Salman Rushdie got knighted over the weekend: he’s now Sir Ahmed Salman Rushdie.
Predictably, government officials in Pakistan and Iran have come out against honouring the “blaspheming” “apostate” Rushdie. It’s a brand of foaming at the mouth that we’re all too familiar with at this point; in a sense, the hostile fundamentalist reaction validates the strong secularist stance that Rushdie has taken since his reemergence from Fatwa-induced semi-seclusion in 1998. (If these people are burning your effigy, you must be doing something right.)
But actually, there’s another issue I wanted to mention that isn’t getting talked about much in the coverage of Rushdie’s knighthood, which is the fact that Rushdie wasn’t always a “safe” figure for British government officials. In the early 1980s in particular, and throughout the Margaret Thatcher era, Rushdie was known mainly as a critic of the British establishment, not a member. The main issue for Rushdie then was British racism, and he did not mince words in condemning it as well as the people who tolerated it.
This morning I was briefly looking over some of Rushdie’s essays from the 1980s. Some of the strongest work exoriated the policies of Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and indicted the pervasiveness of “institutionalized racism” in British society. Two essays in particular stand out, “The New Empire Within Britain,” and “Home Front.” Both are published in Imaginary Homelands: Essays and Criticism, 1981-1991. (Another great essay from that collection is “Outside the Whale” — required reading, though on a slightly different topic. And see this NYT review of the collection as a whole from 1991.)Here is a long quote from “The New Empire Within Britain” (1982):
[L]et me quote from Margaret Thatcher’s speech at Cheltneham on the third of July, her famous victory address: ‘We have learned something about ourselves, a lesson we desperately need to learn. When we started out, there were the waverers and the fainthears . . . The people who thought we could no longer do the great things which we once did . . . that we could never again be what we were. Ther were those who would not admit it . . . but–in their heart of hearts–they too had their secret fears that it was true: that Britain was no longer the nation that had built an Empire and ruled a quarter of the world. Well, they were wrong.’
There are several interesting aspects to this speech. Remember that it was made by a triumphant Prime Minister at the peak of her popuolarity; a Prime Minister who could claim with complete credibility to be speaking for an overwhelming majority of the elctorate, and who, as even her detractors must admit, has a considerable gift for assessing the national mood. Now if such a leader at such a time felt able to invoke the spirit of imperialism, it was because she knew how central that spirit is to the self-image of white Britons of all classes. I say white Britons because it’s clear that Mrs Thatcher wasn’t addressing the two million or so blacks, who don’t feel quite like that about the Empire. So even her use of the word ‘we’ was an act of racial exclusion, like her other well-known speech about the fear of being ‘swamped’ by immigrants. With such leaders, it’s not surprising that the British are slow to learn the real lessons of their past.
Let me repeat what I said at the beginning: Britain isn’t Nazi Germany. The British Empire isn’t the Third Reich. But in Germany, after the fall of Hitler, heroic attempts were made by many people to purify German though and the German language of the pollution of Nazism. Such acts of cleansing are occasionally necessary in every society. But British thought, British society, has never been cleansed of the filth of imperialism. It’s still there, breeding lice and vermin, waiting for unscrupulous people to exploit it for their own ends. (Read the whole thing)
That was Rushdie in 1982: “British society has never been cleansed of the filth of imperialism.” And it’s by no means the only strong statement he makes about racism and imperialism in “The New Empire Within Britain”; he also goes after the legal system, the police, and the clearly racist quotas the British had enacted in the immigration policy to reduce the number of black and brown immigrants coming to Britain from former colonies.
If we compare Rushdie in 1982 to Rushdie today, it’s clear that the man has changed quite a bit — but it also has to be acknowledged that British society has itself been transformed, perhaps even more radically. Organizations like the National Front are nowhere near as influential as they were in the early 1980s, and a decade of the Labour Party and Tony Blair have changed the political picture for good. But more than anything, what seems different is the way racialized difference (Blacks and Asians vs. the white majority) has been displaced by the religious difference as the most contentious issue of the day. One you move the debate from race to religion, the parameters for who gets seen as an “outsider” and who becomes an “insider” look quite different.
Dude, I can say WITH confidence that at least 50% (if not more) of the Grammys awarded over the last 10 years have been RIDICULOUS. If you throw in the nominations,t hen it’s closer to 75%.
clueless, if by “certain immigrants” you mean “brown/black immigrants who also happen to be Muslim.” I really don’t think you can blame ethnic minorities for the rise of Fascism (which is what these “far right” parties are — neofascist organizations) in Western Europe. This is a pattern we’ve seen repeated — only it used to be Slavs, and before that it was someone else.
Yep, it was repealed a really long time ago. In fact, it might have never existed in the first place.
Look, there is a difference between free speech and yelling “fire” in a crowded theatre.
exactly. muslims are the fire. we should douse it 😉 you see, from where i stand, anyone who reacts to verbal shitting on their religion as if it was yelling “fire” in a theater doesn’t belong in the united states. i know that it is different in most nations, but the united states isn’t most nations. we do worship free speech.
p.s. not all muslims are like this. e.g., look at eteraz.org. eminently civilized.
This is a pattern we’ve seen repeated — only it used to be Slavs, and before that it was someone else.
the only slavs in fascist countries were sorbs and slovenes. unless you count inter-war poland as fascist.
Great minds think alike , eh?
Noo York: Don’t go .Stay and fight the good fight.
then say it’s a common response, or an instinctive response, rather than a common sense response. common sense implies logic – and the violence of this sort is not rational. and you, to some degree, have to agree with that; otherwise you wouldn’t be (repeatedly) telling us that you do not condone this sort of violence. if it was so common sense, you, and the rest of us, would condone it.
Camille I’m sorry but I think the behavior of muslims in western europe has caused the backlash against them. I have friends of mine that now live in those countries, and they told me, even the most liberal thinking people are fed up.
That sounds perfect.
“I think race will always color interaction in public places. Who do you think TSA finds more threatening : A white skin-head or a bearded brown man?”
I’d like to point out that religion is seen as a big threat as well, and that race and religion are not mutually exclusive. White Sikhs are as good as Muslim to the security officials.
muslims aren’t the only ones with issues about shitting on their religion. i’ve heard william donohue of the catholic league argue for blasphemy laws pretty much just like muslims. though i don’t think he was arguing for the death penalty, that seems a muslim specialty in this day and age. donohue was reacting to the art which mixed feces with the virgin mary btw & piss christ (the image of christ soaked in urine).
This might be the future look for Denmark’s Little Mermaid….
This might be the future look for Denmark’s Little Mermaid….
actually, that seems empirically unlikely now. the tide has turned and europe has woken up. inshallah.
why i said the above here (only for those who need to know why i think it is empirically unlikely that eurabia will happen).
159:
Really? That is interesting.Somehow I thought that race had more to do with it than religon. I guess that’s because of personal experience.I went through so many “Random” checks after 2001 when flying and I do not wear any religously identifiable clothing or jewellery .
Runa, may I recommend this t-shirt for your next flight?
Too early to know conclusively… though even the usually quiet Swiss are ticked off these days:
Agreed, but committed “progressives” will refuse to accept the obvious and paint people like Pim Fortuyn as “racists”. I recall after Theo Van Gogh’s murder there was an unprecedented “3 way riot”: a) Skinheads vs Muslims b) Leftists vs Skinheads c) Muslims vs Leftists
“Really? That is interesting.Somehow I thought that race had more to do with it than religon. I guess that’s because of personal experience.I went through so many “Random” checks after 2001 when flying and I do not wear any religously identifiable clothing or jewellery .”
I didn’t DENY race had anything to do with it. I’d also like to point out the greater injustice there is that its assumed brown skinned people are ALL muslim, and that anyone in any sort of non-christian/western clothes is muslim, and that all muslims are terrorists. I just wanted to point out that your “bearded brown man” and “white man” are not opposite ends of the spectrum with no in between. There are white muslims and sikhs who do and dont get checked for various reasons. Yes, race does give whites an advantage, but religion also gives ANYONE a disadvantage if theyre not Christian.
Sorry, you said, “thanks” so my response was “no problem.” We’re on the same page. I think?
I’m being anachronistic with my use of “Fascist,” but in the sense that fascism promotes an (exclusionary) national identity, there were definitely cases in which Western European countries went after ethnic minorities simply for existing. Hello, pogroms?
clueless, what comes first, the chicken or the egg? In many of those same Western countries there has been rampant discrimination, racism, and barriers to education and economic participation. Almost all of those countries have also actively tried to prevent (brown, Muslim) immigrants from becoming resident aliens or naturalized citizens. I would argue that the xenophobia predates the arrival of those people, and I would also argue that if you are going all about screwing up people’s countries and going all imperial on their asses, you should expect the fallout (e.g. refugee populations) at your doorstep. If this, in turn, engenders anger, disillusionment, and violence, then perhaps these countries are reaping what they sowed by denying people access to their “classic liberal” values, which, apparently only apply when you’re white. This was the rational behind the Haitian revolution, and also the rational behind a lot of the independence movements. People can be as fed up as they like, but it’s foolish to pretend that there isn’t a (racist) history behind these patterns. I think the UK is a great example, in that sense, of an empire who realized that their laws let in people they didn’t want (imperial and former imperial subjects from the colonies), reacted to even the smallest number of immigrants with gross racism and violence (and the rise of the National Front, who are effectively a neo-Nazi group), and then turned around to blame all their economic and social problems on a small number of minorities.
Too early to know conclusively… though even the usually quiet Swiss are ticked off these days:
projections are never conclusive. but we have growth rates, basal populations from which those rates emerge, immigration rates, changing immigration laws, and a world wide record for 3 generations about demographic transitions. this isn’t the mystery of the trinity (no offense), you can crunch the numbers and make projections by modulating the parameters and assessing plausible ranges of those parameters. you can also read history and see past precedent. but anyway, like i said my argument is at the link. my only point is that there’s no reason to close our eyes and pretend like the future in uncharted and mysterious and we need to pray to god to guess right, we know the general options and courses it might take.
clueless, what comes first, the chicken or the egg?
your point is well taken. but, it is notable that racists don’t distinguish much between colored folk, but in england it is the muslim “pakis” and not the non-muslim ones who have turned violent. in france the beaurs seem more problematic than the blacks from francophone west africa. in the netherlands we hear about people from morocco and their children, but less about the indians from suriname, christian ambonese from indonesia or blacks from the carribean. in spain the enormous mestizo latin american immigrant population is off the radar, while muslims did you know what to madrid. obviously racism and colonialism are not necessary and inevitable primers for a violent counter-cultural response.
So why are hindu’s and sikh’s who comes to these countries not causing the same problems that muslims are. They even christians from countries like Iraq and Lebanon who do a much better job of intergrating then muslims from these countries.
So why are hindu’s and sikh’s who comes to these countries not causing the same problems that muslims are. They even christians from countries like Iraq and Lebanon who do a much better job of intergrating then muslims from these countries.
muslims in the USA are doing OK. so far. why?
camille, immensely true. and why just refugee populations – if the empire could ravage foreign lands and take the best of their resources, what is wrong with those from the (former) periphery making a (comparably honest) living in the core country?
best exemplified by how the british empire treated its white settler colonies and the other colonies – self-government for the non-whites in the nineteenth century? for shame! and even when they did let go of the non-white colonies, it was more for economic reasons (and somewhat political) than for any upholding of democratic values.
168 dsm
What explains this then? These were Indian nuns in habit ( and therefore obviously wearing crucifixes etc )
Anyway , my point is that racial profiling is ridiculous as is religous profiling.
reading said article. also:
“Anyway , my point is that racial profiling is ridiculous as is religous profiling.”
No arguments there.
bro, i don’t think pulling the gang rape card is going to send this conversion in a rational direction….
You right Razib about the gang rape card. It just that I have friend who want to Australia and had to go throught that nightmare.
conversion – > conversation 😉
Let’s avoid getting into gang rape, and try and stay on topic here?
Topics are: Rushdie’s evolution; secularism; assimilation vs. acculturation; race vs. religion.
Yeah, I know — too many topics.
Because Hindu’s and Sikh’s do not make it a priority to ensure ‘Hindutva’ or ‘Khalistan’ everywhere they go, yet!. Trust me this problem would arise if they tried to make everyone don a turban or eat vegetarian exclusively. The idea behind a global Islamic Caliphate is propogated in some mosques in the EU and America. This is the reason stalwarts like Anjum Chaudhary actually consider and support Sharia in the UK.
Now imagine if fanatical Hindutva was propogated in these nations, what the situation would have been. But again what actually makes a Hindu a Hindu?
The idea behind a global Islamic Caliphate is propogated in some mosques in the EU and America. This is the reason stalwarts like Anjum Chaudhary actually consider and support Sharia in the UK.
and of course, pining for the caliphate is faux historical. but in any case, i think the key issue is the ummah and how it relates to the muslim diaspora. there is an organization of islamic states. where is the organization of christian states? muslim nations see themselves as fundamentally muslim in how they order themselves (no matter if this is a contingent condition of history). the diaspora communities are hooked into the information & values networks coming from these muslim majority countries, and that i think explains part of their relative difficulty in assimilating into a culture where they are a minority and can’t set the terms of the debate. there turns out be a good test case for my hypothesis here: the chinese muslims. between 1960 and 1980 their contact with the outside world was minimal (cultural revolution, etc.). with the loosening of travel and resumption of hajj there was an attempt by returning hajjis to “purify” and “standardize” chinese islam. some of this caused problems because they live in a predominantly non-muslim environment, the outlook and cultural environment appropriate to a muslim nation isn’t really easily transferable to one where most people eat pork.
While condemning Noo York’s “moderation”, I do want to point out that in the last few years we have also seen:
(1) A library of ancient indian literature party destroyed by hindu fanatics while people watched
(2) A eminent indian historian abused by “hindu” organizations because he said hindu scriptures clearly describe the consumption of beef
(3) Cries of blasphemy and calls for death from sikhs becuz some guy dressed up like Guru Gobind and mimicked some of his actions
So lets get real here. And I didn’t even get to Jerry falwell yet…
No shortage of intolerance (“competitive intolerance”) when it comes to faith…
This may be (partially) true of the presence, but is by no means true given the history of race relations in the UK. The Birmingham (pre 2005) riots were mostly Pakistani and Caribbean b/cthose were the largest ethnic populations that lived there. In contrast, the Brixton riots (70s-80s) were predominantly Caribbean with a large Hindu/Sikh desi minority b/c that was the demographics of Brixton. The Southhall riots were mostly Sikh b/c Southall (at the time) was mostly Sikh. Perhaps rioting parallels the communities who feel the most targeted, and perhaps this also happens along specific lines. I also think there generally has to be a bit of a critical mass before you get an uprising, and given that many minorities are relegated to ghetto-like living conditions, it’s no wonder these riots happen where specific communities live.
I think it’s interesting to look at other “concerned” W. European countries right now and ask where they are in their development of race relations. While the scenario is not identical to the UK, it is similar, and many of these areas have smaller ethnic communities (relative to the UK) and have only seen booming immigration over the past 15-20 years. I think context is paramount in making analytical arguments.
.No shortage of intolerance (“competitive intolerance”) when it comes to faith…
but the world isn’t flat. the incidents you describe are in india, correct? sorry, but that’s india. they have to ban the satanic verses and discourage beef consumption on prudential grounds for the sake of public order. we don’t have to do that in the united states because very few hindus and muslims exist to get enraged. additionally, most christians today accept that leaving the faith is not a capital offense.
I remember a quote in the BBC by an afghan man being deported from Iran, It essentially went something like this “We are muslims, I can’t understand why they would do this to us”
I guess for those not involved in nation politics the muslim identity transcends borders. Hence the mass hysteria associated with a perceived insult. I shudder to think of the dot.com implosion when a book like this ever caught the hindu eye . The fall of technology! wonder if the mutiny can run on an abascus?
I also think there generally has to be a bit of a critical mass before you get an uprising, and given that many minorities are relegated to ghetto-like living conditions, it’s no wonder these riots happen where specific communities live.
race riots are concerning, but they’re really not what i’m talking about. race riots can sometimes be justified/explained by a larger political agenda, but their emergence seems proximate. in contrast, the london or madrid bombings, the assassination of theo van gough, are understood and explicable in the context of both proximate conditions (alienation, etc.) and a deeper ultimate ideological program (realistic or not). ethnic/race riots are pretty world wide as a phenomenon goes, and i don’t think that explains the special character of islamic radicalism. rather, i think a better analog is with anarchists or political terror movements like the IRA and ETA. so, my real question is why don’t oppressed black and non-muslim browns produce IRA and ETAs? i think the reason is that they just want a “fair go,” they don’t want to overturn society as it is. as unrealistic as that is for the minority of muslims who favor overthrowing the cultures in which they reside, that’s what they want to do, and they think they have an “alternative.”
While the scenario is not identical to the UK, it is similar, and many of these areas have smaller ethnic communities (relative to the UK) and have only seen booming immigration over the past 15-20 years. I think context is paramount in making analytical arguments.
which do mean? from cia factbook, visible minorities
UK 8% france, prolly 10% (no race/religion censuses in this country, but the usual assumption is that ethnic muslims are 5-10%, and many blacks are christians, tenish is prolly right) netherlands 9% germany 2.5% (proxy for turks)
i’m not unaware of context 😉
Amardeep, I’m very late to this party, but fabulous post. It’s great to see someone go beyond the superficial coverage in the mainstream media of the Satanic Verses kerfuffle, and into more of what makes Rushdie such interesting and important figure and what makes this such a significant moment in British history.
“well, the nature of muslims at least 😉 “
Can ANYONE be so thick?! Hello? It was the nature of people like Rushdie and Manji. You really must read what I wrote before you comment. Yeeesh!
rezia,
if you get into a bitch-for-tat with Razib, I suggest you start citing and stop name-calling.
Although i’m all for vicious name-calling if it is funny enough to be redemptive of the name-caller’s breach of etiquette.
muarliwhatever, I’m not getting into this…but I suggest you look up the word “cite”. I did quote what he said…he had misunderstood what I said. And by calling me names in your very cunningly circuitous manner (congragulations), you are telling me about breaches of etiquette? Will the ironies never cease?
noo york: “so dont make this seem like some crazy fundamentalist issue, i as a moderate also wouldn’t mind seeing rushdie slapped across the face for insulting islam…”
–> That is a moderate position ? Especially for being skeptical about a stultified religion(not that other religions are better) ?
I don’t think being Knighted is one of the world’s highest honors. It may have been when the Brits ruled all over the globe, but is largely irrelevant (IMHO) and superficial. Seems like the Queen Knights any/every famous person these days. All they have to do is live long enough in fame and CHACHING! you get knighted.
My personal reaction to Rushdie getting this? Meh.
A nobel prize in science is far more valuable than being Knighted by a figurehead of the British Government.
With respect to immigration in the United States? One follows the laws of the land. If you get violent and angry because someone insulted you for whatever reason, there is no rationale/excuse. You deal with the consequences that come with becoming violent in a civilized society. At least you’ll get a chance to defend yourself as fairly as anyone can ask for on this planet.
Razib Wrote: “most iranians in LA are jewish.”
Certainly many are, but not a majority.
rushdie has changed. obviously the fatwa deeply affected him. but also, his disillusion with the sandinistas whom he once almost worshipped led to a more nuanced view of US foreign policy. i remember him speaking about how he was haunted by their brutal treatment of indigenous people like the miskito indians.
but i think, like chrisopher hitchens, he remains fundamentally the same and his support for the iraqi war can easily been seen as a man of the left coming to grips with a new fascism (well, in the case of saddam, really an old one) that he’s personally seen face to face. so i don’t think he’s too different from the man who wrote of institutional racism and imperialism. after all, he’s lived and prospered and been protected by that imperialist land for a long time now. so accepting the knighthood is probably an appropriate reconciliation, and just as importantly, is a more subversive act than rejecting it, at least to true rightist powers that be.
if you are born to a muslim father you are a muslim according to the majority consensus.
Razib: You are correct when it comes to settling disputes based on sharia etc. The ‘muslim father’ as a concept is mostly confined to use in Islamic jurisprudence.
But theologically, as I understand, all children are born in the state of fitrah (belief in the oneness of God) So according to the Islamic faith all children are born as monotheists. Also children in Muslim families are encouraged to say the shahada (oath of allegiance to Islam) to affirm their faith in not only the oneness of God (they are supposedly born with it) but to more importantly affirm the final prophethood of Muhammad which will set them apart from other monotheists like Jews,Christians, Sikhs etc.
As I said earlier, the definition of “moderate” differs (atleast from the commonly understood perspective) when it comes to “blasphemy” in Islam.
We have been told now that Jinnah and Iqbal are actually “moderate secularists”. But I recently found this interesting incident in the late 1920s..
The link to the pakistani newspaper..
link
And you must understand that the prophet himself regularly disrespected other religions in the worst way possible: he destroyed the religious symbols of non-muslims; forcibly made the central temple of the arab pagans (the Kaaba in Mecca) the focus of his own renegade religion; robbed, slaughtered and enslaved numerous non-muslims till all trace of paganism, christianity and judaism had been wiped out from Mecca, Medina and the rest of the Hejaz
I am not sure if there were many Jews in Mecca though Muhammad did eventually take on the Jews in Medina and surrounding areas. Also Muhammad didnt really fight any significant wars with Christians.
Its an undeniable fact that Muhammad was very anti-pagan. Most Quran verses on Christianity/Judaism are arguably contextual and have some nuance, but when it comes to pagans, the Quran is vicious and unforgiving. Muhammad himself as Prema correcly pointed out, build his whole career on destroying Meccan pagan society which before Muhammmad was the center of commerce in Arabia.
I am not sure how the Quran survives the Canadian/European anti-hate speech laws as it has clear hate speech against pagans.
Al_Chutiya_for_debauchery Wrote: “I am not sure how the Quran survives the Canadian/European anti-hate speech laws as it has clear hate speech against pagans.”
Well, it sort of has to be allowed to.
By the same logic, the Old Testament, and therefore the Christian Bible, would also fail and modern day “hate speech metric” in the western world.