the hegemony of laughter

The better part of valor is discretion, in the which better part I have saved my life.

William Shakespeare (1564 - 1616), 'King Henry IV part I'

If you had a friend at a party and you knew that by saying “monkeys”, it would send him into an uncontrollably violent fit which would put you and others at danger, would you still want to exercise your first amendment rights? Would it be sheer maliciousness knowing full and well the immediate devastating results of such actions? But you maintain it’s your God-given right to say whatever you think, regardless of the outcome, so you say “monkeys” to prove a point. Now look what you’ve done, the guests are all bruised, battered, and bleeding. What if you just said “bananas” and that would put everything right? What? You maintain that you are still exercising your right to free speech while your guests are becoming mangled? By saying “bananas” you are compromising your right to say “monkeys”?

Case in point would be this whole debacle started when the Danish newspaper Jyllands Posten ran a political cartoon of the Muslim prophet Mohammed wearing a bomb shaped turban. Although the government had nothing to do with the caricature, Danish Prime Minister Rasmussen’s remarks did little to make amends, “I cannot make apologies on the behalf of a Danish Newspaper. That is not how our democracy works.” If you could save lives by simply saying “sorry”, isn’t that a little more important than lofty ideals? Perhaps it was the principle of the matter, but several people have already died during riots sin Afghanistan.

Proponents of democracy would have us believe that we are all the same and should be able exercise the same rights. It should be noted that not everyone wants to be free, nor should everyone be free. Just like everyone thinks they have a sense of humor, but not everyone is going to find the same things funny. I think we can all agree that there are certain things we should steer clear of poking fun at. You can free a subjugated people, but humor is relative and that’s something you can neither give nor teach. You are either born with it or not, but regardless something’s just aren’t a good idea to ape. Perhaps part of democracy should be to realize that we are not all the same and that exercising a certain amount of restraint is a greater good. At the very least, we should accept that around the world, we do not have a common goal nor share the same beliefs. Just because you exercise your power of free speech at home, it doesn’t guarantee that it will make a successful translation overseas, nor should it. It could just be a case of mutual blindness that neither east nor west can budge from their pedestals long enough to concede the absurdity of both positions. Yes, it was a pretty retarded cartoon by anyone’s standards, just to westerners provocative, but hardly blasphemous. Why then such a reaction?

Since the Muslim state and religion go hand in hand, outside derision are invariably going to be judged by a different scale. Although we have a clear separation of church and state, what happens when the constraints of a belief calls into question the fabric of a so-called free society for those not part of the dominant culture? Does that make everyone else free because those offended now have to be accommodated? The campaign of forcing democracy upon a pre-existing theocratic structure does not change the ideology of an age-old system. You can perhaps win hearts and minds, but what happens when souls are already taken?

What I find curious at this juncture is the U.S. State Department spokesman Kurtis Cooper issuing a statement last week to the effect “these cartoons are offensive to the beliefs of Muslims”. Does America lend support to the Muslim community because it doesn’t want to see a full scale riot in it’s hands or does it actually care? Obviously is it a form of damage control, a way to seem honorable the eyes of the Middle East, although anyone can tell you the credibility checks of America were overdrawn ages ago. Although there seems to be an associative disjunction　on the part of the Arab community, lumping media and state under the same heading. We counter in the west that the two hands do not necessarily wash each other.

However, how can one explain then the true fruits of democracy when an open censorship is well within our midst? Has there not been a blanket blackout policy by the media of actually running the cartoon in the U.S.? Not one paper will touch it. The Internet will touch anything and reach everyone, so any search will bring it up. Of course this raises the question who is establishing this blackout policy and is it a government or an in-house decision? For wouldn't the tenets of a just society dictate that a free press should present all viewpoints, albeit unfavorable from time to time in the best interest of the public to make an informed decision. On the other hand, can you blame the papers for fear of reprisals? Who wants to deal with bomb-threats or worse?

Holding aloft this torch of freedom was the rallying cry of newspapers throughout Europe, who decided for better or worse with a little “we’ll show them how a free society works” bravado to run the cartoon. This of course fanned the flames of dissention and hatred around the planet. Since then, foreign countries have had to deal with the immediate consequences of full scale rioting, condemnations, torching, a decided drop in sales of western goods, and worst of all death. However, in an effort to show that Muslims are not all without funny bones, Moroccan newspapers began a campaign of cartoons about the Holocaust.

That is mixing metaphors isn’t it? Although the cartoons had nothing to do with the Israelis (unless of course you want to believe that the Jews control the media in Denmark as well), enraged Muslims seem to want to drag them into the fray. Isn’t the cornerstone of every barbaric society an eye for an eye? Wouldn’t that dictate the caricature David in modern west bank day garb with a machete at the throat of a Palestinian? However, shouldn’t Denmark being a Christian country shoulder it’s fair share of the blame? If we must paint donkeys somewhere, why not make a depiction of a blond haired, blue eyed Jesus wearing a U.N. Peacekeeping outfit, launching missiles into a wedding reception in Afghanistan, for that would be our form of terrorism to the Muslim world, wouldn’t it? All westerners are the same to them apparently, just like all Muslims are to us.

Of course the price of blasphemy is blood, so forget apologies from the U.N. and governments, let’s put the artist up against the wall. We can have us an old style execution at dawn with swords drawn. Who would argue with that?

One thing I’ve yet to hear addressed is that age-old adage, “we don’t know why they hate us”, which you’ll invariably never hear, because who really wants to understand oppressed peoples logic? Why would anyone want to strap a bomb to their back and blow themselves up? These concerns are never brought forth, an attempt to get to the bottom of what’s running the show. It's easier to label them as crazed fanatics, but what drove them to those desperate acts?

As an attempt to analyze the harmful effects of derision, I would like to define as the hegemony of laughter. Those in power who make a joke will carry more weight because there is the blood and suffering of those oppressed beneath the jibes. Hence, it does no good to have a war of laughter when the anti is invariably death. It seems the new joke is who can laugh loudest at the pile of dead bodies mounting on both sides. This is the inside joke that the west fails to recognize. Maybe this is the punch line we are missing.

Therefore events such as the Danish cartoon, as trivial as they may seem to us carry a different punch to a subjugated people. Much like rioting in America’s ghettos, these incidents of social unrest are often messengers for a larger problem that merely needed an inflammatory situation to trigger it. It merely takes something as idiotic as an image to touch the core of a smoldering powder keg. In a strange way, idiocy loves spreading further idiocy.

So what does this conflict boil down to? Some would say it’s about religion-a clash of ideals, but I would argue there’s a larger question still gone undressed. For the Muslims, it’s really the West's strong-arming the Middle East while siphoning the worlds biggest oil reserves of the planet. Although Muslims often fall prey to confusing the West’s ideology with hidden agendas, they would be well served to look beyond religion and tackle rhetoric, for at the heart of every beating Western leader is a mad capitalist who wants to control the world’s resources at any expense.

Just as you can’t mandate good manners, democracy, or religion, you certainly can’t dictate humor about a sacred subject, but you can advocate respect. Maybe the bigger laughs have yet to come. I pray that it won’t be the kind that requires the blood of the innocent, but knowing the idiocy of humankind, I can't expect any different.