 |
| Tommie Smith & John Carlos |
Dear Patrick,
Hope you are well.
Every Monday to Thursday, as soon
as I leave the office to commute on the busy London public transport, I always
look forward to reading your column in the Evening Standard because it
generally helps smooth my journey back home: I am a great fan of yours!
Your last piece on Nicolas Anelka’s
goal celebration (Nicolas Anelka cannot get away with this act of revulsion) on Thursday, 02 January 2014 has however prompted me to write
to you.
You're
probably familiar with the names Tommie Smith and John Carlos, as you are with the
image above at the Mexico City Olympics in 1968. As they turned to face their flags and hear
the American national anthem (having both won gold and bronze medals earlier
that day), they each raised a black-gloved fist and kept them raised until the
anthem had finished.
This
was a symbol of resistance and defiance that Carlos felt he was put on Earth to
perform; while Tommie Smith stated that the gesture was not a "Black
Power" salute as wildly claimed at the time, but a "human rights
salute".
Smith and Carlos were subjected
to abuse and they and their families received death threats back Home, as they
were ostracized by the U.S. sporting establishment and subjected to harsh criticism.Time magazine showed
the five-ring Olympic logo with the words, "Angrier, Nastier,
Uglier", instead of "Faster, Higher, Stronger". The LA Times
accused them of engaging in a "Nazi-like salute". Anything
familiar?
 |
| Nicolas Anelka |
Mentioning
the now famous Quenelle, you wrote of: “a gesture that a wide variety of French
sources explained to be anti-Semitic, a sly twist on the traditional Nazi
salute.” emulating of course your fellow Sportswriter Martin Lipton from the
Mirror who passionately launched a robust attack on Anelka during his last
visit on the Sunday Supplement based on his supposed knowledge of the “francophone
world” and its alleged code word for anti-Semitism that the francophone born
and grown that I am, never heard of – neither has Arsene Wenger... This is
simply outrageous!
You
claimed to have given this rigorous thought as it is to be expected from a
journalist of your calibre; and yet by failing to present the other side of the
argument, your analysis becomes simplistic reminiscing of the Time magazine’s
cover mentioned above: "Angrier, Nastier, Uglier". Smith and
Carlos will go on to receive an Arthur Ashe Courage Award at the 2008 ESPY Awards honouring
their action; and I thrust that in due time you will reconsider with regard to
Anelka.
While
there is a debate in France about the Quenelle, and it is true that the French
government is not very happy about it, we must never underestimate governments’
ability to misrepresent the facts for their own purposes and agenda. Did you even wonder why it took until 2013 to
denounce an act that has been around for 8 years?
To explain his gesture Anelka
could have quoted John Carlos: "I had a moral obligation to step up.
Morality was a far greater force than the rules and regulations they had”, because
the real battle here is for the freedom of speech; and it is always worrying to
see how people seem blissfully unaware of the danger of limiting freedom of
speech.
For almost two decades Dieudonné was the darling of media in
France. So why is the French ruling
class now trying so hard to demonise and destroy "the most talented
comedian of his generation" (as recognised by his colleagues, even when
they denounce him)?
This stigmatisation began back in
December 2003 following a short TV sketch in which Dieudonné, dressed as a
uniformed Israeli settler in the Palestinian occupied territories, called on
young people to "join the American-Zionist axis of good". Uproar
ensued. Jewish organisations were largely successful in forcing theatres around
France to cancel Dieudonné’s appearances, sometimes by threatening violent
disruption. Nevertheless, courts dismissed numerous lawsuits brought against
him. When he succeeded in finding a theatre that would let him perform, he won
standing ovations from a full house.
Dieudonné M’Bala M’Bala is a
freethinker sharply critical of all religions. In his one-man shows, he
habitually parodies all religions without exception including the animism of
his African ancestors. Irreverence is a staple of French humour, which
constantly ridicules Catholicism and Islam in the most outrageous terms. Insisting
on his commitment to equality and universal human values, Dieudonné has refused
to censure himself as his critics demand. He has always stressed his respect for the
victims of that great tragedy- the Shoah -a tragedy for all humanity, but it is
never enough to correct misquotes... The criminalisation of spoken words leads
almost inevitably to the attempt to criminalise unspoken thoughts.
The significance of this campaign
goes far beyond its effects on the career of a talented performer. The question
for many in France today is: if veiled Muslim girls can laugh at the comedians’
satire of Islamic extremists, why is similar satire of Orthodox Zionist
settlers not allowed?
Some of his expression
undoubtedly lack in both precision and good taste, I concede! But the meaning
of Dieudonné’s parody concerned with the present and the immediate future, and
by no means a denial of the past.
Nietzsche warned us against the
danger of our convictions: “it is not conflict of opinions that has made
history so violent but conflict of belief in opinions, that is to say conflict
of convictions”. It is acknowledging the
limits on truth that makes men tolerant, peaceful, and happy, for “Convictions
are prisons” to be avoided at all costs.
Happy New Year Patrick!
No comments:
Post a Comment