'I don’t want to read about how “we’re all” anything, because wishing away complexity is inadequate and juvenile...
This is the best piece I've read so far. It's so great to believe in something after all these years ("the pen")and you have to wonder if the nihilists aren't succeeding-at least for now- in furthering binary thinking: us and them (forget the East-West Diwan, bro').
It would be interesting to read about the history of satire. Wasn't satire about ridiculing the powerful? So, yes, the Church certainly falls in that category (or at least it used to) and religious authorities, too. I see the courage in satire but I don't see the "generosity" or "humanity" that people are harping on about.
I don't know what 'we are' is in French but I prefer 'I am'.
~~~
The caricature of the jihadi as a medieval throwback, animated by ancient passions, may be comforting to those who would like to wrap themselves in the mantle of civilisation and pose as heirs of Voltaire, but as a way of actually understanding anything, it’s feeble. Understanding is the very least we owe the dead.
The jihadi movement is a thoroughly modern beast, which ironically owes much to the French revolutionary legacy of 1789.
--Hari Kunzru,The Guardian.This is the best piece I've read so far. It's so great to believe in something after all these years ("the pen")and you have to wonder if the nihilists aren't succeeding-at least for now- in furthering binary thinking: us and them (forget the East-West Diwan, bro').
It would be interesting to read about the history of satire. Wasn't satire about ridiculing the powerful? So, yes, the Church certainly falls in that category (or at least it used to) and religious authorities, too. I see the courage in satire but I don't see the "generosity" or "humanity" that people are harping on about.
I don't know what 'we are' is in French but I prefer 'I am'.
~~~
2 comments:
It is very French to say "je pense, donc je suis".
It is very French, too, "not to give back to the Imam, what was taken from the Bishop."
fff, I can understand that-especially given the anti-clerical tradition in Pakistan and especially given the terrible hold the maulvis and conservatives have (not to mention the extremists). But I really don't see the point of satirizing religious figures and pissing off lots of ordinary Muslims. Which is not to say that anyone has the right not to be offended; instead I see the desire to provoke and the inability not to react to provocations, as quite childish (to be honest).
So, at a *practical* level I think it would be more effective to try and prevent radicalization through better imams and more pluralistic curricula. I can't see cartoons having much of an effect.
Think the 'free speech' debate-important though it is-is a bit of a red herring. The more difficult question is how, post-Khomeni-so many places have either been radicalized or drifted to very conservative views of religion. Need to dig out Gellner's 'Muslim society' again. Lots of relevant points.
Anyways...hope all else is well? With all this going on I've missed the Rembrandt exhibition...I dearly wanted to see 'The Jewish Bride' again..one of the most beautiful paintings I've ever seen. Khair...
b.
Post a Comment