A Logical Critique of Rushdie

Post questions or suggestions here.
Post Reply
User avatar
Leyla Shen
Posts: 3851
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA

A Logical Critique of Rushdie

Post by Leyla Shen » Fri Feb 24, 2006 10:16 pm

Excerpts from the following 2002 article (comments in square brackets and after article quotes mine):

Rushdie Article, 2002

“Western critics of America's Afghan campaign [this generalised category, courtesy of Chomsky, should rightly be labelled as “the anti-war movement”] are enraged because they have been shown to be wrong at every step: no, US forces weren't humiliated the way the Russians had been; and yes, the air strikes did work; and no, the Northern Alliance didn't massacre people in Kabul; and yes, the Taliban did crumble away like the hated tyrants they were, even in their southern strongholds; and no, it wasn't that difficult to get the militants out of their cave fortresses; and yes, the various factions succeeded in putting together a new government that is surprising people by functioning pretty well.”

Chomsky, on Manufacturing Consent and in highlighting the sophistication of Western propaganda, points out here that Rushdie takes the entire anti-war movement -- that is, any group opposed to War -- and then assigns to that whole group a single and specific set of concerns (in bold above), which Chomsky rightly labels as “right-wing criticism” of the US instigated War on Terror in Afghanistan.

The next paragraph of the article continues:

“Meanwhile, those elements in the Arab and Muslim world who blame America for their own feelings of political impotence are feeling more impotent than ever. As always, anti-US radicalism feeds off the widespread anger over the plight of the Palestinians, and it remains true that nothing would undermine the fanatics' propaganda more comprehensively than an acceptable settlement in the Middle East.”

Rushdie posits here that this problem could largely be solved by addressing the only and very specific reason for it: widespread anger over the plight of the Palestinians -- squarely pointing the finger at “fantatics’ propaganda” as the cause.

In the third paragraph, he appears to doubt that statement with a very poor reason to back it up:

“However, even if that settlement were arrived at tomorrow, anti-Americanism would probably not abate. It has become too useful a smokescreen for Muslim nations' many defects - their corruption, their incompetence, their oppression of their own citizens, their economic, scientific and cultural stagnation. America-hating has become a badge of identity, making possible a chest-beating, flag-burning rhetoric of word and deed that makes men feel good. It contains a strong streak of hypocrisy, hating most what it desires most, and elements of self-loathing ("we hate America because it has made of itself what we cannot make of ourselves").”

Naturally, the only way to solve a problem is to know exactly and precisely what that problem in all its parts actually is, no? I mean, you don’t get to 1+1=2 by adding 1+0.5, for example. It would be pretty fanatical if you insisted on it, I’d say.

So, if the problem is, in fact, “fanatics’ propaganda,” and we are actually intent on removing it, then 1 fanantics’ propaganda plus one fanatics’ propaganda is not going to result in zero fanatics’ propaganda. So, seeing that this does not add up with basic arithmetic, we acknowledge, then, that 1 (fanatics’ propaganda) is not in fact 1, but 0.5. So then we postulate a new 1: “useful smokescreen for Muslim nations’ many defects.

So now, we have a very powerful nemesis, indeed. Apparently even more powerful than the world’s superpower. One that controls the entire anti-war movement.

Ironically, the next paragraph continues as follows:

“What America is accused of - closed-mindedness, stereotyping, ignorance - is also what its accusers would see if they looked into a mirror.”

Is it any wonder that by this time he is confused?

“These days there seem to be as many of these accusers outside the Muslim world as inside it. Anybody who has visited Britain and Europe, or followed the public conversation there during the past five months, will have been struck, even shocked, by the depth of anti-American feeling among large segments of the population, as well as the news media.”
Last edited by Leyla Shen on Sat Feb 25, 2006 1:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Between Suicides

Get Real
Posts: 21
Joined: Sat Feb 04, 2006 8:51 pm

Post by Get Real » Sat Feb 25, 2006 8:59 am

Who is it commenting here? Besides your comments in square brackets? He's the one whos "confused".

Rushdie doesn't maintain that anti-Americanism could be eliminated by eliminating fanatical islamic propoganda, just that a Palestinian resolution would weaken the propogandists arguments.

User avatar
Leyla Shen
Posts: 3851
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA

Post by Leyla Shen » Sat Feb 25, 2006 1:17 pm

Well, hello, Get Real:
Who is it commenting here? Besides your comments in square brackets? He's the one whos "confused".
I have made an appropriate amendment that fully clarifies that.
Rushdie doesn't maintain that anti-Americanism could be eliminated by eliminating fanatical islamic propoganda, just that a Palestinian resolution would weaken the propogandists arguments.
Perhaps I should have qualified the title of the thread with the word "article." But I had hoped that since I metioned I was addressing a very specific article and the logic therein, it would have been clear.

I think you are missing the point of my post, just like a fundy who only takes of a thing what bests serves his purpose.

Did I not say what you are pointing out with this comment (I have bolded a word that might help):
Rushdie posits here that this problem could largely be solved by addressing the only and very specific reason for it: widespread anger over the plight of the Palestinians -- squarely pointing the finger at “fantatics’ propaganda” as the cause.
Between Suicides

Post Reply