OT, but do you know why the crescent is the symbol of Islam?
And does this mean we aren't allowed to support the red crescent society?
I can't believe that Annie Jacobsen is back! hehe
I'm going to blogroll you, dude. Thanks for the link.
So you really think it's out of bounds for me to simply question a design for a 9/11 memorial that's symbolic of the terrorist's religion? And by the way, I do say in the post that I think it should ultimately be up to the family members of the victims. No amount of trying to align me with LGF or the "Islam is a terrorist organization" crowd changes that.
Digging into your post a bit more, bringing up all the other "crescents" in the world has nothing to do with my point. The crescent as a shape is beautiful and should always be thought of as such. However, in certain cases, like a 9/11 memorial, I think certain symbols should be avoided.
And by the way, I also think any type of cross design would be inappropriate too. I don't think they did anything on purpose here, I just wish they would have used a bit more discretion.
And actually, one more reason that I'm just thinking about now is it's best to stay away from the shape because it'll only reinforce the broad and clumsy connection for all of those who see Islam and terrorists as the same thing. Obviously I do not. Changing the design would eliminate this.
A couple more points.
First, if you think I'm doing a good job on the Katrina stuff, then link to it Scott. Complimenting me in one breath and then slamming my "centrism" in another makes it seem like you're only trying to find problems with me. Imagine my disappointment when the bigger liberal sites that point to Donklephant always slam us and completely ignore our other posts that are decidedly liberal friendly.
Last, if you really think our site is an oddity, then there's nothing I can do to convince you it's not. But before you slam us next time, maybe you should look at what you choose to highlight about us and see if you're being fair. I'm sure I could go through this site and find a couple posts where you're seemingly aligned with the fringe too. People's opinions are diverse and they don't fit into little ideological boxes all the time. If centrism is about anything it's diversity of opinion and if that makes it an oddity, then so be it.
I don't know where I come out on this, but just a few points:
-- Go to http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/0...5253/
569055.stm and read the story about this. The guy raising hell about this is a lunatic, but a marginal (see also Dennis Roddy's column re same)
-- the issue came up when they were designing it, and the jury weighing it on the designs, including eight family members of victims (or maybe that was the WHOLE jury -- it's not clear) decided to engage in some weasel-wording that we would be screaming bloody murder about if we'd found it in a memo by Karl Rove:
"The jurors recognized there could be some backlash because of the crescent. That's why, in their recommendations, they wrote: "Consider the interpretation and impact of words within the context of this event. The crescent should be referred to as 'the circle or arc,' or other words that are not tied to specific religious iconography.' "
The fact that some superstitious bigot sparked this controversy is amazing (slightly less so for those of us who live in that part of world). But he's not the first one who thought of the obvious association. Scott is obviously right; al-Qaeda killed these people, not Islam. But they should have chosen a different design. And the jury's solution is straight out of the Rove playbook.
I found the story on one blog and then considered it for myself. I didn't really consider anybody else's opinion on the subject except my own.
And by the way, the day I wrote the post I also emailed the writer of the story you link to and pointed her to my blog. She chose to highlight this one guy and another fairly conservative blogger. As you rightly point out KPatrick, there are other voices out there who share this opinion and they're definitely not aligned with the rest of Ron McRae's philosophies.
It also looks like a least one family member of a flight 93 victim says it should be changed.
"Gordon Felt, whose brother, Edward, died in the crash, called the focus on the crescent an "unfortunate distraction," from the fourth anniversary memorial service tomorrow at the crash site."
"Still, he continued, "It would be silly of us to have some sort of symbolism [in the memorial] that would be offensive to people."
In any event, I'll keep following this story over on Donklephant. Check it out if you get a chance.
Justin,
Calm down, for crying out loud. You come off as shrill and defensive, and not in the good "coalition of the shrill" sort of way.
As you may have noted, people read blogs without posting links. If Scott approves of some post of yours, he is under no responsibility to link to it.
Moreover, the problem with your approval of this "story" isn't that its progenitors are "fringe", although I'm unsurprised that an avowed centrist would make that claim. The problem is that the story is just nuts; the crescent represents many things, not just Islam, and is entirely suitable as plan for a memorial. I very much doubt that the connection with Islam would even have occured to me without someone pointing it out. If we are forced to eschew certain artistic forms, then the terrorists have already won, and I mean that in all seriousness.
Finally, the quote you use above doesn't really support the argument you're making, but, whatever.
If I could think of a way to respond to the argument that the use of a common and ordinary shape in a memorial should be off-limits because of a connection as tangential as this without resorting to mockery or condescention, I would, but I just can't do it. Perhaps that's a personal flaw on my part.
The connection is only tangential because nobody thought of it, until they had to, and then they played bullshit Orwellian word games to try and avoid it. Of all the crises in the world right now, it's hardly the primary one in need of being solved, but I think at the very least, reasonable people can disagree about whether a memorial to people who were murdered by a group claiming to act in the name of Islam might be best not to incorporate Islamic imagery. Any more than, say, a memorial to slain Bosnian Muslims should incorporate a cross. It just seems kind of ham-fisted.
It's not a crescent at all, it's sickle-shaped, and clearly both a symbol of communism and a racist reference to sickle-cell anemia. (Since it's also boomerang-shaped, I'd say it's an attack against Australian aborigines, but I don't want to go out on a limb with anything far-fetched.)
Justin--this blog isn't an aggregator; you'll notice very few posts where I just link to something I agree with. It's nothing personal when I don't link to a post I agree with.
And in terms of this argument, I'm sorry, but this argument is strictly LGF/John Birch territory. Crescent shapes are perfectly common in all kinds of memorials, flags, parks, etc. I disagree that this symbolizes Islam, and I also disagree with implict reductionist comparisons of Islam to terrorism. (Which isn't to say that you're "algined" with LGF; I would hardly bother to link to Charles Johnson posting something like this. I'm dismayed by your argument because I think you're smarter than that.)
Fair enough Scott. I suppose that was an unfair request given what you do post about on here.
But understand that all you've done so far is try to tear our site down and its basic philosophy, even though I'm sure you've expressed that you appreciate the opinions over there. Given our site is about balance, you can understand my own dismay.
Also, I too disagree with comparisons of Islam to terrorism, which is one of many reasons I don't think the crescent symbol is a good choice. It only reinforces this bond in people's minds who refuse to understand that Islam does not equal terrorism.
And to KPatrick's last comment, I agree wholeheartedly. Like or not, symbols mean a lot to a healthy percentage of the world's population since most believe in a creator of some sort. I fear that this memorial design will only serve to divide us further along ideological and religious lines.
For everybody's sake, I hope I'm wrong.
challenge for anthropologists: civilisation developed in the fertile [?]
Roxanne has more. So does Jesse.
Justin, I don't know why it isn't obvious to you that you are being taken for a ride here. This isn't real outrage, this is trademark wingnut kabuki-outrage. No normally-functioning individual is going to look at that memorial and think "OMG, the semicircle represents... Islam!" What you are seeing here is the wingnut echo chamber in action, nothing more. That you seem unable to understand the dynamic here, even when it's staring you full in the face, is the reason why so many find you maddeningly naive and obtuse and say dismissive things about your blog.
Justin, Thad's got it. We have a bad attitude about your approach to political centrism (as opposed to policy centrism) because it often seems to mean "being taken for a ride by right-wing spin, but only half the time." Between this and Churchill, your brand of centrism seems awfully suseptible to that.
"Justin, I don't know why it isn't obvious to you that you are being taken for a ride here."
I first read about it on Bloggledygook. My immediate reaction upon seeing the picture of the memorial was "What were they thinking?" And then I blogged about it.
But hey, you tell me if this sounds like the rantings of a wingnut (from Bloggledygook): "The families seem to approve, and the design itself shows merit. But I'm not so sure that this is a good idea. I wonder how people would feel if the memorial was shaped like a cross or a star."
Please read the full post here and decide for yourself: http://www.bloggledygook.com/
blo...the_flight.html
"This isn't real outrage, this is trademark wingnut kabuki-outrage."
I'm not outraged, I'm puzzled. I'm perplexed. Obviously most here aren't and that's fine. You say "It's just a shape." But a cross is just a shape too. So is the swastika. I'm not talking about shapes. I'm talking about symbols and the distinction is important. I don't know how I can make this point any clearer.
"No normally-functioning individual is going to look at that memorial and think "OMG, the semicircle represents... Islam!" What you are seeing here is the wingnut echo chamber in action, nothing more. That you seem unable to understand the dynamic here, even when it's staring you full in the face, is the reason why so many find you maddeningly naive and obtuse and say dismissive things about your blog."
I understand the dynamic, but this is YOUR interpretation of what's going on, not mine. And then you somehow expect me to see things from your point of view by suggesting that I'm not a "normally-functioning individual". Would any of you respond favorably to that?
Listen, the reason I responded to the post in the first place is I thought it was a pretty blatant mischaracterization of my post. All you have to do is read the title "The Shape....It's Eeeeeeeevil!" and know that Scott was stacking the deck so people would think that I thought the crescent shape itself was evil. I never suggested this with anything I said. So right off the bat, you read the title and already think I'm saying something completely ridiculous. And yes, considering any "shape" evil is obviously ridiculous. But what about symbols? Can they represent something?
The aforementioned swastika was originally seen as a holy Hindu symbol. But what do you think when you see it today? This is not to suggest that the crescent represents something evil. Far from it. But it does represent a religion: Islam.
"Justin, Thad's got it. We have a bad attitude about your approach to political centrism (as opposed to policy centrism) because it often seems to mean "being taken for a ride by right-wing spin, but only half the time." Between this and Churchill, your brand of centrism seems awfully suseptible to that."
Your "taken for a ride" is my "consider what they're saying." I ask y
Look, I don't personally care that the memorial is crescent-shaped.
And yeah, this furore has been cause by right wing superstitous, moronic fucking bullies. Marginal SMFBs, at that.
But, the triumverate brillance of lefarkins notwithstanding -- and I sincerely mean that -- can we not agree that there weren't 572 other designs that didn't involve imagery that might be construed, by some, as a little close to the bone?
And would the memorial really have suffered, AT ALL, if it was designed a little bit differently?
Donklephant may or may not have gotten too close to the edge on some issues. This isn't one of them. The fact that a wingnut thought it firat up does not mean that it is invalid at its philosophical root.
Continued...
I ask you, how else does one achieve balance in the political world? You're not trying to do it and I am. Obviously we'll disagree.
And by the way, all I'm claiming with Donklephant is that I try to consider views that are outside of my preferred ideology. That's where I'm coming from and that's why I think you're not giving our site, or my post, a fair shake.
"Donklephant may or may not have gotten too close to the edge on some issues. This isn't one of them. The fact that a wingnut thought it firat up does not mean that it is invalid at its philosophical root."
Exactly. Thanks KPatrick.
"...can we not agree that there weren't 572 other designs that didn't involve imagery that might be construed, by some, as a little close to the bone?"
I appreciate the kind words, but I really can't agree to that. When designing a memorial or looking at the layout, it would not have occured to me in a million years that because it used a half-circle row of trees it was some sort of coded support for Islamic terrorism, I still think this idea is ridiculous, and I do not support changing the design to accomodate people who believe it.
Justin--I would not, and do not, object to posts made by you (or anyone else) in this merely because they take positions more conservative than mine. I read, and learn from, writers I disagree with all the time. The problem is the embrace of a certain type of post. The claim that a few Democrats at a non-official club can be generalized to a "large part of the Democratic Party who are rooting against the United States" (like much of what Reynolds writes) isn't conservatism; it's just straightforward McCarthyite hackery. And I maintain that the claim that it's no longer permissible to use crescent shapes in memorials because some people might interpret this as coded support for Islamism or whatever just isn't a reasonable position (and nor do I think it is a position that would be taken by most serious conservatives.)
LGMers,
By the way, the following comment by "Ellid" was just left over on Donklephant:
"You, sir, are an idiot. The crescent symbol was around long before Islam and will be around long after today’s religions have been superceded by something else. Or are you truly proposing that semi-circles and crescent moons be expunged from the nation’s iconography because of your bigotry?"
"For your next crusade, I suggest you try to change the name of Pillsbury’s legendary side dish to “Freedom Rolls. ” After all, we can’t have those evil Islamic crescents on our Thanksgiving tables!"
I think it's safe to assume that between the use of "evil" and "Freedom Rolls", "Ellid" came from this site. I've also had about 35 visits to Donklephant from this blog in the past hour, all going right to my "crescent" post.
Scott, I'm not asking you to answer for this person. In fact, you don't have to answer for anything. But I think you can now see why I objected to you mischaracterizing my post as saying that the crescent was evil.
In short, what's more wing-nutty? My suggestion that the use of a crescent symbol in a 9/11 memorial might not be a good choice or somebody calling me a bigot for suggesting it?
I leave it up to you.
Scott said:
"And I maintain that the claim that it's no longer permissible to use crescent shapes in memorials because some people might interpret this as coded support for Islamism or whatever just isn't a reasonable position."
Fair enough, but what you said is very significant and hits at the very core of my point and what KPatrick has said too. You say "coded support for Islamism or whatever". Well, what's the "whatever"? Does that mean that a crescent shape is ALWAYS going to be appropriate in EVERY single case? Because that is EXACTLY the type of thinking I disagree with. Frankly, that view seems fairly extreme because it leaves absolutely NO room for somebody to object.
And remember, I never said it was "coded support for Islamism." Never once. I said that the crescent is the symbol for Islam. And because of that, I believe it has no business being the focal point or part of the title of a 9/11 memorial. Much the same way that a cross symbol shouldn't be used in a memorial to the Muslim Serbs. Much the same way that a swastika wouldn't be appropriate for a Jewish memorial. Much the same way a big red dot wouldn't be suitable for a Pearl Harbor memorial.
Does this bring any more illumination to my point? Forget who else is talking about this for a moment and focus on what I've said.
And if after reading my post and my comments (both on here and Donklephant) you still think my points are unreasonable, then so be it.
I said that the crescent is the symbol for Islam. And because of that, I believe it has no business being the focal point or part of the title of a 9/11 memorial.
So no innocent Muslims died in the Spet. 11th attack?
For crying out loud, Justin, it's not even a crescent. It's a semicircle.
The number of logical leaps necessary to go from "grove of trees" to "semicircle" to "crescent" to "Islam" to "coded message offensive to ordinary Americans" is simply staggering, and absurd on the face of it. You are, again, not addressing any of the substantial arguments -- for starters, that semicircles have been a common architectural and design element for millennia; that even actual crescents are not exclusively and instantly evocative of Islam (the way swastikas are exclusively and instantly evocative of Nazis, for instance); that the ground at the memorial site formed a natural semicircle included in most of the competing designs; that there was no evidence that anyone -- anyone -- involved in this project at any stage made this absurd semicircle = Islam connection before the wingnuttosphere adopted the issue, or that anyone other than rightwing bloggers -- plus, apparently, you -- would find anything offensive or nefarious about a memorial that included a semicircular grove of trees.
Justin--
1)In terms of the influx of readers, I don't really undertsand the complaints. I, at least, think it's good that people are clicking through to evaluate your arguments and check out your site. I obviously can't control what people say. (And nor did I, anywhere, call you a bigot.)
2)As Thad says, your anaology with Swastikas and red dots is obviously null, because these are much narrower signifiers. In addition, the swastika was exactly what I had in mind when I brought up the Islam/terrorism distinction. The swastika isn't a symbol of a country or religion; it's a symbol of *fascism*. I agree, of course, that a comparable symbol referring to Al Qaeda would be exceptionally vile, but that's not what's going on, so the swastika analogy is an obvious red herring. Anyway a grove of trees in a semi-circle--an utterly banal architechural choice--will not remind anyone of Islam--even in the way a cross reminds people of Christianity-- let alone of Islamic terrorism.
I ask you, how else does one achieve balance in the political world? You're not trying to do it and I am.
I take them seriously when their arguments and positions deserve it on their merits. I can't tell you how much I wish that was half the time.
I'll buy that this is your honest reaction and not a calculated concession to the right for it's own sake, and even apologize for thinking it. But on its the argument makes no sense, and nothing you say makes it any clearer. In order for this memorial to be problematic, you have to a) have a rather bigoted association of Islam in general and al qaeda in particular, AND make a series of leaps of logic that bugger the imagination. To the best that I can distill you position, it seems to be "we shouldn't do thing that paranoid loons might find offensive." That general premise may be a useful guide to some social situations, but it's a really, really bad guide to public policy, for a host of reasons that should be pretty clear to anyone who thinks about it.
Wow, were do I begin.
Thad said: "For crying out loud, Justin, it's not even a crescent. It's a semicircle."
"The number of logical leaps necessary to go from "grove of trees" to "semicircle" to "crescent" to "Islam" to "coded message offensive to ordinary Americans" is simply staggering, and absurd on the face of it."
Thad, this design is called the "Crescent of Embrace." Have you not been paying attention or reading the actual news stories about this? That is what the designers of the memorial are calling it.
From the original story:
“Crescent of Embrace” will feature a Tower of Voices, containing 40 wind chimes — one for each passenger and crew member who died — and two stands of red maple trees that will line a walkway caressing the natural bowl shape of the land. Forty separate groves of red and sugar maples will be planted behind the crescent, and a black slate wall will mark the edge of the crash site, where the remains of those who died now rest."
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/0...5251/
567702.stm
Thad also said: "that there was no evidence that anyone -- anyone -- involved in this project at any stage made this absurd semicircle = Islam connection before the wingnuttosphere adopted the issue, or that anyone other than rightwing bloggers -- plus, apparently, you -- would find anything offensive or nefarious about a memorial that included a semicircular grove of trees."
Actually, there's no evidence that you're doing any research whatsoever because again, you are just plain wrong.
Here is an excerpt of the jurors' statement that was written before any of this uproar began: "Consider the interpretation and impact of words within the context of this event. The crescent should be referred to as 'the circle or arc,' or other words that are not tied to specific religious iconography."
As KPatrick pointed out earlier in this comment thread, this shows that a) they knew it would be tied to Islam and b) they were trying to minimize any potential criticism by playing word games.
Here, read it for yourself from the followup story:
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/0...5253/
569055.stm
Now Thad, I could go down each one of your points and address them, but they're all talking about semi-circles, a very convienent way to move the language of this debate away from the symbol that's at issue here: the crescent. That's why I'm not going to engage you in that discussion until you start being honest with your semantics, because in this situation semantics matter.
Moving on...
djw said: "In order for this memorial to be problematic, you have to a) have a rather bigoted association of Islam in general and al qaeda in particular, AND make a series of leaps of logic that bugger the imagination."
Excuse me, but how is it bigoted to suggest that the crescent is the symbol of Islam? It's on top of nearly every mosque I've ever seen, much like the cross adorns nearly every church I've even seen. I
Excuse me, but how is it bigoted to suggest that the crescent is the symbol of Islam? It's on top of nearly every mosque I've ever seen, much like the cross adorns nearly every church I've ever seen. I find this point to be particularly offensive given the comments left over on my blog by one of your readers that suggested I'm a bigot. Do you think this term is so vanilla that you can simply call me one in what I thought was a reasonable discussion?
djw also thinks that my argument suggests: "we shouldn't do thing that paranoid loons might find offensive."
Well, you're making a pretty broad generalization there djw. Remember, the blogosphere is a small world and just because right-wing blogs talked about it doesn't just relegate this argument to the wing-nuttery neck of the woods.
I've had numerous conversations about this in the past couple days with liberals, independents and conservatives alike. All of them (and I mean ALL) think this memorial was not very well thought through and could be misconstrued. Of course there is absolutely no way I can prove this to you, but just because these opinion don't appear online doesn't mean they don't exist. I would hope you'd take my word on this since I have been pretty open and upfront about discussing this with you all.
Scott said: "1)In terms of the influx of readers, I don't really undertsand the complaints. I, at least, think it's good that people are clicking through to evaluate your arguments and check out your site. I obviously can't control what people say. (And nor did I, anywhere, call you a bigot.)"
I certainly wasn't complaining about the traffic. I agree it's good they're clicking through. And remember I said you don't have to answer for this person? If not, then take a look at the comment you're referring to: "Scott, I'm not asking you to answer for this person. In fact, you don't have to answer for anything. But I think you can now see why I objected to you mischaracterizing my post as saying that the crescent was evil."
Also, I never suggested you called me a bigot. The commenter Ellid did and I posted his/her's comment in the comment you responded to: "You, sir, are an idiot. The crescent symbol was around long before Islam and will be around long after today’s religions have been superceded by something else. Or are you truly proposing that semi-circles and crescent moons be expunged from the nation’s iconography because of your bigotry?"
Also Scott, you say that the swastika is not a symbol of religion. Sorry, but you are just plain wrong about that. In fact, "The swastika or swastik is the holiest non-syllabic symbol (also see Om) in Hinduism. By extension Jainism and Buddhism also use this symbol."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swastika
Frankly, these latest comments are pretty bewildering and I wish you would realize how inconsistent they read. Note how both Thad and djw keep calling the "Crescent of Embrace" a semi-circl
Frankly, these latest comments are pretty bewildering and I wish you would realize how inconsistent they read. Note how both Thad and djw keep calling the "Crescent of Embrace" a semi-circle. This is obviously an attempt to devalue my argument by continuing to talk about a related SHAPE of the memorial, while I continue to assert that it is the SYMBOLISM I am concerned about.
And also note that I have said ALL along that I do not think shapes are in ANY way evil, but some shapes are also symbols, and as such, we have to consider what they mean within the context of THIS memorial.
Okay, going to bed.
Justin,
Do you realize how paranoid you're sounding right now? I have never even heard of someone complaining about receiving traffic from a particular link, or comments.
God, please don't ever, ever piss off Kim Du Toit; I'm not sure that you're fragile ego could manage it. . .
As for the substance, I am flummoxed by your position, and don't understand how a reasonable person could come to it (this goes for you too, KPatrick). However, I don't think that you're evil or a bigot, and I don't think that either follow from Scott's post. Every blogger writes dumb posts; a quick perusal of the LGM archives will find more than a few from all of us. As we are operating in the public sphere, we expect reaction.
I have to admit, I find all of this immensely amusing.
Incidentally, the title of this post refers to a comment by Grandpa Simpson in one of the Treehouse of Horror episodes. So, really, Scott is less suggesting that you're a bigot than an incontinent old man. . .
Do you realize how paranoid you're sounding right now? I have never even heard of someone complaining about receiving traffic from a particular link, or comments.
I wasn't complaining about receiving the traffic as I stated in my latest comment. I was saying that in all likelihood the person who commented on my blog came from this site. That doesn't mean anybody from here has to answer for Ellid, but it does mean that they probably didn't do much thinking of their own, and took Scott's word that I was saying the crescent shape itself was evil, something I never said.
If that's paranoid, well, then I can't do much to change your mind.
Also, I didn't catch the Simpson's reference. Maybe if Scott would have said as much, instead of inferring that my post suggested this, we could have had a more fruitful conversation.
But if you really want to see what I brought up the bigot thing, read the comment left at my blog, and then read djw's post, which was written AFTER I mentioned it. That's the timeline here. I talk about how somebody who read this post came over to my blog, called me an idiot and then said I was motivated by bigotry. And after I pointed this out, djw said :"In order for this memorial to be problematic, you have to a) have a rather bigoted association of Islam in general and al qaeda in particular, AND make a series of leaps of logic that bugger the imagination."
Now how exactly should I read into that? It seems pretty straightforward to me because this memorial is "prolematic" for me. Does that mean I "have a rather bigoted association of Islam in general and al qaeda in particular...?"
Ignoring what one of your co-authors has said doesn't mean that it didn't happen. I never once accussed Scott of calling me a bigot.
But these other examples show that some on this site have indeed made that claim and that's extremely troubling.
"Also Scott, you say that the swastika is not a symbol of religion. Sorry, but you are just plain wrong about that. In fact, "The swastika or swastik is the holiest non-syllabic symbol (also see Om) in Hinduism. By extension Jainism and Buddhism also use this symbol."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swastika\"
You're just being deliberately obtuse here. Yes, yes, of course the origins of the Swazitka are as a religious symbol. But--and I can't believe I have to spell this out--it now, throughout the west symbolizes Nazi Germany, period. And it symbolizes it in a narrow sense; nobody sees a swaztika and thinks of Hinudism or anything else except the Nazis. Whereas one often sees things in the shape of a crescent without think of Islam. And I countinue to reject the analogy between fascism and Islam.
Then there's the quote ("Consider the interpretation and impact of words within the context of this event. The crescent should be referred to as 'the circle or arc,' or other words that are not tied to specific religious iconography"), which doesn't prove your case at all. It doesn't suggest that they intended the symbol to refer to Islam; it does suggest that they were worried that a few paranoid cranks would make that leap, and unfortunately they were right.
Justin,
I would never, ever blame another blogger for a comment left on this blog, unless the blogger specifically called for trolling. Hell, I don't blame Kim Du Toit for the things his idiot readers said here, nor do I blame Steve Gilliard for the storm of anger that his readers spent here. I have my own issues with both Gilliard and Du Toit (and I'm more sympathetic with the former than the latter, obviously), but I would never blame them for a comment left by someone who either misunderstood their argument, didn't read it, or made their own set of conclusions based on the evidence.
As for the Simpson's reference, it rather defeats the purpose of making a subtle pop culture reference to explain it in detail. I'm quite confidant that the vast bulk of our readers are familiar with the Simpsons (we have a Simpsons quote as our tagline, and a Simpsons image in our rotation), and thus understood the reference appropriately. But, even if they didn't, Scott linked to your post and thus allowed anyone to read it. Their conclusions are their own responsbility, not ours.
What, really, are you here for? Do you want Scott to apologize? Do you want a more approving link? Do you want to convince us that your argument is correct? Speaking only for myself, I find the last two quite unlikely. I don't care for your blog, so I don't read it. I think your argument is wingnutty garbage, for the reasons discussed above. I certainly won't apologize on behalf of either Scott or LGM as a whole.
We have been called idiots. One guy said that Scott was the most dangerous man in America. One memorable commenter threatened to sleep with my wife while I was out drinking. We have been accused of being sympathetic to terrorists, baby killers, and the North Vietnamese. I, personally, have been called a murderous coward.
It's the blogosphere. Deal with it.
Finally, and this is only my opinion, I don't know if you're a bigot. I rather doubt it, but I don't know you. I do know that you're argument about the crescent is one that many bigots make and sympathize with. Making an argument compatible bigotry is not the same as being a bigot, however, so I prefer to make an intellectual rather than a moral judgement of the post.
The idea of changing "crescent" to "arc" in the description isn't just playing word games. It's being accurate. The shape isn't a crescent -- it's an arc.
Sigh.
Justin, listen:
1) A crescent -- by definition -- tapers at the ends and becomes thicker in the middle, which the grove in the memorial doesn't do. It doesn't matter what they call it, it's not a crescent. It's a semicircle. "Crescent of embrace" is poetic license.
2) Even the article you link to reinforces the point that the crescent is not the official holy symbol of Islam, and does not have nearly the symbolic significance of, say, the cross in Christianity, or the star of David in Judaism. (For instance, you'll notice that Muslims don't typically wear crescent moon necklaces.)
3) You are (deliberately, it seems to me) conflating the controversy over the name of the memorial and the shape of the memorial. Yes, the designers called it "The Crescent of Embrace" (presumably because they thought it sounded better than "Semicircle of Embrace" or whatever). But -- again, according the article you linked to, the architects consider the name completely peripheral:
"You can call it all kinds of things. We can call it an arc. We can call it a circle. We can call it the edge of the bowl. The label doesn't matter to us in terms of intent.
"We have no objection to calling it something else."
So it seems like the name was probably going to happen anyway, without the involvement of the wingnuttosphere, since the jurors suggested a change that the architects didn't object to.
So what's the outrage about, again? It's not a crescent, it was likely not even going to be called a crescent, and even the actual crescent shape -- not used in the memorial -- is not nearly in the same symbolic category as the cross or (honestly, now, Justin) the swastika.
Excuse me, but how is it bigoted to suggest that the crescent is the symbol of Islam?
I'm give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're not being willfully obtuse here, and try one more time to explain this as clearly as possible.
First, here are two things I don't think:
1) Justin Gardner is a bigot.
2) It is bigoted to suggest that the crescent shape is (amongst other things) associated with the religion of Islam.
If you think something I write associates me with one of those views, it's because of either bad reading or bad writing.
Now that that's out of the way: bigotry enters the picture thusly: First, the paranoia does its work and makes the crazy people think this design has some connection to Islam--a connection more meaningful, say, than the troubling letter sharing of the words "memorial" and "Islam" (do you think it's a coincidence that 4 of the 5 symbols that make up the word "Islam" appear in the word "memorial"? Really makes you think, doesn't it?) THEN, the bigotry does it's work by making the crazies think that this connection is meaningful in an offensive way, because Islam as a religion is implicated in the attack.
You don't make the second step, and I think better of you for it. But I find your position--that we should pander to the whims of crazy paranoids (who may not even exist outside of the outrage-of-the-weekosphere) bizarre, inexplicable, and indefensible, and you haven't said anything in your increasingly hysterical comments to suggest otherwise.
Finally, as Scott notes above, the fact that the designers considered this crazy interpretation isn't particularly interesting to me. I followed the story of the different plans for the NYC memorial; it was pretty clear a lot of people had pretty strong views about what it should look like, and do design would please everyone, and so on. If these are the only people who find this memorial problematic I think they did a pretty good job.
I feel like I'm taking crazy pills.
I just can't wait to find out what kinds of pro-Islamic messages have been backwardly masked into the Credscent City Christmas Card by Wynton Marsalis.
I would imagine that most of the people making noise about this in Wingnutland (a category that does not include Justin) would settle for nothing less than a 60-foot-tall statue of Bush, striding purposefully across the deck of the aircraft carrier.
Hell, if they called it the "Arc of Peace" there would be cries of "Appeasement!" over at LGF.
LIsten guys, we can go around and around about this, but responding to all of these questions and assertions is eating up too much of time unfortunately.
However, I will offer this. If anybody wants to possibly talk to me over the phone about this, drop me an email and we'll set a time. Yes, I'm serious about this offer. I'll talk to whoever emails me and I'm sure we'll have a good discussion.
The email is justin@donklephant.com
Best. -jpg
Wake up and smell the coffee America! While not every Islam adherent is a terrorist, there are many who are. There are also many more who support the terrorists. There are many, many more who may hate the actions of the terrorists but hate us (western civilization, especially America)even more. Until we come to terms with this, we'll never learn how to be safe.
Commenting by HaloScan
