I am at a conference this week in Kansas City. This is the annual conference of our professional group of international educators. Normally we meet in more exotic locations. Last year, the conference was in L.A. and the year before in D.C. Next year, they will congregate in Vancouver. I wasn't looking forward to Kansas City, but I must say I am pleasantly surprised. It's definitely a town worth visiting.
The official conference commenced today with the first plenary speech, given by Salman Rushdie. I admit that I was looking forward to this talk. Although I must confess to not having read Mr. Rushdie's books, I am, admittedly, quite curious about his life around the time of the publishing of The Satanic Verses. Upon publication, the Ayatollah Khomeini of Iran issued a fatwa against Rushdie, urging faithful Muslims to kill him. The book was seen, by Muslims, as being offensive and derogatory about the Prophet Mohamed, and, as you know well, they don't take too kindly to that sort of thing.
I didn't know what to expect from Rushdie. I didn't expect to like him. Although I haven't read his books, I have read commentary by him and about him and I know we are not on the same page about many things. In fact, a mere few minutes into his talk, a man three rows ahead of me snorted, got up and walked out. He apparently did not like Rushdie's prolonged derogatory comments and jokes about our previous president. I am no big fan of George Bush, but I could see where this was going...
It is interesting, and yet difficult to deal with the fact that as internationalists, we are supposed to think the same way, especially about all things political. I don't think I'm going out on a limb to say that the majority of the 7,000 people in that room are far left of center on the political scale. My office is probably the same way. A few weeks back, I was preparing for a trip to Arizona. My colleagues and supervisors made some jocular remarks about how I am a traitor for going to Arizona--a state we should boycott. There were jokes about carrying my passport. As internationalists, it is expected that we disagree with the new state law. It was assumed I would naturally think the same way. But I'm not sure I do. For a long time, I waffled on that issue. I have spent enough time in the border towns of Nogales, Algodones and Tijuana, and have witnessed the horrible poverty that those poor Mexicans live in. It's institutionalized and, I would guess, much more rampant and widespread than the poverty in the U.S. If I lived there, you can bet your sweet butt I would be trying to get into the U.S. But, at the same time, I had the occasion to meet quite a few individuals and families in the high desert area just north of the Mexican border. These folks live on ranches that happen to now be the illegal immigration highway. They have to sleep with guns by their beds, because by the time the Mexican folks reach their homes, they are, more often than not, desperate. Desperate for water, food, and money. We met one couple whose home had been broken into on more occasions than they could count. Their lives had been threatened several times, and they pretty much believed that their government was not protecting them. In fact, they were right. And so I see both sides of this argument. In the end though, I won't boycott Arizona because it's a stupid idea and only serves to hurt the folks that the protesters of the Arizona Governor are trying to protect. Many of those Mexican individuals will be severely hurt by a boycott, since many tend to work in tourist and hotel industries.
On occasion, I actually do see eye to eye with those left of center. I do accept, along with most of them, the unbelievably quaint idea that promoting international study is a way to achieve world peace. Yes, I sound like Miss America, but yet, I actually do believe it. Or at least, I believe that we will never achieve any sort of lasting peace as long as we refuse to actually come to know individuals from other places, and to know them personally and face to face. It's a lot harder to kill people you actually like. If, however, we keep other nations at arm's length, then it won't be so difficult to blow them up when they tick us off. This is horrifically simplistic, but before you chastise me, tell me what you're doing to achieve peace in the world.
I went off on a tangent just there. I want to get back to something Rushdie said that I have been mulling over all day. During the question period, someone asked his opinion of the Danish cartoons that so upset the Muslim community because of their derogatory depiction of the Prophet. Rushdie said he could not answer whether those cartoons should have been published, but went on to say that, as soon as violence was threatened and violence occurred, every newspaper in the world should have published the cartoons. He said that the one thing he was certain of is that violence, and the successful threat of violence will only beget more of the same. Once the protesters succeeded into cowing us into submission and restricting our freedoms through the use of violence, they would only do it again more forcefully the next time.
I think he's probably correct about this. I am grateful to live in a country where I have many freedoms. For example, being a staunch Catholic, I am able to go to Church every Sunday morning without fear of being arrested or harassed by government officials. This is not the case in every country. If I disagree with one of our government officials, I am free to say so, without any fear of reprisal--at least by the government or police force. I have a friend who likes to attack my opinions, but that's not relevant to this commentary.
But here is the dilemma I am facing. Do we go too far with our freedom? In other words, does the fact that we have the freedom to write or publish or say something necessarily mean that we should? I remember, back when I was much, much younger and working in a video store (the things that preceded DVDs and Blue Ray), a film was produced called "Faces of Death". This was a horrendously awful production of the real, gruesome and bloody deaths of people. There was a lot of controversy when this film came out, but it wasn't censored. America is, after all, a free country. But, SHOULD it have been produced? And is it really OK to watch it? I was, admittedly, very creeped out anytime someone came up to the counter wanting to rent it. I didn't understand what type of person would be able to watch such a film. And I didn't want to think that we were of the same species, created by the same God.
Rushdie ended his remarks by disrespecting the Pope, which, of course, offended me. And again, there was the question: just because he has the freedom to say those things, does that mean it's right to do so? I think injustice should be called out. But is it acceptable to offend people in order to get a laugh, just because one has the free ability to do so? Perhaps, in defending our freedom, we have sacrificed a bit of the inner voice that directs us morally? I don't really know. We have come a long way with our rights and freedoms in this country. I would never want to suggest that they be restricted. I just wish there was a way that we could spend as much time informing our collective moral conscience as we do fighting for the freedom to do this or say that.
It's too late to think about this anymore tonight...I'll mull it over some more tomorrow.
In the end, I ended up liking Rushdie. I don't agree with him over a lot of things, and he offended me on three or four occasions, but he's clearly an intelligent man with a good sense of humor and he gave me some things to think about. I will say that I did not give him the standing ovation that many in the room felt that he deserved (and I think I received a few glares because of it). He was good, but not great. I think I liked him better in Bridget Jones' Diary
No comments:
Post a Comment