|
September 30, 2007
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, leading Queer Theorist?
Sorry about the bad taste in the title. I realize it's a bit like chuckling over the irony of Eichmann being considered a "Jewish expert," but the whole sordid Ahmadinejad affair has caused such a cognitive disconnect that it reminds me of a debate between advocates of gay marriage and advocates of sodomy laws. What shocks me the most is the way so many people leaped to the defense of a man who not only denies the Holocaust while advocating another one, but who has the blood of Jews, American soldiers, gays, women stoned to death, and more on his hands. A morally indefensible man was given a propaganda opportunity, and as the LA Times makes quite clear, he has walked away the winner: Bollinger clearly had an American audience in mind when he denounced the Iranian leader to his face as a "cruel" and "petty dictator" and described his Holocaust denial as designed to "fool the illiterate and the ignorant." Bollinger's remarks may have taken him off the hook with his domestic critics, but when it came to the international media audience that really counted, Ahmadinejad already had carried the day. The invitation to speak at Columbia already had given him something totalitarian demagogues -- who are as image-conscious as Hollywood stars -- always crave: legitimacy. Bollinger's denunciation was icing on the cake, because the constituency the Iranian leader cares about is scattered across an Islamic world that values hospitality and its courtesies as core social virtues. To that audience, Bollinger looked stunningly ill-mannered; Ahmadinejad dignified and restrained.Via Glenn Reynolds. It bothers me to see the debate framed as being about free speech. Or politeness. Here's Mark Bowden: ....I am no fan of Ahmadinejad. I have written about him in this column and in my book Guests of the Ayatollah, where I noted his central involvement in the criminal seizure of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran in 1979. Ahmadinejad is a dangerous zealot and the public face of a ruthless and oppressive regime that has enforced its own narrow and reactionary religious rule in Iran for more than a quarter of a century. He is given to buffoonish displays of ignorant hostility toward Israel and even modern history. He is by any measure an enemy of the United States and of the most basic values of Western society.Yes, it was rude, and it probably did play into the hands of Ahmadinejad's propaganda machine. (Something which could easily have been avoided by not inviting the SOB in the first place.) But again, focusing on manners strikes me as a little creepy, and a bit misplaced if we take into account the overall circumstances of Ahmadinejad. Similarly, the debate over whether the man raised valid questions about the definition and nature of homosexuality struck me as unseemly last week. Which was why I was delighted by Andrew Sullivan's remark: "Ahmadinejad was right, you see? There are no gays in Iran. Just ask the Queer Studies Department."I don't doubt that Ahmadinejad is delighted to have generated a serious academic debate over homosexuality, and it is still raging. Glenn Reynolds links this post by David Bernstein discussing the views of a Columbia professor who argues that: .... there are no homosexuals in the entire Arab world, except for a few who have been brainwashed into believing they have a homosexual identity by an aggressive Western homosexual missionizing movement he calls "Gay International." The article is called, "Re-Orienting Desire: The Gay International and the Arab World," and it appears in Volume 14, issue 2 of the journal Public Culture, and was elaborated upon in a book, Desiring Arabs, published by University of Chicago Press (UPDATE: BTW, I read the article, which is accessible through my GMU library account, but not the book). According to the author, "It is the very discourse of the Gay International which produces homosexuals, as well as gays and lesbians, where they do not exist" (emphasis added).I'm sure that a good defense of the author's thesis could be made too. In theory, I might be willing to venture such a defense, but I'm not about to take my cue from a murdering tyrant who believes in executing homosexuals -- whether "homosexuals like in your country" or homosexuals like in his country. Much time is devoted in the comments to arguing over what is and what is not homosexuality. While this is a topic to which I have devoted a good deal of time since the beginning of this blog (yes, I do care about it), I think it's pretty sickening that the debate has been occasioned by a man who believes in executing people for participating in homosexual acts. I mean, we can argue till we're blue in the face about whether a guy who has sex with a guy is gay, or bi, or just doing his thing for reasons known only to him. But if he's blue in the face from dangling at the end of an Iranian rope, isn't that the larger issue here? Isn't the point that there's no sexual freedom in Iran? David Bernstein thinks so: The issue of homosexual identity is surely a fascinating one, but I would emphasize (1) it's possible to claim Western origins for modern homosexual identity without one's writing dripping with disdain for the gay rights groups that work to advance sexual freedom in Arab countries, where severe punishment for homosexual activity is common; (2) either one finds both Ahmadinejad and Massad to be engaged in respectable commentary on the differences between the Arab/Muslim world and the West re sexual orientation, or neither; and (3) the critique I linked to strikes me as quite sound, and written by an expert on the subject.I agree. Anyway, I don't think Ahmadinejad raise any new or important points when he said there were no homosexuals in Iran. And even if I thought he had, it wouldn't mean that anyone -- least of all myself -- was under any duty to address them. (Again, I say this as someone with a longstanding interest in the matter.) It's a legitimate topic, but I think it's rather unsettling to have to parse a murderer's words and judge their theoretical meaning according to the trends of the latest Post Modernist jargon. Yeah, I'll probably be called an angry right wing nut (or maybe a "Cheeto-stained piece of chickenshit") for it, but this picture makes me feel inclined to do to Ahmadinejad what his regime did to these two men. The reaction of the Queer Studies Departments seems to be intellectual handwringing. (Like asking "Why do they hang us?") MORE: This video explores the possibility that there may be personal issues involved. Via Glenn Reynolds, who expresses his hope "that the image of Ahmadinejad in a slinky red dress atop the piano gets plenty of circulation with the folks back home." I'm all too happy to oblige with the imagery. Every little bit helps. And once he admits his denial, he's got the problem half licked! UPDATE: My thanks to Glenn Reynolds for the link, and welcome all! Glenn also links this post from Jeff Goldstein about Burma, and the trivialization of evil, assisted by the stultifying moral flattening which accompanies pacifism. (And hey, if Ahmadinejad and his propaganda victory is a joke, why take the savage repression in Burma seriously? I'm sure that many Columbia students see no difference between Bush, Ahmadinejad, and the brutal regime currently ruling Burma. Jeff links his earlier post about the Ahmadinejad, with a link to video showing students applauding. They'd probably applaud a Burmese government spokesman too. Glenn also links Ron Rosenbaum, who notes the failure of so many to express outrage (and who links this chilling discussion of Ahmadinejad's holy nuclear agenda). Instead of expressing outrage, they're congratulating each other for being tolerant of free speech. And as Rosenbaum notes, for being brave: And what's equally laughable is their belief that their arguments, their rhetoric their desire above all for dialogue will make a differnce in a kumbaya way, to the victims of a theocratic Stasi-like state.I suppose that some of them think it's brave to applaud. Here's Jonathan Last in today's Philadelphia Inquirer: When Ahmadinejad began his remarks by swinging back at Bollinger, several in the audience actually applauded him. More applause occurred when he called for Palestinian self-determination (which is, in itself, curious, since Palestinians have recently self-determined that they want to be led by the Iran-backed terrorist group Hamas). When Ahmadinejad claimed that Iran was the victim of U.S.-sponsored terrorism and was "the first nation that objected to terrorism," there was even more applause. When he defended Iranian executions by asking, "Don't you have capital punishment in the United States?", more applause. When he said that nuclear weapons go against "the whole grain of humanity," more applause. When he suggested that George W. Bush was "retarded," more applause. And when he finished his performance, there was another spate of applause, just for good measure. How hospitable of them.While I don't mind ridiculing him (and "showing" him), I suspect it will take more than that to deter his goal of religious-based nuclear annihilation. UPDATE: Sean Kinsell links this post (thanks Sean!) with an interesting discussion. Be sure to read it. posted by Eric on 09.30.07 at 03:18 PM
Comments
Hey thanks! Maybe I should have put a red circle over the cone or something. Eric Scheie · September 30, 2007 10:36 PM Oh, he was a guest. Ah. Assistant Village Idiot · September 30, 2007 10:38 PM He swallows. Should make him very popular at parties. M. Simon · September 30, 2007 10:40 PM Eric, I think you and Justin have already spoken out on the issue of immoral public ice cream cone licking. . . see link below. Keep up the good fight, until this problem is licked! http://www.classicalvalues.com/archives/2005/09/spumoni_please.html Sean · October 1, 2007 02:06 PM Post a comment
You may use basic HTML for formatting.
|
|
October 2007
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
October 2007
September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 AB 1634 MBAPBSALLAMERICANGOP See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
cell phone etiquette; who has the last laugh?
Genocide, The Jews, And The Six Million Totolitarians Rationality How well I know, how well I know Law and Order The Desire To Punish My People War on Sex part LXIX..... (Why do they give a crap?) Totolitarian U
Links
Site Credits
|
|
Great post! The high fiving going on in academia while completely missing how this was such a victory for Ahmadenijad back home makes one wonder how smart they really are.
PS That last photo is just a little over the top.