The subtlety of monolithic Islam bigotry

By Frank Moraes

On Wednesday, I published "Je Suis Charlie." And I stand by most of what I wrote. But there was one thing that I wrote that was based upon hearsay rather than actual research: "In the case of Charlie Hebdo, any outrage is totally unjustified because the magazine took on everyone." It was also based upon the cover illustration to the left that mocked both a Muslim and a Hasidic Jew. But I think there might be a problem with this contention.

Yesterday, Glenn Greenwald wrote "In Solidarity With a Free Press: Some More Blasphemous Cartoons." It is a reaction to a push by many all over the political spectrum who claim that we should celebrate the offending cartoons that supposedly caused the recent massacre of innocents in Paris. It is an interesting and thoughtful analysis of the issue. (Contrast it with Jonathan Chait's incredibly uninteresting response, "Charlie Hebdo Point-Missers Miss Point.") I'm not quite sure where I stand on it. But this part struck me:

With all due respect to the great cartoonist Ann Telnaes, it is simply not the case that Charlie Hebdo "were equal opportunity offenders." Like Bill Maher, Sam Harris and other anti-Islam obsessives, mocking Judaism, Jews and/or Israel is something they will rarely (if ever) do. If forced, they can point to rare and isolated cases where they uttered some criticism of Judaism or Jews, but the vast bulk of their attacks are reserved for Islam and Muslims, not Judaism and Jews.

I don't speak French, so I'm not in a position to say. But it made me realize that the cover illustration above may actually indicate the fundamental problem with my own thinking. The problem, as I now see it, is that the Muslim is generic and the Jew is not. The implication is simply, "all Muslims and particular Jews." But I don't think that this is intentional. It is more along the lines of, "All Japanese look alike!" What such claims actually mean is that the speaker has little experience with Japanese people. (I've had this problem myself -- cured by years of Japanese cinema watching.)

It is pathetic, of course, that I now feel I must mention that I'm free speech absolutist. It is not just that it is obviously wrong to kill people for the "offense" of saying things you disagree with. The idea that people should not have the right to encourage draft resistance during a war ("shouting fire in a crowed theater") is simply ridiculous. Just the same, it is curious, isn't it, that we do not have such clearly political -- First Amendment -- rights, but we do have the right to snipe at minority groups in any way that we choose -- including "the right of neo-Nazis to march through a community filled with Holocaust survivors..."

According to Juan Cole, two-thirds of Muslim heritage French people don't even consider themselves religious -- much less "radical." The problem here is that even among the very small world population of Jews (less than 20 million), we distinguish. But the 1.6 billion Muslims are monolithic for us. And that's why that Charlie Hebdo cover struck me as fairly even-handed (I would have preferred a Christian in there -- but intolerance is not limited to any religion or non-religion).

Bigotry is, at base, about classification -- treating individuals as members of a group. It is a very big issue that I fight with in myself constantly regarding racism. I fear that many people who, like me, worry about racism, don't worry about such grouping problems when it comes to religion. After all, people supposedly choose their religions. There are a couple of problems with that. First, people don't choose their religions. Almost every religious person is a member of the faith they grew up in. Second, as we know only too well, there is very little that can be generalized about a hippy Unitarian and a right-wing evangelical Protestant. The same is true of all people. I'm sure there are even cruel Jains.

I would hate for the tragedy in Paris to leave us with nothing but what we should have always known: people shouldn't be killed because others find them offensive. Worse still is the idea that this is all about Islam, because if these actions really spoke of the religion, those 1.6 billion Muslims would have forced us to live under a worldwide caliphate by now. I suppose that it is asking too much for everyone to take this as an opportunity to examine themselves. But it really is on all of us non-Muslims, because it isn't like the terrorists are going to start wearing "gang colors." And it is wrong to ask Muslims to abandon their heritage so we can better spot those we ought to fear. (Not that it would work, of course.)

(Cross-posted at Frankly Curious.)

Truth in Comics: Paul Ryan's balancing act

By Michael J.W. Stickings

From RJ Matson of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch (via Taegan Goddard):

We'll add this excellent work to our "Truth in Comics" series. 

And for more on Ryan's much-ballyhooed budget plan, "The Path to Prosperity," see Jon Chait's:

-- "Path To Prosperity Even More Insanely Unworkable Than You Thought";

-- "Republicans Admit Their Health Care Complaint Was Bogus";

-- "The Path To Prosperity And The True Republican Agenda";

-- "The Counterintuitive Liberal Case For Ryan Is Too Counterintuitive";

-- "Ryan's Bipartisanship Fib"; and

-- "The Achilles Heel Of The Path To Prosperity."

Great analysis of a fiscally irresponsible and incredibly cruel plan.

¿qué has dicho?

By Capt. Fogg

My first reaction, as a detail oriented person, was that Bustelo was an Italian brand of coffee and Pilon would have been a better choice if your trying to stereotype someone. My second reaction was "what the hell is he thinking?" Is he trying to tell us that Sonia Sotomayor is no more than some ethnic fortune teller whose advice is sold along with plantains and lotto tickets in some Puerto Rican grocery store? (and by the way, aren't those Puerto Ricans backward and picturesque?)

So what are you saying here, Mr. Danziger? Beats me -- what about you?

(Cross-posted from Human Voices.)

Roland Hedley, star journalist

By J. Thomas Duffy

Good treat today, as Garry Trudeau has an article in The New Yorker this week, on one of his Doonesbury characters, the intrepid journalist Roland Hedley (take your pick, of a bevy of dwarfs, finks, phonies, and frauds, of whom Roland is a composite -- hint for at least one of them: Al Capone's vault).

The Tweets Of Roland Hedley

It's hysterical!

Here's a snip:

Ankara. Bought chunk of hash for my oldest. Press bus went ape-shit. What the heck is “Midnight Express”? 10:17 A.M. Apr 6th

Oh, THAT “Midnight Express.” 10:19 A.M. Apr 6th

O.K., ditched hash, planted it on Le Monde reporter. Thanks for caring, Tweeps, never got 80 direct messages before. 11:23 A.M. Apr 6th

There are more, including some tremendous riffs of Roland in England with the Queen.

Go check out The Tweets Of Roland Hedley.

h/t to http://twitter.com/GregMitch



(Cross-posted at The Garlic.)

Truth in comics?

By Capt. Fogg


The truth is that "controversial" cartoonist Sean Delonas is a provocateur who really doesn't care about the limits of decency, or about appearing to be joking about murdering the president, or comparing a man of exceptional intelligence, education, and achievement to a dead ape.

Humor is a wonderful tool for saying what is difficult to say, but when the difficulty stems from offending the dignity of people of African descent and indeed of the United States of America, the tool is no longer wonderful. I've been vilified for criticizing George Bush, as has everyone who disagreed with him. Bush's mildest critics have been called vicious, unpatriotic, and "deranged," but although he's often been depicted as a monkey, I can't recall a single cartoon in the mainstream press showing him being shot by the police. Double standard? We need a better word than understatement to describe it.

The cartoon is a clear parody of a current news event, it broadly mocks Washington's efforts to revive the economy,

said New York Post editor-in-chief Col Allan. No, it isn't. I'm the last one to go hunting for racist innuendo, but this isn't innuendo, it's a classic piece of bigotry right out of the Jim Crow era, and it can't be whitewashed by slurs against Al Sharpton, whether you like him or not. Everyone on the planet who believes we are a violent nation of racists will nod his head at this. It will be reproduced in papers all over the world just at the time when Obama's election was beginning to change people's minds, and that's just what the rabid right wants: failure for America, resurrection of the policies that have torpedoed the world.

Delonas has left us a long slime trail of disgusting cartoons pandering to the demented, deranged, stupid, bigoted, homophobic, and social misfits who read Murdoch publications looking for justification and stories of alien abduction.

It's time the Rupert Murdoch-owned Post found someone else to write the next cartoon. It's time America found better places to look for information.

A self-evident truth

By Michael J.W. Stickings

This is one of the best post-election cartoons I've seen -- from WaPo's Tom Toles (via Slate):

Though there is still a long way to go, and still much to do, Americans should be very proud of their country and its noble ideals. I certainly am.

Cartoon crap

By Capt. Fogg


Dear Mr. McCoy,

Using it up now is not the same as saving it for the future. Drilling it now is useless not because the results are 20 years away, but because the results won't matter. In fact, the small amount of oil in the Gulf will be more valuable if we leave it there. Your analogies are really lies, aren't they? Of course, Obama isn't opposing drilling for oil, you just made that up because you're a liar, aren't you?

(Cross-posted from Human Voices.)

See, now this is funny

By Michael J.W. Stickings

From the Seattle Post-Intelligencer's David Horsey, some brilliant satire (not like the lame, cheap satire on the cover of The New Yorker -- make sure to read Creature's and Libby's takes on it), filled with layers of artfully-reinforcing irony and potent commentary on the issue du jour: