Theos-Talk Archives (April 1996 Message tl00779)

A well thought out response.

In a very simplistic way of looking at what Rushdie did, he tried to make
money by being nasty. Nothing wrong in todays world. But he had to pay a
very heavy price for the risk he undertook and he has to blame himself
for it. It is an irony of his fate that the religion he
was born into dispensed ready money Karma -- IMHO. I hope he has learnt a
lesson by now.

	....doss


On Fri, 19 Apr 1996, JRC wrote:

> Date: Fri, 19 Apr 1996 01:54:33 -0400
> From: JRC <jrcecon@selway.umt.edu>
> To: Multiple recipients of list <theos-l@vnet.net>
> Subject: Re: Salman Rushdie on 'Respect' and the Thought Police
>
> Cool. Not suprising that Rushdie would come out with such a position - or
> at least not suprising to the people that have had to deal with him ...
> his reputation around literary circles is that he may be one of the
> single nastiest and abusive individuals in those circles (which are not
> known for their adherence to the golden rule (-:). In fact, shortly after
> his trouble with the Iranians began an editor that had worked with him
> said he was not at all suprised - and jokingly said that his next book
> after "Satanic Verses" was probably going to be titled something like
> "Buddha Was A Fat Bastard".
>
> Interesting thing about his talk is that he gets himself tied up in the
> same contradictions as most in the anti-PC movement do when he complains:
>
> "Other minority groups -- racial, sexual, social -- also have
> demanded that they be accorded this new form of respect. To
> "respect" Louis Farrakhan, we must understand, is simply to agree
> with him. To "diss" him is, equally simply, to disagree. But if
> dissent is also to be thought a form of "dissing," then we have
> indeed succumbed to the Thought Police."
>
> What a *bizarre* example for Rushdie to use, for several reasons ...
> 1) Farrakhan, (who Rushdie naturally wishes to disagree with, as LF is a
> Muslim, and Rushdie has not exactly had the best relations with the
> Islamic world), is actually a living image of exactly what Rushdie says is
> *good* about western society - LF shows no respect for "power, orthodoxy,
> for party lines ..." - in many ways he is *to the western world* almost
> precisely what Rushdie is to Islamics.
>
> 2) To complain that someone may feel a little pressure not to disagree
> with LF and call *that* a sign of the "Thought Police" is to use
> precisely the argument the anti-PC movement has perfected: The slight
> pressure to "agree" with LF is *nothing* compared to the *actual* police,
> the full force of the state, that has rallied against LF. There is talk
> about bringing him before Congress to testify, of indicting him on a
> whole slew of charges - the CIA monitors his travels and if you "agree"
> with him too publicly your name goes on an FBI list. And yet "minority
> groups" backing LF are equated with "Thought Police" we must guard
> against because they would limit our "freedom", while the actions of the
> US Government are not even mentioned.
>
> 3) So let me get this straight, Salmon, LF speaks his mind utterly
> freely, claiming the rights of a free society; he speaks strongly against
> the ruling (white) race, breaks every taboo he can get his hands on,
> travels to foreign countries where his opinions are welcomed, but in the
> country he speaks so strongly against, the force of the state begins
> issuing all manner of threats against him. HHHmmmmmm, now where have we
> heard that scenario before? Of course in his case, since you have
> personal reasons to disagree with him, you apparently remain blind to
> *government* actions, and instead equate his advocates with the forces of
> the Thought Police. I wonder, what would you call the minority voices in
> Iran that disagreed with the Iranian Government about *your* work?
>
> 4) "Hello pot? Kettle here ... you're black".
>
> 5) If Rushdie wanted to be consistant in his ideology, it is not
> *agreeing* with LF that is giving in to the Thought Police, but failing
> to *disagree with the government's imposition of force because of the
> ideological content of LF's words*.
>
> [PS - While I've been using LF as an example, I personally *do* disagree
> with his views, though I do not like my government's actions against him,
> and really cannot conceive of what Rushdie is talking about, as I've
> never felt even an ounce of pressure to agree with him.]
> 								-JRC
>