Ok, this post annoyed me when I read it earlier today and I didn't comment b/c I'm feeling crappy but then I can't stop thinking about why it annoyed me so I'm just gonna go for it.
I used to live some place where the guy who owned the building next to the Planned Parenthood had painted "Thou Shalt Not Kill" in huge letters on the side of his building, facing the PP clinic. It pissed me off. The general idea, locally, was, "well, it's his building, he has the right," and PP, as far as I could tell, just ignored it. But clearly it was intended as harassment.
Now, I don't know the situation in Amsterdam except for the mere fact that Ripke was assassinated b/c he'd made a film about Islamic fundamentalism and it pissed someone off. I don't know if this person was crazy, or acting alone, or had any connections with local Muslim organizations, or what. Nor do I know if the intent of the artist painting the mural was merely to express sadness (probable) or if it was intended as an accusation. How "near" was this mosque? Was the mural implicitly accusing all Muslims of murder? Because that kind of thing does happen--I remember the rhetoric (and actual killing) after 9/11 towards Muslims and
Sikhs (and also extended towards Christians and secular Arabs and Persians, while we're at it). Maybe the sandblasting of the mural was stupid--but I don't think we can automatically assume that it was, because I find it all too easy to imagine circumstances where that kind of rhetoric is very much about coded racism
So I think this may be a gross oversimplification. Not all Muslims are terrorists, and not all liberals are entirely fuzzy-headed on the p.c. thing. I don't quite think it's the death of liberal society to try to distinguish between fundamentalism, religion, and race. Clearly fundamentalism is a major problem for liberal society, and clearly there are many fundamentalists (and many people who are not fundamentlists) who will use the argument about "tolerance" and "hurt feelings" against us. It needs to be thought through. But it's a little more complicated than Sullivan and you are letting on here, I think.
But I think your point about "economic neglect and cultural deference" is brilliant.
Point taken about the possible contextual meaning of the mural. I hadn't considered that. Though it's mitigated somewhat by the fact that, in your example, whether the act is "killing" is what's at issue, and here, an adult was shot and stabbed in the street.
And yes, we do need to think through issues of tolerance and fundamentalism, though I'd still say that we've erred way on the side of tolerance, and a firmer insistence on assimilation would do us all some good.
Ok, this post annoyed me when I read it earlier today and I didn't comment b/c I'm feeling crappy but then I can't stop thinking about why it annoyed me so I'm just gonna go for it.
I used to live some place where the guy who owned the building next to the Planned Parenthood had painted "Thou Shalt Not Kill" in huge letters on the side of his building, facing the PP clinic. It pissed me off. The general idea, locally, was, "well, it's his building, he has the right," and PP, as far as I could tell, just ignored it. But clearly it was intended as harassment.
Now, I don't know the situation in Amsterdam except for the mere fact that Ripke was assassinated b/c he'd made a film about Islamic fundamentalism and it pissed someone off. I don't know if this person was crazy, or acting alone, or had any connections with local Muslim organizations, or what. Nor do I know if the intent of the artist painting the mural was merely to express sadness (probable) or if it was intended as an accusation. How "near" was this mosque? Was the mural implicitly accusing all Muslims of murder? Because that kind of thing does happen--I remember the rhetoric (and actual killing) after 9/11 towards Muslims and
Sikhs (and also extended towards Christians and secular Arabs and Persians, while we're at it). Maybe the sandblasting of the mural was stupid--but I don't think we can automatically assume that it was, because I find it all too easy to imagine circumstances where that kind of rhetoric is very much about coded racism
So I think this may be a gross oversimplification. Not all Muslims are terrorists, and not all liberals are entirely fuzzy-headed on the p.c. thing. I don't quite think it's the death of liberal society to try to distinguish between fundamentalism, religion, and race. Clearly fundamentalism is a major problem for liberal society, and clearly there are many fundamentalists (and many people who are not fundamentlists) who will use the argument about "tolerance" and "hurt feelings" against us. It needs to be thought through. But it's a little more complicated than Sullivan and you are letting on here, I think.
But I think your point about "economic neglect and cultural deference" is brilliant.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 11- 9-04 10:25 AM
Point taken about the possible contextual meaning of the mural. I hadn't considered that. Though it's mitigated somewhat by the fact that, in your example, whether the act is "killing" is what's at issue, and here, an adult was shot and stabbed in the street.
And yes, we do need to think through issues of tolerance and fundamentalism, though I'd still say that we've erred way on the side of tolerance, and a firmer insistence on assimilation would do us all some good.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 11- 9-04 2:00 PM