No, thanks: I’ll think for myself.

I would appreciate it very much if all the well-meaning folks (and the not-so well-meaning ones, too) out there who don’t want me to hear what people like Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad have to say would do me the favor of letting my double-major college-educated, Master’s degree-earning, two teaching certificate- using coconut think for itself. 

Thanks muchly for that.

I have been struggling with just what to think about this since the president of Columbia University invited the world’s foremost Holocaust denier and nuclear saber-rattler a chance to speak at Columbia’s podium on Monday.  No, I didn’t want him to show up to lay a wreath at Ground Zero in New York while he was in town, but, frankly, it bugs me when American politicians go there for a cheap and quick photo-op, too.  I’m glad that didn’t happen.  And I do understand how deeply offensive people find Ahmadinejad ’s views to be.  I am very offended by them, too.  Holocaust deniers are, by their very nature, for want of a better, more Quakerly word, stupid.  Which on this blog here means “ignorant by choice.”  Giving time and a space to hateful people so they can spew their hate may seem like a wasteful exercise, and no thinking person really likes to hear those ideas expressed, either. 

But then I decided, and the answer to my quandry should have been easy.  See, I am an American.  And unlike the average Iranian, I have the right to hear things that might offend my government, and more importantly, views which might offend me.  Because I can think for myself.  That’s one of the things that going to college is supposed to teach you.

When I was an undergrad back in the late 1970s, I attended a very liberal college, Temple University in Philadelphia.  One of the many great things about attending Temple was the array of speakers who came on to our campus (funded by our student fees and by grants) to express their interesting, controversial, and sometime inflammatory views.  While I was there, for example, I saw  cartoonist Stan Lee, who was great.  I also saw “Hanoi Jane” Fonda (so branded by the Right, including my late father, in her pre-exercise video days), and Bernadette Devlin, a former member of the British Parliament and an open supporter of the provisional IRA.  At the time of Devlin’s appearance on campus, people were being shot and blown to bits on the streets of Northern Ireland on an almost daily basis, and Devlin’s fiery rhetoric posed a problem for the administration at Temple: should she be allowed to speak, given the state of “the Troubles” and the possibility of a violent response to her words?

Yes, she should.  And she did speak.  And she made people mad and things got loud.  But that’s all that happened, because we were all adults in that room.

And I left that room with a better understanding of what was going on in Northern Ireland.  I learned something.  Even though it made me squirm.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad may, as he’s being portrayed in the Corporate Media, indeed be an unstable madman in a cheesy golf jacket.  He may be doing bad things to make the war in Iraq worse.  He may pose the single biggest security threat our country faces in the world today (other than the Bush/Cheney regime).  His ideas about Jews and the Holocaust may be ignorant, reprehensible, hate-filled, and disgusting.  They may fly in the face of reality, what we lovingly call “facts.”  But he is also the leader of a country with which we may soon find ourselves at war.  Our sons and daughters may sometime within the next year be sent off to kill the sons and daughters (and mothers and fathers) of Iran.  In spite of the slobbering, insensitive, absurd, and ridiculous nature of his rantings, I want to hear what he has to say.

And I have the right to hear it.

And I resent having people like Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh and the editorial and headline writers at The New York Daily News – the same people who are pushing us towards war with Iran – telling me that I can’t.  Because if we do go to war with this man’s country, it’ll be my sons and my nephews and my students who will be drafted to fight it.

I respect the people who travelled to New York City yesterday to stand outside the United Nations and the hall at Columbia where Mahmoud Ahmadinejad spoke, to loudly voice their opposition to his views.  I respect those in the hall at Columbia who hooted and hissed when he made some of his more ridiculous comments.  And it was fine by me that the president of Columbia, who sent this invitation in the first place, gave the Iranian president a little slice of his mind before he let the man speak.  He had that right as well.  If I’d been in the hall, I might have even stood up and turned my back on the man while he spoke, as we once did to war criminal Henry Kissinger.

But I would have let him speak.  And I still would have listened. 

Because I am an American.  And THAT is supposed to mean I can.

31 Responses

  1. Agreed. My fury is at the idea we are not allowed to listen, obstensively because we’re oh-my so fragile! and may be offended!; but, perhaps, in reality, because he may have something to say that would make a difference.

    We might come to a better understanding of this man, whose country we may well be fighting against soon. But at the least, at the very least, we would have stood up in some way for the idea of America as a place where views may be spoken and combatted (peaceably).

  2. Thanks for so neatly summing up my exact thoughts on this issue, and a few thoughts I hadn’t had yet.

  3. I want to know when giving someone a platform or a permit became an “endorsement.” When did that definition change in the dictionary?

    Years ago, when the ACLU fought to get a bunch of self-proclaimed Neo-Nazis a permit so they could march in Skokie, Illinois, a Chicago suburb they had targeted because they knew it was largely populated by Holocaust suvivors and their families, they – the ACLU – were obviously NOT “endorsing” the Nazis’ speech. They were endorsing their RIGHT to speak.

    Which is what made them – the ACLU – right in that case, not matter how disgusting the actions of the Nazis might have been.

  4. After some thought, I quoted a paragraph from the interview with President Ahmadeinejad (and linked to the post from Adventus where I found it) on the blog for Beeston Quakers (that’s near Nottingham in England). President Ahmadeinejad has many views with which I disagree, such as his views on gay rights. I feel concern for Iranian dissidents, though I doubt their situation would be improved by dropping bombs on them. Nonetheless, President Ahmadeinejad’s words did speak to my condition in a way that President Bush’s words never have.

    The particular post is http://beestonquakers.blogspot.com/2007/09/open-to-new-light.html

    Incidentally I’ve added quite a few links to newspapers articles about Quakers in the past few days. We’re having our first National Quaker Week and there has been some press interest. Readers of this blog may be interested to explore some of the links for comments on British Quakerism.

  5. I ascribe to the belief that all viewpoints have a grain of truth to them. This doesn’t mean that I think Ahmadinejad’s hate fueled rhetoric is justified, but rather I would take the opportunity to study his position and the things that he says as a way to strength our argument against his policies.

    I feel that we often times summarily dismiss opinions like his without realizing how very real they are to many people across the world.

  6. QD,… nice landing on your nice shiny new digs! I like the layout…

    I tried linking to the old Blog a few times and kept getting re-directed to another Blog…

    I gotta’ run since I am in the middle of budget season,… but I took the liberty of putting you on my Fav’s listing again.

    Great post, I’ll have some comments later in the day,…

  7. Yes, you are an American and can think for yourself. Most American cannot think for themselves. They believe what Rush, or the hateful “Christian” minister, or CNN tell them. Good for you for thinking independently. Sadly and cynically, you are in the minority.

    But, I must add that I like the National Quaker Week idea!

  8. Welcome, TP: it’s about time y’all showed up!

    Kevin: I ascribe to the belief that this particular person is full of dookey, that he lies more often than not, and that he is lying knowingly. His manipulation of the facts of the Holocaust, for example, is just another attempt by a despot to scapegoat the Jews, to deflect attention from his own mismanagement of his country and his own ability to rule by anything other than fear and force.

    He’s knows exactly what he’s doing. That makes him scary.

  9. Comrade Kevin said: “I ascribe to the belief that all viewpoints have a grain of truth to them.”

    That’s a very liberal view, but we have to be careful not to be so open-minded our brain falls out.

    S.

  10. Let him talk. Absolutely.

    i can decide for myself that he’s a nutjob Holocaust denier.

    Love the new place!

  11. ‘Zactly.

    Thanks, Teach.

  12. The supreme nature certainly knows who will be swept out or be in the holocaustbecause of struggling of the humankind.How to array of that ? I think we have to be a good philosopher to decide what the best for.And what contextual thinking for situating Jakarta in the good political response at present ? Pondering it.

  13. I agree with the tenor of your post but disagree that this is a despot trying to “scapegoat the Jews”. He is a figurehead President, he doesn’t hold the real power, first of all. Second, the fact that Iran’s 20-40 000 strong Jewish community — the largest outside of Israel in the region — is thriving would also point to the need to disentangle his valid criticisms of Israel from a conflation with anti-Jewish sentiments.

  14. I think Pearl Atkins, a 72-year old living in Manhatten who lost family in the Holocaust, summed it up best in yesterday’s edition of The Washington Post when she said, “Let him speak. This is America, we have our say- not like in Iran. He only looks more idiotic when he opens his mouth anyway.”

  15. As usual, the wisdom of an elder wins out.

  16. About ten years ago, I read that David Duke was coming to Boston to give a speech at the Old South Meeting House, and that there was going to be a demonstration against him. I went to join the demo.

    We weren’t a big crowd, but it’s a small, old building, and our chanting from outside was loud enough that Duke’s attempts to speak were completely stymied. He ended up leaving because no one could hear him.

    I’ve regretted that ever since. He should have been allowed to speak. He had as much right to be there as we did.

  17. Kruschev was here and received a wonderful reception from the President. Have we become such bed-wetters that a mere voice scares us to react with totally anti-american actions?
    I am humiliated by our outrage and by this entire government and its’ terrified american people.
    Just keep repeating: terrorism, 9/11, Saddam, iran, Syria, and on and on and on till you pee your pants. May I suggest “Depends” as a way to make it through these horrible times in a country so beseiged on all sides.
    May the God of all mankind grants us amnesia and the courage to accept life.

  18. I agree with rik.

    Are our beliefs and principles on such shaky ground that we can’t stand to listen to – and that they can’t stand UP to and defeat – the blathering rants of a nincompoop like this guy?

  19. >We might come to a better understanding of this
    >man, whose country we may well be fighting
    >against soon.

    It’s easier to demonize him when people think of him as a one dimensional character. If they listen to him speak, they might not be so willingly lead to war.

    >But at the least, at the very
    >least, we would have stood up in some way for
    >the idea of America as a place where views may
    >be spoken and combatted (peaceably).

    You mean the pre 911 America.

  20. I believe that, at this point, the ethical issues of what he says are sideline importance and semantic masturbation to the notion that the Government is now taking it upon itself to tell the populace what they can and cannot listen to… even if it is indirectly by pressuring a University through political/media attack-dog tactics. Let’s review again, shall we?
    Habeus Corpus GONE.
    First Ammendment? Shredded.
    Second Ammendment? Taught to be debated in divisive terms for decades
    Fourth Ammendment? Shredded
    Fifth Ammendment? Used more often by government officials to conceal lies of higher authorities than they, until the Executive gainde enough power to make the Ammendment pale in comparison.

    The Mainstream Media, all channels? Trained like a retarded dog. Trained to regurgitate ‘talking points’ and pontificate on them while actively refusing to show facts without ANY OPINIONS AT ALL. Selective engineering.

    The Courts? Stacked, and impotent the rest of the time.

    Congress? BOUGHT AND SOLD. BOTH SIDES.

    Monetary Systems? Weaseled into the Fed, turned into a completely digital wet dream. pure abstract numbers, no hard value at all

    Businesses? Effectively super-people. Given all the rights of citizens, but they don’t die, pay taxes only on profits (and allowed to do their banking one of three or four majorly different ways in order to gain the most while acutally spending the least. Given enough influence to BUY AND SELL CONGRESS and THE MEDIA.

    And yet for some odd reason, the GOP is more worried about how the Iranian president is anti-gay?!?!?! that’s really all that’s reported on in this issue? and vaguely, the question of freedom of speech, like it ever should have been a question! This ‘ethical’ issue is meant to do one thing. To get democrats and liberals angry at Iran so they can try to solidify a vote later on… get just enough democrats angry to win back a temporary majority to get into Iran.

    And yet we are fighting over the ideological scraps from the table of our first [EDITED] dictator. nicely done. When will people get angry enough to march the streets, daily, until [EDITED] changes?!?!

    Redefine the argument guys and gals, don’t just pick at the bones of dead doctrines (yes, the 1st ammendment is effectively dead, except inside your bruised pride telling you ’say it ain’t so’). You have to revive them first. Jeebus Cripes!

  21. QDave, I think an academic venue is exactly the place for those groups–especially the creationist and global warming deniers–assuming that students would be given the chance to debate and to ask questions that would expose the impossible positions of either group.

    As for Ahmedinejad, the booing and laughter that followed his comments regarding homosexulity in Iran is exactly what he and the world need to hear. I certainly was taken very much by surprise that a leader acting on the world stage could be so ignorant. Columbia did the world a favor in letting him shout out that ignorance in a very public venue. I don’t think we realize what repercussions his remarks will have in his own country.

    The cure for the speech of evil and ignorant people is more speech from those who study the facts germaine to the ignorance. I’m sure that Iranian homosexuals and their supporters will be able to make some use of this speech.

  22. And the laughter doesn’t hurt, either! In fact, it’s a superb response!

  23. Love the passion, Wise Fool. Not the language. Cool it, please, with the “f” bomb and such, okay?

    And the use of the word “retarded,” in the way that you used it? Not here, okay? I have a special needs niece, and special needs students. I really don’t like that word.

    Thanks.

  24. Fair enough. I’m used to less moderated (or, less edited, your moderation is fine) channels, and I must admit that I tend to drop the f-bomb more often. Kinda goes with my take on free speech; you know, if speech is to be free then why is one four letter word taken on such offense when it means the same things that people are feeling and thinking when they use words like ‘crap’. That’s called a double standard, deeply engrained into society. There is no single reason that one could give me as to why one shouldn’t use words like that without getting baited into the ‘morality’ trap of not using the meaning behind the word, which everyone uses with impunity. But, as I said, fair enough.. if you don’t like it, I’ll refrain from using it. :)

    As for retarded, no offense to anyone who is retarded, I meant it in its academic sense: if a dog is retarded (slow learning) then one would have to take very great care in its training, hand to mouth, as it were (that of course being analogous to the training of the media, close control and hand-to-mouth feeding). I do really apologize if anyone takes that to mean something pejorative about retarded children. :(

  25. Yeah, I’m hyper-sensitive to the “r” word. I re-read your comment, and you’re on slightly more solid ground.

    Appreciate the other stuff, though. Just trying to set a different tone here.

  26. cool deal. chill vibes, I gotcha! ^_^

    great site by the way, I’m glad I came across it through some other blog linkz! And I love the title of this article. Its been my motto concerning all things media-related for a few years now.

  27. Quaker Dave
    I agree completely with our right to decide for ourselves. Many of the premises or stipulations which you seem ready to accept should be viewed with considerable skepticism.
    It Should be kept in mind that the media and government (pardon me, I repeat myself) propaganda machines have been twisting and fabricating things relative to Iran for over 50 years. Much of what has been said to criminalize and demonize Ahmadinejad has been discredited. This includes the many bogus quotes attributed to him that have been embellished, distorted, and even fabricated.
    Examples include:
    1. “Wipe Israel off the map”. Ahmadinejad has never said that he wants to “wipe Israel off the map”. The speech in question was recorded on video and has been translated by multiple scholars including Juan Cole PhD (here in the US). During the speech, Ahmadinejad never used the words Israel; wipe; or map (in any language). He never advocated violence, even once, in that speech or any other. He has repeatedly stated, in that speech and others, that he wants peace with all countries. He did however list two or three murderous regimes that no longer exist (not due to violence) and said that those occupying Jerusalem might similarly “disappear from the pages of time” a well know historical phrase in Iran. It was obvious his was speaking of a cruel tyrannical regime, not a country or its people.
    2. Holocaust Denier. I don’t know if he has ever denied that there was a holocaust. Whenever I have seen him speak (with real time translations) or read his statements translated by unbiased sources, he did not deny the organized willful mass murder of Jews (and others) by the Nazi regime. He has argued, however, that what is referred to as the holocaust has been cynically manipulated and exploited to justify the indefensible against the Palestinians and elsewhere. He has said that the collected evidence and documentation should be independently studied and available to scholars. He is not alone. Multiple Jewish scholars including Raul Hilberg (considered the founder of Holocaust studies) and the very credible Norman Finkelstein whose parents passed through the holocaust in Concentration camps have made similar statements. One of Finkelstein’s multiple books titled “The Holocaust Industry” scrutinizes this shameful practice. He like too many others was immediately, viciously and persistently labeled (in his case preposterously) as anti-Semitic and a “holocaust denier” as soon as he criticized the careless undocumented exaggerations of the number of holocaust survivors and victims and whenever he criticized the well documented war crimes and human rights violations of various right-wing Israeli governments, the IDF and others. Finkelstein has never attacked Judaism or the Israeli people. (For that matter I have not seen evidence that Ahmadinejad has either). Just as criticizing the war crimes and crimes against humanity of the GW Bush regime does not imply hatred of Americans or the US, criticizing criminal rulers and their actions in Israel in no way implies hatred or even a lack of love for the people or the country of Israel. Scrutinizing evidence and claims relative to the widely disparate numbers of survivors and the dead or the uniqueness of their plight in no way denies the attempt to systematically eliminate them.(ie. that does not mean someone is denying the holocaust.) We should all question the actions that the unscrupulous attempt to justify using the holocaust as a shield and a blindfold.
    PS: There is no credible evidence that Iran is attempting to develop nuclear weapons, has ever attempted to develop them or has ever had any desire to do so.
    War criminals, committing crimes against peace or humanity, must first prepare their own population to accept the demonization of the next target or at least to the point of being indifferent to their suffering and mass murder.
    JK

  28. JK:

    Thanks for all that food for thought.

    You’ll understand, however, if I respectfully disagree.

    A very dear friend of my late parents liberated a concentration camp at the end of WW2. This past summer, I interviewed him about this experience and all that he saw. I have had several up close and personal encounters with Holocaust survivors.

    You’ll understand, I hope, if I have a natural distrust and distaste for ANYONE who expresses “skepticism” about what happened in the camps, or who claims that it warrants further study or is somehow open to debate.

    Our man here from Iran hosted an entire conference devoted to Holocaust deniers. The Holocaust committed by the Nazis IS, in my opinion, unique in many ways, and that belief does not diminish the suffering of anyone else.

  29. As I don’t speak Ahmadinejad’s language, I don’t really know what he has to say. I’ve read a little of the translated speeches, but I’m well aware that a translation is problematic by its very nature, being supremely easy to ’spin’ so that it sounds nothing like the original meaning. Anyone my age remembers the flap about Nikita Khruschev’s “We will bury you” remark – which later was revealed to be a slang expression, the equivalent of “Eat our dust.” But oh my, didn’t it SOUND threatening the other way?

    All of this media shock and horror at what a mean-minded, anti-Jewish, homophobic, creepy little man Ahmadinejad is, only equates to this: the US government wants to invade his country, and they want us to go along with it. I don’t care if he drinks bath water, bays at the moon, and favors imprisonment for women like me just for being fat. I’m not buying the government’s plan of action. We need to get out of the war we’re in, not start another one so that the neo-cons can get their hands on more oil and get even richer, while other people (like us) die for their benefit.

  30. A comment that was sent regarding this post got caught in the spam filter and was accidently deleted.

    The upshot of the comment was that I’m not thinking for myself by buying into the idea that this man is a Holocaust denier.

    I stand by my belief that, based on all the reading I have done, he is.

  31. Great post, Dave. I nodded my head numerous times while reading this – I couldn’t agree with you more.

Leave a Reply