Personally I can't understand what all the fuss is about Irani President Mahmood Ahmadinejad's tour of Amreeka, and the acerbic way in which Columbia University President Monseigneur Veuve Clicquot introduced him to the students and faculty members of the university. I mean what's the point of being a superpower if your white-hatted cowboys can't ride roughshod over the leader of an openly acknowlewdged pagan enemy state whom you have for months been threatening to attack militarily. I tell you, this bleeding heart liberalism will be the death of Yankee supremacy yet. 
What could the Irani president say but
In Iran, when you invite a guest, you respect themI hope that, when Pakistan finally becomes the world superpower it has always deserved to be, our political and opinion leaders will have the bollocks to make such statements to representatives of our own national enemies.
7 comments:
Well Said.
Hi!
Thanks for stopping by my blog and leaving a comment. That "towelie" character is a waste of time and bandwidth :) Best to not give him any coverage at all.
And yes. The Iranian president rocks :) America is uncouth, uncultured, and on its way out.
if i'm not mistaken, the towelie character isn't one character at all (i think the name may be a reference to the towels they like to wrap around their heads while braying to the light of the almost-full moon) but a whole host of crack-ters.
having said that, i don't think they are a waste of time, even if they do take their knee-jerk rejection off all things pertaining to islam to immature and ridiculous limits. i believe in the need to be able to digest all points of view without frequently puking or getting the runs, and (try to) avoid self-righteous rants and/or raves.
i myself am (or consider myself to be) a middle of the road kind of guy (though perhaps i take MOR-ism a bit too far -- i'm too often guilty of sitting comfortably on the fence on many issues).
apropos of as-sayed ahmedinejad, he may rock, but he does have an annoying habit of playing the self-righteous card all too often, and many of his statements, if made by western statesmen, would have us up in arms, placards and all.
that said, he certainly knows how to hold his own... and, whether or not he is actually as spartan in his lifestyle as he portrays, the message that he communicate in this regard is one that i heartily applaud him for. in a 21st centurty world drowning in a surfeit of branded and unbranded superfluities, i couldn't ask more of a politician. (well i could, but then i would be guilty of hypocrisy -- ferrari scagliettis don't come cheap ;)
It seems to me that the statement made by the university official was more in the nature of a disclaimer, like those aired these days by TV channels, wherein they state that the channel doesn't necessarily subscribe to the views expressed in a particular programme.
Sidhusaaheb, it may well have been, and is understandable, given the controversy surrounding prez Ahmadinejad's visit. That he was invited to speak is a testament to the fact that there still exists in the US a level of free speech not to be found in many other places on earth. He says, “The arrest and imprisonment of... Iranian Americans for no good reason is not only unjustified, it runs completely counter to the very values that allow today's speaker to even appear on this campus.” So true.
Sad, however, that in introducing the man he had to use such derogatory language. Would it not have been better to allow Ahmedinejad to speak and let the audience (which, after all, consisted of Columbia University faculty and students, not narrow-minded yokels) (i believe there is a difference) make up its own mind, rather than making it up for them?
Bollinger mentions the bugbear of modern American philosophy: holocaust denial. i don't count myself as being a holocaust denier, but this western (and esp American) refusal to even discuss the matter, to keep it waaaay out on top as THE sacred cow of their modern world is scary.
Bollinger says, “You should know that Columbia is a world center of Jewish studies and now... of Holocaust studies.... [The] Holocaust is the most documented event in human history. Because of this, and for many other reasons, your absurd comments about the ‘debate’ over the Holocaust both defy historical truth and make all of us who continue to fear humanity's capacity for evil shudder at this closure of memory....”
If it is indeed “the most documented event in human history,” then why the unwillingness to discuss it. American self-righteousness about the whole affair is extreme to say the least. (i am also disturbed by Bollinger’s use of the term “historical truth,” in the manner of of Muslims describing the words of the Quran as absolute truth. As if history is always “true” and unequivocal.)
Edward Said, for one, was a believer in the need for Arabs and Muslims to not deny the holocaust as a prerequisite for open dialogue. He also wrote:
“The question to be asked is how long can the history of anti-semitism and the Holocaust be used as a fence to exempt Israel from arguments and sanctions against it for its behaviour towards the Palestinians, arguments and sanctions that were used against other repressive governments, such as South Africa? How long are we going to deny that the cries of the people of Gaza... are directly connected to the policies of the Israeli government and not to the cries of the victims of Nazism?”
In my opinion, deniers of the holocaust are only as ridiculous as those who refuse to allow open debate on the fact of it having taken place (or who express feelings of revulsion towards those who want to discuss it).
i believe in freedom of speech. i also believe that no society will ever reach a level of *absolute* free speech. The exigencies of politics preclude that possibility; the kind of free speech we see in the west is the best that can be hoped for. And the rest of us are lucky to have seen this in our lifetime, and will, hopefully, be inspired by it to demand and achieve it ourselves.
And i will say again that the invitation to Ahmedinejad to speak was indeed a grand gesture, and i can think of few other places on earth where the head of an enemy [sic] state would be allowed to speak. However, if Bollingers words were intended as a disclaimer, the laddy did protest too much, methinks.
----------
Sources:
Transcript of Bollinger's speech
Obituary of Edward Said in The Guardian, UK
I left a comment on another blog - sorry for repeating myself here:
If Ahmedinijad were to articulate his point in a civilized manner - within the bounds of UN resolutions on Palestine, perhaps he would not face such stiff opposition in a world where Zionists have embedded themselves. By chanting the ‘destruction’ mantra he actually diverts the world attention from the plight of suffering Palestinians.
The issue is not destroying Israel but arguing and advocating the Palestinian cause - their rightful demand for a homeland and end to an illegal and self-righteous occupation based on biased interpretations of ancient texts and a senseless and brutal solution to the suffering of Jews at the hands of Europeans!
About Bollinger - you are right - he is a product of the environment where he lives and works. And let us not forget that a considerable section of the US academia is in service of power (Said, Chomsky have said it time and again) and we ought to recognize these hard facts..
Still, we have to protest at the undiplomatic and unbecoming behaviour of someone who claims to head an academic institution - he was more of a cheer-leader for the Zionist angst..
Hey there, Minos. Where have you been? Hope all is well with you.
Post a Comment