak – I meant I don’t read the “pussies” tweet as implying in any way that he dislikes or disagrees with the content of CH.
“Pussy” can in fact also mean generalized contempt and hatred for a woman, like “cunt” only milder.
I’m saying I don’t agree that the content is unimportant.
He used “pussies” because he was mirroring somebody he disagreed with who used the word first. He was turning it back on them, and later regretted using the word at all.
At this point I don’t remember the tweet that first used the word