Today were two articles in the NY Times' Op-Ed discussing the recent outbreak of anti-American feelings in the Middle East, dealing heavily with the "Innocence of Muslims" video. The first article uses Salman Rushdie and the laughter associated with the Newsweek cover 'Muslim Rage' to point out why we really need to simply stand our ground:
The Satanic Video
While another article points out why the US needs to become accustomed to the fact of its status as a declining empire:
America's Inevitable Retreat From the Middle East
I agree with the idea that the US should not apologize for its culture - I actually agreed with what Romney said, that we should stand for our way of life. Unfortunately, he said it with crappy rhetoric and the worst timing possible. Freedom of Speech is one of the best defenses against tyranny, and we should not give it up, or turn our backs on it, simply because some people get pissed off by it. Obama's response was diplomatic, to be sure, but I would have liked it to include a small explanation about how American society functions - and that the government cannot (and absolutely should not) shut down freedom of expression, even if the persons in question are idiots.
The second article was inevitable - since 9/11, everyone has enjoyed pointing out that the American Empire is on its way towards collapse. This has included me on occasion, I admit. It definitely includes everyone in the Univ. of Toronto History Department - which is rather amusing, given how much Canada benefits from American imperialism, but I digress. The author makes a comparison between the evacuation of Saigon in 1975 with the US' withdrawal from Libya - except it doesn't work. The US retreated from Vietnam because there was no strategic reason to be there, except stop the "spread of Communism" - which by then we had realized was never going to be the case. Vietnam had no economic benefit to require an American presence - while the Middle East definitely does. That was why we went into Iraq, and why we will continue to maintain a visible presence in the Middle East for decades to come, with the accompanying cost. The author is right, however, in stating that the US has really screwed up in the Muslim world during the past 20 years, and clearly pointed out the folly of following colonialist imperialism in a post-colonial world.
What I like about Obama in regards to foreign policy is his willingness to follow different models to enable American success - but those different models should not include apologies for free speech or other protected American rights.
Salman Rushdie really put it best when he was on the Daily Show last week - the US needs to stand up for its intellectuals and artists, regardless of how good (or bad) they are. Further, John Oliver made a funny point that the Muslim world is the same today as Christianity was 600 years ago - the latter got out of it eventually, and the former will do the same. We may never see Mohammed depicted on a box of Wheaties or in a sliced tomato, but every religion gets a sense of humor eventually. We just have to be patient, stand up for ourselves when necessary, and cooperate - while never forgetting that we forged an American Empire for a damn good reason.
"The Satanic Video" was written by Bill Keller, and published by the New York Times. "America's Inevitable Retreat From the Middle East" was written by Pankay Mishra and also published by the NYT.
Showing posts with label tolerance. Show all posts
Showing posts with label tolerance. Show all posts
24 September 2012
13 July 2012
On Being Offended
Jim Norton On Offending People, Apologizing To Steve Martin & Why He Likes Westboro Baptist Church
I hate the culture of being offended that is developing in the States, and exists full-blown in Canada. It's stifling our discussions and our creativity. Which is why I love quotes like this:
"Here’s what being offended is, it’s a phony sense of empowerment. People have lost this ability to go, “Wow, I didn’t like that, that bothered me. I won’t watch that again.” People have lost the ability to just not like something and walk away. People now feel that if they object to something, nobody else should enjoy it either. It’s because we’ve seen enough people say they’re sorry, we’ve seen enough people fired where people now feel that, “if I’m offended, I voice my offense, people have to listen to me.”
It’s a really weird self-centered attention-seeking device people use. So I never buy the offense. … I think 90% of it is a lie. People say, “I don’t like stereotypes.” Bullshit. You don’t like negative stereotypes. People don’t mind positive stereotypes. People don’t mind positive assumptions. It’s only negative assumptions about them. So their outrage is so arbitrary. And I’m embarrassed for us as a free society that we actually want people punished for saying things we don’t like. The liberals are bad and the conservatives are bad. The liberals say things like “Well, that’s homophobic, that’s racist.” And the conservatives say things like, “You’re attacking our religion. You’re attacking family values.” Both sides are equally fraudulent when it comes to supporting unpopular speech. It’s easy to support popular speech. We’re supposed to stick up for things that do bother people. The rest of us are supposed to rally around and defend people’s rights to say what they want to say. That’s why I like the Westboro Baptist Church. I think they’re repulsive people. I think their message is repulsive. But I think they are good for society because it shows exactly what we will tolerate in a free-thinking society. Even pigs like that, and they are pigs."
Walking Away is a concept which is rapidly disappearing, as is supporting free speech in all its forms, even when you don't like it; especially when you don't like it. Hence why Canada and the UK don't have free speech, and the US is losing it, if it hasn't lost it already.
Article courtesy of Fark.com; Interview was between Jim Norton and Carol Hartsell, and published by the Huffington Post.
I hate the culture of being offended that is developing in the States, and exists full-blown in Canada. It's stifling our discussions and our creativity. Which is why I love quotes like this:
"Here’s what being offended is, it’s a phony sense of empowerment. People have lost this ability to go, “Wow, I didn’t like that, that bothered me. I won’t watch that again.” People have lost the ability to just not like something and walk away. People now feel that if they object to something, nobody else should enjoy it either. It’s because we’ve seen enough people say they’re sorry, we’ve seen enough people fired where people now feel that, “if I’m offended, I voice my offense, people have to listen to me.”
It’s a really weird self-centered attention-seeking device people use. So I never buy the offense. … I think 90% of it is a lie. People say, “I don’t like stereotypes.” Bullshit. You don’t like negative stereotypes. People don’t mind positive stereotypes. People don’t mind positive assumptions. It’s only negative assumptions about them. So their outrage is so arbitrary. And I’m embarrassed for us as a free society that we actually want people punished for saying things we don’t like. The liberals are bad and the conservatives are bad. The liberals say things like “Well, that’s homophobic, that’s racist.” And the conservatives say things like, “You’re attacking our religion. You’re attacking family values.” Both sides are equally fraudulent when it comes to supporting unpopular speech. It’s easy to support popular speech. We’re supposed to stick up for things that do bother people. The rest of us are supposed to rally around and defend people’s rights to say what they want to say. That’s why I like the Westboro Baptist Church. I think they’re repulsive people. I think their message is repulsive. But I think they are good for society because it shows exactly what we will tolerate in a free-thinking society. Even pigs like that, and they are pigs."
Walking Away is a concept which is rapidly disappearing, as is supporting free speech in all its forms, even when you don't like it; especially when you don't like it. Hence why Canada and the UK don't have free speech, and the US is losing it, if it hasn't lost it already.
Article courtesy of Fark.com; Interview was between Jim Norton and Carol Hartsell, and published by the Huffington Post.
Can Hybrid Identities Work in Israel?
Service to Israel Tugs at Identity of Arab Citizens
The concept of a hybrid identity is a great idea, in my mind; why shouldn't we create new identities to simultaneously fit into the greater society while preserving our sense of self? One of the main reasons why I like living in the US or Canada; two countries where this is most possible. I've been curious regarding the possibility of similar hybrid identities existing in Israel; given that it is first and foremost a Jewish state, how do Arab Israelis exist there, except as second-class citizens?
While visiting Israel last month, and reading this NYT article today, I remember a great paper presented on the concept of hybridity and hybrid identities in Israel at the Hybridity Conference I helped organize 2 years ago, entitled "A State Without Identity: How and Why Israel Represses the Emergence of an Israeli identity". The paper's author, Dubi Kanengisser, a Ph.D. Candidate over at Political Science, gave a compelling thesis about why the Israeli government will never allow the genesis of an "Israeli" identity which exists in a hybrid state - even though doing so would be truly advantageous for the state of Israel. Mr. Kanengisser used the public service and military service programs as examples of means by which Israel could integrate Arab Israelis, but at the price of making these programs more acceptable to these citizens by dropping a lot of the references to a Jewish state.
The question regards a problem of identity, for both many Israeli Jews and the Israeli state; do they want a Jewish state, or do they want a modern state designed to protect Jews? I don't think these two concepts are incompatible, but it certainly is now, as the culture has been designed by the state thus far. "Israeli Culture" is very much a Jewish culture, with Judaism an inexorable part of that identity; it is similar, in many ways to how American culture was strongly identified with Protestant (and White) Christianity before WWII. While that aspect is still a part of American culture (Christmas trees are a great example), its significance has much less meaning today as American culture continues to become secularized and allowed for hybrid identities. I think Israel would be a much safer and longer-lasting haven for Jews if the state was allowed to truly modernize and secularize in a similar fashion - but doing so would mean downplaying the significance of Judaism, and allowing for a culture war similar to the one happening in the U.S. now.
Given the siege mentality of Israel, I don't see this happening anytime soon; cultural problems like this will be shunted aside quite easily in the name of military expediency. It is much easier to maintain cultural cohesion for the majority by appealing to the idea of resisting a war against a Jewish state. Integrating Arab Israelis could conceivably damage this notion quite severely, and I think it should; I strongly approved of the comparison made in the article between Blacks serving in the American military contributing to the Civil Rights movement, and Arab Israelis serving in the Israeli military. I think Arab Israelis are going to have to fight for their desire to have a hybrid identity, and prove it, through military service.
If the Israeli government allows for that service at all, of course.
Article written by Jodi Rudoren and published in the New York Times.
The concept of a hybrid identity is a great idea, in my mind; why shouldn't we create new identities to simultaneously fit into the greater society while preserving our sense of self? One of the main reasons why I like living in the US or Canada; two countries where this is most possible. I've been curious regarding the possibility of similar hybrid identities existing in Israel; given that it is first and foremost a Jewish state, how do Arab Israelis exist there, except as second-class citizens?
While visiting Israel last month, and reading this NYT article today, I remember a great paper presented on the concept of hybridity and hybrid identities in Israel at the Hybridity Conference I helped organize 2 years ago, entitled "A State Without Identity: How and Why Israel Represses the Emergence of an Israeli identity". The paper's author, Dubi Kanengisser, a Ph.D. Candidate over at Political Science, gave a compelling thesis about why the Israeli government will never allow the genesis of an "Israeli" identity which exists in a hybrid state - even though doing so would be truly advantageous for the state of Israel. Mr. Kanengisser used the public service and military service programs as examples of means by which Israel could integrate Arab Israelis, but at the price of making these programs more acceptable to these citizens by dropping a lot of the references to a Jewish state.
The question regards a problem of identity, for both many Israeli Jews and the Israeli state; do they want a Jewish state, or do they want a modern state designed to protect Jews? I don't think these two concepts are incompatible, but it certainly is now, as the culture has been designed by the state thus far. "Israeli Culture" is very much a Jewish culture, with Judaism an inexorable part of that identity; it is similar, in many ways to how American culture was strongly identified with Protestant (and White) Christianity before WWII. While that aspect is still a part of American culture (Christmas trees are a great example), its significance has much less meaning today as American culture continues to become secularized and allowed for hybrid identities. I think Israel would be a much safer and longer-lasting haven for Jews if the state was allowed to truly modernize and secularize in a similar fashion - but doing so would mean downplaying the significance of Judaism, and allowing for a culture war similar to the one happening in the U.S. now.
Given the siege mentality of Israel, I don't see this happening anytime soon; cultural problems like this will be shunted aside quite easily in the name of military expediency. It is much easier to maintain cultural cohesion for the majority by appealing to the idea of resisting a war against a Jewish state. Integrating Arab Israelis could conceivably damage this notion quite severely, and I think it should; I strongly approved of the comparison made in the article between Blacks serving in the American military contributing to the Civil Rights movement, and Arab Israelis serving in the Israeli military. I think Arab Israelis are going to have to fight for their desire to have a hybrid identity, and prove it, through military service.
If the Israeli government allows for that service at all, of course.
Article written by Jodi Rudoren and published in the New York Times.
10 July 2012
Thoughts About Moment, and Accusations of Racism
Everyone is still talking about what happened at Moment Sunday night, and likely will be talking about the incident for a while. At this point I support Moment, and am willing to cut the place a bit of slack. Talking about the issue in recent days, though, has brought up some considerations about incidents like this, and how I'm affected by the mere accusation of racism.
Personally, I was annoyed at myself at how quickly I initially rushed to judgment about Moment. I read von Steltmann's statement on the matter Monday morning, and I was ready to accept not only his word on the incident, but also ready to accept that an establishment I have patronized for a year was anti-Semitic. I was ready to never go to Moment again, and it wasn't for a few hours until I started really thinking about why I had made that judgment.
Let's think about that for a second - I was ready to jump ship and abandon Moment after only reading the word of some guy I never met, which was seconded by someone who I don't know particularly well. The mere accusation of anti-Semitism was enough to set me off - I didn't care about details, nor the other side of the story. For me, this is a problem - and I know I wasn't alone in jumping to this conclusion. In the end, I only opened my mind to other possibilities because I was prompted by friends, and thinking about the prospect of never going to Moment again.
This really got me thinking about how damaging a mere accusation can be - if the charge of anti-Semitism sticks to Moment, it could end as a business. At the very least, this would be greatly unfair. It also happens all the time. How many times has a business or a location been accused of anti-Semitism, and how often did I simply accept the charge? Many, many times - especially if it was seconded by the New York Times. Doing so was easy for me, because I didn't know the business in question. Now that it's hit so close to home, however, I thinking more about the ramifications of doing so, and I hope that, in the future, I engage in a bit more critical thinking before rushing to judgment.
It also got me to thinking about what constitutes anti-Semitism. Specifically, what makes an establishment anti-Semitic? I think we need to be far more careful with how we use that word, especially as Jews. One of the amazing things that has happened to Jews since WWII is that the societies in which we live fight along with us against discrimination and anti-Semitism, especially in the U.S. and Canada. This has not happened often in history, and I fear we might be taking this for granted. We also have to recognize the power this label has, and not to use it lightly - especially since in many places, when it comes to this issue our word is accepted so readily, by non-Jews and Jews.
So no, one incident does not make an establishment anti-Semitic. In the case of Moment, it's continuous support of minorities needs to be taken into account. For others without such a reputation, I think we need to think twice before throwing around such a label. We have power in this field, and I think we're in danger of abusing it - if we haven't done so already. Lord knows way too many Jews play the "Jew Card". But that's a whole other post entirely.
Personally, I was annoyed at myself at how quickly I initially rushed to judgment about Moment. I read von Steltmann's statement on the matter Monday morning, and I was ready to accept not only his word on the incident, but also ready to accept that an establishment I have patronized for a year was anti-Semitic. I was ready to never go to Moment again, and it wasn't for a few hours until I started really thinking about why I had made that judgment.
Let's think about that for a second - I was ready to jump ship and abandon Moment after only reading the word of some guy I never met, which was seconded by someone who I don't know particularly well. The mere accusation of anti-Semitism was enough to set me off - I didn't care about details, nor the other side of the story. For me, this is a problem - and I know I wasn't alone in jumping to this conclusion. In the end, I only opened my mind to other possibilities because I was prompted by friends, and thinking about the prospect of never going to Moment again.
This really got me thinking about how damaging a mere accusation can be - if the charge of anti-Semitism sticks to Moment, it could end as a business. At the very least, this would be greatly unfair. It also happens all the time. How many times has a business or a location been accused of anti-Semitism, and how often did I simply accept the charge? Many, many times - especially if it was seconded by the New York Times. Doing so was easy for me, because I didn't know the business in question. Now that it's hit so close to home, however, I thinking more about the ramifications of doing so, and I hope that, in the future, I engage in a bit more critical thinking before rushing to judgment.
It also got me to thinking about what constitutes anti-Semitism. Specifically, what makes an establishment anti-Semitic? I think we need to be far more careful with how we use that word, especially as Jews. One of the amazing things that has happened to Jews since WWII is that the societies in which we live fight along with us against discrimination and anti-Semitism, especially in the U.S. and Canada. This has not happened often in history, and I fear we might be taking this for granted. We also have to recognize the power this label has, and not to use it lightly - especially since in many places, when it comes to this issue our word is accepted so readily, by non-Jews and Jews.
So no, one incident does not make an establishment anti-Semitic. In the case of Moment, it's continuous support of minorities needs to be taken into account. For others without such a reputation, I think we need to think twice before throwing around such a label. We have power in this field, and I think we're in danger of abusing it - if we haven't done so already. Lord knows way too many Jews play the "Jew Card". But that's a whole other post entirely.
Yeah, Andersoon Cooper Waited Too Long
Love Among the Spuds: Tammy Baldwin's Senate Run in Wisconsin
Great article giving a vignette of Tammy Baldwin's campaign for the open Senate seat in Wisconsin. If she is elected, she will be the first openly gay Senator in history - and what is remarkable about her run is just how little the "issue" of her sexual orientation matters. This is fantastic - of course, you expect that from a state like Wisconsin, who has had both openly gay Democrat and Republican legislators at the state and federal level. But I liked what the article had to say about how the times are changing, that sexual orientation is becoming increasingly seen as a non-issue.
Really, this is the best thing to expect from rising tolerance - you don't need people dancing around with Rainbow stickers everywhere, you just need a person's background to become a non-issue, to be accepted without question. It'll be a long time before this attitude extends beyond states like Wisconsin, but it's a good start nevertheless.
It also brought to mind something that Malgosia said to me last week, when I was talking about Anderson Cooper's article about officially coming out. She didn't understand why it was a big deal, and here the article's author, Frank Bruni, echoes her sentiment - it wasn't a big deal, because you have Ellen DeGeneres as a J.C. Penny spokesman. Cooper waited far too long.
But I can see why Dan Savage hasn't picked up on Baldwin's run - she isn't a gay rights activist. Savage does have a bit of a blind spot when it comes to supporting openly gay politicians; if they're not loudly outspoken on the issue of gay rights, he doesn't hear about them at all.
Even if Baldwin loses, I find it remarkable and heartening that her sexual orientation doesn't mean a damn thing.
Article written by Frank Bruni and published in the New York Times.
Great article giving a vignette of Tammy Baldwin's campaign for the open Senate seat in Wisconsin. If she is elected, she will be the first openly gay Senator in history - and what is remarkable about her run is just how little the "issue" of her sexual orientation matters. This is fantastic - of course, you expect that from a state like Wisconsin, who has had both openly gay Democrat and Republican legislators at the state and federal level. But I liked what the article had to say about how the times are changing, that sexual orientation is becoming increasingly seen as a non-issue.
Really, this is the best thing to expect from rising tolerance - you don't need people dancing around with Rainbow stickers everywhere, you just need a person's background to become a non-issue, to be accepted without question. It'll be a long time before this attitude extends beyond states like Wisconsin, but it's a good start nevertheless.
It also brought to mind something that Malgosia said to me last week, when I was talking about Anderson Cooper's article about officially coming out. She didn't understand why it was a big deal, and here the article's author, Frank Bruni, echoes her sentiment - it wasn't a big deal, because you have Ellen DeGeneres as a J.C. Penny spokesman. Cooper waited far too long.
But I can see why Dan Savage hasn't picked up on Baldwin's run - she isn't a gay rights activist. Savage does have a bit of a blind spot when it comes to supporting openly gay politicians; if they're not loudly outspoken on the issue of gay rights, he doesn't hear about them at all.
Even if Baldwin loses, I find it remarkable and heartening that her sexual orientation doesn't mean a damn thing.
Article written by Frank Bruni and published in the New York Times.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)