News A Few Cultural Learnings
posted by on October 11 at 15:58 PM
The New Republic kicks off its latest issue with two intertwined, smart editorials. (I’ve pasted in key exerpts in the jump below just in case the links don’t work.)
The first editorial is by their lead columnist and former editor, whip-smart Peter Beinert.
Here’s his lead:
Last week, I went searching the liberal Web for discussions of Idomeneo. The Deutsche Oper, a Berlin opera house, had recently canceled the Mozart classic because it feared Muslims would react violently to a scene featuring Mohammed’s severed head. Germans declared that free speech was under siege. The New York Times covered every wrinkle. Right-wing websites buzzed. And, on the big liberal blogs, virtual silence.
Beinert’s piece is a nice slapdown on myopic (and I’d say hypocritical) lefties who have an endless history of bending over backward to accomodate reactionaries. Beinert goes on to argue that the left’s pick & choose approach to outrage is a fatal flaw.
Cultural sensititivy my ass. If the Anti-Defamation League rose up to denounce Ali G’s new movie Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan, can you imagine the avalanche of righteous (anti-censorship) indignation that would come thundering down from the left?
Brilliantly, The New Republic’s, symbiotic, second lead editorial, on the facing page is, well, a slapdown on the ADL for its (slow-witted) denunciation of Ali G.’s new movie Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhsta
Here’s TNR’s conclusion:
Cohen [Ali G.] has revealed Nazarbayev’s intolerance in a way that no State Department report ever will. Here’s hoping the ADL’s plea to keep audiences away from Borat’s film works as well as it did for The Passion of the Christ.
By denouncing censorship across the board—defending stuff that pisses off Muslims and pisses off Jews—TNR sets a rare (high) standard for those that claim to revere freedom of speech.
TRB from Washington
Heads Up
by Peter Beinart
Last week, I went searching the liberal Web for discussions of Idomeneo. The Deutsche Oper, a Berlin opera house, had recently canceled the Mozart classic because it feared Muslims would react violently to a scene featuring Mohammed's severed head. Germans declared that free speech was under siege. The New York Times covered every wrinkle. Right-wing websites buzzed. And, on the big liberal blogs, virtual silence.
If pressed, most liberal bloggers would probably have condemned the opera house's decision. But they didn't feel pressed. Blogging thrives on outrage and the Idomeneo closure just didn't get liberal blood flowing. And why is that? Perhaps because it didn't have anything to do with George W. Bush.
I know, I know. Bush is a horrendous president. The United States is on the verge of a midterm election that could strip him of much of his power. And liberal blogs are focused on trying to make sure that happens. That's all well and good.
But it's not enough. There are liberal causes that have nothing to do with opposing Bush and his Republican henchmen. In fact, some of those causes might even place liberals and Republican henchmen on the same side. And liberals must be passionate about them nonetheless. Partisan militancy may be necessary to combat Republican power. But it cannot define what it means to be a liberal in the United States today.
The Idomeneo controversy helps explain why. In much of Europe, Muslim violence has become a serious threat to free speech. In publishing its cartoons of Mohammed last fall, the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten performed a test: Is it possible to safely caricature the Prophet? The answer--received loud and clear by the Deutsche Oper--was no. Lower profile incidents confirm the point. Within days of the opera's cancellation, a French philosophy teacher was placed under police protection for writing an article critical of Islam.
To their credit, conservatives are upset about this. But many conservatives have trouble distinguishing between opposing censorship and just plain opposing Islam. Ratzinger, for instance, has attacked Turkey's bid for membership in the European Union, because, as a Muslim country, it stands "in permanent contrast to Europe." In the United States, The Weekly Standard's Fred Barnes responded to the Danish cartoon controversy by declaring that "Muslims all over the world are certainly enemies of Western civilization." An article in National Review suggested that the cartoon riots proved that the "cartoons depicting Muhammed as a dangerous man of arms ... had a good point."
No defense of free speech will prove effective if it strikes Muslims as simply a defense of Christian privilege. Art must be free to offend all religions.
Liberals are less prone to a "clash of civilizations" mentality that undermines the very notion of free speech as a universal value. And that is why they must make the cause of European free speech their own. The best analogy is the "political correctness" fights that roiled college campuses in the late '80s and early '90s. When professors and students were punished for statements that violated racial and gender orthodoxy, it was conservatives like Dinesh D'Souza who most aggressively came to their defense. But many conservatives were tainted by their defense of the McCarthyite assault on campus free speech in the 1950s.
We have reached that point again. During the PC wars, many liberals were genuinely conflicted about whether free speech outweighed racial and gender sensitivity on campus. Today, some liberals still excuse censorship in sensitivity's name. The bigger danger, however, is not sensitivity; it is indifference. Having adapted themselves so fully to a hyper-partisan environment, many liberals seem unable to conceive of a struggle in which the Republican right is not an enemy but an ally. But there are such struggles, and, without today's activist liberals, they will be harder to win. Free speech is under threat, and Idomeneo should be the last straw. It is time, once again, to close ranks.
By the Horns
by the Editors
This time, the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) has gone too far. It was bad enough when the organization that describes itself as being "devoted to fighting anti-Semitism, bigotry, and extremism" denounced the artist and humanitarian Mel Gibson for his unassailable observation that "the Jews are responsible for all the wars in the world." But, now, the ADL has revealed its utter lack of decency by attacking the Kazakh television newsman Borat Sagdiyev.
After all, is there anyone who can reasonably blame Borat for saying that, when in the United States, he prefers to travel by car rather than airplane "in case the Jews repeat their attack of 9/11"? And is it anything other than harmless fun when Borat engages in one of his favorite pastimes--an annual Kazakh ritual called "The Running of the Jew"? And is there any denying the heart-felt sentiments--not to mention age-old wisdom--contained in Borat's song "In My Country There Is Problem," whose chorus goes: "Throw the Jew down the well / So my country can be free / You must grab him by his horns / Then we have a big party"?
Before Abe Foxman has an aneurysm, let us note that the above is intended as satire. And so, of course, is Borat--a fictional character created and played by the brilliant British comedian Sacha Baron Cohen, himself an observant Jew. The ADL knows both of these facts--indeed, the organization has praised Cohen for being "proudly Jewish" and for trying "to use humor to unmask the absurd and irrational side of anti-Semitism"--and yet it is still fretting about Cohen's forthcoming film, Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan. The reason? The ADL, according to a statement it released last week, is "concerned ... that the audience may not always be sophisticated enough to get the joke."
This particular concern--in which the merits, not to mention the intentions, of a work of art take a backseat to the issue of how some audiences might respond to it--has become commonplace. And, to a certain extent, that is understandable. After the 2004 murder of Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh by a Muslim extremist angered by van Gogh's criticism of Islam, and after the widespread Muslim riots over a Dutch newspaper's publication of editorial cartoons depicting the Islamic Prophet Mohammed, making art that may offend certain audiences is an undeniably risky business. Indeed, just last week, Berlin's Deutsche Oper canceled its production of Mozart's Idomeneo for fear that Muslims would violently protest a scene featuring the severed head of Mohammed.
But, while the Deutsche Opera episode and other less-publicized acts of artistic self-censorship may be understandable, that doesn't mean that they are any less regrettable. Because among the many freedoms upon which the making of good art depends is what Ian Buruma has called, in these pages, "the freedom to offend."
Just consider the case of Borat. While the ADL may kvetch, there is no greater critic of Borat than Kazakhstan's president Nursultan A. Nazarbayev, who evidently finds nothing funny about Borat's portrayal of his country--and, by extension, his regime--as benighted and backward. Last year, a Kazakh foreign ministry spokesman issued a public denunciation of Cohen's Borat performance and threatened to take legal action against the comic; around the same time, Nazarbayev's government also stripped Cohen's Borat website of its original domain name, .kz. The Kazakh Embassy in Washington has already denounced the forthcoming Borat film, and a foreign ministry spokesman has said that Nazarbayev's government will do everything in its considerable power to stop it from playing in Kazakhstan.
All of which has only served to illustrate the true character of Nazarbayev. Long accustomed to ruling his country with relative impunity--earlier this year, the State Department rated his government's human rights record as "poor," citing its encroachments on political rights, freedom of the press, and freedom of religion--Nazarbayev refuses to tolerate even a fictional character like Borat. And, in that refusal, Cohen has revealed Nazarbayev's intolerance in a way that no State Department report ever will. Here's hoping the ADL's plea to keep audiences away from Borat's film works as well as it did for The Passion of the Christ.
"...pick & choose approach to outrage..."
What, like The Stranger's picking and choosing?
Picking: http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/SavageLove?oid=74787
Choosing:
http://www.thestranger.com/blog/2006/10/scandal_43rd_distric.php
"...pick & choose approach to outrage..."
Just like the Stranger's picking (the craigslist 'experiment') and choosing (Hugh Foskett's facebook)?
Josh, you should make sure Eli Sanders and Dan Savage read this post. A little journalistic integrity might rub off on them.
Several problems here:
Calling the ADL's statement a "denunciation" is a blatant mischaracterization of the actual content. Slow-witted, perhaps. Certainly hypersensitive. But it doesn't denounce the film or its contents.
Beinert has a history of telling me to be afeard of stuff, so I had to check his story. Turns out the Deutsch Oper is considering rescheduling the program with appropriate security measures taken in a couple months.
Also, the bit about the hero laughing at the severed head of Muhammad wasn't in the Mozart original. It was added recently. That doesn't have much bearing on the nature of the complaint, but someone should check the author, lest people get all riled up about "censoring Mozart."
Beinert and his ilk want me to be scared of the same threats they perceive. I suppose it's only natural they should think me deficient when I fail to run to their cause in fear. Whatever.
I think lefties have a hard time reconciling their strong belief in freedom of speech with their dislike of insulting people (especially minorities).
@Boyd: I could totally see your point, but I was under the impression that Facebook pages were open and accessible to the general public (ie, anyone can be a facebook member and anyone can access another member's page). If I'm wrong (ie, a password was needed to access his page), then I'd agree with you. Otherwise, there's a big difference in publicly displaying info. and transmitting info. under the assumption it would be privately viewed by one other.
Summerlin,
you sound like, well, just as Feit said it: like you're one of those lefties who's bending over backwards.
Are you serious? This is a big issue? See, here's the thing. Last time I looked, Germany isn't in America. Liberal blogs tend to be focused on, you know, American politics.
To draw a more direct analogy, if Idomeneo was shut down in America because it might offend Muslims...I bet you'd see some outrage on the left, because it's moronic. Or not, who knows? I'm sure we'll find out soon enough.
On the other hand, private concerns have the right to censor whatever the hell they want. I'm not sure why that's confusing to the right, left, TNR, or anyone else.
Please spare me the deference to the righty blogosphere's "defense" of free speech. They pick and choose their outrage just as much as anyone. Seriously, Josh, sometimes it's like you take one too many bong hits before wobbling down to the office.
one of those lefties who's bending over backwards
Perhaps you're one of those readers whose opinions are influenced by echo chamber journalism.
Josh:
Are you saying you were opposed to Charles Mudede's call to cancel Buju Banton's show at Neumoe's?
If so, why didn't you speak up at the time?
i saw the borat movie in l.a. a couple of weeks ago, at one of the two west coast screenings that were held. it was chaos. people started lining up at 11am for the 10pm screening.
there are, as to be expected, a million jew jokes. anyone who knows cohen's work knows that jew jokes are his schtick. is anti-semitism from a jew ok? i dunno. all i know is that the audience nearly died when borat explained his reason for driving across country, rather than flying:
it is not safe to fly. the jews may stage a repeat of their 9/11 attacks.
overall, i thought the movie was ok. but, i don't like going to the cinema. there are some amazingly uncomfortable unscripted parts, which is cohen's strong suit. the story line is weak but that's to be expected.
i just hope the wrestling scene makes it to the final cut, unadulterated. i won't give anything away but will say this: i've never seen a film that featured a man's nut sack on the chin of another man that wasn't a porno.
RobotSlave,
Yes.
I was out of town in D.C., not paying attention to much but my Cantwell assignment when that whole thing blew up. To be honest: I didn't even know Mudede called for a boycott.
Neumo's can book whatever act it wants. Had people shown up to protest that guy's act, I think that would have been cool.
fair and balanced means pretending the left has as much power in this country as the right. it doesn't. and it never has. these complaints about political correctness are so tired, so exaggerated, so totally beside the point.
WF,
What does sympathizing with (or tolerating) radical Muslim calls for censorship have to do with overcoming the Left's lack of power in this country?
Zero.
The Left is supposed to be against censorship. So, wouldn't all Lefty calls against censorship help restore the Left?
Case in point—the Muslims who call for censorship are totally totally totally right wing.
kerri--
balls on chin: definitely in the final cut.
why don't you like going to movies?
hello, I am a professor of Muslim studies and have shocking news. I have recently come across a rare scroll that has some shocking imagery indeed. It clearly shows the prophet mohammed having intercourse with his camel. I am releasing it to the BBC soon. So the beheading of the prophet will be small potatoes compared to this new image that I am releasing.
Joshua Aloysius Feit!!! The LEAST you can do is read this:
http://www.prospect.org/weblog/2006/10/post_1595.html#013864
Peter Beinhart is from the Alan Colmes wing of the Democratic Party.
Josh:
I'm sure it seems like a nitpick, but Mudede didn't just call for a boycott, he called for cancellation of the show. A boycott wouldn't have bothered me and other free-speech advocates at all; it was the idea of shutting the artist down entirely that rankled.
And a big part of the problem in that controversy was that Charles wrote in SLOG as if he were speaking for The Stranger, and though various staffers later insisted that Mudede was merely expressing his own opinion, nobody on the paper's staff spoke out against cancelling the show, either.
In fact, as far as I'm aware, you're the first staffer to go on record as opposing cancellation of the show.
The Prospect piece linked to above makes a couple good points. First, it's a cheap tactic to argue that a lack of commentary or a lack of outrage on a particular issue means that bloggers must feel a particular way about it. This is a common but much-derided habit of certain bloggers who want to take a cheap shot.
Second, the cancellation of the opera isn't a clear censorship case. I happen to think that it's ridiculous that they were so eager not to offend that they cancelled it, but that is a different issue: what lengths should we go to in our attempts to be culturally sensitive? It's an important discussion, but this case is different than, for example, Tony Judt being denied the chance to air his views. Again, I think that there is a ridiculous amount of self-censorship at play in peoples' attempt to appease reactionaries, but it's a different issue.
And it's true that many conservatives jump on these issues because they can mix anti-Muslim sentiment in with their analyses.
Thinking back to the Danish cartoon brouhaha, I remember that people like Andrew Sullivan, a writer whom I generally admire very much, kept accusing publications such as the NYT of not believing in free speech because they decided not to publish the cartoons. Huh? That's saying "if you don't publish what I want and don't say what I want you to say, then you don't believe in free speech." Presumably he'll now demand that every American theatre perform this opera.
right wing chic is bashing "the left" for being pc.
simplistic shit about the left being against censorship in all cases ignores that there's been a long conversation that's gone on in both post-WWII Europe and post-civil rights movement US about hate speech and hate crimes. i see rethinking these ideas in relation to new immigrant communities as a healthy and transitional process.
these controversies are politicized mainly by right wing assholes looking for another way to make it seem like we're in a clash of civilizations. they'd have you believe that the new culture wars are in the middle east, when really, the biggest problems in the middle east are the US occupations, its collaboration with dictators and torturers, and its support for the Israeli occupation of Palestine-- all in the name of spreading or safeguarding western freedoms.
Dutch newspaper's publication of editorial cartoons depicting the Islamic Prophet Mohammed
Why am I not surprised that TNR's editors can't tell the difference between the Dutch and the Danes.
Peter Beinhart is from the Alan Colmes wing of the Democratic Party.
Aren't virtually all of TNR's writers?
Also, the bit about the hero laughing at the severed head of Muhammad wasn't in the Mozart original. It was added recently.
It's worse than that. Muhammed's decapitated head isn't in the original, period. The opera is set in ancient Greece/Troy, a little too early for Islam, Christianity, and Buddhism. Fucking pretentious Germans.
Josh is 100% right. There is no call of "bullshit" from the left when Muslim groups demand censorship or play the religion card while if Jewish or Christian groups do the same the left gets indignant immediately. Also the double standards between the freedom of the Islamic political/religious/media, whether in the Islamic world or the west, to offend is as stringently matched by their demand no one have the right to offend them. If this were coming from Israel and their supporters the left would be the first to say this hypocrasy is not acceptable.
Robot Slave,
Right you are.
And it's true that many conservatives jump on these issues because they can mix anti-Muslim sentiment in with their analyses.
by Gabriel
Gabriel, it also true that many leftists jump on certain issues because they can mix anti-Jewish or anti-Christian sentiment in with their analyses.
All those people against hypocrisy in calls for freedom of speech: time for you to campaign for the decriminalization of cross burning in the us, the legalization of nazi parties in europe, etc. This is the top issue of the day, trumps all others, shows the insidious influence of the left on our body politic, stands in the way of the Democratic Party taking back the Senate. Get on it!
Aloysius? for real?
Comments Closed
In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).