Blue Collar Muse

I’ve been privileged to meet some interesting people recently. One new colleague in particular stands out. I met Asma Hasan at SamSphere Denver this April. She’s a talented writer, great conversationalist and very, very bright. She is also a passionate, articulate and intelligent defender of her Muslim faith. She has authored two books; American Muslims: The New Generation in 2000 and 2005’s Why I am a Muslim. She currently writes a weekly post for ‘Glamocracy’, Glamour Magazine’s blog coverage of the presidential election.

I read each week and find myself both agreeing and disagreeing with Asma’s insight and analysis of the topics she chooses. This week is a disagree week. This week’s post is titled ‘Sticks and Stones - and Cartoons’ and addresses the recent New Yorker cartoon cover of the Obamas. Asma thinks the cartoon chosen for the cover falls

… far short of the editors’ stated goal of satire. According to the editors (and to paraphrase them), they chose to highlight the smears against Obama to show how absurd they are. …

I don’t accept that explanation as I feel that the cartoon could only be the product of Islamophobia, or racism against Muslims and Islam.

The article the cover promotes is a pro Obama article. The cover and story depict, not what the New Yorker thinks of Obama, but what the magazine thinks Obama’s critics think of Obama. As such, it exactly achieves the goal of satire. Dictionary.com defines “Satire” as “Irony, sarcasm, or caustic wit used to attack or expose folly, vice, or stupidity.” While inaccurate in its premise, that is exactly what the New Yorker is attempting.

Nor is the cartoon a product of “… Islamophobia or racism against Muslims and Islam” as Asma believes. The value lampooned by the cartoonist is that Obama’s critics incorrectly think him an Islamic terrorist. Islamic terrorists are bad and so incorrectly thinking Obama is one is also bad. That false depiction of Obama’s detractors masks the truth that rejecting those choosing terror over talking is a position shared by many Muslims. The cartoon’s rejection of Islamic terrorism does not make the piece anti-Muslim any more than criticizing Fred Phelps and the Westboro Baptist Church makes one anti-Christian. Rejecting a hate group doesn’t require me to reject everyone sharing a trait with their members. I can reject the Klan without hating all whites. I can reject The Nation of Islam without hating all blacks. And I can reject Islamic terrorists without hating all Muslims.

Asma is right about one thing. There is prejudice at the New Yorker. It’s just directed at those opposing Obama’s bid to be President. There are a host of real issues on which opposition to Obama is based. They are debated in the marketplace of ideas daily. Obama on Taxes, Obama on Energy, Obama on GWOT, Obama on Immigration, Obama on the size of Government and on and on. None of these were the basis for the New Yorker’s treatment of Obama’s detractors. The only point the magazine wants to leave in your mind is “The Right thinks Obama is a Terrorist!” That’s a lot more anti-Right Wing than it is anti-Muslim.

The New Yorker does a further disservice. It detracts from, and makes more difficult, legitimate discussion of issues related to Islamic extremists and Obama. We must be able to question Obama’s intentions to cozy up to radicals like Syria’s Assad without having the conversation hijacked by charges of racism. We need to be able to discuss how Muslim extremists view Obama without fearing demonization. If Obama becomes President there are things we need to know. What do Islamic terrorists think of his repudiation of his Muslim heritage? Does that make him an apostate to them? How do they treat apostates?

Hatred exists for every group - black, brown and white; Christian, Jew and Muslim; Democrat, Republican and Independent. It is to America’s shame that it is so. To our credit, it is less present in our society with each passing day. Most Americans reject the myriad -isms used to divide us. But they won’t go away until humanity goes away. The capacity for self deception and hatred is rooted in the fallen nature of man. There will always be those who won’t work to determine what should be opposed and what should not and what accounts for the difference between the two. Too bad the New Yorker isn’t helping.

I think Asma’s missed it in the case of the New Yorker cartoon. And that’s all I mean. She’s just wrong on this one. I believe she still “gets it”, nonetheless. I’ll keep reading her stuff and learning from her. I’ll keep respecting her political and religious views, even when we disagree. She’s not a terrorist and I’m not anti-Muslim. We’re friends, we’re colleagues, we’re Americans. That’s a change from the New Yorker’s opinions and from the views of most on the Left - but it’s change I can believe in.

Blue

Popularity: 30% [?]