Look Who's Talkin'
Rose Nunez in the comments to Timothy Burke's latest post at Easliy Distracted:
Prof. Burke, I’ve been reading your blog, and your posts and comments on other blogs, for probably two years now. I’ve always admired your lucidity and evenhandedness, but every so often you write something that makes me say, “Damn; that man sure knows how to put lipstick on a pig” (you should pardon the expression).
Like when you write, “what is most objectionable about the cartoons, deep down, is not what they represent about the faith of Muslims but their instantiation of a form of state-society relations that both vested interests and popular consciousness within some Muslim nations find ultimately dubious.”
The rioters, whether they’re egged on by “vested interests” or engaging in some kind of acting-out therapy vis-a-vis their “popular consciousness,” aren’t remotely dubious about the form of state-society relations instantiated by the cartoons. Arson, killings, death warrants–these aren’t the responses of persons who are skeptical, who entertain doubts, who remain unpersuaded of the benefits. The rioters know damn well what they think about a secular state, or, at the very least, they think they know what they think–they reject it utterly.
It would be just as silly and about as useful to say that abortion-clinic bombers are “dubious” about abortion’s “instantiation” of a form of mother-fetus relations, or that the IRA was expressing “doubts” about the partition of Ireland.
Nor, echoing Abiola Lapite’s comments above, does it seem evident that any significant amount of ideologically- and religiously-motivated terror is really local score-settling under a global guise. And even if it were, how would anyone know?
Such nuances in the rioters’ motivations seem to me to be inferred by you, and rather uncharacteristically fuzzily at that. As such, I’m dubious about them (not to worry; I’m too much of a wuss to torch anything).
There's more. Check it out -- along with Professor's Burke's post -- when you can.
Prof. Burke, I’ve been reading your blog, and your posts and comments on other blogs, for probably two years now. I’ve always admired your lucidity and evenhandedness, but every so often you write something that makes me say, “Damn; that man sure knows how to put lipstick on a pig” (you should pardon the expression).
Like when you write, “what is most objectionable about the cartoons, deep down, is not what they represent about the faith of Muslims but their instantiation of a form of state-society relations that both vested interests and popular consciousness within some Muslim nations find ultimately dubious.”
The rioters, whether they’re egged on by “vested interests” or engaging in some kind of acting-out therapy vis-a-vis their “popular consciousness,” aren’t remotely dubious about the form of state-society relations instantiated by the cartoons. Arson, killings, death warrants–these aren’t the responses of persons who are skeptical, who entertain doubts, who remain unpersuaded of the benefits. The rioters know damn well what they think about a secular state, or, at the very least, they think they know what they think–they reject it utterly.
It would be just as silly and about as useful to say that abortion-clinic bombers are “dubious” about abortion’s “instantiation” of a form of mother-fetus relations, or that the IRA was expressing “doubts” about the partition of Ireland.
Nor, echoing Abiola Lapite’s comments above, does it seem evident that any significant amount of ideologically- and religiously-motivated terror is really local score-settling under a global guise. And even if it were, how would anyone know?
Such nuances in the rioters’ motivations seem to me to be inferred by you, and rather uncharacteristically fuzzily at that. As such, I’m dubious about them (not to worry; I’m too much of a wuss to torch anything).
There's more. Check it out -- along with Professor's Burke's post -- when you can.
posted by Kate Marie | 1:16 PM | Permalink
|
0 comments
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home