Obama Caricature Offensive to Muslims;
US Government does not Secure Nuclear Material;
Afghanistan slams Pakistan for Terrorism
It is typical of the atmosphere in America today that the New Yorker cover caricaturing the Obamas is called offensive by the Obama campaign but virtually no one is talking about how demeaning it is of American Muslims. A little detail like that. Imagine if a US candidate had been depicted as an Orthodox Jewish settler with an Uzi machine gun in the West Bank, the hue and cry that would ensue.
US government tardy in securing radioactive materials. Some people worry too much about the wrong things. For instance, Bush's security people have created a watch list with a million names on it. How could that possibly be useful in counter-terrorism, a million names? Most of them are probably just peace activists. Terrorist groups are small and wily. You can't get at them scattershot this way. But there are some things worth worrying about and doing something about. Dirty bombs, where radioactive material is packed in with a conventional bomb, causing contamination of wide swathes of e.g. a city, now that is a good candidate for action. But while Mr. Bush was fiddling around adding Americans to the watch list on a massive scale, the way celebrities add people to their Facebook friends list, he wasn't bothering to take care of the important stuff. Emblematic of the gang that couldn't shoot straight.
Barnett Rubin draws our attention to Afghanistan's charge that Pakistan is the world's most dangerous sponsor of terrorism (i.e. much worse than Iran). He also points to the threat that the Indian Research and Analysis Wing is preparing to extract vengeance on Islamabad for the bombing of the Indian Embassy in Kabul, which Afghanistan and India blame on Pakistani-backed Taliban.
Very troubling. Wars have started for less cause.
posted by Juan Cole @ 7/15/2008 12:55:00 AM
|
Facebook
22 Comments:
The jihadis from Kashmir are moving towards Afghanistan to help the Taliban fight the western coalition. That left Kashmir relatively peaceful. But it appears the jihadis haven't forgotten their hatred for a prospering, democratic India. If the jihadis got themselves a little better education and assumed a western name, they too would be able to answer customer calls on behalf of western companies and live a prosperous, peaceful life. Instead, they stay ignorant, intolerant, rabid, and choose to kill and maim.
The 'satire' strikes me similarly. To adopt another tack, put Ehud Olmert's visage, draped in a dynamite belt and boarding a bus full of Palestinians...Not funny, but at least more satyrical on the scale than the NY'er's effort. But they would not run this because New York's racial/ethnic climate would not stand for this.
In other words, the narrative under which the NY'er operates tolerates one kind of racial categorization and not another. To me this proves how they skewed their point away from satire and towards discrimination and bias.
Hello, I follow your elections closely, and am hoping for an Obama win. It is not just the african americans being slighted it is the jews, arab americans and hispanics. No-one seems to have 'good manners' over there. I cringe watching news reports from [especially] Fox, but even CNN has seemed, to me, snide. I mostly watch BBC now and read the web - there I can pick and choose. Like your site. Thanks, Sue Rattray.
Obama Cartoon - 'New Yorker':
While the depiction of the Obamas is indeed unfortunately insensitive, the eventual outcome will be a stronger Barack in that all of the misconceptions will be exposed and discussed endlessly with the truths of the matters being found and made firmer. Certainly, some groups will be offended and even the Obamas will voice their opposition to how they are seen by millions of viewers and readers of the 'New Yorker'.
The 'silver lining' to this 'cloud' is that no issues will remain undiscovered or undiscussed as regards this candidate. All of the attacks can be seen as having been orchestrated merely to make sure that all of the polls' respondents have their misconceptions uncovered and their idiocies made public. Polls and surveys, of course, can be made to fit a certain set of parameters, a sort of self-fulfilling prophecy wherein the ends justify the means, the results meet the criteria of the studies. This is the fallacy of Bill O'Reilly (and I wrote and told him so several times in the late 1990ies and after), using statistics as some arcane science to explain what had been theretofor obscure and esoteric, made to secure a predetermined outcome. This was seen during the analysis of the 2000 election when the Republicans brought in their own (foreign-born) statistician to 'explain' the outcome of the (s)election. Most of what he said went WAYYYYY over the heads of the average citizen and was even more unattractive by his Eastern European accent. Intelligent or articulate, the message was clear that this fellow or anyone can skew any poll in many several ways.
Obama's outrage may be as feigned as the liberals' supposed lack of a sense of humour, something gauged by the (s)election of Younger George as the rPresident of the White House. Certainly, one has to have an acute sense of the absurd to honestly assess a draft-dodging, alkie, layabout, gentlemen's 'C' graduate of the Yale history department and refusenik from the Un of Texas law school like Younger George to be realistically effective as anyone's chief executive, especially that of the United States! The humour is - indeed - dark and dank, at the edge of black, something that has apparently found its way onto the cover of a nationally prominent (albeit New York-centred) magazine. If taken seriously, New York itself has been marginalised as beyond the mainstream (as if it already wasn't), diminishing its importance as a voice of the American people. There may be something in the works about this as well, making the New Yorkers' ('New Yorkers'') influence less of a factor in the upcoming election. The elites have drawn themselves out of the pictures!
As with any calamity of this kind, one has to look at the expected benefits of those targetted. The campaign of John Kerry and the effects of the 'Swift Boaters' was an example of the tactic gone wrong. Kerry should have been prepared to return fire but was somehow caught dead in the water when under attack. This may have been part of the overall strategy at the time, allowing a fellow Bonesman to regain the White House or just to reemphasise the theatrics of the absurd by allowing Younger George to be elected for the first time. John McCain did the same thing in South Carolina with the illegitimate child issue, not being able to escape being tarnished by the tarbaby. Certainly, the last seven or eight years have seen great upheavals but there are lessons to be learned from mistakes, large and small. The strength of the country will be shown by how well it withstands the Buscists onslaught.
We will see Dumb-B-Ya as the worst possible of all potential pResidents, taking the country toward the 'Rebel Without A Cause' cliff in an old jalopy. Too bad James Dean/Younger George bails out (not unexpectedly) while the serious contender gets distracted by miscellanea! Whoever comes after will be seen as a relief and vastly more capable and intelligent than the current group of career politicians and their gaffes and shenanigans.
What can be seen as the 'sense of humour' of the liberals is that subtle sense of the absurd - once again - that transcends any sit-com or stand-up routine. Olbermann (and his pal Maddow) makes this point endlessly. The many several several books about the Bouche and his inabilities underscores the ludicrous. The 'New Yorker' merely attempted crass classlessness in the way that Andy Warhol might have, exposing raw nerves and poking at them with anything at hand, falling on its own edge in the process. Being too keen has its perils!
The most important action to take with regards neutralizing the danger from a dirty bomb would be to educate people about them. The radioactive material would no likely to be any more lethal than adding salt or pepper, unless people panicked--probably the greatest threat to life after the initial explosion.
One million names on the US terrorist watch list - Joe Stalin would be so proud.
If the (not quite a) whisper campaign against Obama were that he is a secret orthodox Jew and virulent Zionist, then what would be offensive--to Jews or anyone else--if the New Yorker caricatured him in that way, as a way to parody and poke fun at the whisper campaign? (The irony, of course, is that Obama has been prone to suck up to the right wing Zionist bloc.) I believe you that some number of Muslims, American or otherwise, find the New Yorker cover offensive, but I just don't understand why. Is it that by poking fun of the whisper campaign, the cover actually endorses, in a fashion, the conceit of the whisperers--which is that there's something bad about being a Muslim?
Dr. Cole,
The New Yorker cover is satire about the internet rumor mongering of Obama. Your assertion about a Jewish element to a cartoon is inapt as there would be no rumor-mongering about Obama secretly being an orthodox Jew or ultra-Zionist. (Can you imagine a Faux News host asking if that was a "lunatic Jewish settler fist bump?")
We see both Presidential candidates attacking a well-established magazine for "offending them." Apart from the contempt for the First Amendment shown by such intimidation, it is most troubling that antiwar people would join in such attacks for any reason. We have seen the devastating consequences to our country (and Iraq) from a lackey press, intimidated into not criticizing the President. While the New Yorker piece is a criticism of Obama's critics, of course, not him, it is helpful for the press to be willing to satirize him, given the potential cult of personality developing around Obama.
We need a freer press, a foolhardy press, even, to challenge a gov't that seems immune to the best interests of our country. The last thing we need is people who ought to know better joining in bullying of the press. It's satire. Obama, McCain and American Muslims should read the First Amendment and remember why it's important. (If it's difficult to remember, just look at the hundreds of thousands of dead in Iraq and the bankruptcy of our country from the treasure spent as a reminder.)
Imagine if a US candidate had been depicted as an Orthodox Jewish settler with an Uzi machine gun in the West Bank, the hue and cry that would ensue.
Unflattering stereotypes and caricatures of Jews are off limits in the American Establishment media, professor, especially if the material is produced by non-Jews.
You'll note that whenever an editor or writer publishes ethnic or religious satire, then makes a self-righteous claim to be "pushing the envelope" it very rarely involves satire promoting Jewish stereotypes.
On the other hand Muslims are considered punching bags for ridicule in overwhelmingly Lutheran hollywood and the overwhelmingly Episcopalian New York City publishing houses. (I think most of the television and film executives in hollywood are Lutheran and most of the television and publishing executives in NYC are Episcopalian. If I'm wrong about that maybe a reader can correct me.)
Here's another one to add to your list of double standards: Imagine if an American politician had suggested that American cigarette exports to israel for israeli consumption would "help kill them." Then he responded to criticism by saying "Oh, lighten up."
Dr. Cole, I hate to break it to you, but you're probably on that list, along with the 6 year olds.
Perhaps it's being too technical (and it's probably because I found the cover pretty funny) but there is no gun in the hands of the Muslim caricature. He actually looks very pacific. It's the black nationalist revolutionary caricature who has a gun. She doesn't look Muslim in the least, not even Nation of Islam Muslim.
"Wars have started for less cause"; too true. And it seems as though no 'leader' is speaking about peace at all.
"Imagine if a US candidate had been depicted as an Orthodox Jewish settler with an Uzi machine gun in the West Bank, the hue and cry that would ensue."
Jewish land grabber with an Uzi??? I did not realize Joe Lieberman was running for President this cycle! ... ;-)
What anal-retentive BS by everyone. This is a great mocking of the current Right Wing Propaganda rhetoric and viral emails disparaging Muslims and Obama.
Get a clue everyone. Obamans and Muslims should love this!
Mike Adams
Atlanta
Well, hmmm, is the New Yorker cover not legitimate satire?
Does not Al Qaeda place public relations material where they are dressed just so?
Isn't there political dialogue out there where Obama is referred to as a Muslim? I recently had to disabuse someone of the notion that he was Muslim.
Isn't it true that it would be a political liability in the United States to be a Muslim and, thus, such language could be considered libellous?
You can argue till you're blue in the face that all Muslims shouldn't be painted with the same brush, but the fact is that in America the enduring images are the World Trade Center, beheadings, suicide bombings, and, well, riots in response to cartoons in Denmark.
Isn't the cover addressing this ugliness?
It may be the responsibility of the government to address negative stereotypes, but it is a legitimate role of the media to explore them.
Was nice of the AIC to condemn the genocide in the Sudan today ... too bad they didn't think it a pressing issue until, well, today.
On "Larry King Live" just now, Obama noted how offensive the rumors are to Muslims, and even admitted that he is "sometimes derelict" in pointing this out while rebutting the smears. FWIW.
Bill B.
Hi Juan,
You stated above that "virtually no one is talking about how demeaning it is of American Muslims."
I just wanted to mention that Obama did in fact make this point during an interview with Larry King:
"One last point I want to -- I do want to make about these e-mails, though. And I think this has an impact on this "New Yorker" cover."
"You know, this is actually an insult against Muslim-Americans, something that we don't spend a lot of time talking about. And sometimes I've been derelict in pointing that out."
"You know, there are wonderful Muslim-Americans all across the country who are doing wonderful things. And for this to be used as sort of an insult, or to raise suspicions about me, I think is unfortunate. And it's not what America's all about."
Via Ben Smith, http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0708/Your_wife_in_a_kind_of_military_outfit_Osama_bin_Ladens_picture_burning.html
well, i tried to stay out but after reading comments like "mark konrad's" - well, that straw broke the camel's back. seems more than a few folks commenting here have a problem with jews - and their supposed mastery of the media. well, folks, you may have missed it but harsh criticism of israel or the israel lobby is hardly off limits these days. your problems with my people notwithstanding, the new yorker is not "zionist occupied territory." if you have a beef, take it up with the new yorker.
the second and more important point.. what the hell is the matter with you? have you no sense of the irony in that cartoon. it was designed specifically to lampoon the idiots who indulge in ethnic stereotyping. i like juan's stuff a lot, but he simply missed the boat here. david remnick, who edits the new yorker, put it well in his interview in today's ny times: "the cover takes a lot of distortions, likes, and misconceptions about the obamas and puts a mirror up to them to show them for what they are."
in other words, satire. if you can't deal with satire in a sophisticated fashion, you're going to have trouble coexisting in a cosmopolitan, multi-ethnic society. this is as far from a wahabi-like atmosphere as you'll find - and i'm ever thankful for that!
I must say, apart from the question of whether the NYer cover was offensive or not - it is a bit disturbing seeing so many commenters here disturbed that the media is too careful not to offend Jews (because of the "ethnic nature of NY" as one commenter said) and that it was not someone "Jewish" or "Zionist" or "Ehud Olmert" being depicted in a racist and unflattering light.
Besides missing the whole point that the cover actually ridicules those who hold the racist views, the glee and detail with which these commenters think up caricatures of "orthodox jewish settler land-grabbers with uzis" is enough to make anyone realize that these people would be the first to defend such characterizations as "breaking the Zionist media silence" or other such nonsense.
Leave it up to these people to drag Jews or (*gasp*) Zionists into an issue that has nothing to do with either.
I'm sure this caricature will make some people laugh in Colorado Springs, CO, but I'm not sure The New Yorker are supporting Obama as frankly as they did for Kerry 4 years ago.
Kerry as a IRA fighter or worse, a "cheese eating surrender monkey" (the Simpsons / FOX words for Frenchman back in 2003) ? That would have raised some eyebrows at the club.
the talk of the toon
in other words, satire. if you can't deal with satire in a sophisticated fashion, you're going to have trouble coexisting in a cosmopolitan, multi-ethnic society. this is as far from a wahabi-like atmosphere as you'll find - and i'm ever thankful for that!
This cover has all the 'sophistication' of the racist Danes' burlesque of Muhammad.
And then, of course, ordinary revulsion at the very poor taste, to say the very least, of The New Yorker's or Jyllands-Posten's "Polish jokes" is likened to a certain 'wahabi-like atmosphere' while the intent of the 'satirists' is fobbed off as 'cosmopolitan'. Ordinary repartee in a 'multi-ethnic society'.
Ordinary, perhaps, in a 'multi-ethnic' society with a marked top and a bottom, like say the Roman Empire where all the sophisticates got a chuckle out of Christians being fed to lions.
If you don't laugh at the Emperor's jokes... you're next?
In the 1950s, in the wake of Eisenhower’s “Atoms for Peace” plan, Pakistan obtained a 125 megawatt heavy-water reactor from Canada. After India’s first atomic test in May 1974, Pakistan immediately sought to catch up by attempting to purchase a reprocessing plant from France. After France declined due to U.S. resistance, Pakistan began to assemble a uranium enrichment plant via materials from the black market and technology smuggled through A.Q. Khan. In 1976 and 1977, two amendments to the Foreign Assistance Act were passed, prohibiting American aid to countries pursuing either reprocessing or enrichment capabilities for nuclear weapons programs.
These two, the Symington and Glenn Amendments, were passed in response to Pakistan’s efforts to achieve nuclear weapons capability; but to little avail. Washington’s cool relations with Islamabad soon improved. During the Reagan administration, the US turned a blind eye to Pakistan’s nuclear weapon’s program. In return for Pakistan’s cooperation and assistance in the mujahideen’s war against Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, the Reagan administration awarded Pakistan with the third largest economic and military aid package after Israel and Egypt. Despite the Pressler Amendment, which made US aid contingent upon the Reagan administration’s annual confirmation that Pakistan was not pursuing nuclear weapons capability, Reagan’s “laissez-faire” approach to Pakistan’s nuclear program seriously aided the proliferation issues that we face today.
Not only did Pakistan continue to develop its own nuclear weapons program, but A.Q. Khan was instrumental in proliferating nuclear technology to other countries as well. Further, Pakistan’s progress toward nuclear capability led to India’s return to its own pursuit of nuclear weapons, an endeavor it had given up after its initial test in 1974. In 1998, both countries had tested nuclear weapons. A uranium-based nuclear device in Pakistan; and a plutonium-based device in India
Over the years of America's on again off again support of Pakistan, Musharraf continues to be skeptical of his American allies. In 2002 he is reported to have told a British official that his “great concern is that one day the United States is going to desert me. They always desert their friends.” Musharraf was referring to Viet Nam, Lebanon, Somalia ... etc., etc., etc.,
Taking the war to Pakistan is perhaps the most foolish thing America can do. Obama is not the first to suggest it, and we already have sufficient evidence of the potentially negative repercussions of such an action. On January 13, 2006, the United States launched a missile strike on the village of Damadola, Pakistan. Rather than kill the targeted Ayman al-Zawahiri, al-Qaeda’s deputy leader, the strike instead slaughtered 17 locals. This only served to further weaken the Musharraf government and further destabilize the entire area. In a nuclear state like Pakistan, this was not only unfortunate, it was outright stupid. Pakistan has 160 million Arabs (better than half of the population of the entire Arab world). Pakistan also has the support of China and a nuclear arsenal.
I predict that America’s military action in the Middle East will enter the canons of history alongside Hiroshima, Nagasaki and the Holocaust, in kind if not in degree. The Bush administration’s war on terror marks the age in which America has again crossed a line that many argue should never be crossed. Call it preemption, preventive war, the war on terror, or whatever you like; there is a sense that we have again unleashed a force that, like a boom-a-rang, at some point has to come back to us. The Bush administration argues that American military intervention in the Middle East is purely in self-defense. Others argue that it is pure aggression. The consensus is equally as torn over its impact on international terrorism. Is America truly deterring future terrorists with its actions? Or is it, in fact, aiding the recruitment of more terrorists?
The last thing the United States should do at this point and time is to violate yet another state’s sovereignty.
The last thing the United States should do at this point and time is to violate yet another state’s sovereignty.
Yet that is precisely what Barack Obama has pledged to do in Pakistan.
Post a Comment
<< Home