|
Column:
Comic Book Junkie
"A Powerful Medium"
By Matt Yocum
Published: 23 February 2006
|
|
In a few months for my next military assignment I’ll be
working in a US embassy. Given the current “cartoon
crisis,” this obviously concerns me about my family. More and
more, demonstrations are leading to violence in and around Western
embassies and consulates, such as the recent torching of the Italian
consulate in Libya.
What does this say about the power of these images of Mohammed?
What does this response of elements of the Islamic world mean? From
CNN’s website a few days ago regarding a demonstration:
“‘It was peaceful, then it became violent,’ Trupiano
[Italy’s ambassador to Libya] said of the protests in Libya’s
second-largest city.”
Why are these demonstrations, incited by a cartoon image no less,
proliferating and escalating in violence? Are these demonstrations
being escalated purposely, people coming in and stirring up the crowd?
I’ve seen it before when stationed in Israel as I watched Muslim
funerals in Gaza. These funerals were used by certain organizations
as a means of inciting others to violence, parading the body, firing
weapons, promoting action, and so on.
Again from CNN’s website a few days ago: “A written
statement released by protesters in Benghazi said they consider
Denmark's publication of the cartoons ‘a direct hostile
action.’”
That last statement shows why we in the West have a basic problem
of understanding. To borrow from Bernard Lewis who wrote The
Crisis of Islam, we see the Islamic world as a collection of
nation states with Islam as their religion. In their eyes, they are
Muslims who happen to have various nations. Their identity starts
with Islam, not their nation state. It is the central piece of who
they are and how they identify themselves. That’s why when the
Brits carved up the region decades ago, it did not bode well for the
future.
But still the question remains. Is the response in the Islamic
world proportional to the offense in the cartoons? A cartoon of
Mohammed wearing a turban shaped like a bomb with a fuse being lit.
There has to be something to this, doesn’t there? Look at these
headlines.
From Saturday, February 18, 2006 on CNN.com: “Sixteen people
were killed and 11 churches were burned Saturday in Nigeria as part of
the continuing violence over cartoons of Islam's Prophet Mohammed.
The violence comes a day after at least 10 people were killed in Libya
and another in Pakistan, where five deaths have been reported this
week.”
And in another article: “Though demonstrations on the
continent have been commonplace in recent weeks, Friday's
demonstrations in Libya brought the first reports of widespread
violence in Africa.”
Is this a case of the media escalating the reality? After all,
they report the extraordinary, not the ordinary. As one dictum goes
(which I learned from Charles T. Salmon in his book Into the
Fire), it’s news when man bites dog (the extraordinary), not
dog bites man (the ordinary). And by reporting only the
extraordinary, they make it seem ordinary to the rest of us.
Or perhaps this was a calculated escalation by groups taking
advantage of an opportunity. As I understand it, in the second
Palestinian uprising, or intifada, in Israel the trigger that created
it was supposedly Ariel Sharon’s (then much more hawkish than he
turned out to be) visit to the Western Wall in Jerusalem, also
the most holy Muslim site in the city, the Al-Aqsa Mosque. His visit
led to riots which only escalated from there into a years-long
intifada with, when I was there, daily attacks, shootings, and
bombings. However, as I understand it, the Israeli military knew that
the markings were there, politically and from a security/intelligence
perspective, for another intifada. That it would take any catalyst
for certain organizations to use that as an excuse to incite and begin
a new uprising. Then it would continue of its own momentum, response
leading to response. Certainly once things start, it’s hard for
them to stop.
Perhaps the Muslim response in this “cartoon crisis” is
orchestrated and encouraged, allowing momentum to take it from there.
Or perhaps it’s a legitimate response, that an image of their
prophet Mohammed is, in the eyes of a Muslim, an extreme enough
offense to lead to this (although many Muslim clerics decry this
violence).
One thing this does is show the power of an image. The image of
Mohammed wearing a turban like a bomb is not just a singular image.
It’s an image that conveys history and politics and much more.
It’s an image that, in the eyes of the beholder, can be seen as
many things. To some it is the right of a free press to exercise its
freedom. To others it’s an affront to what they hold dear.
I deplore violence for violence’s sake. Even Muslim clerics are
crying out against this response. And also I would challenge anyone
who faults the medium of comics. As Scott McCloud says in
Understanding Comics, “The artform — the medium
— known as comics is a vessel which can hold any number of ideas
and images. The ‘content’ of those images and ideas is,
of course, up to creators, and we all have different tastes. The
trick is never to mistake the message for the messenger.” Comics
are the medium, used to carry whatever message the creators wish. The
message you may not like, but the medium is not at fault. And comics
are one powerful medium.
—CCdC—
|
