CSotD: On the Persistence of Folly
Skip to comments
The reverberations of the Ted Cruz organ-grinder cartoon persist as we near the anniversary of the Charlie Hebdo murders, and if any clarity has emerged from either, it is that you can not argue a fool into understanding.
The true folly is to recognize that a person is either deliberately lying or genuinely incapable of understanding, and yet to continue to try to reason with them.
If they are deliberately lying, they'll continue to do so.
If they are genuinely that foolish, you might as well be talking to a dog.
In either case, to continue to argue with them is pointless self-provocation and makes you the bigger fool.
It's nice to think that, in the kingdom of the blind, the one-eyed man is king, but he seems more likely to be, at best, disbelieved and, at worst, pulled to pieces by the mob.
At this stage, Americans are working out the price of folly, since it seems apparent that hostility and paranoia have a substantial foothold, not simply in the form of people intent on believing ridiculously illogical things of their favorite candidates, but, as I write this, in the form of an armed uprising in Oregon.
Meanwhile, across the Atlantic, Charlie Hebdo editor Charb (Stéphane Charbonnier) speaks from beyond the grave, where he was put by armed psychopaths who were not capable of deciphering the meaning of cartoons.
He provides information that is important, even (especially) if you feel you have already decided what it all meant, but are willing, and wise enough, to listen to his argument.
His piece – more of a pamphlet than a book — is being published here this week under the English title, "Open Letter: On Blasphemy, Islamophobia, and the True Enemies of Free Expression," a somewhat tamer version of the original French "Lettre aux escrocs de l'islamophobie qui font le jeu des racistes" (roughly, "Letter to the Crooks of Islamophobia who enable the racists' game.")
I will purchase a copy, but you may find that, between Michael Cavna's quite substantive review, an NPR interview with Adam Gopnik, who wrote a foreword to the book, and this 2,250-plus word excerpt, you'll have what you need.
If you are open to discussion on the topic, it may well cause you to at least shift and re-orient your thoughts, if only to sharpen rather than change your focus.
I've gone on about this topic enough times that I'm not going to restate everything here.
I continue to feel a combination of horror and dismay over the murders, and of frustration over use of insulting cartoons in venues clearly destined to provoke that kind of response.
Or, to quote one of those above-linked posts:
I knew a fellow with no front teeth, top or bottom, the result of having said, "Fuck you" to someone in a bar and then putting a beer bottle to his lips for a drink and having the fuckyouee slam his hand down on the butt of the bottle.
None of us ever disputed his right to free speech. However, a great number of us questioned his judgment.
I stand by that, but what I've read of Charb's piece itself and the coverage of it heightens a distinction I think matters, though I'm not sure what to do with it.
I still consider the Danish cartoons to be a deliberate, unnecessary provocation of the most extreme elements, given that they were specifically drawn in defiance of threats from extremists. To quote myself again:
I have wondered what might have happened if, a decade ago, when someone said that they wanted to do a children's biography of the Prophet but that artists were afraid to illustrate it, Jyllands Posten had simply created and distributed an illustrated children's biography of the Prophet?
Not cynical or ironic. Just the thing they had been told could not be produced.
Or dozens of them, each illustrated by a different artist. Distributed for free. Dropped from airplanes all over the world.
A precision strike against the extremists, not only sparing but perhaps even delighting the moderates.
Charb's explanation, however, distinguishes his aims from those of the Danish provocateurs.
And if he were sitting across from me, I would argue that cartoons insulting the Prophet offend more than the extremists, just as insults to the Virgin Mary offend more than just the most conservative Catholics.
To which he would probably point out that Charlie Hebdo has no qualms about insulting her, either, or anyone else.
The point being that, if we should consider the feelings of conservative Muslims, we ought also to consider the difference between Anglo-American and French cartooning style. Something deeply disturbing in one culture might only be seen as childish or stupid in another.
Which is at the root of the conflict, but, Charb argues, there is no unified, specific "Islamic culture" to be defied or respected; it's a very diverse, worldwide thing, one small branch of which you are taking to define the whole.
Meanwhile, his argument is over the right of a French publication to make jokes in a French style, and that is something he can put his finger on.
As said, I'm not convinced, but he's certainly given me cause to re-focus.
I'll leave you to battle it out with Charb on your own, with only these two thoughts:
First, it doesn't change what happens when you put the bottle to your lips, but I'm quite sure he recognized that. I'm sorry it happened. I hope it was worth it, and I mean that in all sincerity.
Second, while he has changed my perspective, if not altered my conclusions, on the magazine he edited in life, I am less impressed with Charlie Hebdo's announcement that they will print one million copies of a commemorative issue this week.
If anything, my increased appreciation for his intentions only deepens my disdain for the selling of blood-stained souvenirs.
(A Phil Ochs classic, here by his close friends, Jim and Jean)
Comments 1
Comments are closed.