MICHAEL DAVIS WORLD

You can't make this stuff up, so we don't!

Understanding, by Martha Thomases – Brilliant Disguise | @MDWorld

January 17, 2015 Martha Thomases 4 Comments

censorshipbutton_xlargeOne of the things I do when I write, especially about something that is foreign to me, is try to find examples in my own landscape so that I might relate more easily.

And, at the same time, as someone with far too much time available for navel-gazing, I notice that what provokes my outrage the most are things I see in others that I don’t like in myself.  If you ever hear me criticizing the way another woman is squeezed into her jeans, you can bet I’m feeling fat.  If I’m ranting about the thoughtless values of someone with more money than taste, the chances are that I just bought cashmere yarn for a sweater I won’t knit in this decade.

 

There have been several times when I’ve compared the behavior of one set of extreme religious fundamentalists to another.  Are Muslims killing cartoonists?  That sucks.  But did you know that in Israel, they jailed a Palestinian cartoonist?

If I had to choose, I would rather be in jail than dead.  I do not mean to say that the Israeli government that jailed the cartoonist is the moral equivalent of Al Qaeda in Yemen.  Rather, my point is that when confronted with something they deem to be threatening, the Israeli government lashes out, just like Al Qaeda does.  The impulse is the same, even though the response is more tempered.  Both want to suppress speech they find rebellious.

In France, where millions just marched to defend free speech, including the heads of the French government, the French government just jailed a comedian for expressing his opinions.  I find his opinions distasteful.  Most likely, I wouldn’t pay to see him perform.  Under certain circumstances, I might demonstrate outside a place where he performed, not to object to his right to speak, but to disagree with what he said.  I suspect I would not, in fact, actually do that because then I would have to put on pants.

In our own country, a man who may be a lunatic extremist but who was also an elected member of Congress declared that because he is such a strong supporter of free speech, he would be delighted to see people who disagreed with him beheaded by opponents of free speech.  Or something.  I confess I have trouble following his logic.

At this time in history, we see a lot of examples of Muslim extremism.  Sometimes, this extremism is exhibited by one of our allies to violently suppress free speech. These same “allies” are taking women to court for the “terrorist” act of driving cars.

Sometimes, it manifests as the violent repression of human sexuality, especially if those expressions threaten heterosexual men.  Again, this is a more extreme response to the same impulses we see here in the States by our own (yes, more moderate) fundamentalists towards those who want to enjoy their bodies in ways that don’t necessarily result in babies.

And then there is scariness that is just batshit tribalism. Boko Haram may wrap themselves in the Koran, but they are thugs and gangsters.  I can’t think of a parallel organization in this country (thank the Goddess), but I have a hunch that we didn’t hear about the slaughter of 2000 Nigerians because it happened at the same time and they were deemed to be less photogenic than the French victims.

Monday we celebrate the life and work of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr..  I have to believe that, if he was still with us, he would be at the forefront of denouncing terrorism.  And he would be criticizing the flag-waving media with his next breath.

Martha Thomases, Media Goddess, may put on pants to go see Selma to find out if it matches her memories.

Previous Post

Next Post

Comments

  1. R. Maheras
    January 17, 2015 - 2:09 pm

    One of the reasons I had so much respect for MLK is because he never came across as a vicious, bigoted reactionary, as, say, an Al Sharpton or a Louis Farrakhan. King carried himself as a leader, commanded respect without demanding respect, and, from what I saw and have read, never — even during the worst of times — reduced himself to race-baiting or inciting violence. He just wanted fairness and equality for all people. Ditto for Nelson Mandella.

    That’s my dream as well.

    By the way, I don’t think there’s anything wrong with waving the flag. I think the principles this country was founded on are absolutely worth defending.

  2. tom brucker
    January 17, 2015 - 2:41 pm

    It is good to know that in today’s twitter world cartoons are still viewed as strong media influences. How’s that for spin?
    The US has a Boko Haran. They are the preservationists who await the end of days, and are ready to fight (kill) any authority not their own.

  3. Mike Gold
    January 17, 2015 - 11:27 pm

    Nothing wrong with flag waving, Russ. The problem is, even though all our flags look the same, the flag one person is waving is not exactly the same as the one that the NEXT person is waving… and so on.

    This is EXACTLY why I like being an American. The fact that my flag, in some ways, make be different from yours… that is the American way.

    It’s not as orderly as that exercised by some of our more extreme brethren, but it’s a lot more fair, a lot less dangerous, and quite frankly a lot more fun. I may have to find my own 72 virgins, but at least I’ll still be alive for each one I do find.

  4. Rene
    January 22, 2015 - 5:07 am

    Martha –

    There are certain distinctions that people are failing to make, IMO.

    The anti-semite comedian jailed in France was targetting one specific group. He just hates Jews. It seems like France, and other European nations (and also my own country) have specific laws against racist speech. Not all countries are like the USA where you can join the Nazi Party and badmouth Jews to your heart’s content.

    Some people are saying that Charlie Hebdo is Anti-Islam just like this commedian is Anti-Semite, as a way of trying to portray the French as hypocrites, but that doesn’t align with the truth.

    Charlie Hebdo is against ALL religion. They have made some very aggressive cartoons of the Pope, for instance (and no sign of Catholic terrorists invading their buildind…).

    Charlie Hebdo is party of a European tradition of aggressive secularism. There is an argument to be made that that is a form of prejudice too. Maybe. You guys know that I’m not a fan of aggressive atheism myself. However, it’s a fact that aggressive atheists, secularists, and humanists are highly respected in intelectual circles, particularly in Europe. While racists, like that comedian, are despised (and rightly so).

    It’s not the same situation.

  5. Martha Thomases
    January 22, 2015 - 6:41 am

    Rene, I think that is a distinction without a distinction. Atheists can be just as bigoted as theists.

    Also, marching for free expression and then jailing someone for free expression is bullshit even (maybe especially) if you don’t like what the prisoner says.

  6. R. Maheras
    January 22, 2015 - 7:55 am

    Martha wrote: “Also, marching for free expression and then jailing someone for free expression is bullshit even (maybe especially) if you don’t like what the prisoner says.”

    Absolutely.

  7. Rene
    January 23, 2015 - 5:05 am

    Maybe it’s because I’m not American, that I understand the French. In Brazil you CAN go to jail for calling someone a nigger, particularly in a public place with witnesses like a shopping mall. Somehow that didn’t make my country into a police state (maybe because Brazilians aren’t trigger-happy to sue each other) nor curtailed expression in books and movies.

    But you won’t go to jail for saying God or Jesus or Moses or any religious figure is (insert any offensive thing here).

    Double standard? Not necessarily.

    The distinction is that people can’t change their race (they can, at most, hide it), but people can change their religion. So I can see why criticizing someone’s race is good for nothing except nefarious purposes, while there is a place for questioning religion. Race can be a concrete thing, religion is in the field of ideas, so open for attack, for change, for evolution.

  8. Mike Gold
    January 23, 2015 - 9:35 am

    “Religion is in the field of ideas, so open for attack, for change, for evolution.”

    Nice phrasing, Rene. And still another reason why I should move to Brazil.

    Not to use Martha’s space to plug my column (yeah, right), but I’ll be commenting on this Monday.

Comments are closed.