even in the rural primitive landscape of iowa? be thankful she's not holding up a cup and some string!

I don't understand Mr. Malik's point when he claims that what happened with Jewel of Medina indicates that Islamic fundamentalists who protested the Rushdie book 'won the war.' Yes, Random House decided not to involve itself in a headache over a controversial book, but the book is still available -- for anyone interested it's just one click away right here on the side of this diavlog. No doubt it will reach a much larger audience than one would expect for a 'breezy historical romance' (Mr. Malik's description). It is undoubtedly correct that the western left in general has a double standard in the way their multiculturalism interacts with their Enlightenment values. Mr. Malik apparently would like to see the left striving hard to defend the right to be provocative and the right to offend, even when done against minorities which see themselves as beleaguered. This notion makes some on the left a little nervous and they're willing to say, look, do we really have to insult people just for the sake of it? If something really, really bothers people and offends something they hold dear and no substantive

Interesting ideas. I liked Kenan's attitude in general; e.g., pooh-poohing the notion of "preserving" culture, but I wish Kerry had asked him some follow-up questions when it came to immigration. Specifically, how would Kenan view an immigrant culture that carries with it much stricter and/or different religious laws, that demands to be able to run their neighborhoods under these laws, even to the extent of privileging them above the national law? Given that he's British, I would have liked to hear his thoughts on Sharia law being applied in the UK. Second point: when the conversation turned to The Satanic Verses and the Danish cartoon controversy, I thought of a great segment on the most recent On The Media titled "Hot Off the Press." This was an interview of Barney Rosset, who took over Grove Press in 1951 and had the courage to publish a number of books that were originally banned for being "obscene." Seems to me that Random House and any number of major newspapers could learn a few lessons from Rosset. I strongly recommend everyone listen to this segment (or at least read the transcript). [Added] I see from Abu Noor's post that perhaps

Good points, Abu Noor, especially the part about the fundamentalists perhaps making a strategic error by raising a fuss, which ultimately makes the books that they protested that much more attractive to others.

*cough*
*cough* It's always fun to revisit Kenan's points, but all that dust! Sickle cell anemia not a black disease, eh? Well...right! *cough*
*cough*

Brendan, That's why it might have been interesting to see Mr. Malik flesh out a little more why he thinks that the "Fundamentalists" "won the war"? I think this notion for him goes to the fact that the "liberals" he wished would think like him, many of them don't, but I'm not sure if that was the goal of the fundamentalists. For those who are still reacting with fury against such provocations, it is not really about achieving any kind of pragmatic result. To them, whether their actions end up being counterproductive or not, they see themselves as validating a fundamental principle of defending the honor of the Prophet (saw). For those secularist liberal products of the enlightenment who might be totally bewildered by such a notion, it is like someone on the playground claiming the right to insult your mother. For some people, their mother is truly beloved to them and the hurt of hearing someone denigrate her is too much to simply stand by and do nothing. For others, there is a code that no matter what I might think of my mother, allowing you to insult my mother

As a strong multiculturalist I disagree with much of what Kenan had to say about culture. Regarding the pseudo-science and politicization of race categories I think he is correct. It's worthwhile to point out that Nixon invented "Hispanics" and that "Asian", as the term is used in the US and GB, is an absurd category. This also surely applies to "people of color" in the USA. However, stretching these valid observations into a theory that favors cultural assimilation vs. preservation is unjustified and insensitive to the values of minorities who choose not to conform and be absorbed. The trivialization of loss of languages was especially chilling. There are conflicting pressures on immigrants' freedom. One is the pressure to assimilate, conform and switch loyalties to the dominant culture. The other is the internal pressure also to conform and maintain loyalty to the minority culture. These are serious, lifelong, transgenerational challenges. Kenan reduces them to components of an ideology and treats them as if their resolution were easy and obvious. I also thought both Kerry and Kenan missed the point of adoptive parents exposing their children to their biological heritage. They viewed this as absurd. What could a child

Abu Noor: I take your point about people defending honor, or more generally, acting on principle. However, I don't accept the fundamentalists' reaction to the books being published -- no one is compelled to read a book, and their existence doesn't thrust the possibly offensive parts into one's face the way, say, buying space on a billboard would. I don't accept that allowing "pffensive" books to be published harms people in any way, and I think those who made a stink about it are trying to compel others to live according to their own laws, which I am firmly against. I feel the same way about, say, The Turner Diaries -- the content (as I understand it) is grievously offensive to me, and I don't like to think that someone would want to publish such stuff, but I am against banning this book, and if anything, I think I would be more inclined, not less, to support a store that sold it. I am a little more sympathetic to the complaints about the cartoons. Here, there is a more of a sense of something distasteful being thrust in one's face, in a cheap medium that is easily spread, and I'm not sure that there was anything of redeeming value to them -- they

Quoting bjkeefe: Interesting ideas. I liked Kenan's attitude in general; e.g., pooh-poohing the notion of "preserving" culture, but I wish Kerry had asked him some follow-up questions when it came to immigration. Specifically, how would Kenan view an immigrant culture that carries with it much stricter and/or different religious laws, that demands to be able to run their neighborhoods under these laws, even to the extent of privileging them above the national law? Given that he's British, I would have liked to hear his thoughts on Sharia law being applied in the UK.

Hmmm, as a self described "radical" "secularist", "assimilationist", and admirer of the "French republican tradition" it's pretty safe to say that he's as much against the presence of Shari'ah in UK as any right wing yahoo. And I'm sure in the context of UK he would argue against the notion that the Muslim immigrant culture is monolithic or consists primarily of people who necessarily have shared notion of how "they" want "their" neighborhoods to be run. I know he has written about his opposition to the fact that under multiculturalism, Muslims become a "community" and the British government then deals with the "leaders" of that "community" rather than individually engaging

Wonderment: Just to be clear -- by my saying "I liked Kenan's attitude in general; e.g., pooh-poohing the notion of 'preserving' culture," I didn't mean that I think it should be immediately swept away, or that differences shouldn't be cherished. I do think, however, that multiculturalism for multiculturalism's sake can get to be a fetish, and I also think there are cases where one culture's outlook on a specific aspect of life can legitimately be considered inferior or otherwise not compatible with the majority view. As to language preservation -- I think it's great that people are interested enough to work to keep a dying language alive, but I think this should be done as a hobby, so to speak, and is not the kind of thing I have much sympathy for spending lots of public funds on. I haven't thought about the adoption issue that deeply. I used to be completely impatient with the idea of an infant of group A being raised by parents of group B feeling as though she had to get in touch with other A-people, but I have lately become aware that, like it or not, these pressures exist. I'm now agnostic by virtue of dawning awareness of ignorance

I was a little put off by what seemed to be a Marxist and a radical libertarian simply bemoaning the fact that people care about things (identity, race, religion, nationalism) that they shouldn't or that they wish people didn't care about.

I actually thought that Kenan's views on language were analogous to the Taliban's views (let's blow them up!) on the Buddhas of Bamyan.

Quoting Wonderment: The trivialization of loss of languages was especially chilling.

I always think it's helpful to remember that American English, as spoken in 2008, is ultimately pretty fleeting. The spoken US English of 1978 is fading day by day, and the English of 1948 is all but gone. Written is obviously a different issue. But even then, it is like reading a translation: the average reader will understand the syntax of a 1948 text, but there are thousands of little ways that the true meaning of a sentence is always going to be lost. Which is all my long way of saying: losing a diversity of languages *is* pretty trivial compared to the upside of an Earth that can speak to itself effectively. Languages are hardy enough to not really need 'protection' in my opinion, and there's nothing too chilling about their natural ebb and flow considering that we all ebb towards functionality in the long run.

Brendan, One would have to specify what the "reaction" to the books was in order to defend it or not. Most Muslim fundamentalists, including myself, have done nothing about the books being published, although if you asked us we might say we find them offensive and would rather they weren't published. Is that okay? Or should we say, I find it offensive and I'm really happy it's published? I know some people will react that way but surely we don't have to. Some people in response to the cartoons demonstrated or proposed boycotts. Some wrote letters to the editor...Certainly you can't object to a simple return exercise of speech...first, to the extent violence occurred at protests at embassies relating to, for example, the cartoon affair, these were protests ginned up and/or cracked down upon by governments which were much more about other geo-political realities than about the incidents of offensive speech themselves. So, what I think we can all be against are specific threats of violence or acts of violence carried out on people involved with publishing a book or translating a book or writing a book or something like that. I have

As to language preservation -- I think it's great that people are interested enough to work to keep a dying language alive, but I think this should be done as a hobby, so to speak, and is not the kind of thing I have much sympathy for spending lots of public funds on.

Where are public funds being used to keep dying languages alive? Do you mean Latin as taught in US high schools? That language is not dying; it's already dead. Are you opposed to American Indians using federal education dollars for Cheyenne or Apache children to learn their ancestral languages? Or do you think it should be English Only on the rez?

Quoting Abu Noor Al-Irlandee: Hmmm, as a self described "radical" "secularist", "assimilationist", and admirer of the "French republican tradition" it's pretty safe to say that he's as much against the presence of Shari'ah in UK as any right wing yahoo. And I'm sure in the context of UK he would argue against the notion that the Muslim immigrant culture is monolithic or consists primarily of people who necessarily have shared notion of how "they" want "their" neighborhoods to be run.

That's probably the bet I'd place, too, but there was something about the way he was talking about no culture having the right to insist on its own preservation that made me think there was some chance he was laughing at the resident Brits who worry about the influx of Muslims. In other words, as a matter of consistency, he might say that if a highly secular society experiences the influx of a large group of much more religious people, they don't have any more right to insist that their secular society stay unchanged.

I know he has written about his opposition to the fact that under multiculturalism, Muslims become a "community" and the British

Quoting Abu Noor Al-Irlandee: Brendan,

One would have to specify what the "reaction" to the books was in order to defend it or not. Most Muslim fundamentalists, including myself, have done nothing about the books being published, although if you asked us we might say we find them offensive and would rather they weren't published. Is that okay?

Sure.

Or should we say, I find it offensive and I'm really happy it's published?

Ideally, you would say, "We find this book offensive, we wish it hadn't been written, and we are not at all happy that it's being published, but we're glad we live in a society where people can choose for themselves what they want to read. That's a further guarantee that our own boundary-pushing books will not be banned." (Substitute "I" for "we" above, if you like.)

Some people in response to the cartoons demonstrated or proposed boycotts. Some wrote letters to the editor...Certainly you can't object to a simple return exercise of speech...

Not at all. Perfectly appropriate, and I encourage it. Nothing to admire about suffering in silence.

first, to the extent violence occurred at protests at embassies relating to, for example, the cartoon affair, these were protests ginned up and/or cracked down upon

Thanks for your comments Brendan. I'm sorry if my post came out as I was criticizing you or calling for you to make disclaimers -- that's not what I was getting at (I actually had a longer reply to you but I decided against really getting into the nitty gritty of this issue, my chopping of my post may have left my own point unclear). My point was not asking you to issue a disclaimer but just hoping that we keep in mind what the issue is. If we agree that we're talking about a small minority even of the fundamentalists who react with violence that frames the "problem" in a much different light than if the "problem" is people like me who aren't going to do anything at all but still can't laugh at ridicule of what I hold sacred. I think Mr. Malik is deliberately moving us into that gray area because he's complaining even about self-censorship of private business entities that does not prevent the book from getting published. So we're not talking about violence anymore, I just wanted to figure out what exactly we

ooh, this one seems juicily controversial. I've only gotten to the small part about romanticizing the preservation of language but i'd definitely have to agree with kenan. obviously, since there's thousands of them, language is pretty much an arbitrary manifestation. I saw "The Linguists" at a film festival (which showed two nerds traveling to remote parts of the world to record languages before the last people that spoke them died) and all I could think was "Why the hell are you nerds doing this?" eventually humans will be extinct which means there's more important things to be doing. obviously, some discoveries like the Pariah tribe, or whatever they were called, who only whistled rather than speaking and didn't have numbers, are significant but people like "The Linguists" seem to be fetishizing language rather than using it to find out cool stuff like S. Pinker tries to do. also, it's fun to try to prove Noam Chompsky wrong, too.... anyway, great, great talk. thanks to kenan for coming on and thanks to bob and kerry for making it happen. i love "taboo" speakers like this. where's the firestorm of comments?

Quoting bjkeefe:

That's probably the bet I'd place, too, but there was something about the way he was talking about no culture having the right to insist on its own preservation that made me think there was some chance he was laughing at the resident Brits who worry about the influx of Muslims. In other words, as a matter of consistency, he might say that if a highly secular society experiences the influx of a large group of much more religious people, they don't have any more right to insist that their secular society stay unchanged.

Yeah, that'd be interesting but I think he's a secularist on principle.

That seems like a worthy complaint, although as a practical matter, there are often leaders of minority groups, particularly oppressed ones, who command a lot of respect, and this can be seen as one way of trying to relate, especially on a smaller scale. You might, for example, be able to accomplish something useful if the mayor or police chief or county health commissioner talks to the head imam(s) in that area, concerning some specific issue(s), don't you think? But yes, it can quickly get ridiculous and even

Great Diavlog. Thank you. I agree with Kenan that cultures are not sacrosanct, and should not be preserved as in a museum. I also am sympathetic to immigrants enriching American life. Having said that, there is a political and economic tradition in the USA that very much needs to be preserved. Hence I think assimilation, narrowly understood as the inculcation of political and economic values (life, liberty & the pursuit of happiness) is an urgent necessity. I also agree that, re Rushdie, liberals have lost the war. The insistence on polite non-offensiveness is ultimately corrosive of a healthy society. So while it was never really my intention, in retrospect I am happy that I have written a thoroughly offensive, politically incorrect book - it insults everybody: Haitians, politicians, women, Christians, and even white males. I suppose Jews are exempt - but only because they're not mentioned at all. http://www.dankingbooks.com