A cartoonist explains the conservative reaction to the GZM
The only way you could get some New Yorkers to oppose the Ground Zero Mosque would be for Sarah Palin to endorse it. As it happens, she is critical of the idea, which is all some need to know. A cartoon (reprinted approvingly at BoingBoing, where I saw it, reminding me that they think I'm an idiot) by "Tom the Dancing Bug" lays out what the wingnuts want for the spot, and of course Palin is invoked:
Preening, insular, race-based parochialism? Check! (Does this make New Yorkers incapable of commenting on culture beyond the Hudson? No; they understand tout le monde - by virtue of being le monde, I guess.) Let's examine the subtle, ingenious critique of the conservative response:
The Rethugicans would want an "Official United States of America Church" where only Jesus-addled bumpkins can bow a head, and pray God “not to send more terrorist or weather-related catastrophes upon our nation in retribution for our homosexuals and Democrats.” Ho! A witty jape, sir. It’s always amusing when people incensed by religious bigotry against Islam strike back with reductio ad absurdum depictions of Christians.
But wait, there’s more: the Republican 9/11 memorial would also have a "Muslim-free Zone" because GOPers are racist and xenophobic, and hate ay-rabs. This is a given. It’s a natural outgrowth of believing in lower taxes and property rights. And by property we mean SLAVES.
It would have “a Memorial to First Responders that commemorates their denial of health care - a reference, of course, to the Republicans' insistence that Congress might shave a buck or two from the Robert Byrd Institute for the Study of Robert Byrd to pay for the benefits. (Of course that was just a fig-leaf; they're really opposed to making sure the 1st responders don't get health care at all, because that would be socialism.)
There’s also an “Eternal Flame for the never-dying belief / wish that Saddam Hussein was somehow behind the attack.” Yes, of course. Ninety-six percent of Republicans believe Saddam was behind the attack, because Bill O’Reilly appeared to them in the form of a burning bush and told them so. Whereas no Democrat ever believed we went into Afghanistan to build an oil pipeline or steal iridium.
If there’s anything amusing about the work, it’s the context: to the cartoonist, this is the Republican response to the Mosque. Which almost suggests the Mosque is the Islamic response to 9/11. Which of course it isn’t. The Cordoba Center funders were as surprised as anyone when they found out how close to Ground Zero the site turned out to be.
UPDATE: The cartoonist responds.
>
ROBINSON > A Brief Manifesto for "Cordoba House"
BERLINSKI > Call Their Bluff
POULOS > The Ground Zero Mosque Is not Like a Strip Club
>
More from James Lileks
- Comment (25)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (2)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments :
Jul '10
Re: A cartoonist explains the conservative reaction to the GZM
Who better to decide how to memorialize the 9/11 attack on a multicultural eastern city than misogynistic, theocratic, totalitarian apologists for the attack?
Jun '10
Re: A cartoonist explains the conservative reaction to the GZM
I'm so glad that San Francisco's open-minded liberals are ready to welcome that 20-story Mormon Temple going up on the corner of Market and Castro. I thought they might object to it, but I guess not.
May '10
Re: A cartoonist explains the conservative reaction to the GZM
James,
I share most of your objections to that cartoon, and I'm always delighted to read you in screed mode -- I think I linked your Olive Garden masterpiece here one before -- but keeping with my different take on this issue, allow me one observation.
You write, "the Republican 9/11 memorial would also have a 'Muslim-free Zone' because GOPers are racist and xenophobic, and hate ay-rabs. This is a given. It’s a natural outgrowth of believing in lower taxes and property rights."
I read the Muslim Free Zone part of the cartoon a bit different.
After all, an explicit argument of mosque opponents is that American Muslims should be sensitive enough not to build a mosque near Ground Zero because radical Muslims perpetrated the September 11 attacks. Using exactly the same reasoning, one could contend that while Muslims have the legal right to visit any eventual Ground Zero memorial, they shouldn't do so out of sensitivity for 9/11's victims and other Americans who would be offended.
The positions are at least sufficiently similar to be fair game for a political cartoon.
Jul '10
Re: A cartoonist explains the conservative reaction to the GZM
That cartoon, while amusing in context, speaks to me in the voice of Fred G Sanford (The "G" stands for "Grim Paragon of Acceptance & Virtue!) speaking to his son Lamont:
Message received. Should I stop hanging around with Julio & Rollo now?
Conor, I don't think I've encountered anyone who believes that Muslims shouldn't visit any future Ground Zero memorial out of sensitivity. But like any good radio DeeJay, way to run a bit into the ground. I think that kids today call it a meme.
Jun '10
Re: A cartoonist explains the conservative reaction to the GZM
Conor Friedersdorf: ....an explicit argument of mosque opponents is that American Muslims should be sensitive enough not to build a mosque near Ground Zero because radical Muslims perpetrated the September 11 attacks. Using exactly the same reasoning, one could contend that while Muslims have the legal right to visit any eventual Ground Zero memorial, they shouldn't do so out of sensitivity for 9/11's victims and other Americans who would be offended.
The positions are at least sufficiently similar to be fair game for a political cartoon. · Aug 4 at 9:01pm
Japanese tourists have visited Pearl Harbor, and the USS Arizona, and they're certainly welcome, it's their history too, but they've had the good taste not to leave behind any 5-story shrines to the Emperor of Japan, overlooking the harbor. Building a permanent mosque at Ground Zero is not the same thing as visiting and looking. Every interested party is welcome to visit. Not every interested party is welcome to participate in the commemoration.
Jul '10
Re: A cartoonist explains the conservative reaction to the GZM
What's odd is that...I haven't met any New Yorkers who actually want it there, or who aren't just as opposed as I am. And I should note that I actually have about two semi-conservatives friends here in the city. I'm surrounded by liberals who are very poorly represented by the cartoon. They may be deeply flawed in their ideological approach to government, but...they hate this idea. I doubt any of them will vote against their representatives who are ignoring that, but...they still agree with us on the general concept. But I suppose that's not interesting enough for most of the major media outlets to report.
May '10
Re: A cartoonist explains the conservative reaction to the GZM
I really think the reasoning is almost identical. Let's ask other members here what they think. Would you have any objection to Muslims visiting Ground Zero? Would you defend their decision to do so even if it upset and offended victims of the terrorist attacks? Or would you ask that they stay away from such a memorial out of enlightened sensitivity?
If you object to a mosque built near Ground Zero, but are cool with Muslims visiting a memorial at the actual Ground Zero, why do you think that the former is so obviously objectionable that it's backers are automatically suspect... whereas even imagining you'd object to the latter is such an unfair slur that it doesn't even belong in a political cartoon?
Jul '10
Re: A cartoonist explains the conservative reaction to the GZM
Conor Friedersdorf
If you object to a mosque built near Ground Zero, but are cool with Muslims visiting a memorial at the actual Ground Zero, why do you think that the former is so obviously objectionable that it's backers are automatically suspect... whereas even imagining you'd object to the latter is such an unfair slur that it doesn't even belong in a political cartoon? · Aug 4 at 9:30pm
I am not objecting to Muslims visiting Ground Zero. I am not objecting to Muslims building a Mosque at Ground Zero. I am objecting to terror supporters building what they are calling a Mosque at Ground Zero (and make no mistake, they put the focus on Ground Zero) but what in reality is their own memorial at Ground Zero (purportedly in an effort at outreach) and will be viewed by Islamists (not Muslims) as just that: An Islamist Memorial at the site of their largest claim of victory. Abdul Rauf, despite his claims, tells two stories: One for U.S. consumption, and a second for consumption in the Arab world. Preaches peace here, but acquiesces to terror elsewhere. That's the problem.
Jun '10
Re: A cartoonist explains the conservative reaction to the GZM
An example: You can open a John Wilkes Booth museum if you like. It would probably be very interesting and educational. And a museum is not an endorsement. It's just a museum. But, you can't open it next to the Lincoln Memorial, because that's not neutral ground.
Jul '10
Re: A cartoonist explains the conservative reaction to the GZM
Information please: someone at Ricochet mentioned that an Orthodox Christian congregation wants to REBUILD its church, which was destroyed on 9/11; but it has faced huge problems with NYC regulators. Is this true? Does anyone know anything about this?
May '10
Re: A cartoonist explains the conservative reaction to the GZM
Do you see where this is going? A long list of places where property owners can't build certain things out of sensitivity for other people who might be offended or find it inappropriate or deem it ground that is not neutral.
This approach is going to work out just great for the right.
May '10
Re: A cartoonist explains the conservative reaction to the GZM
Conor Friedersdorf:
After all, an explicit argument of mosque opponents is that American Muslims should be sensitive enough not to build a mosque near Ground Zero because radical Muslims perpetrated the September 11 attacks. Using exactly the same reasoning, one could contend that while Muslims have the legal right to visit any eventual Ground Zero memorial, they shouldn't do so out of sensitivity for 9/11's victims and other Americans who would be offended. · Aug 4 at 9:01pm
I think the exact reasoning would imply that they shouldn't march around the Ground Zero Memorial in a Islam-chauvinist demonstration and afterward say they were trying to start a dialog. The fact is that they are deliberately insulting us. We apparently can't stop them for reasons legal, moral, and ethical. But, I would still like to hear some of our leaders say they disapprove of a group of foreigners building a monument to terror on their field of victory.
May '10
Re: A cartoonist explains the conservative reaction to the GZM
Conor Friedersdorf
Do you see where this is going? A long list of places where property owners can't build certain things out of sensitivity for other people who might be offended or find it inappropriate or deem it ground that is not neutral.
This approach is going to work out just great for the right. · Aug 4 at 10:58pm
I don't see where this is going. I think most of the time people play it by ear. If someone tries to do something insensitive on this scale, then out come the protesters. Then, either the offending party does its thing and takes the heat, or they give in to pressure and try something else. Standard NIMBY operating procedure: it works great for the left.
May '10
Re: A cartoonist explains the conservative reaction to the GZM
A group of "foreigners"?
You may feel insulted, Mr. Dietl, but the Imam who heads this congregation is most emphatically not trying to insult you.
Jun '10
Re: A cartoonist explains the conservative reaction to the GZM
The left is wrong on so many levels in this debate it's hard to know where to start. If we showed a lefty a caricature of a Japanese soldier during World War II, I think we could predict his response. Caricature is deliberate propaganda; its purpose is to dehumanize the enemy. In the leftist mind that would be us. But to expect the same lefty to leap the chasm of his own cognitive dissidence and accept the comparison between a Japanese soldier and an American conservative is beyond his capacity. Yuri Bezmenov said that such people are programmed to react to certain stimuli, and once corrupted there is no way back for them. In his words: "You are stuck with them."
I wonder how many lefties could give Peter's eloquent analysis a coherent and cogent reply. How many on the left even know what Wahhabism is? There is a combination of ignorance and ideological blindness at work here that defies solution. Many on the left have slipped into a culture of societal decadence from which there is no return. The only thing I can offer is that most Americans retain their common sense on issues of this sort.
Re: A cartoonist explains the conservative reaction to the GZM
I think many Americans share this view, and that a whole lot of the controversy would just wink out of existence if the taint of jihadist support went away first. Some might say that that the jihadist support litmus test is like a Jim Crow poll test -- impossible to pass by design. But I don't think so. I think a mere mosque without direct jihadist support would be broadly accepted.
Re: A cartoonist explains the conservative reaction to the GZM
John M Dietl
Conor Friedersdorf
Do you see where this is going? A long list of places where property owners can't build certain things out of sensitivity for other people who might be offended or find it inappropriate or deem it ground that is not neutral.
I don't see where this is going. I think most of the time people play it by ear. If someone tries to do something insensitive on this scale, then out come the protesters. Then, either the offending party does its thing and takes the heat, or they give in to pressure and try something else.
It's excellent that it's usually legal to be insensitive. It's the left that has very wrongly tried to codify private and public sector insensitivity laws. Of course we Americans can and should protest legal things we're against. What's important is that we justify our opposition to things by more than "this hurts my feelings."
Re: A cartoonist explains the conservative reaction to the GZM
Conor: I can't possibly think of a reason why a Muslim shouldn't be allowed to visit Ground Zero. Even if he was a whack job holding a sign that said MISSION ACCOMPLISHED. To make my position clear, I don't see any legal justifications for prohibiting the GZM, but it doesn't mean I can't think they're tone-deaf with their choice of location, size of the structure, and its name.
Re: A cartoonist explains the conservative reaction to the GZM
We talk about this a bit on the podcast.
(I won't give away Tucker's brilliant solution to the problem, but suffice it to say that it involves buying the building across the street and turning it into a popular chain restaurant. Guess which chain?)
What's amazing, from James' post, is realizing that the Left finds it simply impossible -- just categorically impossible -- to condemn or criticize anything, anywhere, without adding a "yes, but..." at the end. Yes, Islamic fundamentalism is dangerous, but so is Christian fundamentalism. Yes, the Holocaust was terrible, but so is what's going on in Gaza. It's almost comical -- they'll agree to anything, shrug at any outrage, accept any insanity, rather than appear to be on the same side as, say, Sarah Palin.
They forget this simple fact: some things are true even if Sarah Palin thinks they're true.
Jun '10
Re: A cartoonist explains the conservative reaction to the GZM
I agree with James's last comment. I, for one, am a believer in property rights, and do not believe the placement of the mosque is a legal issue so much as a question whether the mosque-promoters will act in a seemly manner. Just as John Paul II caused the nuns to be removed from Auschwitz out of sensitivity to Jewish concerns as opposed to legal compulsion, the mosque proponents should consider doing the same (assuming, of course, they share sensitivity that motivated John Paul II).