In defense of the sanctimonious women's studies set || First feminist blog on the internet

“This is a farewell kiss, you dog”

Jill

Shockingly, even in the aftermath of the Great Shoe Attack of 2009, some ungrateful Iraqis aren’t thanking President Bush for putting his life on the line in his unyielding attempts to bring freedom and democracy to the Middle East.

Indeed, after six years of war that has killed nearly 100,000 Iraqis and turned some 2 million into refugees, there were few words of thanks or praise directed at President Bush from Iraqi citizens. Instead:

The Iraqi journalist, Muntader al-Zaidi, 28, a correspondent for Al Baghdadia, an independent Iraqi television station, stood up about 12 feet from Mr. Bush and shouted in Arabic: “This is a gift from the Iraqis; this is the farewell kiss, you dog!” He then threw a shoe at Mr. Bush, who ducked and narrowly avoided it.

As stunned security agents and guards, officials and journalists watched, Mr. Zaidi then threw his other shoe, shouting in Arabic, “This is from the widows, the orphans and those who were killed in Iraq!” That shoe also narrowly missed Mr. Bush as Prime Minister Maliki stuck a hand in front of the president’s face to help shield him.

Don’t worry, though; Bush laughed it off. And because U.S.-occupied Iraq is such a free society, the man was beaten, dragged outside, and is currently jailed.

Mr. Maliki’s security agents jumped on the man, wrestled him to the floor and hustled him out of the room. They kicked him and beat him until “he was crying like a woman,” said Mohammed Taher, a reporter for Afaq, a television station owned by the Dawa Party, which is led by Mr. Maliki. Mr. Zaidi was then detained on unspecified charges.

Other Iraqi journalists in the front row apologized to Mr. Bush, who was uninjured and tried to brush off the incident by making a joke. “All I can report is it is a size 10,” he said, continuing to take questions and noting the apologies. He also called the incident a sign of democracy, saying, “That’s what people do in a free society, draw attention to themselves,” as the man’s screaming could be heard outside.

114 thoughts on “This is a farewell kiss, you dog”

  2. “That’s what people do in a free society, draw attention to themselves,” as the man’s screaming could be heard outside.

    Isn’t being beaten to a bloody pulp for NOT INJURING someone the greatest sign of democracy?

    Bush could have put a stop to that. He could have put himself between the police and the journalist. The fact that he continued to joke as the man screamed says everything that needs to be said about him.

  4. maybe the journalist shouldn’t have warned Bush he was gonna do something. he should have just thrown the shoe so Bush wouldn’t be alert… but that’s just what i’d do….

    i hate the “crying like a woman” thing. and i hate even more the smirk on Bush’s face after the first show didn’t hit him. Even if it did, that smirk was like “in the end, i have the power and you’re gonna get beat up”.

    And that’s what happens. And he calls that a democracy. It wasn’t so much better with Saddam though. So I guess the only thing iraqis can do is count ther days until Bush leaves the office and hope Obama has a different approach.

  6. I am going to go out and buy a load of cheap shoes. I find this a great way of showing ones displeasure at those idiots in power!

    Crying like a woman. Awesome. What *is* the appropriately masculine response to being kicked in the ribs?

    Yes… That rankled. It shows exactly how that society values women.

  7. Technically, this is assault: Zaidi threatened and attempted physical injury to Bush. It’s a crime. It’s appropriate to arrest and jail people for committing assault, although not appropriate to beat them in the course of doing so. If Fidel Castro or Hugo Chavez were giving a speech in NYC and someone started throwing hard objects at him, the NYPD would jump on that person.

  8. I admire a person who would do such a thing, with full knowledge of the consequences. (Like al Zaidi didn’t think that he’d be arrested/beaten).

    Oh, and FUCK that “crying like a woman” guy. Gorram douchenozzels…

  9. Don’t worry, though; Bush laughed it off. And because U.S.-occupied Iraq is such a free society, the man was beaten, dragged outside, and is currently jailed.

    Um, Jill, I’m on board with PG on this one: if anyone threw a shoe at a public figure on camera in the US, they also would be beaten (probably until they cried), dragged outside and would currently still be in jail.

    Assault is assault, whether you love or loathe the person who is assaulted.

    As a side note, much like Josh Marshall, I was impressed with how nimbly our President reacted to that situation.

  10. Right. Not saying that the guy shouldn’t have been arrested. And I don’t doubt that the NYPD would also have kicked and beaten a similar shoe-thrower. But that doesn’t make it an acceptable use of force, or an indicator of a “free” society.

    Why, exactly, should a protracted beating be part of his arrest?

  11. It was indeed assault, and had someone thrown a shoe at the president here in the U.S., the secret service would have been on their asses, and I would be really, really surprised if they weren’t charged with assaulting the president. Seriously.

    Still, it’s hysterical and appropriate that a shoe was thrown at him. Maybe I’m going to hell, but I don’t care: I LOLOLOL every time I watch the video.

  12. I think public temper tantrums like this are counterproductive at best. They make people with legitimate grievances look like loons, while giving assholes like Bush a chance to laugh off the incident and look calm, in control, manly, etc.

  13. I’m with you Marilove. When I saw the vid, I couldn’t help but laugh. If it were me at the podium and shoe came flying at me, I’d duck too!!

    Gotta admit, the ‘ol Prez thought he could “float like a butterfly”…hehehehehe

    (Who says we conservatives don’t laugh at each other?!)

  14. While I agree with you to a point, Bitter Scribe, I don’t think this really helped Bush any. Most know this was an insult and I think most people are aware it’s a pretty apt insult. The only thing I hear people saying are, “LOLOL he deserved it and how funny was that?!” And “Bush has great reflexes man, but lololol!”

    And, sorry, I may have a juvenile sense of humour sometimes (I will not deny that, nor am I ashamed of it), but that was freakin’ hysterical.

    *hits reply on the video again*

  15. “if anyone threw a shoe at a public figure on camera in the US, they also would be beaten (probably until they cried)”

    Well, I would hope not. In a free country, I thought the police’s job is to arrest, not punish how they see fit. That’s what judges are for.

  17. Pingback: Sole decision « The Words on What…

  18. Yes, can I please mention how much I hate the racist, neo-colonialist meme that’s developing about al-Zaidi being “ungrateful” (which perfectly echoes complaints at the height of the British empire about the “ingratitude” of India, Ireland, etc.) or “he could NEVER have done that under Saddam Hussein! He would have been beheaded!” Well, that’s great. Since when is “not as bad as Saddam Hussein” the standard for how a country should be run?

    BTW, it is worth mentioning that al-Zaidi had family members incarcerated by Hussein’s regime, so I’m sure he does not need the lectures from Western pontificators about how bad the old regime was.

  19. I wonder to what degree the Iraqi security’s overrreaction and beating was a result of being humiliated — that he got off the first shoe was bad enough, but that he got off the second shoe made things look really amateurish. But the beating was indefensible, and the refeence to crying like a woman was unfortunate and ugly.

    And as a card-carrying animal rights member, what’s up with using “dog” as the primary insult? I know the Arab world has a dim record on anmal rights, and that some Muslims consider dogs unclean, but geez.

    al-Zaidi lost me when he dragged the poor hounds into the whole thing.

  20. “And as a card-carrying animal rights member, what’s up with using “dog” as the primary insult? ”

    Oh my God.

    Look, I’m not one to shout “Stop being PC!” But, really, now, stop being PC.

    I love dogs, but come on.

  21. Sorry, marilove, it’s difficult to convey tongue-in-cheek in a quick comment. At least partly in cheek. And one reason why I’m less sympathetic to the sandal-tosser than I might otherwise have been!

    And I thought Bush’s duck was rather fine.

  22. Since when is “not as bad as Saddam Hussein” the standard for how a country should be run?

    Since that’s all we got left.

  23. I was surprised how quick on his feet Bush was when the shoe came at him, but I’m sure Obama, in the same situation, would have deflected it with his telekinetic powers.

    Anyway, just coming here to chime in on the beating thing — anybody who thinks our cops would’ve done better are fooling themselves. “Don’t taze me, bro?” Ring any bells?

  25. I think public temper tantrums like this are counterproductive at best.

    It wasn’t a temper tantrum, it was a symbolic demonstration. Unless you think the oppressed party needs to be more polite, and then maybe they’ll be listened to?

  27. Muntader al-Zaidi is a folk hero. This was no tantrum; there’s nothing juvenile about it. This was a deadly serious venting of global rage over millions of human lives destroyed by war and imperialism.

  30. I was also cracking up and joking to my friends about how quick on his feet shrub was, but once I saw what the journalist actually said, I stopped laughing. What a farce that press conference was!

    Now, obviously, I am no fan of our current president, but was anyone else thinking: “Where the FUCK were the secret service?” I mean, they had better STEP IT UP once Obama is in office. Sheesh.

  31. “Now, obviously, I am no fan of our current president, but was anyone else thinking: “Where the FUCK were the secret service?””

    It was a shoe.

    Not a shoe-bomb. Not a hunk of lead cunningly fashioned into shoe-shape. A shoe. What’s security supposed to do, make everyone where paper hospital gowns and slippers to press conferences? Make them bring whiffle-ball mike covers? Yes, whipping a shoe at someone’s head is assault, and nobody wants to get beaned in the face with a boot, but a life-threatening situation, this was not. Unless I missed it and the reporter was actually Odd Job or Jason Statham.

  32. It wasn’t a temper tantrum, it was a symbolic demonstration. Unless you think the oppressed party needs to be more polite, and then maybe they’ll be listened to?

    Flag-burning is a symbolic demonstration: “I symbolically set your country on fire!” Knocking down a statue or doing some voodoo on an effigy of Bush would be a symbolic demonstration. Throwing shoes at his head is an assault. If, in addition to physically injuring Bush, it was meant to threaten the American people as a whole, then in the U.S. it would have been deemed a hate crime. You don’t get to assault individuals who belong to a group as a way of “speaking” about your sentiments toward the group.

    Yes, whipping a shoe at someone’s head is assault, and nobody wants to get beaned in the face with a boot, but a life-threatening situation, this was not.

    As y’all might recall from the Jena 6 case, a shoe in some states is considered a potential deadly weapon. Remember that this president managed to knock himself out by choking on a pretzel. (Or at least that’s how he explained the bruise — no one was with him at the time to verify.) I agree that the Secret Service should have been quicker to deflect the second shoe.

  33. This was no tantrum; there’s nothing juvenile about it. This was a deadly serious venting of global rage over millions of human lives destroyed by war and imperialism.

    Agreed with Kai. He didn’t throw his notepad or pencil or chair. He threw his shoe, which is a symbolic act in Arab culture, just like burning a flag. Not that I don’t think he shouldn’t have been arrested, but he shouldn’t have been beaten and if Bush were a half decent man he’d join in the calls for the guy’s release.

  34. And one reason why I’m less sympathetic to the sandal-tosser than I might otherwise have been!

    Also – ahem – sandal tosser? Do you mean something by that?

  35. I am really leery of the idea that a crime — particularly a violent crime, as opposed to one against property — should also be seen as speech. This plays into the hands of the homophobes who don’t want to include sexual orientation as a protected category for hate crimes laws, on the rationale that people who are anti-gay ought to be free to “express” their sentiments, presumably by committing a crime against LGBT folks. If you have something to say, say it or mime it or symbolize it peacefully. But don’t commit a crime in the guise of free expression. (This also applies to anarchists who smash Starbucks windows to “express” their opposition to capitalism.) Either have a debate or have a fight, but don’t pretend to be doing the former when you’re really doing the latter.

  36. If, in addition to physically injuring Bush, it was meant to threaten the American people as a whole, then in the U.S. it would have been deemed a hate crime.

    From what I can tell, the American people as a whole seem inclined to hand the guy more shoes.

  37. From what I can tell, the American people as a whole seem inclined to hand the guy more shoes.

    I have some old Docs and Chuck Taylor’s I’m willing to donate to the cause.

  39. “I think public temper tantrums like this are counterproductive at best. They make people with legitimate grievances look like loons, while giving assholes like Bush a chance to laugh off the incident and look calm, in control, manly, etc.”

    i think this sums things up pretty well:

    “”The flying shoe speaks more for Arab public opinion than all the despots/puppets that Bush meets with during his travels in the Middle East,” said Asad Abu Khalil, a popular Lebanese-American blogger and professor at Stanislaus University in California

    i’ll go further and say that this guy did more to express arab frustration than all of the public demonstrations and flag burnings combined.

    it was incredibly symbolic and potent for arabs to see someone insult bush in this direct way.

  40. Vanessa, you’re right, the use of the word “sandal” could be misconstrued as having racist implications. (And oh Lordie, let’s not fight over “misconstrued.”) I ought not to have used it. ” His use of ‘dog’ caused me to be less sympathetic to the boot-heaver.” Better, I think.

  41. “Sorry, marilove, it’s difficult to convey tongue-in-cheek in a quick comment. At least partly in cheek. And one reason why I’m less sympathetic to the sandal-tosser than I might otherwise have been!”

    I’m sorry, Hugo, but I don’t really think humor is appropriate in the context of a post that talks about the beating that this reported received. All, if I may just point out, your sense of humor is shit.

    In case, just… Yeah, what Kai and Vanessa said.

  42. If, in addition to physically injuring Bush, it was meant to threaten the American people as a whole…

    Oh my god. Do you think you could get your head out of your ass for ten seconds? This is not. about. you. This is about a journalist protesting and insulting a guy who’d deliberately destroyed said journalist’s country just for the hell of it.

    I’m really fed up with westerners sitting back and smugly & self righteously declaring that they’d never resort to an action as uncouth and uncivilised as throwing a shoe (zomg!) at a guy who, I repeat, ordered the destruction of your country just because he could, and then had the nerve to show up to do a victory lap. It’s all very well to carry on about your own moral superiority from the comforts of the living room of your non war torn country, but you just cannot know what you’d do if you were in this guy’s position. It reminds me of the ‘Iraqis are just ingrates who don’t understand how much better off they are now’ school of thought.

    And when has Bush ever given a damn about peaceful protests or exposure by journalists? This is likely the only time he’s going to be held even remotely accountable for his actions. No doubt Mr al Zaidi is well aware of that, and on that basis alone, I think his action is not just appropriate, but admirable. Can we please try to check our Western privilege?

    Also, the higher estimates of the number of Iraqi deaths (as published in The Lancet in 2006) are upwards of one million people (I think the figure Jill gave was about 100 000? Of course, we’ll probably never know for sure.)

  43. “Vanessa, you’re right, the use of the word “sandal” could be misconstrued as having racist implications. (And oh Lordie, let’s not fight over “misconstrued.”) I ought not to have used it.”

    Uh, yeah, no shit, seeing as how he actually threw two dress shoes.

    ” His use of ‘dog’ caused me to be less sympathetic to the boot-heaver.” Better, I think.”

    Are you seriously going on about his use of the word “dog” while he sits in prison after having been badly beaten? Goddamn… Even knowing this comes from you, I’m still shocked by the degree of self-entitlement displayed here.

  44. Vanessa, I think the beating was appalling. That said, I don’t think what he did was acceptable, and frankly, I do take the use of animal language as a way of expressing rage to be very, very problematic.

  45. Actually it is rather symbolic, as shoes are seen as particularly “unclean” in Muslim culture (it is an insult to show someone the bottom of your foot/shoe when you sit at a meal for example) so tossing a shoe at someone would be a good way to deeply insult someone.

  47. Kristin, he assaulted someone. Jail is appropriate until trial, and he probably deserves to do the same time any of us would do if we threw shoes with the potential to do injury at another person’s head.

    Beating him was appalling. Passing comment on his use of language is part of what commenters do, and since a lot of good and wise things had been said by other people, I was offering another take.

  48. Vanessa, I think the beating was appalling. That said, I don’t think what he did was acceptable, and frankly, I do take the use of animal language as a way of expressing rage to be very, very problematic.

    #43 was Kristin, not me.

    But while we’re at it, what Kristin said.

  49. And also, calling someone a “dog” is additionally symbolic, as dogs are also considered unclean in Muslim culture, and aren’t generally kept as pets like cats would be.

  50. I do take the use of animal language as a way of expressing rage to be very, very problematic.

    I think that when you want to express deep and abiding rage, you use the kind of language which is most offensive within your culture, regardless of whether it has other implications.

    There’s a lot to unpack about what’s regarded as deeply offensive, but I think those questions may ultimately be secondary to the sentiments being expressed.

  51. Um. Hugo? See, the thing is? When the guy was talking about “this is for the widows and children” and so on? He wasn’t talking in fucking abstractions, get it? He was standing feet away from the son of a cockroach (oh noez, more speciesism, I feel just AWFUL about it) who basically tore his entire fucking world to pieces and probably got a number of people the guy knew and loved personally, killed. And the guy is a journalist; he’s been probably been seeing even more of our splendid little war’s results than even your average multiply, severely traumatized Iraqi citizen. But -thank fuck- there’s someone here to express concern about how -uncivil- he was. Maybe, Hugo, you could go on over there and explain it to the guy, oh, and to Bush himself, about how it’s not -nice- to throw shoes but it’s worse to beat him, how appalling, WHO EVER HEARD OF SUCH A FUCKING THING OVER THERE, it’s not like the guy was DRIVEN to that point by the SAME GODDAM THING happening -over and over- all around him for -years-, now, -all put into motion by the man in front of him-.

    Shoes? He should get a medal for his restraint. Even if the only reason was severe frisking before getting in. I wouldn’t have blamed him for lunging at him and just biting his goddam throat out. Like a DOG, Hugo; that’s what they DO. They’re ANIMALS. They strike out when they’re hurt. -Just like us.-

    Jesus.

  52. Jail is appropriate until trial, and he probably deserves to do the same time any of us would do if we threw shoes with the potential to do injury at another person’s head.

    In what jurisdiction in the U.S. do we hold people until trial for charges like these? It’s called bail or being released on one’s own recognizance.

  53. As y’all might recall from the Jena 6 case, a shoe in some states is considered a potential deadly weapon.

    You mean, when used by a PoC against a white dude?

  54. n.b. I am reminded of the use of the invective “cockroach” in the Rwandan genocides; this was obviously not my first association with fucking Bush.

    meanwhile, what stlthy and a whole shitload of other people said. Just unfuckingbelievable.

    I mean, jesus. It’s horribly sad. It -is- an act of heroism; and yet. He -threw shoes-. And called names. At the end of the day. That’s it. Reduced to an impotent gesture toward a -mass fucking murderer.- Doing it anyway because his soul needed to do it, I expect. Express -something.- -Anything-. Of -course- they’re frigging beating him for it, Hugo; what’d you think? Why do you think he threw them in the first place? Because he didn’t like Bush’s shirt color?

    I hope you’re as fucking civil and rational when someone invades your country for no reason, lays waste to everything and everyone you love, and then comes waltzing right in front of you, blandly smiling jolly good show pip pip. Cuppa -tea-, there?

    …stupid mod queue. well, it’ll make sense enough, won’t it.

  55. “You mean, when used by a PoC against a white dude?”

    Begalsan: Yep, that’s pretty much the sentiment I’m seeing all over this thread. More Upholding of Good White Middle Class Parlor Manners, I think. Me, personally, when I heard about the shoe-throwing, my first thought was, “Ah, too bad it didn’t smack him in the face.” Some kind of loss of face would have been oddly cathartic, I think, for lots of people.

    evil_fizz:

    “In what jurisdiction in the U.S. do we hold people until trial for charges like these?”

    See Begalsan’s question. I mean, come on, everyone, let’s not mince words here. That *is* what some folks on here are getting at as they clamor for jail time no?

    And, putting aside the question of jail, the beating is clearly the most egregious abuse here. Jesus… I’m just gonna set this aside as another incident in which the Self-Entitled White Dude Misses the Forest for the Trees.

  56. Argh, given our current political climate (and the fact that this fuck is still in office), I feel compelled to note that I didn’t mean literal loss of face or serious damage, or y’know… Whatever. A goddamned bruise or something, though, after the damage this fuckstain has wrought all over the world.

  57. What Vanessa and Kristin said.

    The use of “sandal-thrower” after passing “tongue-in-cheek” judgment on the PETA-offending primitiveness of “the Arab world” is consistent with a worldview in which the initiator of imperialist invasion must be protected from the brown folks who have lost hundreds of thousands of lives to that invasion.

    A country destroyed, hundreds of thousands dead, the future smashed to rubble — and the use of “dog” is “very, very problematic”. You can’t make up the callous mind-numbery of the US pampered class. To expect human beings in such circumstances to behave in a manner deemed unproblematic by citizens of the invading country demonstrates a spectacular disconnect from or disregard for human realities on most of the planet.

  58. “You can’t make up the callous mind-numbery of the US pampered class. To expect human beings in such circumstances to behave in a manner deemed unproblematic by citizens of the invading country demonstrates a spectacular disconnect from or disregard for human realities on most of the planet.”

    Yes, THIS.

  59. Sorry to Americans here if this offends, but how do such wonderul leaders in your country get assassinated and this idiot survives? The world is unfair.

  60. Thank you, Kai.

    Although I’d -like- to think that even for the pampered class, which I no doubt belong to as well, Hugo is being, well, Special. not least because I know sure as cheese is cheese that the only result of this collective attempt at HELLO HELLOOOOOOO, -at best-, is going to be yet more self-serving navel gazing here, there, and everywhere, and even more jawdroppingly clueless inspiration for headdesking in the process. Let’s not and say we did, this time, hm?

    E.M. Russell: Partly cruel fate, partly perhaps because we have a shitload of foaming rightwing zealots with easy access to weapons; but partly, I would venture, because selfish fuckbags are naturally better at self-preservation; they have more invested in their own ego, and fewer qualms about doing whatever it takes to make sure their own hides are safe, and to hell with everyone and everything else.

  61. PG: No, it really doesn’t. Besides, many of those same homophobes are also foaming about the awful terrible Islamist savages now too, good thing that Arab got what’s coming to him, so, you know. But then, I’m one of the ones who’d have been applauding the people who pied Anita Bryant. Sainthood is not required, here. Really.

  62. Kristin: yes, well, the eyes of Big Brother being upon us, you know, all I will say is that if I really said what I thought…well.

    Just, without making any specific recommendations or wishes? Which I do not have, and would not carry out myself, on account of I do not recommend any law-breaking or getting anyone into trouble with the Powers That Be? All I will say is that karmically speaking, Bush has a fuck of a lot more coming to him than a shoe. And I -still- wouldn’t be sitting in judgment of the Iraqi journalist who did…whatever. I’d say: finally, someone takes it back to the -actual source- instead of yet more war with hapless pawns. I’d say: that man would be a revolutionary hero to his people, and I wouldn’t blame them one tiny bit. I can’t imagine how it must fucking feel to be an Iraqi right now. I don’t -want- to imagine it, and, lucky me, most of the time, I don’t have to. But fuck me if I want to carry the karmic retribution for that miserable shitbag’s sins. I say “want to” like it should matter. Entitled that I am.

  63. If, in addition to physically injuring Bush, it was meant to threaten the American people as a whole…

    Yeah, we’re shakin’ in our combat boots. Better go bomb another anukular middle-eastern country to rubble just to make sure we can all sleep safe tonight. It’s only a short step from shoes to shoe bombs, right? For all we know, this man is planning to mastermind a lethal attack on the president as soon as he gets out of prison and recovers from the vicious beating he received at the hands of the authorities. Someone should make sure he doesn’t have any more shoes.

    You don’t get to assault individuals who belong to a group as a way of “speaking” about your sentiments toward the group.

    And if a shoe had been tossed at some plain old American, then I suppose that would be wrong. (I still wouldn’t be all that upset, though.) Bush is the commander in chief. No one in the United States can be at war without his say-so. He’s the leader, not some anonymous citizen, and he was there as head of state.

  64. We live in a society–thanks in significant part to Bush and people like him–that increasingly seeks to justify suppression of civil dissent by treating dissent as criminal. Minor infractions are turned into mass destruction with deadly weapons, and demonstrators become terrorist masterminds. It is bullshit to pretend that throwing a shoe is assault the way the term is commonly understood. It is bullshit to pretend that this man was beaten–even arrested–because the authorities believed that he was dangerous to anyone at all. And it is bullshit, above all, to complain about the publicized black eye and the public torture as though they’re two separate moral failures.

    This is the way people argue when their underlying ethos is control. This logic removes distinctions between “sandal-throwing” and a real attack in order to remove distinctions between the rule of law and state-sanctioned brutality. And that’s what you just did, Hugo. You used your own cultural blindspots to defend systematic cruelty in the service of systematic cruelty.

  66. Again on the symbolism of the shoe… (Not to mention the word dog, as not to get into /that/ morass!) Here in Thailand, I can turn 60 huge, rowdy high schoolers into obedient angels just by /pretending/ to take off one shoe. In Tamil Nadu in India, anti-caste activists used to break into temples and garland the images with old shoes. I don’t have any non-anecdotal proof, but I would be surprised if he thought of it as just a handy thing to throw, no different from a clipboard or nearby rock.

    A loyal minister in a Malay sultanate might win the title ‘at the feet of the ruler’, while everyone else referred to themselves as bearing the dust of his or her soles on their head. Folks who tromp around on their interior surfaces with nasty dirty shoes lose the gravity of the symbol. (Especially having one as a kiss. Eww.)

    As for me, my first thought on hearing about it was that it must be an Onionesque parody of a presidential mishap. When I found out that it was real, I proclaimed it to be x-treme in the best way. As for the beating and the declaration of true democracy, I’d like to say that I was shocked by the dissonance of it all. If only.

  67. “This is the way people argue when their underlying ethos is control. This logic removes distinctions between “sandal-throwing” and a real attack in order to remove distinctions between the rule of law and state-sanctioned brutality. And that’s what you just did, Hugo. You used your own cultural blindspots to defend systematic cruelty in the service of systematic cruelty.”

    Fuck yes, piny, that is exactly right.

  68. “As y’all might recall from the Jena 6 case, a shoe in some states is considered a potential deadly weapon.”

    If you’re being serious: I you might recall the Jena 6 case, the shoe in that instance was on someone’s foot, which was alleged to have struck someone repeatedly in the ribs while they were on the ground. It was also still considered a dubious argument at best.

  69. “Sorry to Americans here if this offends, but how do such wonderul leaders in your country get assassinated and this idiot survives? The world is unfair.”

    probably because it’s usually right-wing psychos who kill left leaning leaders and not the other way around.

  71. “Vanessa, I think the beating was appalling. That said, I don’t think what he did was acceptable, and frankly, I do take the use of animal language as a way of expressing rage to be very, very problematic.”

    Oh, you weren’t being snarky, you were being serious. Ohmygod.

    Please.

    Dog! I’m going to insult everyone with dog today. Just for you.

  72. Jail is appropriate until trial, and he probably deserves to do the same time any of us would do if we threw shoes with the potential to do injury at another person’s head.

    I’m still baffled by this. We’re talking about something that’s the legal (as opposed to colloquial) definition of assault. Under our system, that’s at best a misdemeanor. He’s throwing a loafer, for crying out loud. The worst injury he could have caused was some bruising.

    To expect human beings in such circumstances to behave in a manner deemed unproblematic by citizens of the invading country demonstrates a spectacular disconnect from or disregard for human realities on most of the planet.

    Precisely.

  73. Actually, here’s something else I am totally baffled by: Mr. Zaidi, who has not been formally charged, faces up to seven years in prison for committing an act of aggression against a visiting head of state. It was unclear whether his popularity would prompt Mr. Maliki’s government to lighten his punishment.

    Seven years?!

  74. “Oh, you weren’t being snarky, you were being serious. Ohmygod.”

    Marilove: Indeed. At first, I too found Hugo hard to believe. You really can’t make this shit up, is the thing.

  76. Stlthy,

    Is it safe to assume that if this guy had assassinated Bush, you’d still be cheering for his actions? The point of my comment is that committing assault in the process of protesting something doesn’t make the assault any less of a crime. Chavez and Castro are unpopular in the U.S., but if someone threw hard objects at them, that person still would be arrested for assault by American law enforcement.

    You seem to believe that so long as you personally — not in reference to any law, but just based on your own morality — consider the crime justified and the victim of it to have deserved it, we should look only at the protest and ignore the crime. That’s the kind of reasoning that OKs gay-bashing because the homophobe is just protesting homosexuality.

    If it’s “Western privilege” to think that people ought to protest their oppression through peaceful means, you might wanna notify Gandhi. Speaking of which, I’m getting increasingly pissed off by the sentiment in this thread that expressing oneself without violence is something only “White Middle Class” people can do. Just to let y’all know, non-white, non-Christian people aren’t “animals” who are mysteriously forced by their non-Western culture to throw things at people. We make choices about how to express ourselves, too.

  77. Also, the idea that someone wouldn’t get jail time for a misdemeanor is really weird. A misdemeanor actually is defined by the level of punishment: anything that gets one year or less imprisonment is a misdemeanor by default. In 1971, Geza Matrai jumped on Soviet Premier Alexei Kosygin’s back and screamed “Long live Hungary,” as Kosygin walked with Canadian PM Pierre Trudeau on an official visit to the Canadian Parliament. Kosygin was unharmed, and Matrai was sentenced to three months in jail.

  78. Seven years is *far* too little! I think as a punishment for this reporter’s *terrible* crime, his country should be razed to the ground and everything and everyone he knows and loves should be taken from him, and–

    Oh, wait.

  79. Jail until trial is only appropriate if someone is considered to still be a danger to others. Otherwise, jail is not appropriate until a person is declared guilty and sentenced.

  80. PG: I’m not Slthy, but I’ll respond. Yes, it’d be a crime. Yes, obviously the guy wouldn’t be let off for it. And no, I wouldn’t personally blame him for it. Because the -whole fucking war- is a monstrous crime, understand? A -very personal- one, for anyone who lives there. I’m not -advocating- assassination. But how would -you- react if Hitler (yes, I’m Godwining, I don’t give a damn) was standing right in front of you and WWII was still going on? Yeah, fine, not quite apples to apples, but war is fucking war: Here’s is the invader, he gave the order to kill your friends and family and it’s still going on every day around you, and you’re standing there supposed to take nice pictures of him as he grins away. How do you THINK you’d fucking want to respond?

  81. and yeah, pacifism is great in theory; advocating -other people- to stick to it stringently when they’re the ones who’re most affected by the effects of the violence in question and you’re sitting there smugly and safely thousands miles away just makes you kind of an asshole.

    and no, I’m not a pacifist in that I think: Wouldn’t it be swell if the people who ordered the killing in the first place were the ones who paid, and not millions of innocent citizens serving as their pawns?

  82. Lyndsay: Yes, exactly.

    PG: Are you fucking kidding me? I have no words, and I think I’m done with this thread.

  83. Kristin,

    Am I kidding you about the capacity of us brown people to express ourselves with words instead of violence even in the face of oppression? No. Hence the reference to Gandhi. He was a little-overcommitted to nonviolence — he treated it as an end in itself, which meant he didn’t distinguish between having an enemy like imperial Britain and having one like the Nazis — but his non-Western, non-white background didn’t impair his ability to be better than his enemies.

  84. probably because it’s usually right-wing psychos who kill left leaning leaders and not the other way around.

    Sorry, I’m usually with y’all, but this is just wrong. Of the successful presidential assassinations in this country (Lincoln, Garfield, McKinley, and Kennedy), only one can reasonably be described as a right-wing psycho — John Wilkes Booth.

    Garfield (a Republican) was shot by Charles J. Guiteau, who a deranged office-seeker who felt slighted that he wasn’t offered an ambassadorship, McKinley (another Republican), was shot by an Leon Czolgosz, an anarchist, and Kennedy was shot by Lee Harvey Oswald, who was a Marxist (assuming you accept the official version of the Kennedy assassination), and arguably farther left than Kennedy himself.

    In terms of attempted assassinations — Andrew Jackson, another Republican, was shot at by Richard Lawrence, who was a psychotic who believed Jackson had killed his father. Teddy Roosevelt was shot by another crazy guy, who believed that he was acting under the direction of the ghost of William McKinley. FDR was shot at by Giuseppe Zangara, who made anti-capitalist statements as he was being executed. Puetro Rican independence activists tried to kill Harry Truman. The list goes on and on, but presidential assassins and their motives are as varied as people and their motives.

    tl;dr — To say political violence is unidirectional is just sloppy thinking.

  85. You seem to believe that so long as you personally — not in reference to any law, but just based on your own morality — consider the crime justified and the victim of it to have deserved it, we should look only at the protest and ignore the crime. That’s the kind of reasoning that OKs gay-bashing because the homophobe is just protesting homosexuality.

    Seem is such a handy word. Shoe. Thrown shoe. No, excuse me, shoes plural. Stop imposing a slippery slope from this act to kicking a prone person with steel-toed boots, never mind beating someone up. It’s not the same. The president is just fine, and the likelihood of him sustaining any real injury from a pair of shoes is roughly nil.

    I can’t say I’ve heard that argument; people who apologize for gay-bashing tend to simply argue that LGBT people have no right to physical safety, or at least that their safety is no one’s concern. Gay-bashing is not typically defended as a form of speech per se, although homophobes do argue disingenuously that hate-crimes laws criminalize either thought or speech by highlighting motive and result.

    This is a really weak analogy in any case. Gay-bashing tends to involve extra vicious assault–as in, not with shoes: it’s the acting out of hateful, murderous feelings towards the victim. Google “overkill.” And when it is criminalized, it is criminalized as an especially vicious assault, as a credible death threat, as a visible murder. It’s not a simple statement of ill-will or political disagreement. It uses violence to threaten further violence. That’s not the case here. This man has no power to harm the president or America, and cannot send any message to the contrary. Bush isn’t terrified of Mr. Zaidi. He has no reason to be.

    I do believe that nonviolence is a better choice. For the same reasons, I believe that state brutality, and disproportionate penalties for minor crimes, are reprehensible. Given that the state has the power to put Mr. Zaidi in a hospital and then maybe lock him away for nearly a decade, I worry more about our abuses than Mr. Zaidi’s.

    You’re also not reading that argument right–go know, your response is similar to a clueless rebuttal Bush made to people who didn’t believe democracy followed in the path of an invasion. It’s not that people who don’t share Hugo’s skin color or religion are incapable of civil disobedience. It’s that Hugo, whose country has never been invaded, should be humbler than the man who saw fit to criticize Mr. Zaidi’s language. And at least one or two commenters have implicitly recommended American shoe-strikes, symbolic or literal.

  86. Am I kidding you about the capacity of us brown people to express ourselves with words instead of violence even in the face of oppression? No. Hence the reference to Gandhi. He was a little-overcommitted to nonviolence — he treated it as an end in itself, which meant he didn’t distinguish between having an enemy like imperial Britain and having one like the Nazis — but his non-Western, non-white background didn’t impair his ability to be better than his enemies.

    She wasn’t laughing in your face because you’re arguing that nonviolence is something people of color are well capable of, too. She can’t believe that you’re arguing that it’s racist to say you understand why Mr. Zaidi might want to toss a shoe at the head of our president. Are you really reading all these people as saying that only Iraqis might enjoy that? Or feel extremely tempted to follow suit if the president were right in front of them? What are Rod Blagojevich’s chances of getting pelted with footwear during a visit to the Trib offices, do you think?

    It’d be a little like if I called you racist for criticizing Gandhi’s all- purpose answer to genocide. What, are you saying that non-white non-Christians can’t understand the geopolitical complexities of world wars?

  87. tom, you’re correct. right and left are really circles, with the extreme ends touching each other. there’s whackjobs on both ends.

    i immediately thought of john wilkes booth and the extremists who killed mahatama ghand, indira ghandi, and the whackjobs who kept taking shots musharraf.

  88. She wasn’t laughing in your face because you’re arguing that nonviolence is something people of color are well capable of, too. She can’t believe that you’re arguing that it’s racist to say you understand why Mr. Zaidi might want to toss a shoe at the head of our president. Are you really reading all these people as saying that only Iraqis might enjoy that? Or feel extremely tempted to follow suit if the president were right in front of them?

    Yes, what piny said. Also, some of us talking about the symbolism of shoe throwing and dog name calling in Muslim culture are POC raised in said Muslim culture.

  89. “She wasn’t laughing in your face because you’re arguing that nonviolence is something people of color are well capable of, too. She can’t believe that you’re arguing that it’s racist to say you understand why Mr. Zaidi might want to toss a shoe at the head of our president. Are you really reading all these people as saying that only Iraqis might enjoy that? Or feel extremely tempted to follow suit if the president were right in front of them?”

    Piny, yes, that’s exactly what I was saying and had more or less said upthread. Thanks.

    As for what you said about privilege, PG, it is absolutely privilege (Western or not) to prescribe non-violence for everyone in the world, always, no matter what the context of the oppression or, well, the physical proximity of the president. No, it’s no slippery slope to killing him, as some have suggested. It’s a fucking thrown shoe. Come on, people. Perspective. It would not have seriously harmed him, but it WOULD have been a strong symbolic message if it had hit him. That is all. And technically assault or not, yeah, I applaud it. Dress shoes in general are less harmful even than the rocks that were thrown in the First Intifada (And I would characterize that as non-violent, though you appear to be working from some kind of extremist assessment of what “non-violent” means, to the extent that one cannot even throw something as a symbolic gesture. Jesus…).

  90. I mean, seriously, it wasn’t a shoe bomb. It wasn’t a gunshot. It was… A shoe. A fucking shoe. And, yeah, I can simultaneously applaud that while also not supporting some kind of assassination attempt. And I don’t at all support the latter. I’m a little astounded that I have to point that out, but, well… What Belle said about Big Brother being upon us. I feel no angst about this slippery slope that some of you are afraid of… At all.

  91. “Yes, what piny said. Also, some of us talking about the symbolism of shoe throwing and dog name calling in Muslim culture are POC raised in said Muslim culture.”

    And, yeah, I didn’t actually raise the significance wrt Muslim culture, though I was, well, knowledgeable about its significance. Though I by no means make any kind of essential connection between the action and some monolithic “Arab” entity (Though Hugo certainly did. See upthread, wrt “sandal-tossing.”). I’m sympathetic to the action, m’self, and of symbolic throwing-of-things in general when… You are talking about tremendous power disparities and an Iraqi public that does not exactly have the kind of “free society” in which to actually receive any kind of redress from the president.

  92. Damnit, I never make good on leaving the thread when I say that I’m going to.

    I was a little unclear here:

    “It would not have seriously harmed him, but it WOULD have been a strong symbolic message if it had hit him.”

    I mean, hell, it was a strong symbolic message anyway.

  93. 1) The symbolic significance of shoes and of the bottom of the feet as dirty and insulting is not peculiar to “Muslim culture” (whatever monolith that supposedly is). It’s actually quite common among multiple non-Western cultures, including Indian, Cambodian, Japanese, etc.

    2) She can’t believe that you’re arguing that it’s racist to say you understand why Mr. Zaidi might want to toss a shoe at the head of our president.

    Point out where I said it was racist to understand why Mr. Zaidi might want to hit Bush with a shoe. I completely *understand* it, but I also *understand* why a woman who has been cheated on would want to key her ex’s car. The fact that someone does something for understandable reasons doesn’t make their act cease to be a crime.

    Oh, and the total non-racism of this thread? Let’s take a tour:

    Kristin, in reference to people’s noting that this was assault: “More Upholding of Good White Middle Class Parlor Manners, I think.” Because non-white, non-middle class people think throwing stuff at one another is good manners?

    Stlthy: “I’m really fed up with westerners sitting back and smugly & self righteously declaring that they’d never resort to an action as uncouth and uncivilised as throwing a shoe … Can we please try to check our Western privilege?” — ignoring that perhaps there might be some non-westerners who don’t think shoe-throwing is the way to go.

    belledame222: comparing Zaidi, a human being, to a dog biting someone’s throat out.

    I could keep going, but trying to point out to white people that it’s patronizing for them to attribute violent behavior — even violent behavior they applaud — to a foreign culture instead of to the universal human emotion of anger, and nonviolent behavior to “Good White Middle Class Parlor Manners” instead of to the universally achievable virtue of peacefulness, gets exhausting.

  94. No, I wouldn’t be cheering if Mr al Zaidi had assassinated Bush, but I wouldn’t be condemning him, either. And as has been pointed out numerous times, though, this was not an assassination. I’m not sure why you seem to think it reasonable to equate assassination with a culturally understood insult.

    Castro and Chavez haven’t invaded the US and destroyed the country, so no, throwing anything at either of them would be inappropriate. Do you seriously understand that ideological opposition to the two of them is somewhat different to protesting a leader who invaded your country and destroyed it for no reason other than that he could?

    I don’t really think the homophobic violence part of your argument is worth addressing. Victimising someone because you think gay people are icky is not the same as a person, whose country has been invaded, bombed and decimated, throwing a shoe at the person directly responsible for such. This is a powerless person who has had the chance to confront the powerful, invading mass murderer, and who’s taken an action towards the powerful mass murderer that is recognised in Iraq as a grave insult. It was an expression of loathing for Bush become of what he’s done to Iraq, and I think this was a perfectly understandable response by the oppressed person to the oppressor.

    And it is middle class, western privilege to tell oppressed people, who are surrounded by violence and death every day, how you think they should protest and how they should respond to their oppression, when you couldn’t begin to comprehend their situation. If you’re offended by that or ‘sick of it’ then that’s really tough shit for you. Insisting that the journalist in question should have perhaps started a polite letter writing campaign is just the height of arrogance on your part.

    In your last few sentences, you’re arguing in bad faith. No one has said that violence is inherent to people from the middle east/who have brown skin/are muslims and so on – it’s the pro-war types who’ve done plenty of that. I’m talking about the relationship between oppressor and oppressed and between perpetrators and victims of extreme, ongoing violence (and having a shoe thrown at you is qualitatively different from having your country bombed and destroyed). White, western Christian types have shown themselves to be very capable indeed of committing extreme acts of violence and cruelty for centuries, and I’m the last person to suggest that non-white, non-Christian, non-wealthy people are somehow more inclined to commit violence. Your argument is bullshit.

    Piny, Belladame222, Kristin and many others have written some really brilliant responses above. Go read them and try to make an effort to take in what they’re saying. Piny’s comment @64 is a particularly good analysis, IMO.

    Also just wanted to say that quite a few of the responses I’ve read here are some of the best I’ve seen on this topic. Thanks for writing such great insights. And more lulz at the claim that this was a ‘hate crime’ directed at all Americans.

  95. I could keep going, but trying to point out to white people that it’s patronizing for them to attribute violent behavior — even violent behavior they applaud — to a foreign culture instead of to the universal human emotion of anger, and nonviolent behavior to “Good White Middle Class Parlor Manners” instead of to the universally achievable virtue of peacefulness, gets exhausting.

    While I find your overall point valid, I think you’re missing the context of the objections to Hugo’s original comments about “sandal-tossers” and ‘OMG, think of teh DOGS!!!11’

    There is an ongoing pattern on mainstream blogs where the anger of POC is dismissed as a problem of tone, as in “Well, if you weren’t so hostile, maybe your point would come across better.” This was yet another example in a loooong string of such behaviors from a particular individual.

    Also, I feel compelled to mention, that if you’re going to hold up Gandhi as a virtuous example, the man was a huge huge racist against Africans. And I’m aware that Muslim culture is not a monolith, but since this a blog comment thread and not a freaking academic research paper I felt a measure of brevity and casualness of language was okay.

    Anyway, leaving this particular thread, for sanity’s sake.

  96. Kristin, in reference to people’s noting that this was assault: “More Upholding of Good White Middle Class Parlor Manners, I think.” Because non-white, non-middle class people think throwing stuff at one another is good manners?

    Stlthy: “I’m really fed up with westerners sitting back and smugly & self righteously declaring that they’d never resort to an action as uncouth and uncivilised as throwing a shoe … Can we please try to check our Western privilege?” — ignoring that perhaps there might be some non-westerners who don’t think shoe-throwing is the way to go.

    What Vanessa said about the context of Hugo’s remarks–especially the part where he ascribed Zaidi’s apparent dislike of dogs to rampant animal abuse in the Arab world. And Stlthy’s remark stands: Hugo is not Gandhi. He wasn’t using Gandhi’s arguments; he was using Anita Bryant’s. World of difference in experience, and in moral authority.

    And no, these people are not arguing that people of color are more likely to be violent or less likely to be civil than white people; that’s not the behavior that they’re marking out as “white.”

    Hugo’s comment betrayed a double standard around the understanding of violence as violence: Bush (who just happens to be white, Western, and Christian) is a visiting head of state; Zaidi (who just happens to be non-white, Middle-Eastern, and Muslim) is a “sandal-thrower.” The context of the Bush-authored illegal war that destroyed–continues to destroy–large segments of Zaidi’s country disappeared entirely. Zaidi was a hotheaded violent asshole, and Bush was engaging in diplomacy via time-honored methods.

    That’s the whitey aspect to this: getting really upset when someone’s face bruises someone else’s knuckles. Ignoring violence whenever Westerners do it, and ignoring the context of violence whenever anyone else does it.

    And belledame did not compare Arab guys who throw shoes to mad dogs. She said that all of us, every one of us, react in a very sane way to people who hurt us: we get angry with them. We resist them. We take umbrage at their presence. She was talking about a universal human emotion. She was calling Hugo inhuman and insensitive–and complaining that his shallow read of the situation effectively cast Zaidi as a mad dog, and his act as an irrational outburst.

  97. Gotta admit, I don’t really get why anyone would engage PG like a serious person. The shameless racial dishonesty displayed in this thread says it all. Among other things. Just sayin.

  98. I wasn’t defending Hugo’s remarks. My only point in this thread has been that what this guy did would be considered assault under U.S. law, and would be punished (albeit hopefully not with 8th-Amendment-violating-beatings) accordingly had he done it in the U.S. Every time I noted this, someone would say, “Oh no, it was speech, it was expression, it was an insult” but whatever it was, it wasn’t anything that we should regard as assault — not violent or criminal. I don’t agree with that. I feel sympathy for this man’s anger, but I’m not going to say that the appropriate way to express anger is to throw things at people. I’m especially not going to patronize him by saying that one can’t really expect anything else from an Iraqi.

    And I don’t like having my belief that violence — even ineffective violence — is wrong, categorized as “Upholding of Good White Middle Class Parlor Manners.” I’m not white and I’ve had to learn “middle class parlor manners,” but non-violence was not something I had to learn as part of that. Non-violence is part of a non-racialized, universal aspiration to get past our instinctive anger toward those who have hurt us and reach for a better way to communicate our anger than violence.

    Vanessa, I appreciate your engaging my points honestly. I was not holding up Gandhi as a model human being — in addition to his attitudes toward Africans, he was paternalistic toward Dalits and had weird attitudes about women and sex. I am pointing out that non-violent protest is possible and, when your enemies aren’t trying to commit genocide, generally a desirable way to achieve your goals. Even for those of us not raised with Good White Middle Class Parlor Manners.

  99. “I wasn’t defending Hugo’s remarks. My only point in this thread has been that what this guy did would be considered assault under U.S. law, and would be punished (albeit hopefully not with 8th-Amendment-violating-beatings) accordingly had he done it in the U.S.”

    Oooh, so you’re operating under the assumption that what is prescribed as “assault” by US law is immoral? Aha… Kind of a major point of disconnect there. I do not operate under such an assumption.

    Nor do I hold most any virtue to be “universal,” and I’d beg to differ on your understanding of “non-violence,” since as I have explained, I also hold the First Intifada and this journalist’s actions to be non-violent examples of protest. I would also posit that what you’re suggesting sounds more like a “diplomatic letter writing campaign,” as someone else suggested, and well, yeah… No. Fuck no. And while I’ll do it once in a while, I’m also likely to dismiss many of these actions as, well, bourgeois protest that’s disconnected from the lives of the people who are affected. I stand by my suggestion that one can only call make universal claims about non-violence from both a (1) highly privileged and (2) highly disconnected perspective. And, um, White Middle Class Parlor Manners are by no means practiced exclusively by people with white skin, if that’s what you were thinking. Nah… See: my stance on universalism (Hint: I’m against essentializing on any basis.). I do, however, think that White has some political utility in denoting certain types of behaviors.

    And, yes, this is what I (and others) were marking as white. What Piny said:

    “That’s the whitey aspect to this: getting really upset when someone’s face bruises someone else’s knuckles. Ignoring violence whenever Westerners do it, and ignoring the context of violence whenever anyone else does it.”

    This is in the context of many, many, many Feministe threads, wherein: PoC gets angry about injustice, and White Person steps in to admonish their tone. That is what Hugo did–and what he has done many times.

    Also, PG, you’re assuming that I’m both white and middle class on what basis, again?

    Argh, I dunno why I’m engaging either. Yeah, Kai, I think you’re right.

  100. In any case, there’s this huge historical context on this blog and in related circles, wherein… I’m not gonna explain. See Seal Press suggesting that WoC “best express themselves through anger.” See Hugo defending some, um, well-known, middle class, white feminists who have been criticized for their racism and appropriation of WoC writing. Jesus… Read the archives. That’s what I (and others) were talking about.

  101. And, ffs, I mean… Y’know… Historical context. Positionality. Materiality. Dynamics that repeat themselves over and over (Goddamnit, Hugo.). Fucking hell… We can’t all go the way of satyagraha, you know. And it does violence to specific historical contexts to suggest that everyone should. We all have to work to empower ourselves within various constraints, and that determines the ways in which we are often likely to express dissent. I suspect that Bush was just as closed off to critical questioning by the press as he has always been, and it might not, in fact, have been possible to get a message across through Reasoned Dispassionate Discourse (which, frankly, I’ve got little patience for anyway. I think it’s a weapon of the powerful… Those of us who are directly marginalized as a result of very specific policies are not, in fact, always capable of sitting down for a polite tea. Not a commentary on Arabs in general, but a comment about how *I* respond to marginalization, you fuck.). I don’t require any kind of asceticism of myself–or of the activists I support, ffs.

  102. In any case, PG, I am gratified that you are so much more spiritually evolved than the rest of us and that you are sufficiently disconnected from the Iraq war to call what this person did some kind of criminal “assault” rather than just…a human reaction. Thanks for the sermons, though. I’m sure that one day I’ll realize how immensely enlightening they were.

  103. It’s depressing to see so many people personally attack an individual for advocating a stance of civility. I don’t agree with PG, Bush deserved that shoe to the head, but I’m not going to berate and belittle PG for disagreeing.

    That shoe was brilliant. As an act of aggression it was no more physically harmful than pulling on a pair of pigtails but it spoke volumes of the anger and hatred towards Bush. I think al-Sadr was perfectly justified. Simple words or snarky commentary on Bush’s incompetence would have been lost in the din of Americans doing the same. That shoe stands as a symbol that can pointed to and show the willfully blind that what was done was not OK.

  104. Ben,

    Thanks for being able to disagree civilly.

    Kristin,

    so you’re operating under the assumption that what is prescribed as “assault” by US law is immoral? Aha… Kind of a major point of disconnect there. I do not operate under such an assumption.

    Where did I say that? You quote me saying something about LAW, and then you say something about MORALITY that has no connection whatsoever to what you just quoted. Whereas I, quoting exactly what you said, am labeled as employing “shameless racial dishonesty.”

    I would also posit that what you’re suggesting sounds more like a “diplomatic letter writing campaign,” as someone else suggested

    If you think what Gandhi and (using Gandhi’s example) MLK Jr. did was a “diplomatic letter writing campaign,” or “dispassionate,” you know nothing about satyagraha or nonviolent resistance generally. Gandhi disliked the term “passive resistance” precisely because it implied that the person using it must be weak, whereas in actuality his efforts depended on emphasizing the moral strength of the oppressed in opposition to the moral weakness of those engaged in oppression. This strength wasn’t based on one’s capacity to out-debate one’s opponents in your fantasized “Dispassionate Reasoned Discourse,” but to illustrate with one’s *actions* the immorality of the oppression. Children who wouldn’t have been able to debate verbally could be effective users of nonviolent resistance.

    This is why nonviolent resistance can be used only against an oppressor who wants to believe in his own basic morality, e.g. the colonialist and imperialist British (who emphasize the concept of being “decent”), or the white supremacist U.S. (where the acceptance of the civil rights movement was driven in part by Cold War imperatives not to be quite so overtly racist because the USSR, China and Cuba were able to use American racism as a propaganda point in favor of Communism).

    For those of us who treat nonviolent resistance as a tool and not an end in itself, it is futile against enemies who do not even pretend to have decency toward the oppressed — Nazis, other genocidalists, possibly white supremacist South Africa — because those enemies were entirely willing to wipe out the nonviolent protesters and felt no shame or even public relations concern about it. Those enemies have to be met with violent resistance because they have abandoned the vestiges of morality to which nonviolent resistance necessarily appeals. I have noted this in the thread already, so your claim that I suggest that everyone should use nonviolent resistance regardless of context is a straw-man.

  105. PG:

    “If you think what Gandhi and (using Gandhi’s example) MLK Jr. did was a “diplomatic letter writing campaign,” or “dispassionate,” you know nothing about satyagraha or nonviolent resistance generally. Gandhi disliked the term “passive resistance” precisely because it implied that the person using it must be weak, whereas in actuality his efforts depended on emphasizing the moral strength of the oppressed in opposition to the moral weakness of those engaged in oppression.”

    Nope, I’m not suggesting that Gandhi said this. I’m talking about your words. I would characterize what you advocate as “passive resistance.” I grew up in the US South and saw people have crosses burned on their lawns and nooses hung at their doorsteps, and I know plenty about non-violent resistance, you self-superior fuck. I don’t have a problem with it altogether. I have a problem with its prescription as a “universal virtue” that all oppressed groups everywhere should practice. Jesus.

    You are being dishonest when you say that you are promoting mere strategic non-violence since, just upthread, you called it a “universal virtue.”

    You said:

    “Where did I say that? You quote me saying something about LAW, and then you say something about MORALITY that has no connection whatsoever to what you just quoted. Whereas I, quoting exactly what you said, am labeled as employing “shameless racial dishonesty.”

    I did not call it “shameless racial dishonesty,” though I’d agree that what Kai said there is pretty much right on the money.

    In fact, just a few comments prior to this one, you do precisely what you claim you did not do. This part:

    “My only point in this thread has been that what this guy did would be considered assault under U.S. law, and would be punished (albeit hopefully not with 8th-Amendment-violating-beatings) accordingly had he done it in the U.S. Every time I noted this, someone would say, “Oh no, it was speech, it was expression, it was an insult” but whatever it was, it wasn’t anything that we should regard as assault — not violent or criminal. I don’t agree with that. I feel sympathy for this man’s anger, but I’m not going to say that the appropriate way to express anger is to throw things at people.”

    You move from the action being illegal under US law to the action being “inappropriate” to it being insufficiently non-violent. Your point all over the thread is that it is non-violent and thus immoral. So, there you have it. The illegality under US law was not at all your major point. Did you forget your statement that satyagraha is a universal human virtue? Major point of dishonesty number two. And merely in your responses to me. If you are not using the fact that this is a misdemeanor under US law to justify your point, then I am very, very confused as to why you bring it up. Yeah, it’s illegal under US law. So fucking what? It doesn’t follow that it’s immoral. It doesn’t bolster your view unless you believe that all of the dictates of US law are moral.

    As for your hard and fast distinction between formal colonial powers (who, you claim, must be met with nonviolent resistance) and fascist/genocidal powers (which you claim can justifiably be met with violence): First of all, I disagree with such a hard and fast distinction. The US is both a colonizing power in Iraq (with a moral superiority complex and a civic religion of “American values” that’s bigger than god) and a state that has instantiated a fascist political culture to an extent unprecedented by an industrialized liberal democratic state (Okay, no, Weimar Germany was not a liberal democratic state.). Does Bush personally want to “believe in his own morality?” I don’t know. I don’t think it matters or necessarily affects the material consequences for people on the ground. Same goes for the rest who stand at the helm. One can justify an awful lot of oppression and violence on the basis of one’s “belief in one’s own morality.” See: the American history of lynchings, for fuck’s sake, and the cries about “morality” that surrounded those.

    In any case, who decides whether or not a power “wants to believe in its own morality”? You? Who the fuck are you, and on what basis are you entitled to make such a distinction? Are you claiming to know the hearts and minds of every repressive political regime since the beginning of time? Could you maybe make a checklist to make it simpler for the rest of us? How do you feel about the ancient Athenians, pray tell? Pre-revolution(s) France? The Portuguese in Angola? What about the Portuguese in Brazil? Which regimes held morality close to their hearts, and which didn’t? You are obviously far clearer on this matter than the rest of us.

    The Nazis believed that maintaining the purity of the Aryan race was a morally laudable aim. One might argue that they believed it was justifiable to use immoral means to acheive their goals. But “didn’t believe in their own morality”? This is one more instance in which the Indian comparison to all coercive situations does not hold. At all. My read here is that you’re suggesting that those who believe in their own morality can necessarily be shamed into living up to their ideals because it worked in India. My take: It had some moral resonance for a limited time in the US South, but it is no kind of foolproof way of distinguishing the “appropriate” course of resistance. Even in India, I would argue that it had a lot more to do with strategic power politics than with moral concern or even a more self-interested worry about “looking immoral” on the world stage.

    So, that’s my first point–your binary distinction holds no water. It’s not even really all that useful in understanding the Indian context.

    Second, Gandhi wrote and acted in a specific context. Gandhi’s teachings cannot be helpful on a universal level simply because the Indian context is not the *only* context of oppression. No one context can be generalized in such a facile and fucking offensive way. And don’t even bother to claim that you weren’t doing that when “universal virtue” is your phrase and not mine. And anyway, hardline distinctions between colonizers and genocidal fascists simply do not hold anymore (Are you fucking claiming that Nazi Germany was not ALSO a colonizing state? Imperial Japan? Or that they didn’t cling to some beliefs about their own morality? Maybe these beliefs were different from mine–or yours–but nevertheless… Not a useful generalization that you make there.).

    Again, context is important. Resistance is messy. It’s dangerous. There is no catchall theoretical or spiritual solution. It is what it is, and people fight and strategize within their own constrained circumstances.

    And, Ben, as for your comment here:

    “It’s depressing to see so many people personally attack an individual for advocating a stance of civility. I don’t agree with PG, Bush deserved that shoe to the head, but I’m not going to berate and belittle PG for disagreeing.”

    Well, Ben, I’m sorry this hurts your feelings. PG is not disagreeing. PG is ramming what he believes to be a “universal virtue” down our fucking throats. There’s a big, big difference disagreement and proselytizing. I’m not berating PG for disagreeing. I’m berating PG, to be clear, for his stupidity and utter disregard for humans outside the one context which he seems to know relatively well. Also, for his resolute demonstration of “not getting it” despite reasoned, kind, and very clear explanations from multiple people with multiple angles. I’m berating him for suggesting in one comment that satyagraha is universalizable and then parsing words in an embarrassingly facile way in order to save face and suggest that he never said that. I’m berating him for his ignorance of this particular context of US aggression against Iraq and for thinking he is appropriately to make judgments about the journalist’s action from afar. I’m berating him for doing the very same thing Hugo et. al. do when they jump on PoC for having an “angry tone.” But instead of hiding behind a veil of enlightened Christian pacifism as Hugo does, he hides behind Gandhi in an intellectually dishonest way: “Wait, I can map what I’m saying in a simplistic and watered-down way on to something a non-white said! So, I proved you wrong!” No, no, I’m pretty sure Gandhi didn’t make the calls for, um, the sort of “civility” that PG seems to champion, seeing as how he (Gandhi) was a citizen of a colonized state that had been marked by the British as “uncivil.” And if he did, well, well done Ben and PG, for successfully appropriating Gandhi’s racist discourse. I’m berating PG for DOING IT RONG even by Gandhi’s standards, even if he really and truly believes that Gandhi is an unproblematic example to hold out to the world.

    That is all. As for disagreeing… I think PG is being willfully otbuse and that he keeps shifting the goalposts to avoid losing face. I have not seen PG once defend a position. Rather, he keeps pulling random things out of his arsenal that make no sense (“But… But… This is assault under US law!”) in the context of the position he’s attempting to defend. Then, he denies that he said them just a few comments upthread. I can’t make sense of it, other than… Maybe he’s hoping that something will catch on and convince everyone to follow the One True Path. I don’t think he’s engaging in honest argumetation by any stretch of the imagination, and as such, I don’t think he’s entitled to, well… Freedom from berating. Honest disagreement is another matter altogether. See: me disagreeing with Lauren’s take on the other post about this.

  106. To be clear about what I mean here since PG seems bound and determined to misunderstand my words no matter how clear I am:

    “Even in India, I would argue that it had a lot more to do with strategic power politics than with moral concern or even a more self-interested worry about “looking immoral” on the world stage.”

    By “it,” I am referring to the British reaction to Indian resistance. I do not believe that it was moral but strategic.

    Apologies to all if this gets through the mod queue before my other, longer comment that remains in the mod queue.

  107. Oops, and this misstatement too. What I meant here was:

    “Your point all over the thread is that it is *violent* and thus immoral.”

    Again, well, I guess the main comment will eventually come through. Sorry if this goes through first and makes no sense.

  108. Still misquoting me.

    I said: “universally achievable virtue of peacefulness.”

    I would characterize what you advocate as “passive resistance.”

    What do you think I advocate, since you’ve decided, with no basis in my words that I can find, that I’m not advocating the strategies employed by Gandhi and MLK Jr.?

    I grew up in the US South and saw people have crosses burned on their lawns and nooses hung at their doorsteps, and I know plenty about non-violent resistance, you self-superior fuck.

    That’s particularly hilarious. I am a woman who grew up in a small town in East Texas where my family was the first one of our race and religion to settle in our town. We’ve had people throw rocks and smash the window of our car. My mother once had a message on her phone at work from a man who threatened my father’s life. Kids made fun of me for not being a Christian. My high school was still under a desegregation court order when I graduated 10 years ago.

    You know so little about me, and assume you know so much, that I finally realize how stupid I am to talk to someone who thinks she can tell my life story from what I say about whether Zaidi’s actions should be considered simply as speech or also as assault, and whether Iraqis are better off using satyagraha or violence. Good for you, you win the thread by sheer arrogance.

  109. Uh, PG, actually, I didn’t assume anything about your life. I said that you were suggesting that you have some kind of superior knowledge about non-violence that the rest of us don’t have. I alluded to the fact that I think this makes you a “self-superior” asshole. That is all.

    You think noose imagery and cross-burnings are “hilarious” in a Southern context? Wow… Just… Um… I don’t know where we go from here, in that case. I pointed that out because you kept saying stupid shit like, “You obviously know nothing about satyagraha…”, not because I think I, um, win the oppression olympics? Again, you deliberately misread my CLEAR statement about that. You kept suggesting that you had superior wisdom and morality to well, lots of people, but notably me in this case, and, well, anybody who assumes that kind of preachy posturing with me gets the shit kicked out of them in comments. Well, at least when I have the energy. End of story. I wasn’t trying to initiate a competition for most oppressed. I was noting that I actually grew up in one of the major sites of non-violent resistance, and who the fuck are you to go around making assumptions like “Obviously, you know nothing about blah blah blah…” You are projecting the HELL out of this thread because YOU are the one who’s been making assumptions and deliberately (because I don’t think you could possibly be that stupid), and I have merely suggested that your words are self-righteous, dismissive of contexts outside your own, ignorant of US foreign relations, etc. The only assumption I made was that… Well, I think deliberate dishonesty makes one kind of an asshole (epecially when one is a subject of the Imperial State talking down about the “inappropriate” Arab who threw the shoe. You did that.). But that’s just my own personal opinion. Not any kind of assumption about your life history.

    I also suggested that your display of calls for “civility” displayed both racism and a level of privilege that you are not being honest about. You are privileged by virtue of being a US citizen or permanent resident. You display ignorance over and over about the context of US-ME relations. I do not need to know anything about your life story to read the subtext of what you’ve been saying. You like the word “civility” a lot. I am being “uncivil.” That’s fine, I don’t care what you think of me. But, so was the journalist, on my reading of your words, and frankly… Citizens/Long Time Residents who watch the fall-out of occupation from afar–people like you and me–we would do better not to adopt “civilizational” discourse such as this. It’s a tool of imperial powers that betrays the shallowness of your commitment to postcolonial resistance. And, again, I don’t need to know your life story in order to draw this conclusion.

    “I said: “universally achievable virtue of peacefulness.””

    You said this in the context of a long thread derail wherein you argued that what the journalist did was not peaceful. Further, you insinuated over and over that non-violent resistance is the only way to acheive this “virtue of peacefulness.” You cannot get around the fact that you have been prescribing a universal formula here. You provided no basis for this claim beyond, “I mean, it’s assault under US law.” Well… Yeah, and? I do not agree that it’s violent protest. Throwing a bomb is violent protest. Throwing a shoe is a symbolic gesture that, at worst, gives someone a bruise. I guess my confusion is that it becomes harder and harder to parse your actual position since you keep shifting the goalposts.

  110. “You think noose imagery and cross-burnings are “hilarious” in a Southern context? Wow… Just… Um… I don’t know where we go from here, in that case.”

    Seriously? Seriously?! You pull this shit and then immediately after accuse *PG* of deliberately misreading comments? Is this some sort of satire where you deliberately misread her comments to mock her misreading of yours as racist? Or did you just decide to engage in the exact same bullshit?

  111. “Or did you just decide to engage in the exact same bullshit?”

    Well, I’m not the True Believer in Non-Violence and my Own Innate Morality, after all. Yep, seriously. Don’t tend (or pretend) to meet bad faith arguments in, erm, anything resembling good faith.

  112. Also, she makes it really easy, frankly. You know… I was *already* being accused of doing that even though I wasn’t, so…meh.

Comments are currently closed.