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.
I would like to see the people at places like eteraz.org etc to tackle the Quranic bigotry against pagans.
Prema,
I admit that I don’t know the intricate details of Sikh Khalistan issue. But I was thinking that “Jat Sikhs” were on the Indian side (KPS Gill etc..). Maybe i’m wrong.. anyways it’s off topic..
I would like to see the people at places like eteraz.org etc to tackle the Quranic bigotry against pagans.
they’ve used arguments against the apostasy death penalty, and i think they’ve done some stuff about pagans. definitely “our kind people” 😉 if they bow down to god most high.
I apologize, my last post was overly rude. What I meant to say was that all human rights abuses should be denounced; they are not an opportunity to gloat over the essentialist or misguided notions of individuals or even groups of individuals. Given that an entire group of people, regardless of their politics, personal beliefs, etc., was targeted for mass violence on the basis of their religion, I think we should be a bit more sensitive and realize that it is foolish to make sweeping and offensive statements about entire groups because of the failed actions of subgroups or individuals. Further, the issue is entirely off topic, so let’s get back to Salman Rushdie, no?
I now motion that the conversation shift to the topic of Salman’s seductive torso. Oops, wrong Salman. I really meant his seductive droopy eyelids.
Amardeep (42) and noo york (45):
wow, that was some deeply metaphorical exchange there.
To wit, “I’m just a moderate who believes people who I don’t like should be shot. I don’t like reading, and I don’t like thinking, but I do love me some killing. It’s not moderation in the WEST, but in Islam, it’s totally moderate.”
Yeah, buddy. You keep patting yourself on the back there for your “moderation.”
The thing that galled me most about the fatwah against Rushdie was how blind it was. So few people bothered to read the book, yet so many took the word of various fundamentalist mullahs (and the Ayatollah himself) at face value! But even the most casual perusal of the book would find no real cause for anger.
Hey Razib…sprechen zie deuche? 😀
And the actual title! Its background makes for some interesting reading, especially for the moderates amongst us.
Well, those that bother to read, anyway.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satanic_verses
Actually, Prema, what’s ridiculous is your phrasing, as usual. “Of course you are wrong.”
Condescending much?
Easily? What was so easy about it? A plane full of people, a prime minister, so many policemen, soldiers and so on and so on
KPS Gill has the highest security afforded to an Indian national. Even after ~20 years after the so called ‘crushing’.
You are really are an verbal extremist.
Most of the Sikhs in Delhi who got massacred in the 1984 pogrom were non-Jatts. The majority were Khatris and Aroras whose families had been in Delhi since 1947 (i.e. since Partition). Most put up as spirited a defense as possible …but the fact that the state machinery and state apparatus were being used against them, their weapons (such as they were) were confiscated, false promises of police protection were made, and the fact that they were severely outnumbered, meant that they got massacred, in one of the most shameful episodes in modern India’s history. The Congress Party, which was the ruling party at the time, used all the governmental power and resources available in its hands to systematically ‘teach Sikhs a lesson’ (as it was phrased). And this was less than 23 years ago. It is well-documented that the muscle power was supplied by youth from villages surrounding Delhi, who were mostly Yadavs, Gujjars, and (Hindu) Jaats, as well as surprisingly quite a lot of local Muslims too. In all cases, the primary motivation was not revenge for Indira Gandhi, but the chance to loot, pillage, rape, and kill. All masterminded by the Congress Party…but somehow still a reflection of Indian society in some ways.
In the hope that she/he gets banned for being abusive and unfunny.
that seems unlikely to happen. they’ve been around in nearly half a dozen incarnations (excuse the term) since last summer. if the ops ban them i doubt they would have any compunction with using a proxy service.
In the hope that she/he gets banned for being abusive and unfunny.
in any case, my consternation is with the fact that people compose serious responses to the creature. it doesn’t operate in good faith, so why respond in such a manner?
It is well-documented that the muscle power was supplied by youth from villages surrounding Delhi, who were mostly Yadavs, Gujjars, and (Hindu) Jaats, as well as surprisingly quite a lot of local Muslims too.
Amitabh: Thats fascinating. Where did you read that? Were they hired goons or opportunistic thugs? Most of the killings took place in New Delhi which has few Muslims to begin with so the Muslims would have to come over from Old Delhi to engage in the violence.
Between 1984 was really terrible. I think it was actually much worse than the Gujarat riots. I remember that in 1985, I was in a car with my cousins and uncle and my uncle entered into a one way street. There was another Sikh dude who was already trying to settle with the police for entering the one way as well. The cop took $500 bucks from the Sikh guy to ‘settle’ the matter. Then he ‘settled’ with my uncle for only $100 bucks. My uncle asked him about why he took $500 from the Sikh dude and he said because ‘he was a sardar (sikh)‘.
Camille:Sorry to be ignorant, but does that mean one is “born Muslim,” similar to Christianity and Judaism? I only ask because theoretically, in Sikhi, one has to opt-in. What this means re: practice is of course different from the reality, but I’m just curious.
I think you are a bit mistaken…Christianity and Islam are based on belief…In Islam you have to recite the ‘shahada’ to become a Muslim. In mainstream christianity, you have to believe in the ‘Lord Jesus Christ’…to become a christian.
Acts16:31Acts16:31
Ponniyin Selvan: “We have been told now that Jinnah and Iqbal are actually “moderate secularists”. But I recently found this interesting incident in the late 1920s..”
–> While Iqbal being called a “moderate secularist” might be a stretch, Jinnah’s defense makes more sense in the context of the times(1929). After all, he was going against the maha-nut(in terms of religion), Gandhi, in the political sphere. From what I have read, Jinnah comes across more as a secularist destined to lead a party(Muslim League) that defined itself in terms of religion.
Inintforthemoney (#71) wrote) I read once Rushdie is of Iranian descent, which may be why he doesn’t look especially desi.
Rushdie is of ‘iranian descent’ the way all Indian Muslims are. He’s perfectly desi to me, and in a more just world, he would be recognized as one of history’s greatest indo-islamic writes, a descedent of Ghalib, Iqbal, and Faiz and a cousin of Manto. He is a Muslim the way Voltaire was undeniably a Catholic.
Camille wrote: 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.
Via the SM news tab, I found this article from the UK Prospect magazine, which talks about the 30-year rule:
Among those who study British race relations, there’s an informal theory that states that 30 years after the establishment of any sizeable ethnic minority community, there will be riots. After Jewish migration into Britain in the 1900s, there were riots in the Jewish communities of east London during the 1930s. After the 1950s migration from the Caribbean, there were riots in 1981 in the Afro-Caribbean areas of Toxteth, Chapeltown and Brixton. And after the 1970s Pakistani immigration into northern England, in the summer of 2001, like clockwork, serious unrest kicked off in Oldham, then spread to Leeds, Burnley and Bradford.
One explanation is that it takes about 30 years for a sizeable second generation to establish itself and then become frustrated with its status, both within its own community and the wider society. This frustration arises in part from a question of identity. Whose culture and values do you affiliate with? Those of your parents or of your friends? Those of your community or of your country?
The thirty year rule, eh. Brits can look forward to the Polish riots of 2035! Which will be supressed by the Royal Muslim Constabulary, led by the Defender of the Faiths, King Charles!!
(I strongly recommend reading the Prospect article, especially the explanation of terrorist Islam as a anti-traditional ideology, and a way to get out of arranged marriages! Yes, Arranged marriages lead to terrorism, just not the way you think).
You’re totally right, razib. Looks like the intern did some pruning last night.
Ikram, I don’t really buy the 30-year-riot phenomena. Particularly because in the UK “race riots” (or uprisings, depending on who you talk to) have happened with much greater frequency and within much narrower bands of time. While there were riots in (mostly Pakistani and Caribbean) Birmingham in 2005, there were also riots in 1995 and in 1986 (I think, definitely in the mid-80s, but not sure about the year). Also, there has been a sizeable Muslim population in the north since before the 1970s. I think it’s cute to posit that the effect is time, but I think the legal, economic, and political institutions and events of the time are much more telling.
Delhite, I could be mistaken, which is why I asked. I was under the impression that child born to Christian parents is baptized to ensure their “salvation” and Christianity, though. I know there’s also confirmation for some denominations, which I guess would be a formal embrace of the religion. I was just curious about how things operated overall.
razib, i love “it”! 🙂
looks like Prema’s comments have been deleted. But why?. Most of the time Prema’s comments are accurate and based on facts. Atleast in this discussion, what prema said made sense and took to task the so called “moderates”.
You can see that from Al Chutiya’s comments.. #199.
Prema’s comments on caste in the Khalistani movement were completely off-topic — this is a post on Rushdie.
rite, I was talking about the other Prema’s comment on the hypocrisy of the so called “moderates” on their stand on “blasphemy”. I referred Al C’s comment #199, where he talks about the validity of Prema’s claims.I think that comment is completely relevant.
Well it’s your site, you can do whatever you want.. 🙂
As to the question of what makes a Muslim a Muslim, I am sure that it is by some attestation of belief. But in the Indian context, we Hindus don’t seem to get this and use it to describe “heritage”. I still see Rushdie being referred to as a “Muslim” in the Indian press despite the fact that he is agnostic. When the Hindutvaadis have been upset with him or Shabana Azmi (nominally Muslim, spiritually universalist) they have attributed their offending behavior to their “Muslimness”. I know Keralite Christians who have “reverted” back to hinduism/buddhism via college age detours through atheism. By Indian law they are still Christian. India really needs a uniform civil code where there is no legal recognition of religious community.
Amitabh,
I think your descriptions is completely accurate. ACD, the riots were mainly in areas with sikh majority like Tilak Nagar and a lot of looting happened in old Delhi areas like Chandni Chowk, Ajmeri Gate etc where there are a lot of Sikh businesses. Congress party goons like JD Tytler led the attacks and I believe he was one of the people who called to teach a lesson to Sikhs. My friend’s father was in Delhi police and his weapons were confiscated, needless to say he quit the force there after. Many Sikhs cut their hair to avoid being identified. It was truly sad times and what is sadder is that tytler and his goons are still free and no one including BJP did anything to bring them to justice. I have friends who lost their family members and business during 84.
But in the Indian context, we Hindus don’t seem to get this and use it to describe “heritage”. I still see Rushdie being referred to as a “Muslim” in the Indian press despite the fact that he is agnostic.
the same issue crops up with jews. jewish atheists and hindu atheists have a hard time grokking that as a “muslim atheist” i’m really not a muslim the way the are (or can be) jews or hindus (i know some people are cultural muslims, but i’m definitely not one of those). also, on SM and on my own blog on occasion when i’ve criticized the lunacy of hinduism in its more nutty manifestations people have accused me of being a “closet muslim.” 😉 (one moron rhetorical observed that i was criticizing hinduism and not islam, making him suspicious of my motives…because you know, i never criticize islam) it would be funny if i wasn’t insulted.
Rezia: Free speech is really all about creating dialogue between different people.
What?
No it isn’t. Free speech is free speech. Nothing more, nothing less.
I feel your pain Razib. I’m an atheist when it is defined as the rejection of a personal god but am in truth a pantheist. I identify as a Hindu because there is room for this metaphysical perspective in this faith. While I am sympathetic to the core grievances of the Hindu nationalists vis a vis Partition/Bangladesh/Kashmir, I have had arguments with the VHP types over: a) My rejection of a Hindu state b) My refusal to accept any bounds on free speech with respect to blasphemy c) My refusal to accept their Hinduism= Vedic religion formulation d) My belief that there should be no anti-conversion laws e) My refusal to buy into the sophistry of the “caste did not solidify until three hundred years ago” crowd
In my case the arguments typically stay civil because in the end I am “one of them”. It is unfortunate but unsurprising they would toss you back into the Ummah as part of their attacks against you
louiecypher 225:
I concur. I think there are a lot of people who’d fall into this category. I can claim sympathy to any number of parties, some of them in direct contradiction to each other. Spiritually, I don’t feel much allegiance to any religion that seeks to exclude, dominate, proselytize, bully, coerce, or otherwise annoy someone who’s trying to understand things on his or her own terms.
“Rezia: Free speech is really all about creating dialogue between different people.
Vinter: What?
No it isn’t. Free speech is free speech. Nothing more, nothing less.”
So what is the point of it? “Free speech is free speech”? How enlightening! I’m sure it took a great of brilliance to come with that.
Camille:Delhite, I could be mistaken, which is why I asked. I was under the impression that child born to Christian parents is baptized to ensure their “salvation” and Christianity, though. I know there’s also confirmation for some denominations, which I guess would be a formal embrace of the religion. I was just curious about how things operated overall.
Yes,the catholic church performs ‘infant baptism’ where the parents pledge to bring up their child in the catholic faith.Infant baptism is not about ‘salvation.This is more of an affirmation on behalf of the child till he grows up,when he can take the ‘confirmation’, if he/she wants to follow his parent’s faith.
By the same token,I would not call Salman Rushdie a Muslim,since he is an atheist…I would say he is of Muslim heritage. Seems like Friday evening is going to be an interesting time this week, if it’s going to be anything like the past.
Rezia, if you look at Vinter’s statement calmly, I think his point is that there are no conditions to free speech. That’s sort of the point of free speech. Not constraints on furthering dialogue, or making people feel warm and fuzzy etc. The only reasonable limit is if it directly incites or induces harm to other people (“shouting fire”). Yes, some free speech might be offensive to many people, but that goes with the territory, and that’s how it should be.
So what is the point of it? “Free speech is free speech”? How enlightening! I’m sure it took a great of brilliance to come with that.
exactly. very few cultures come up with genius idea. it is obviously pretty innovative to you.
I’m kind of with Rezia on this. I also think people conflate free speech with the idea of a free market for speech, which is not at all the same. I always feel a bit squishy on this issue, because on one hand I think freedom of dialogue is important, but on the other hand I think “free speech” also brings responsibility. If you are going to use this right or privilege or whatever to spew really invective or hateful things, or things that you know are going to really offend people, then you also have to be willing to accept the (vocal) outcry, backlash, etc. I’m just speaking broadly at this point — not about Rushdie and the fatwah or whatnot.
Maybe you two can coin a “new word” to denote whatever you mean. 🙂
I think for many the definition of “free speech” => “free speech” sounds perfect. simple and powerful.
Rahul, The original person (Vinter) was not so articulate. OK I see how the exclamation points and italics might lead you to believe that I was not very calm…but that’s just how I “talk”. I’m 19! That’s how every girl I know talks! Getting back on topic, all this earnest hand wringing about free speech always strikes me as intellectual vaccousness. You must look at things philosophically and practically. What is the purpose of free speech when you really think about it? What makes it worth having? To say “Yep it’s there and we like it and we MUST have it even, and especially if it is offensive” does not address anything at all.
It is really the mark of a free society to say and do whatever pleases the individual but limits are required. And that’s not just my feeling. When was the last time you read an something from the perspective of a Nazi-sympathizer? Or a blatant racist? Why is it not acceptable to question the holocaust? Why is it not acceptable to say n****r, or ch**k o black or chinese people? That is not about censoring free speech…it is about being basically decent people. The ability to offend is not something very great at all. It takes no bravery, no courage, just a craving for noteriety.
Why is it that religion (the thing that millions of people hold so very very dear to thier lives, the thing that allows them spirituality) can be insulted in any way, and when offense is taken by the faithful (as it MUST be) it is characterized as “foaming at the mouth”? Can one not be moderate and still find the beauty of traditional religion moving? Is it required that a moderate person not be offended by attacks on thier religion, by misrepresentations?
But this is all very Quixotic, there is absolutely no point arguing with someone who cannot understand the value of religion. We’d be speaking different languages.
exactly. very few cultures come up with genius idea. it is obviously pretty innovative to you.
I am such a masochist…cannot BELIEVE I’m replying to you. >:(
Yea very few cultures come up “with genius idea” [sic]. Of course NO form of censorship exsists in america…oh no…land of the free, right? Do you know how to say “hypocritical”? Or “hypocrite”? Look it up.
PS Thank you Camille!
Rezia, as for speech by a Nazi sympathizer or racist or holocaust denier, such speech exists. You can read what David Duke etc. have to say about these topics, and there are neo-Nazi groups around who spout their vitriol. You can buy Mein Kampf at some book stores. Fred Phelps and his nutso followers unleash their verbal diarrhea even at funerals of US soldiers. So, it is not something exclusively targeted against Islam.
In my opinion, it is perfectly acceptable to take offense against it, protest it etc. It is when such protest takes the form of physical intimidation or threats, property damage etc. where things become troublesome to me. Camille also said that parenthetically with her “vocal” qualifier.
(I also have trouble with the fact that offense MUST be taken by the faithful. There are always idiots who hold contrary and irritating opinions about everything. Why can’t you just let them go? But, maybe, as you say, I won’t understand it as a non-religious person).
Camille: I am not sure about the responsibility part of free speech. If we are all responsible, we wont need protection of laws. Its the irresponsible speech which needs to be protected.
I am such a masochist…cannot BELIEVE I’m replying to you. >:(
Yea very few cultures come up “with genius idea” [sic]. Of course NO form of censorship exsists in america…oh no…land of the free, right? Do you know how to say “hypocritical”? Or “hypocrite”? Look it up.
May I please,
I would suggest you look up Wikipedia article of free speech, and ACLU’s take on free speech. In fact, ACLU has defended Neo-Nazi, KKK, and even Mel Gibson’s dad (who denies holocaust) right to freedom of speech. Freedom is speech is not some touchy-feely, love thy neighbor, be respectful notion. It stands as it is.
The key is: For instance, the United States First Amendment theoretically grants absolute freedom, placing the burden upon the state to demonstrate when (if) a limitation of this freedom is necessary.
The state has to demonstrate the limitation – the burden is on them. As such, everyone is granted free speech.
These were Rezia’s quote, not mine.
rezia, i understand your point, and i think people should often self-censor themselves before speaking (and quite frankly, many do). however, the value of free speech is that everybody has the freedom to say what they want – it is up to individuals or society to give it the value/importance they think it deserves. please don’t be offended, but perhaps your age has something to do with it – when i was your age, i really did not know the intricacies of the free speech dialogue, and, yet, 10 years (and a law degree – which was key to my understanding) later, on the whole, it makes a lot of sense to me. the danger of curbing free speech outside of the incitement/induce harm situations is that then we have to figure out which speech it is to curb – but who decides, and what speech is cured? this is quite a slippery slope and may well end up being too subjective. if you are really interested in this, i would suggest reading up on the history of free speech in this country – it’s really quite interesting, and made me think very differently about the entire concept. in the meantime, here is one of my favourite quotes on the subject : “The principle of free thought is not free thought for those who agree with us but freedom for the thought we hate.” US Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes in United States v. Schwimmer (1929).
I guess I’m having a bit of a hard time articulating what I mean, but please bear with me. It’s not that I believe free speech shouldn’t exist. I just think that an oversimplified and uncomplicated understanding of the many things that factor into “free speech” also allows people to assume that their actions do not have consequences. AlCfD, I understand the point about “irresponsible speech” and would normally agree with you. That said, I think people often hide behind the term “free speech” in order to say that vocal outcry is unwarranted. To be more specific, I have seen people say blatantly racist things and then pretend to be surprised when others publicly denounce their comments. The denunciation is not of free speech, but of its content. That’s the point of conversation or the virtue underlying free speech to begin with — that it engages in some kind of dialogue, as Rezia mentioned. That said, I have also seen those same individuals say that they should not be held responsible for the content of their comments because they interpret “free speech” to mean a free pass to say whatever they want without repercussions, criticism, or reaction. My overall point was that, knowing that what you say may warrant offense, you should be prepared to be met with vocal opposition, and that opposition should not automatically be demarcated as “anti free speech.”
i tend to be of the belief that if my conviction is strong enough, there is no point to taking offense at what others say. if i did, it would mean either my belief is weak/incorrect, or my conviction in it is. in many ways, someone who disrespects the religion or belief enough will never have respect for it – so my energy would be wasted in trying to change their minds.
so, then, rezia, the question is : do you respect people’s right to voice the speech, even if you don’t respect/agree with its contents?
Amardeep, your in the Chicago Sun-Times!!!
I was reading it today and they had a article about rushdie and they quoted you and mentioned SepiaMutiny.com
(I also have trouble with the fact that offense MUST be taken by the faithful. There are always idiots who hold contrary and irritating opinions about everything. Why can’t you just let them go? But, maybe, as you say, I won’t understand it as a non-religious person).
Rahul*, As I said, we’re essentially speaking different languages. I’m confused, why can’t I let who go? The idiots? It’s squishy as Camille said. With these protests, I don’t know if it’s the provoker or the provoked (ie the provokee) who is more responsible.
It’s not about being touchy-feely. Do you see David Duke or Mel Gibson’s father being given a knighthood though? I don’t, and if they were I WOULD be offended and angry. I was just going about my life very peacefully until a few days ago when I read about this…I didn’t even care about Rushdie. If ever people talked about him and got all huffy, I would be like “meh…he looks like satan, would you want to look like satan?” I would ask. That always got them. It got them. They loved it.
But now! I can visit my homepage (BBC) because his face leers at me. Those eyebrows…he’s only missing a pitchfork and tail, I can’t bear it! It’s like the British establishment is saying “MUHahahahaha, we know you hate this guy, but we’re gonna knightify him anyway…and there’s nuthin you can do about it see??” And then maybe they tweak someon’s nose. I don’t know. I don’t know if I WANT to know.
i tend to be of the belief that if my conviction is strong enough, there is no point to taking offense at what others say. if i did, it would mean either my belief is weak/incorrect, or my conviction in it is. in many ways, someone who disrespects the religion or belief enough will never have respect for it – so my energy would be wasted in trying to change their minds.
ak, I agree with you! I do!! I’ve never bothered about Rushdie before this. Of course I find his work offensive…but I can overlook that (see above). What I have a problem with is this knighthood. It’s like I said before. But whatever though…I think the queen totally has a face like a toad. The entire royal family is just unforgivably ugly, I think.
Do you see David Duke or Mel Gibson’s father being given a knighthood though?
Well, David Duke almost became the Governor of Louisiana. That carries more mojo than any ceremonial knighthood from has-been power.
Knighthood to Rushdie is for the body of serious work (he has written a lot, in fact, his most well known book is Midnight Children), and 10 years of hell he went through – You might not like him and his knighthood, Well, that is fine and justifiable. I personally think of Rushdie as egotistical but then I am not calling for his head. He is British, and the British establishment has all right to honor him.
The question is not: Whether you like him or not. You have the right to judge him and be vocal about it. The question is: Does he deserve a violent wrath or should he be censored or the freedom of speech questioned. The answer is absolutely no.
rezia, not much love for the queen, eh? i was rather baffled by helen mirren’s oscar acceptance speech. but if you disregard the royal family, then i guess their honours should mean very little to you? these days, very few honours/awards, as discussed above, hold much weight, and this is one of them. this is another. if it makes you feel any better, rushdie and others got passed over for chinua achebe for the man booker prize, in honour of his overall literary career.
The british empire was a creation of the 17th century East India Company, and was mostly economic, not genetic. Such corporations still exist, in a less blatant form. But once the British went home, there was scarcely a genetic trace left in the sub-continent. I do not have the impression many immigrants in Europe ever intend to go home. It is the numbers game, not religious claptrap. Muslims especially seem to feel strength in numbers. Have Empires usually handled their karmic debts by allowing the once-colonized to come one and all to the once-colonizers? Dunno. The Romans considered all members of their empire citizens (except for slaves and, i think, females), and the Moguls may have welcomed a few Hindu craftsmen, but there was no mass movement of conquered Indians into Persia. Airplanes and computers (among other things) have changed such passive torpor, making mass movement easy and normal. And since so many are able and ready, they must maintain they have the “right.” I think we do in a way. But ultimately it is the numbers game. I think these countries want to maintain their nations for people who are “like” themselves. It’s all very un-age-of-Aquarius, but there you are. to many of these euros, massive immigration, especially of groups like Muslims who are perceived as having opposing values, = national suicide. There are precedents–certain American indians may be considered to have been too accommodating to their foreign guests.
Ikram says Rushdie is of “Iranian descent” the way all Indian Muslims are. OK, if you say so. But I think there have been discussions on this matter and it has been determined that most Indian Muslims are not much different in their ancestry from Hindus. Most, not all. DNA studies were used to support this contention. Whatever you say, but if I saw him and didn’t know him from any other scary-eyebrowed chap, I don’t think “Indian” would spring to mind. He also reminds me of Stanley Kubrick. I’m neither a great fan, nor a great detractor. I like him more than I dislike him. But I bow to your greater powers of observation, no sarcasm intended.