A New Hero for PEN
Eliot Weinberger
Sarah Palin – or someone pretending to be Sarah Palin – has tweeted that Salman Rushdie should invite Pamela Geller to the PEN gala dinner. She’s right. Geller is no pussy. She has courageously expressed her views thatMuslims should be expelled from the US and Europe, that they pray five times a day for the deaths of Christians and Jews, that Obama is the love child of Malcolm X and frequents 'crack whores',that the State Department, the American media and Campbell’s Soup have been taken over by 'Islamic supremacists', and so on.
The conference a few days ago in Garland, Texas, sponsored by her organisation, American Freedom Defense Initiative (also known as Stop Islamization of America), featured a keynote address by GeertWilders of the Dutch Party for Freedom and, deliberately timed to coincide with PEN's tribute to Charlie Hebdo, an exhibition of cartoon depictions of Muhammad and a $10,000 prize for thebest one. Now, having come under attack by two jihadis who were killed by police, she has vowed, as PEN would say, to 'soldier on'.
So far, no one has made the claim that the Geller-inspired cartoons are in the great American satirical tradition from Mark Twain to Thomas Pynchon. Nor has there yet been a postmodern explanationthat what look like crude racist cartoons are really parodies of crude racist cartoons. While we’re waiting, we can ponder this cover of a recent issue of Charlie:
Comments
http://www.bienpublic.com/actualite/2015/05/05/charlie-ce-n-etait-pas-la-vieille-france-laique-republicaine
But lets accept your "post-modern" view and see all this racial insensitivity as being licensed by a satirical tradition. Would you then grant a license to be outraged to French citizens of African ancestry who are also exposed to french tradition — i.e. the tradition of cultural supremacism, discrimination and colonial oppression?
"Anti-racism" as a political practice is quite different from anti-racism as a social norm. Calls for "tolerance" imply that there is something unpleasant to be "tolerated". Calls for equality on the other hand explicitly reject such assumptions. This cartoon is an expression of the former.
I think that probably is the point, yes, but it raises the question of who Charlie presumes is its audience. As a White Liberal From The Global North™, I'm discomfited by it - which is perhaps as it should be. But I couldn't presume to anticipate the response of, say, a French African. Suffice it to say that there doesn't seem to be a message in it for them. Charlie may take their side, morally, but still excludes them from mature political consideration.
It's unfair to single out any individual cartoon as bearing the entire weight of what Charlie Hebdo is supposed to be about, but in the years when I read it regularly, it was this sense of political exclusion - rather than outright racism - that bothered me most.
With respect, I was talking about my own discomfort at what Eric Auerbach described as the cartoon's "mass of stereotyped impoverished Africans".
I can grasp the point of the cartoon (thanks all the same); I can equally grasp that the stereotype is supposed to pull me up short on my response to the actual tragedy in the Med. What bothers me about the cartoon - and what has always bothered me about Charlie Hebdo - is that while it may use racist caricatures to shame the political centre, it does nothing to empower or encourage peripheral voices. Flipping a stereotype does not abolish it.
But it isn't a radical one either. In fact, I'm not sure it's even particularly reformist. Individual politicians and parties may get it in the neck, but Charlie speaks for - and to - a patriotic conception of the French polity whereby sound democratic ideals are sold out by unsound politicians. That the political foundation itself may be rotten (in parts) is a step beyond where Charlie wants to go. So instead we get caricatures where the voiceless speak as Charlie would want them to; rather than as they do.
If you're interested in peripheral voices, I recommend you obtain a copy of the magazine from a few weeks ago. There was a four-page illustrated feature about life in a Roma encampment.
I've addressed this point already ("It’s unfair to single out any individual cartoon as bearing the entire weight of what Charlie Hebdo is supposed to be about ..."). It should be clear that my opinion isn't based just on this cartoon, or on Charlie's Greatest Hits of the last decade or so. I read the magazine every week for years.
My point - which you can take or leave - is that this sort of stuff is designed to give middle-class liberals like me a shock. Read Charlie for long enough and you don't even get the shock anymore. You get, instead, a complacent mannerism that congratulates you for being in on the joke.
I've said elsewhere here that I don't consider Charlie racist. But I don't consider it useful either.
Journalism can also hope to be representative of the society it is alternately/simultaneously trying to inform and provoke.
I feel a bit shit making this point; partly because I loved - love - Cabu, and he should not be dead. And of course you're right that there are more trivial and objectionable publications than Charlie. But what can I say? I soured on Charlie a decade ago. I felt then that its vow of "irresponsibility" disguised a kind of moral, political and aesthetic complacency that I wasn't prepared to reward with my money anymore. I still feel that way. But I also feel really shit about it.
There are many ways to depict indifference without resorting to offensive racist tropes. (Yes, the white woman is also distorted, but not as a grotesque, like the Africans).
Three features have been deliberately exaggerated: their eyes -- to convey their terror, their drooping mouths -- to convey their misery, and their ears -- to convey the fact that they can't bear to listen to Celine Dion.
The cartoon is indeed grotesque because it depicts a grotesque reality. The victims are represented as a miserable and anonymous horde, which corresponds to the image most Europeans have of them. To that extent, a certain stereotype is being recycled and satirized. But it is not that of a golliwog.
As for the 'satirising a certain stereotype' bollocks: why you bother to analyse and defend it escapes me. It is puerile.
By the way, could you make your mind up: is it a caricature of Kate Winslet (Tuesday, 10:43) or Céline Dion (Today, 12:24)? It doesn't look like either of them. Oh, wait, I know: it's meant to be a satirical but non-racist caricature of a blond, white woman!
Sorry, a bit of leaden sarcasm crept in there...
"Funny" is perhaps not the word but, like a lot of satire, it is a mordant commentary on a subject that is no laughing matter.
And your sense of humour is probably better suited to the "avant-gardist literary essays" written by Mr. Weinberger:
http://www.ndbooks.com/author/eliot-weinberger/
I hear they're a real hoot -- particularly the wittily-entitled collection "Karmic Traces". Of course I've never read them but apparently that doesn't disqualify anyone from holding an opinion on such matters.
Kind of like the cover in which the Bangladeshi sweat shop workers are celebrating all the great business coming to their bosses because French liberals are buying Je Suis Charlie T-shirts in droves.
But as we know, the LRB is long on snark, but short on irony.
CH did once practice a form of equal opportunity mockery, until the gendarmerie foiled the ultra-zionist bombing of their offices, several years back. In recent times their criticism of, hmm, certain supernatural beliefs has become rather more measured.
Murder in any form is unforgivable. It does not follow however that the victims of violence are necessarily champions of robust free speech. They may simply be juvenile & artless bullies.
Nossel has many honourable strings to her bow (Amnesty, Human Rights Watch), but she was also a member of Hillary Clinton's State Department and is credited with coining the term "smart power" - which, as far as I can see, amounts to giving accredited 'rebels' access to Skype while the White House decides whether it can bomb your country or not.
PEN American Center (not to be confused with American PEN) has been notably quiet on freedom of speech issues under the Obama administration. It managed to have an entire conference on privacy in the internet age - including a seminar on NSA surveillance - without once mentioning the name of Edward Snowden. It has issued statements about the need to protect whistleblowers within government, but again without mentioning Edward Snowden or Chelsea Manning.
Is this "smart politics", perhaps? Or does it suggest that PEN American Center is happy to throw awards at people and institutions who don't actively threaten American interests? Perhaps, instead of writers boycotting the award ceremony, Charlie Hebdo should be refusing the award.
http://analytic-comments.blogspot.com/2015/05/the-charlie-hebdo-controversy-pen.html
"I do not in any way contest the magazine’s right to blaspheme, offend or denounce. I regard some restrictions on free speech under French law (e.g., lese majesty — a protester was arrested a few years ago for wearing a “Fuck Sarkozy” T-shirt — and prohibiting Holocaust denial and apology for terrorism) as undue limitations on political expression. In this respect, I am more of a free-speech absolutist than many in France today.
The possession of a right does not, however, make it imperative to exercise that right. The confrontation between cartoonists and jihadists began when a Danish editor raised the question whether editorial cartoonists might be exercising self-censorship with respect to Islam. He regarded such self-censorship, if it existed, as a potential threat to free speech rights. I do not deny that such a potential threat might exist, but I question whether it was or is a clear and present danger to free speech rights in the West today. Calling self-restraint self-censorship seems to me to foreclose thoughtful response by applying a pejorative label. When communities with very different sensibilities regarding religion must live together, there is potential virtue to self-restraint, which may connote many things, including respect for the other, a desire to avoid conflict on matters where rational discourse will be difficult to achieve and a commitment to avoid inflaming tensions. Discretion is a social virtue, and frankly speaking one’s mind on all occasions can be a form of misanthropy or aggression, as Molière reminds us."
There is an argument to be made that the style of representation still makes CH racist, in spite of its unambiguous opposition to explicit political racism. But Weinberger (and many others in the English-speaking world) are not trying to make that case: they are simply assuming that they can immediately comprehend the significance of the cartoons without any political or cultural context, and claiming that any invocation of the importance of such context is a false ruse. A pretty weird position for an eminent translator to take.
I'm tired of moralizing hypocrisy.
The Blair Hitchens debate was a debate between a war criminal and his factotum over the existence of God. God is what Hitchcock called a "Macguffin". Nothing more.
France is a racist state and a racist culture. The only crimes they feel guilt over are the crimes againt the Jews, former niggers now resurrected in Israel as white.
But first:
France has some free speech, more than enough to deal with current problems. What you are complaining about is actually self-censorship with respect to particular pieties.
Anti-Semitism exists within France regardless of what relationships exist between the governments of France and Israel. Cartoons verifying this are hardly the point.
Israel is not a fascist state, but a state (more importantly, a society) in which anti-Arab racism exists on a large scale.
Who sells arms to whom is rather irrelevant, given the widespread nature of these transactions. Whoever can manufacture modern weaponry (the US, the UK, Russia, China, Sweden, India, etc.) sells to whomever can afford to buy (Israel, numerous Arab states, Brazil, all the EU states, African dictatorships, etc.) because they wish to deploy them for either internal or external “security” reasons. If the Buddhists of Sri Lanka could do either (make weapons or buy them), they would do so in order to deal with the Hindus on their island paradise. And vice-versa. France selling to Saudi Arabia is a drop in this bucket.
Perhaps extreme nationalism is to blame, but the old, rather discredited internationalist movements (socialism, communism as retailed by the old USSR and Mao’s China) were no more pacific in aims or behavior.
Go ahead and “blame the Enlightenment” if it makes you feel better, but it’s another sweeping indictment that ignores the peculiarities of actual history. No doubt many grand projects allegedly inspired by Enlightenment ideals went off the rails and became as anti-humanistic as the systems they tried to replace (we all know them without naming them here). But the approach of making gradual improvements that do not try to radically alter (or ignore) human nature while they do try to better the lives of people with respect to specific economic and social iniquities also stems from the Enlightenment (Hume is a nice exemplar in this respect). Remaking man in the image of an imagined deity, the conventional practice of the world’s “great religions” has no more successes or admirable runs of governing society than the failed Enlightenment has. Everybody is working with same poor human material. So, which of the adages covers the case better? “It’s a poor workman who blames his tools.” Or, “A workman is only as good as his tools.” But the workman is the same old human material himself.
Blair is a war criminal, but, rather than his factotum, Hitchens was typical of those flaming youthful “holier than thou” radicals who wind up pursuing strange and even unintentionally comic paths in their old age, always rationalizing their choices as the ethically correct one of the moment, unwilling to admit errors of judgment. As I said, typical stuff.
Hypocrisy being the tribute vice pays to virtue, as La Rochefoucauld put it, makes sense. L R was a far superior aphorist to, for instance, modernity’s beloved Nietzsche (or Vienna’s Karl Kraus), simply because he was a far more sensible and worldly man than either of those gifted writers who lacked almost all practical experience. This is not the same as turning hypocrisy into a moral standard, which is the usual practice of politicians (and of true believers in a holy cause).
By the way, many of us have drifted too far away from the source of this particular blog, i.e., an evaluation of Weinberger’s short and fairly flimsy piece.
Therefore I retire from the lists.
"History is like foreign travel. It broadens the mind, but does not deepen it."
Descartes.
You're the one being vague dear. I'm being nothing but specific. And I've had my arguments with Arthur Goldhammer, over his ignorance of history[!] but the piece I linked above ain't bad. Ciao
Leaden sarcasm must be contagious. As I am not dear to you, you are not even near to dear to me. That’s for people in the flesh, not in the ether of the blogosphere.
Only deficient rationality (so precious to Descartes, though perhaps misunderstood by him too) induces me to break my vow of silence.
http://www.private-eye.co.uk/pictures/covers/full/182_big.jpg
Presumably Eliot Weinberger is too thick to understand this too.
Sir Salman Rushdie must have foreseen his future.