And although my dear friend Ron here -- I dearly love and really respect, but I'll tell you, I just have to disagree with you, Ron, about the issue of whether or not that -- whether Israel existed or didn't, whether or not we were in the Iraq war or not, they would be trying to kill us because it's a dictate of their religion, at least a part of it, and we have to defend ourselves.Daniel Larison responds:
It is amusing to watch the gaggle of these other Republican candidates hold forth about the threat of Islam (Giuliani now claims to be some sort of expert), when they seem to have absolutely no historical perspective on any of this. Tancredo expressed this view most absolutely when he cut to the heart of the issue: “…whether Israel existed or didn’t, whether or not we were in the Iraq war or not, they would be trying to kill us because it’s a dictate of their religion, at least a part of it, and we have to defend ourselves.” Tancredo is sort of right, and yet also so horribly wrong that I cringed when I heard this.Exactly.
Is jihad an integral part of Islam? Yes. Will there always be those who pursue jihad and try to subject non-Muslims to Islamic rule? Yes. Of course, where and under what circumstances jihadis will be doing this are all determined by any number of other factors. There are jihadis in Kashmir, but not terribly many in Gujarat–perhaps that has something to do with the political disputes over Kashmir? There are or have been jihadis in the Caucasus, Kosovo and Bosnia, but not terribly many in Indonesia, which may have something to do with violent contestation for power in the former. It seems plain that jihad comes to the fore when Muslims are caught up in conflict with non-Muslims, but otherwise the “dictate of their religion” remains more or less dormant. So, I put it to the majority of Republicans, why would you pursue policies that seem intent on provoking more conflicts with Muslims if you are interested in quelling jihadism and undermining its appeal? Either you have no idea what you are doing, in which case the rest of us should not heed your advice, or you are going about seeking the right goal in entirely the wrong way.
Jihad has existed in its fully formalised and elaborated form for approximately one thousand years, and yet jihadis (very broadly defined) took an interest in attacking Americans only in 1979. For some reason, Maghrebi Muslims were not gathering themselves into boats to raid the Jamestown settlement in a trans-Atlantic razzia. For some reason, the ruler of Morocco was among the first to recognise the independence of the United States; one of our earliest treaties was with the Moroccan monarchy. There was a war against Tripoli to secure our shipping in the Mediterranean, which was a war against piracy. From 1805 until 1979, it is exceedingly difficult to think of many episodes when the “dictate of their religion” so motivated zealous Muslims to attack Americans. As ties with Israel have deepened and our military profile in the region has increased, jihadi attacks have also increased. Now, as the old saying goes, correlation is not causation, but it is awfully curious that Muslims studiously overlooked a ”dictate of their religion” for most of our national history in our dealings with them and only happened to rediscover them at the moment that we embarked on policies that were not all together friendly to at least certain Muslim groups and states. Of course, we have enjoyed geographical distance from the Islamic world, and as inhabitants of this continent we have a certain luxury of distance that our cousins in Europe do not have, which is why it is so perplexing why anyone would actively promote a narrowing of this distance to bring us into ever-greater contact with people who are, in Mr. Tancredo’s estimation, out to kill us. The point is, surely, even if Tancredo were right (and he largely is not right), we would be far better advised to limit our points of contact with the Islamic world in every imaginable way than to expand them through ever-wider rounds of intervention, democratisation efforts and the like. Even by the standards of the wild Republican vision of the conflict with jihadis, the Republicans have been going about things in almost entirely the wrong way.
The history of Islam from the beginning has been one involving much strife, bloodshed and the invasions of non-Muslim lands, and anyone talking about this should harbour no illusions on this score (I certainly don’t), but as a result of political fragmentation of the Ottoman territories after WWI there has been no Islamic polity capable of projecting power or significantly threatening Europe or any of the countries bordering the Islamic world. The pathetic political and economic weakness and general geopolitical irrelevance of the Islamic world (Luttawak is right on this) has contributed to the eruption of mujihadeen on the borders of that world where there are relatively small-scale conflicts. Terrorism and even the pursuit of an “Islamic bomb” are the responses of a world desperately outclassed and outmatched in almost every measurable way by its neighbouring civilisations. Those who have been on the losing end of global cultural and economic transformations almost always grasp for the sword and try to redeem their losses through power–the American conservative movement can understand this response a little too well, I think–and thereby confirm their own lack of deeper reserves of strength.
I was also disappointed by this pop culture reference:
REP. TANCREDO: Well, let me just say that it's almost unbelievable to listen to this in a way. We're talking about -- we're talking about it in such a theoretical fashion. You say that -- that nuclear devices have gone off in the United States, more are planned, and we're wondering about whether waterboarding would be a -- a bad thing to do? I'm looking for "Jack Bauer" at that time, let me tell you. (Laughter, applause.)A fictional character who uses torture and is willing to do anything to protect the country. Not exactly reassuring to those who believe in justice. Although I am a fan of 24, I don't think it should be taken as a moral guide for dealing with terrorism, and I don't think Federal agents should be emulating Jack Bauer in every way. So does Tancredo support the use of torture?
The Lady Downstairs says the show is anti-Catholic and immoral. Perhaps she can explain what she means by this. (After all, I could say the same of a certain show revolving around 4 single women in New York City.)
2 comments:
Worldwide, it is found very funny that Americans get in a knot over erotic movies and TV shows but are fine about watching movies and TV shows of increasing violence. But India shouldn't throw stones: although fleshly love scenes are frowned upon, rape scenes are popular. And shows like 24 and The Sopranos had no problem showing rape scenes: The Sopranos quite brutally and graphically, 24 had some criminal rape Bauer's wife. I don't know how graphic that was because I left the room when I realized what was happening.
So I believe 24 is anti-Catholic and immoral because it is excruciatingly violent and it shows scenese of people being frightened, raped, tortured, brutalized and killed in very realistic fashion for fun. When I was a kid, if such things were allowed in movies, those movies were rated X or R and children and teenagers couldn't see them. There was a lady at the ticket booth to say NO. Now such things are on TV.
Incredible.
SATC is also immoral and anti-Catholic in its own way. Indeed, in at least two or three episodes it blatantly insults Catholics themselves. And of course it is packed with that ususual thing, woman-friendly porn. But central to the show are four women talking and joking together, and I watch it because I miss my friends and our conversations back home.
I think this sort of division in the kind of entertainment specific to the sexes just exemplifies sex differences. Who watches action movies more, men or women?
In the first season, 24 did not show an explicit rape scene--it was implied. As for brutalization--it happens to both the innocent and the guilty. Does it coarsen the culture? Perhaps.
But 24 also has a hero dedictated to country and family (alas, no mention of God, which is probably a good thing, lest religion be brought into discredit because of JB's actions for the sake of national security)--and it also puts a premium on loyalty.
Of course, it is also a cultural thing--the British and the Commonwealth in general disapprove of such depiction of violence.
Would American males watch such shows if they hadn't been emasculated to one degree or another? 24, Die Hard, and so on is a means of escape for men, just as Sex in the City is a means of escape for women. If men had an authentic sense of vocation and exercised their masculinity with respect to their, would they need such entertainment? Perhaps not.
Even if it's a somewhat deformed image of masculinity (in so far as 24 can be interpreted as supporting torture--the show officially takes an official neutral stance, but one knows where Joel Surnow's sympathies lie), at least it's closer to the ideal than the PC ideal that has taken hold in other parts of the "Western world." Even if certain forces are trying to establish that ideal here completely, both in the mass media and in social practice.
Post a Comment