Commenter Sonagi (who unfortunately posted her reply to my long piece under the wrong entry!) calls my parent-child analogy in this post "arrogant," but fails to see the arrogance in assuming that temperamental Muslims have no control over their own actions and will inevitably react violently to things like cartoon depictions of Muhammad.
If Sonagi's view of human nature were correct, we would have no reason to blame such Muslims for anything: they aren't in control of themselves, being in the grip of psychosis or what have you. Sonagi, who comes off as a liberal in her comments, actually shares the view of many conservatives who have written such Muslims off as mere "animals," an unpleasant term I see lot online.
Sonagi also fails to realize that her judgement of Muslim violence as "wrong, wrong, wrong" implies that she has put herself in a position to judge others. (Personally, I think that's perfectly legitimate, and I applaud Sonagi's conclusion.) She doesn't want to deal with this fact, however, preferring instead to judge fellow Westerners, who are obviously wrong to complain when some among their number are captured (journalist Jill Carroll) or threatened with death (the Jyllands-Posten cartoonists), or killed (Theo van Gogh). Sure, according to Sonagi, such acts are wrong, but how arrogant we are to want to do anything about it!
There are reasons to believe the West has acted arrogantly throughout history in its dealings with other cultures. I find the arrogance question is a non-starter, however (this long post deals in some depth with why, though in a different context... the upshot of that post is that it's easy for everyone to accuse everyone else of arrogance). I also think Sonagi has confused arrogance with sincere belief in one's convictions. To believe something sincerely is to act according to what one believes-- to act, as Confucians might say, such that outside and inside are in harmony. It's what Westerners call "integrity." To believe something to be desperately wrong, especially when the problem concerns one directly, and then to do absolutely nothing about it is to lack integrity. Courage sustains integrity.
A Westerner will inevitably judge certain actions-- both within his culture and outside it-- as primitive or barbaric, if he sincerely cleaves to Western values (and people of other cultures will do the same according to their values). Open-mindedness is one of our virtues, but it would be dishonest to say we espouse infinite open-mindedness or infinite tolerance. Westerners also cherish variety, which is related to an open-minded orientation, but variety comes with some risk: in a variegated culture, people will inevitably step on each other's toes, which is why pluralism and tolerance are important. When we see a lack of such tolerance, we naturally recoil.
Or some of us do, anyway.
POST SCRIPTUM:
Another thing to remember is that the judgement that these Muslims are acting immaturely is not the same as saying that all Muslims are childish. Sonagi misses my point in implying that my "arrogance" is a paternalistic evaluation of the entire Muslim world. Nowhere on this blog will you find me arguing that Islam, as a religion, is somehow inferior, or inherently bad, or inherently violent. What you will find on this blog is the contention that religions are as they are practiced, and are not the sum of their doctrines. Doctrines are nothing when not incarnated in living adherents.
Is Islam a religion of peace? For many Muslims, it is. Those Muslims who are shocked at the West's perception of Islam as naturally bloodthirsty are probably sincere in their surprise. Such Muslims have probably spent their lives simply living day by day, not wanting to pick a fight with anyone. I have no quarrel with such Muslims. In fact, I stand against Westerners who are now trying to claim that there is something essentially wrong with Islam, and who reduce Islam to the Koran and to what little they know about the life of Muhammad.
We can make certain claims about the various Islams as they are currently practiced. We know that some strains are indeed violent in orientation. We know that hundreds of thousands of angry Muslims have taken to the streets in protest, not only of the Jyllands-Posten cartoons, but of other supposed affronts as well. They may not realize it, but these angry Muslims make it difficult for the West to see who, exactly, counts as a "moderate" Muslim (moderate in the modern Western sense). While I believe that 1.3 billion Muslims cannot all be frothing head-choppers, I think it's legitimate to ask just whom we can reliably dialogue with.
We can note that Christians today are largely peaceful, especially in comparison to what we see on the news about certain Muslims. But we know that Christians in Nigeria haven't been peaceful (though, in their defense, I'd say a lot of those Christians have fought defensively against violent Muslims). Christians in Ireland still have a go at each other, and America has its home-grown abortion-clinic bombers, who damage clinics and see no irony in killing for Christ. Is Christianity a religion of peace? These days, it largely is. But that generalization hides as much as it reveals. So it goes with any other religion you care to name.
The above isn't moral relativism. These days, Christianity doesn't make the news for anything like the reasons Islam does. A few centuries ago, we could have had ourselves a good contest as to which religion was bloodier. Many modern Muslims have no trouble living peaceably in the 21st century; others, however, fully deserve our condemnation and do indeed act like children (albeit deadly ones). If Sonagi is willing to call violent protest "wrong, wrong, wrong," then she stands beside me among the arrogant for daring to judge others through the filter of her own cultural values.
_
I think that a big part of this is liberal guilt. It seems to me that a big part of modern belief on the part of the left is that the west has proved itself psychoticly violent, and that the most important thing do is to moderate that tendancy in order to create a world utopia which is secular and tolerant in nature.
ReplyDeleteThe problem with that is that it assumes that everyone shares that goal (which even mainstream muslims do not). It seems to assumes that the only nations whose violency you must fear are European. One reason I like living in NE Asia is that it disproves that. China is big and often aggressive. Japan is efficent, and almost always aggresive. Mongolias military tradition is legendary. Go to Koreas war museum, and you can see the price of being weak in the face of demands.
If my memory is correct, Clausewitz said that war is one group of people using violence to coerce another group of people do what they want. I think that this is what occuring in Europe now. I also believe that to not oppose it is simply accomadating or appeasing. I believe it to be surrender.
stili
"Commenter Sonagi (who unfortunately posted his reply to my long piece under the wrong entry!) calls my parent-child analogy in this post "arrogant," but fails to see the arrogance in assuming that temperamental Muslims have no control over their own actions and will inevitably react violently to things like cartoon depictions of Muhammad."
ReplyDeleteAs you have acknowledged, there are 1.3 billion Muslims in the world. No one knows exactly how many Muslims have participated in demonstrations. Some demonstrators have been peaceful while others have resorted to violence. I have never asserted that most Muslims are "tempermental" or prone to violence.
Muslims revere Muhammad so highly, they will make no likeness of him. Blasphemy is no longer a crime in predominantly Christian countries, but it is in many Muslim societies. Based on past reactions to perceived insults to Islam, the Quran, and Muhammad, it was reasonable to expect that a cartoon depicting Muhammad with a bomb would evoke extreme anger among some Muslims. Even post-game street celebrations in the West turn violent, but acknowledging such does not mean that the majority of Westerners cannot control their behavior.
"Sonagi also fails to realize that his judgement of Muslim violence as "wrong, wrong, wrong" implies that he has put himself in a position to judge others. (Personally, I think that's perfectly legitimate, and I applaud Sonagi's conclusion.) He doesn't want to deal with this fact, however, preferring instead to judge fellow Westerners, who are obviously wrong to complain when some among their number are captured (journalist Jill Carroll) or threatened with death (the Jyllands-Posten cartoonists), or killed (Theo van Gogh). Sure, according to Sonagi, such acts are wrong, but how arrogant we are to want to do anything about it!"
Nice try, Kevin, introducing kidnapping and murder into this discussion about the cartoons and putting words into my mouth. I called you arrogant for comparing Westerners to parents and Muslims to children. I never called Westerners arrogant. You have good debating skills, Kevin. There's no need to manufacture ideas and then attack them.
Sonagi-- where to begin?
ReplyDeleteMuslims revere Muhammad so highly, they will make no likeness of him.
Oy, gevalt!
Let's get our facts straight. Muslims have indeed made their own images of Muhammad-- have you not been keeping up with the rebuttals on various news sources and blogs?
See here, for a quick example:
Finally, those images of Muhammad!
From that post, there's an interesting link:
Miscellaneous Mohammed Images
I sincerely hope I won't be hearing this claim from you again.
The Muslim situation is more complex than some folks have led us to believe in their rush to speak for Muslims.
While some Muslims do indeed see depictions of the Prophet as blasphemous, there's plenty of proof that not all Muslims do.
Islam has no pope and no single "party line," which is one reason why I don't cast aspersions on the entire 1.3 billion people. On this blog, I've been at pains to defend the peaceful Muslims against conservative accusations that Islam is filled with pedophiles and head-choppers. I know you haven't had time to read through my enormous archives, but that ought to let you know something about what I've actually written about Islam.
You make the following false claim:
I called you arrogant for comparing Westerners to parents and Muslims to children. I never called Westerners arrogant.
Thirty blows for disingenuousness! Dishonesty does not become you, Herr Sonagi! I invite you to read yourself again, carefully this time:
It is this kind of arrogant thinking that angers Muslims.
I assume-- correctly, I think-- that "this kind of thinking" (my emphasis) is a reference to a school of thought for which there are other examples-- not from me-- that offend Muslims. Are you prepared to say that I am the only example of such thinking? If so, you have to show me the Muslims I've personally offended in writing that post.
I further assume-- correctly, I think-- that you mean that this "arrogant" school of thought originates largely among Westerners.
I therefore conclude that my putative arrogance is, to use philosopher's lingo, a "token" of a larger "type" of arrogance-- an arrogance that has already offended Muslims.
You were clearly saying the West is arrogant. Unless you're now going to reinterpret yourself into a semantic pretzel.
In simpler language: you took issue with what I said because it represented "a kind of thinking," and therefore isn't some isolated, Kevin-only example. You deny this at the cost of your own integrity.
So-- no straw men here. I've taken the measure of your arguments and followed their implications a bit better than you have, I think.
Look, I don't know you from Adam. For all I know, we could sit down and have a drink together, tell dirty jokes (maybe even ones involving religious founders), and have a nasty old time. What disturbed me about your initial post was what I perceived to be your willingness to give away the store, bit by bit. This galled me (it still does), because it's sourced in a fear I simply can't understand. Some things are worth fighting and dying for. Among those things are our core values and the culture that enshrines them.
I've read others who are trying to say, "This isn't about free speech." In the meantime, in the space of only a few days, various countries' newspapers have "clarified" their editorial policies such that no Muhammad-related images will ever see the light of day on their pages or websites. That's a shame. I don't advocate constant, merciless attacks on Muhammad, but I see that, in truth, free speech is eroding.
I noticed that, in your comment above, you imply that this discussion is about cartoons but not about the larger issue of violence:
Nice try, Kevin, introducing kidnapping and murder into this discussion about the cartoons and putting words into my mouth. (emphasis added)
You and I are fundamentally at odds, then. I thought we were both talking about a whole host of issues. The evidence of your comments supports this. If you suddenly can't see the relationship between the cartoons and a certain group's choice to overreact to them, we have nothing more to say to each other.
For me, the reason for the connection is visible thanks to my Buddhist studies: the mindset that reacts violently to certain cartoons is the same kind of mindset that dehumanizes Westerners and sees them as targets. I won't deny that that mindset can be found in other cultures, including the West: it's a very human problem.
But precisely because it's a human problem, I think I'm right NOT to see the Jyllands-Posten cartoons and Muslim violence as separate issues, and I think you're wrong, quite wrong, to do so. This is not merely a "discussion about the cartoons." To say that, you would have to ignore much of what I've written, as well as what you've written.
Kevin
"I assume-- correctly, I think-- that "this kind of thinking" (my emphasis) is a reference to a school of thought for which there are other examples-- not from me-- that offend Muslims. Are you prepared to say that I am the only example of such thinking? If so, you have to show me the Muslims I've personally offended in writing that post.
ReplyDeleteI further assume-- correctly, I think-- that you mean that this "arrogant" school of thought originates largely among Westerners.
I therefore conclude that my putative arrogance is, to use philosopher's lingo, a "token" of a larger "type" of arrogance-- an arrogance that has already offended Muslims."
You made the analogy. Others have have made similar analogies, for example, Cecil Rhode's famous comment about the white man's burden. Such comments are indeed arrogant. I never said or implied that most or even many Westerners take a paternalistic view of the world.
"You and I are fundamentally at odds, then. I thought we were both talking about a whole host of issues. The evidence of your comments supports this. If you suddenly can't see the relationship between the cartoons and a certain group's choice to overreact to them, we have nothing more to say to each other.
For me, the reason for the connection is visible thanks to my Buddhist studies: the mindset that reacts violently to certain cartoons is the same kind of mindset that dehumanizes Westerners and sees them as targets. I won't deny that that mindset can be found in other cultures, including the West: it's a very human problem.
But precisely because it's a human problem, I think I'm right NOT to see the Jyllands-Posten cartoons and Muslim violence as separate issues, and I think you're wrong, quite wrong, to do so. This is not merely a "discussion about the cartoons." To say that, you would have to ignore much of what I've written, as well as what you've written."
You are right to say that violence is a human problem. There is no society without violence. This discussion, or at least, the opinion I have been defending, is that the cartoons were unnecessary, and CNN was right not to publish them. Yes, I clicked and saw your pictures. The newspapers published those pictures to inflame the public, and that was wrong. Just because Muslim papers printed those images doesn't mean CNN should have. I stated clearly early on that violent protest is always wrong, yet you accused me wrongly of viewing Western condemnation of the kidnapping of Jill Carroll and the murder of the Dutch film director. We are in agreement that such violence is wrong, so there has never been any debate about violence committed by Muslims against non-Muslims.
You will probably respond to this, and it's fair for you to have the last word on your own blog.
You made the analogy. Others have have made similar analogies, for example, Cecil Rhode's famous comment about the white man's burden. Such comments are indeed arrogant. I never said or implied that most or even many Westerners take a paternalistic view of the world.
ReplyDeleteIf only a few Westerners are doing this, there's little reason for an international Muslim outcry, yes? Your original comment doesn't make sense unless you meant to apply it widely. Just to be clear, then: are you stating for the record that you believe Westerners like me represent a minority school of thought?
Thank you, at least, for affirming that you were painting with a wide brush and were attacking a school of thought and not just a single person.
...the cartoons were unnecessary, and CNN was right not to publish them.
CNN can do what it wants, I suppose; it's a business, not an arm of the government. But right now, the free speech situation doesn't look good.
As for whether the cartoons were "unnecessary": this fallaciously assumes that offensive material must somehow be "necessary." How can you make such an assumption workable in a free society, where one result of freedom is the production of a lot of thoroughly unnecessary crap (including, perhaps, my blog)?
Another result of such freedom is that people will step on each other's toes. The answer to that problem is twofold: (1) one can legitimately caution people to be more careful; (2) one can caution offended parties to stop taking themselves too seriously. As a Westerner interested in my culture's survival, I have an understandable stake in conveying (2) to the offended Muslims, or at least in spreading that meme to more receptive elements in the Muslim world.
The argument that Western cartoons were "unnecessary" pales in comparison to the argument that deadly Muslim violence represents a freakishly disproportionate response. You agree with this, I assume, but somehow seem to see Western offense and Muslim violence as having much the same significance. I've disagreed with your relativism from the beginning.
I stated clearly early on that violent protest is always wrong, yet you accused me wrongly of viewing Western condemnation of the kidnapping of Jill Carroll and the murder of the Dutch film director.
Sonagi, you've repeatedly implied a willingness to give away the store-- to back away from conflict and to blame us in the West for unnecessary provocation. I don't think your condemnation of Muslim behavior is serious. Maybe it's meant to be serious, but because it's couched in the rhetoric of appeasement, I get the impression you have no real sense of the threat to the West.
Assume we both agree that the Muslims in question do not represent the majority of Muslims in the world. Isn't it at all disturbing to you how quickly Western governments and newspapers bend over backward to appease a vocal, dangerous minority?
At this point, I can't assume we're dealing with a minority. I don't know HOW big the problem is, and these Muslims aren't helping me measure the situation. Erring on the side of caution strikes me as wise, and adopting a firm posture-- especially if we're dealing with a mere minority-- is better policy than knuckling under to every threat and act of violence.
The latter is, in fact, what we've been doing. Your old rebuttal-- that our projects in Iraq and Afghanistan belie the notion that we've been passive-- ignores the fact that nearly 3000 of our people were killed, on our soil, in 2001. There's a reason for our current response. While I personally don't agree with our project in Iraq (I'm very much behind what we're doing in Afghanistan), American response to terror should be put in perspective.
Some people want to believe the world didn't change on 9/11. I disagree. A lot of previously academic questions suddenly became urgent.
You will probably respond to this, and it's fair for you to have the last word on your own blog.
You've been a civil commenter, Sonagi, so you're free to return to kick my ass. There's no "last word" here. I have no intention of banning a commenter with whom I merely disagree. I'll write other posts that'll piss you off, and you'll be there to dog me. As we debate, we'll find points of agreement, as we've done in this exchange. Whatever my misgivings about your fundamental position, you're always welcome back. I don't care that you called me arrogant. People have called me worse, and I don't lose sleep over that.
Note, too, that I'm not about to rise up, declare myself dishonored by your insult, and swear vengeance. Isn't it nicer to deal with that sort of person than one who would rather bathe in your blood and eat your still-beating heart?
I'd like to give you some homework, though: take care of your drug dealer problem. Give the police an anonymous tip. Upon re-reading your original post on that subject, I saw that you weren't even sure whether the neighbors are, in fact, drug dealers and druggies. Come ON, man! If they're just obnoxious hippies, then go wave a shotgun at their crotches (OK, that's a joke).
Seriously, though-- don't let these shitheads push you around.
Until we next meet on the field of e-battle,
Kevin