Welcome back, Politics! - Cartoon Network

So I have been utterly fascinated by the events of recent days. From my perspective, the fracas over the Danish cartoons has crystallized some dangerous truths about the motives and beliefs of those supposedly offended by the depictions of Mohammed.

Reza Aslan vents his anger over at Slate:
http://www.slate.com/id/2135661/

So let me use his measured – but ultimately backward – response as a basis for my own feelings on the matter.

“The fact is that Muslim anger over the caricatures derives not merely from their depiction of Mohammed. That may have upset more conservative Muslims, but it alone would not have engendered such a violent and widespread response. Rather, most Muslims have objected so strongly because these cartoons promote stereotypes of Muslims that are prevalent throughout Europe: Mohammed dressed as a terrorist, his turban a bomb with a lit fuse; Mohammed standing menacingly in front of two cowering, veiled women, unsheathing a long, curved sword; Mohammed on a cloud in heaven complaining that Paradise has run out of virgins. It is difficult to see how these drawings could have any purpose other than to offend.”

So apparently, the Danish embassy in Damascus was torched, not in retaliation for the cartoons, but in response to slights – perceived or real – at the hands of European society. Christians in this country often abuse the Old Testament philosophy of “an eye for a eye”, but what is this? Twenty eyes and ten bodies for a eye?

“One cartoon goes so far as to brazenly call the prophet ‘daft and dumb.’”

Truly, the mother of all insults. How brazen!

“…it's another manifestation of the ongoing ethnic and religious tensions that have been simmering beneath the surface of European society for decades, like last year's Paris riots and the murder two years ago of Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh.”

Again, who are the ones rioting and murdering in the above scenarios? Oh yeah – the fragile and oh-so-easily-offended-but-prone-to-violence Muslim fundamentalists.

“Jewish groups were furious when the Chicago Tribune published a cartoon in 2003 that portrayed a hunched and hooknosed Ariel Sharon salivating before a pile of money doled out to him by George W. Bush, ostensibly as an incentive to maintain the peace process. ("On second thought," the avaricious Sharon is depicted as saying, "the path to peace is looking brighter.") And rightly so.”

Funny thing, I don’t recall reading about any Jewish rioting or burning or killing related to the cartoon from the Tribune. I guess Jews are just a bunch of Zionist weenies.

“…the protests against them turned violent only after extremists began circulating fabricated and far more offensive cartoons of the prophet (for instance, Mohammed with a pig's snout), which were not part of the original Jyllands-Posten bunch. Until then, the protests had been mostly contained to Denmark and the Netherlands and had taken the form of a reasonably peaceful and highly effective economic boycott.”

I commend you, Mr. Aslan, for pointing out this fact, one not mentioned in most of the news reports on the subject. Yet you still managed to place the blame at the feet of the “isolationist” Europeans. Where is your outrage at the “extremists” (who by the way were comprised of imans from Europe)? And precisely which part of the economic boycott has been “highly effective”?

“Of course, the sad irony is that the Muslims who have resorted to violence in response to this offense are merely reaffirming the stereotypes advanced by the cartoons.”

I hate to say it, but this is not a “sad irony” – it is a sad fact.

I hope none of my regular readers (hello – are you there?) would mistake me for a reactionary, crusading xenophobe. What this piece effectively illustrates is 1) the understandable frustration of Muslims the world over and 2) how horribly misplaced and destructive their anger can become, when fueled by the manipulations of extremists and theocratic governments.

The argument that “this is isn’t just about cartoons”, at some point, just becomes self-defeating. When is it NOT about something else? When is the Muslim rage permeating the Middle East not about the tyranny of The West (American or Europe or whoever deserves to have their flag burned)? When does it become about totalitarian governments like Syria who fan the flames of hatred by allowing their citizens to burn down embassies while ruling them with an iron fist? When does it become about “respecting” Israel enough to acknowledge its very real existence and not call for its complete eradication? When does it become about the way Islamic extremism has become the face of a peaceful religion and it makes Muslims so fucking angry that they riot in the streets?

This whole incident may become a tipping point for Europe, truly the new battleground in this fight. If Europeans typically fancy themselves a sensitive bunch (often regulating hate speech, while permitting it from Muslim extremists), they clearly regard themselves still as s freedom-loving bunch. Freedom of Speech (that’s right, in caps) is the cornerstone of democracy, and theocracy runs entirely the other direction. What influence do the citizens of, say, Saudi Arabia suppose to exert over a Danish newspaper? By holding governments responsible for content published in newspapers, the rioters – and boycotters for that matter – show just how ignorant and oppressed they are. Because when you live in a country where newspapers are controlled by the government, you obviously conclude that other governments do the same. For all of the kowtowing of the mainstream media in the U.S., the line still exists.

As a side note, I’d like to give special recognition to the utterly ridiculous comments of Bill Clinton and the State Department. The era of mindless PC responses to this sort of thing has long passed. You may be deeply offended by the cartoons – rightfully so even – but you are way out of line when you suggest newspapers and editors owe blind respect to religions. If circulation numbers drop? Well, that’s their mess to clean up.

And of course, you haven’t actually seen these cartoons, have you? Why? Because the ever-so-tasteful American media machine has decided to spare you the offense of seeing them, even though they are front-page news. So I open my Time magazine and see pictures of Muslims burning flags, rather than the focus of their ire. So who comes out looking good in that presentation?

Andrew Sullivan has been doing his usual exemplary job covering this issue on his blog:
http://time.blogs.com/daily_dish/

The New Republic also published this compelling piece:
http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=w060206&s=peretz020706