My first job was at the University of Maryland, where I taught for over 4 years. I was quite happy there, and so I’m extra distressed to hear that, after Muslim students complained, the University postponed a showing of the Clint Eastwood-directed film, “American Sniper.” FOX News reports (but the Washington Post corroborates):
The University of Maryland announced it will postpone indefinitely an upcoming screening of “American Sniper” after Muslim students protested – calling the film Islamophobic, racist and nationalistic.
“American Sniper only perpetuates the spread of Islamophobia and is offensive to many Muslims around the world for good reason,” read a petition launched by the university’s Muslim Students Association. “This movie dehumanizes Muslim individuals, promotes the idea of senseless mass murder, and portrays negative and inaccurate stereotypes.”
The critically-acclaimed film about the life of Navy SEAL Chris Kyle was supposed to be screened May 6 and 7. It was “postponed” on April 22 by the university’s Student Entertainment Events (SEE).
While SEE did not mention the Muslim Students Association’s petition, they referenced a meeting with “concerned student organizations” about the film.
“SEE is choosing to explore the proactive measures of working with others during the coming months to possibly create an event where students can engage in constructive and moderated dialogues about the controversial topics proposed in the film,” read a statement from SEE posted on the university’s website.
Here’s a section of the Change.org petition circulated by the Muslim students.
American Sniper only perpetuates the spread of Islamophobia and is offensive to many Muslims around the world for good reason. This movie dehumanizes Muslim individuals, promotes the idea of senseless mass murder, and portrays negative and inaccurate stereotypes. Hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians suffered greatly in the Iraq war; innocent people were deposed from their homes, traumatized by war, and lost their spouse, parents, and children. This movie serves to do nothing but make a mockery out of such immense pain.
SEE is providing a platform for the spread of such an unjust, discriminatory form of entertainment. SEE has even acknowledged that the film depicts Muslims in a negative light and perpetuate negative ideas, values, and beliefs. According to SEE’s constitution, they “work to enhance The Adele H. Stamp Student Union – Center for Campus Life (The Stamp) and its community atmosphere.” However, the screening of this film creates a dangerous climate for Muslim students and severely devalues the community atmosphere.
We ask that you exercise your freedom of speech to help us create a safer campus environment. It is imperative that we make our voices heard. Please join us in making a change to create a more inclusive and diverse community atmosphere. Be the change you wish to see in the world.
Expressly because of all this controversy, I went to see “American Sniper” yesterday. In general, I didn’t see it as a pro-war movie; in fact, it paints the war as a messy affair, with several soldiers telling Kyle that Iraq (where he served four tours of duty) was a dreadful place, and they were happy to leave. Rather, it is a pro-Chris Kyle movie. Kyle, however, is portrayed as an unalloyed patriot who sees his job as protecting America as a whole. When he’s in Iraq, however, that feeling morphs into protecting his platoon by being a sniper (in his case, trying to find and shoot those who were clearly about to kill American soldiers). That does a number on his marriage, for the bloodshed erodes his personality, and he becomes withdrawn and traumatized. At the end, before Kyle is murdered himself, he undergoes somewhat of a personality change, becoming more devoted to his wife and children and also, admirably, starts helping other wounded and traumatized veterans. Tragically, it was one of those veterans who murdered Kyle, and just received a sentence of life in prison without parole.
In sum, “American Sniper” was, more or less, like any war movie, but by no means an unalloyed glorification of our incursion into Iraq. What it shows is how a man with good motives can damage himself by killing: Kyle was a patriot and didn’t question his duty. Whether he’s culpable for serving in the Iraq war is a question I won’t deal with here. I would not have served, nor did I in Vietnam (I would have chosen jail over the Army), but what happened in that war happened, and Eastwood’s aim was to tell Kyle’s story in all its bravery, messiness and ambiguity.
What I’m trying to say is that this movie is neither bloodier nor demonizes the enemy more than any other war movie: see, for example, “Saving Private Ryan,” which has a big scene of a Nazi sniper picking off Americans. Should we Americans protest that film? Kyle was not, in the film, trying to kill innocent civilians: he aimed only at those about to kill Americans, and was hugely relieved when he didn’t have to shoot a child who had picked up a rocket-grenade launcher but then put it down before firing it at American soldiers.
Yes, in one or two places the enemy is described as “evil,” but I don’t think the word “Muslim” is mentioned once in the film. Such dehumanization of the enemy occurs in all wars, and for good reason: it makes it easier for people not long from being civilians to kill them. But Muslims were no more dehumanized in this movie than the Germans were in “Saving Private Ryan” or the Japanese in Eastwood’s two films about the American conflict with the Japanese in War Two.
“American Sniper” was not a great movie, but it was a good one, and deserves to be seen. Kyle’s story was a fascinating and haunting one. Muslims can object to it if they want, and have everyright to protest, but once the film is scheduled, it’s an act of cowardice—indeed, of censorship— to withdraw it. It’s by no means a purely jingoistic murder-the-Muslims film, and most of the students who object to it have probably never seen it. Even if they did, are they such delicate objects that they must keep others from seeing it lest they, too, will be offended? After all, nobody was being forced to see the film, and it’s easy enough to learn what it’s about by a bit of Googling. What the Muslim students really want is for such movies not to be made.
What the students say about the movie is largely distorted. The film does NOT promote mass murder, but shows some approbation for a soldier trying to protect his buddies by killing enemy combatants. It by no means sanctions the murder of civilians, and in fact the only civilian shown being killed is a child murdered with a drill by a Muslim warlord. It does not make a mockery of the pain of the Iraq war (the wives and children of murdered Islamic fighters are shown grieving, and with sympathy), or even adjudicate its justness (I don’t think it was a just war). Eastwood deliberately, I think, did not pass cinematic judgment on the war itself. It does not create “Islamophobia,” or hatred of all Muslims, any more than “Saving Private Ryan” promoted “Teutonophobia.” It is not “racist” because Muslims are not a race. It is nationalistic, at least on Kyle’s part, but so is nearly every war movie, and, in some cases, nationalism is not a sin (Iraq was not such a case). How can you even make a war movie without showing the nationalism that fuels war?
In other words, the Muslim students have learned their lesson here: they are trying to avoid criticism of their faith (which isn’t even criticized in this movie) by intimidating others and playing the offense card. We haven’t seen the last of this kind of attempted censorship.
Of course Fox News and the student Republicans at the University of Maryland are delighted with this, as they can use it to demonize Muslims, and I intensely dislike agreeing on this single episode with people whose ideals conflict so deeply with mine. But the issue here is censorship and free speech, and so I join them in decrying the censorship of “American Sniper”, as well as the entitlement of Muslim students who feel that they alone should determine who can see the film.
It’s ironic that while the Muslim student petition urges people to exercise their freedom of speech (which is fine), the object of the exercise is not simply to oppose other people’s speech, but to shut down that speech: to cancel the movie. And in that they’ve succeeded. But perhaps only temporarily, for, as the Washington Post reports:
A U-Md. spokesperson said: “The feedback we have received today has been overwhelmingly in favor of screening the film. When we make clear that the student organization SEE always planned to move forward with showing the film — and that the screening will happen in the early fall for free in Hoff Theater — concerns have been addressed across the board.”
I hate the kind of censorship that is running rampant on American college campuses. The kind of “change I wish to see in the world” does not include the offense, real or pretended, that leads to such censorship. I wish to see nearly untrammeled free speech on campuses, which promotes the clash of ideas that is the only way to move civilization forward. Everybody is entitled to be offended by ideas, art, and so on, but nobody is entitled to prevent others from making their own judgments on those matters.
h/t: Heather Hastie
I am deeply and profoundly offended by Islam and those Muslims who would espouse anything as fundamentally anti-American as censorship.
They’re welcome to tell people how awful they think the movie is, just as Nazis are welcome to people how awful they think everybody else is…but they step over the line the moment they block the movie from being seen by those who want to see it.
You don’t like the fact that people in America can watch things you don’t want them to watch?
Tough shit. You’re welcome to leave for some hellhole that doesn’t have our First Amendment or something comparable. Like…say…Riyadh, Baghdad, or Tehran.
But if you want to stay here, you’re going to have to learn to grow up and put up with the fact that you have no more right to stop me from watching movies I want to see than I have any right to stop you from watching movies you want to see.
b&
sub
Sub.
Right on. It’s really very simple. Don’t like the movie, don’t go watch the movie.
However, in fairness, I would point out that there were similar protests against the movie, The Last Temptation of Christ by right wing Christians who tried to intimidate theaters into not showing it. Christopher Hitchens had it right, religion poisons everything.
That would really only be relevant if venues had capitulated to Christian demands to not show the film. IIRC, if anything, protests increased the viewership…
Yes, unless the point is to use the freedoms of the west to bring the oppression of Riyadh, Baghdad, or Tehran here as well. Cynical? Perhaps and yet sometimes I wonder…
Many Islamists, including in the West, are quite open about their ultimate goal being the establishment of a global caliphate. And the ones who aren’t open will in no way deny it…see all those YouTube clips of Muslims who refuse to condemn horrific legally-sanctioned brutality such as stoning for adulterers “if the Sharia conditions are met.” The “Sharia conditions” are, basically, the caliphate….
b&
Oh of course: we all know Muslims don’t engage in mass murder. Right.
If they object, they needn’t watch it.
Well said, Jerry; a balanced opinion articulated eloquently as always.
Of course not. Boko Haram, ISIS, Al Shabaab, Taliban, LET, Al Qaeda, etc. they’re all just Western colonialist organizations, apparently.
Indeed. If I want senseless mass murder showing some Muslims in a negative light, news from the ME and parts of Africa will do the job.
Sub.
You think that’s bad, Jerry? Wait ’till you get a load of this:
——————————————–
Ed Miliband, UK Labour leader:
“In an interview with the Muslim News website, Miliband said a Labour government would make Islamophobia an “aggravated crime”.
“We are going to make sure it is marked on people’s records with the police to make sure they root out Islamophobia as a hate crime,” he said, adding: “We are going to change the law on this so we make it absolutely clear of our abhorrence of hate crime and Islamophobia. It will be the first time that the police will record Islamophobic attacks right across the country.”
——————————————-
This is reported by the Muislim News website:
http://www.muslimnews.co.uk/newspaper/top-stories/labour-to-outlaw-islamophobia-says-miliband-in-an-exclusive-interview/
and retold by the mainstream right-wing site Breitbart here:
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/04/25/miliband-labour-would-outlaw-islamophobia/
Miliband is not in government right now, so we might take this statement with a grain of salt, a bone tossed to potential Muslim Labour voters. Obviously, implementing such a crazy plan, as vaguely articulated above, would meet much resistance in Britain.
However, words fail to describe just how disgraceful these remarks are. Here is the leader of Labour, who was an intern at The Nation for no less than Christopher Hitchens (as was Nick Clegg, LibDem leader) promising to institute a regime to punish thoughtcrime in the UK.
Rolling out the red carpet for the Islamists, and muddying the good Miliband name to boot. For shame Mr. Miliband, for shame.
You think that’s bad, Jerry? Wait ’till you get a load of this:
——————————————–
Ed Miliband, UK Labour leader:
“In an interview with the Muslim News website, Miliband said a Labour government would make Islamophobia an “aggravated crime”.
“We are going to make sure it is marked on people’s records with the police to make sure they root out Islamophobia as a hate crime,” he said, adding: “We are going to change the law on this so we make it absolutely clear of our abhorrence of hate crime and Islamophobia. It will be the first time that the police will record Islamophobic attacks right across the country.”
——————————————-
This is reported by the Muislim News website:
http://www.muslimnews.co.uk/newspaper/top-stories/labour-to-outlaw-islamophobia-says-miliband-in-an-exclusive-interview/
and retold by the mainstream right-wing site Breitbart here:
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/04/25/miliband-labour-would-outlaw-islamophobia/
Miliband is not in government right now, so we might take this statement with a grain of salt, a bone tossed to potential Muslim Labour voters. Obviously, implementing such a crazy plan, as vaguely articulated above, would meet much resistance in Britain.
However, words fail to describe just how disgraceful these remarks are. Here is the leader of Labour, who was an intern at The Nation for no less than Christopher Hitchens (as was Nick Clegg, LibDem leader) promising to institute a regime to punish thoughtcrime in the UK.
Rolling out the red carpet for the Islamists, and muddying the good Miliband name to boot. For shame Mr. Miliband, for shame.
Yeah, this is more Labour kowtowing to Islamic da’waists and so discouraging.
That said, Miliband is right to underline that we need to know the extent of real anti-Muslim attacks such as the draping of pig products on mosques and violent anti-religion attacks on people who are known to be Muslims. We would also need to know the beliefs of the attackers.
And I bet there would be a high correlation with far right groups, EDL, the stark-raving bonkers elements in UKIP and even Pegida which is attempting, and largely failing, to organize marches in the last few months.
Those statistics would be worth knowing.
Allele akhbar. x
There is real Islamophobia, just like there is the stuff that is claimed to be Islamophobia and isn’t. If it is genuine Islamophobia, it should be recognized.
Anjem Choudary is telling his supporters not to vote at all, for any of the candidates, for that would be a recognition of British democracy, which they oppose. They are going around saying stuff like “f**k democracy”. I’m on the wrong device to provide a link, but I’ll add it later. (I also tw**ted the link yesterday.)
Ed Milliband has a pretty high chance of being PM. Although he’s coming second, on current polling, he’s the only candidate capable of cobbling together a confidence and supply arrangement with enough partners to achieve a majority. It would be a minority government, but the UK is stable enough to handle that.
Sorry, but how is this different from US “Hate Crime” laws? The intent could be to add extra penalties to violent crimes which are motivated by racial hatred (i.e. a hate crime). An other example are states (not all) which similarly attach additional penalties to crimes committed against gay people, when the motivation for the attack is hate against gays – ie. Homophobia as it is sadly known. Perhaps someone in the UK could clarify?
Ilive in the UK and have just voted for Ed Miliband “postal Vote”, The proposed Islamaphobia law is no different than the Law forbidding the Nazi Salute in Germany or anti Gay Laws in the more civilised Countries, its intended to curb the more extreme right wing nut jobs in the Country, common sense will prevail in the end. I for one have no time for Islam or any other Religion but they still have the right to practice their Religion providing it doesn,t impinge on the Rights of others not to practice any Religion , but at the same time they also deserve protection from the Lunatics.
I have to ask (don’t know the answer), is antisemitism an ‘aggravated crime’? If so then…
(On the whole I’m opposed to the legal definition of ‘aggravated crimes’. If I commit an assault on some individual, is it somehow less bad if they’re not a member of some defined victim group?)
Remember the hoopla over The Godfather when it came out? I recall there was a “warning” noting that the movie didn’t intend to paint all Italians as Mafia thugs. At least back then, Italians didn’t try to shut down the movie but they made their case clear and we actually got to have a conversation about stereotypes.
These students don’t even give us a chance. How can anyone move forward in society without meaningful discussions that sometimes offend? I’m a big believer in conflict – it’s through conflict that ideas form. This is ridiculous and offensive to me.
“I’m a big believer in conflict – it’s through conflict that ideas form.”
So so true. Something had been bugging me about all the talk of safe space and the like and you have put your finger on it.
Well said.
I recall reading that the Italian-American Anti-Defamation League (or whatever it was called) was actually a front for the mob, the Colombo family I think, whose real goal (obviously) was to take the heat off by false claims of anti-italian prejudice.
I agree. I wonder if the problem is a large proportion of Muslim students originally come from countries that don’t have freedom of speech and don’t really know how to handle it.
In many countries, contrary speech is simply shut down. If your life experience is that speech opposing Islam is just banned, it’s probably to be expected these students would take advantage of the “safe speech” revolution.
Even in countries that have freedom of speech as part of their constitution, but Islam as the state religion (e.g. Bangladesh), atheists, for example, are given a hard time for provoking the Islamists and thereby disturbing the peace of the country. (More people being blamed for their own murders.)
Freedom of speech is a fairly new concept, and often hasn’t been well applied even where it’s the law. There are numerous examples in the US of people being arrested for exercising their right to free speech and doing nothing wrong in the process.
You have to think the people in charge at the University of Maryland must either be very twisted or very easily intimidated. Anyone who saw the movie, as Prof. Coyne did, or read the book, as I did, can see none of this claimed by the so-called offended.
It would be like cancelling a showing of the Longest Day because some Germans were offended. The movie the Alamo would be out because that would upset someone in Texas? Even To Kill a Mockingbird should be banned because there is no telling how many southerners would be offended.
Muslims trying to silence potentially negative viewpoints of Muslims is offensive to many Muslims around the world. This censorship dehumanises Muslims, promotes the ideas that they have no ability to take criticism, unable to adapt to different cultures, humourless, and can only avoid criticisms by labelling negative views as racist which portrays that all Muslims are the same.
Instead of censorship just show another film that dehumanises Americans in return. Engage with ideas and opponents, like students should. Watch Grave of the Fireflies. Roger Ebert described it as one of the most powerful war films ever made. It doesn’t even show Americans as humans, just planes, that indiscriminately fire bomb homes and fly-by shooting at children.
Actually, I wonder if there would be any petitions and outrage if they showed Grave of the Fireflies. Or just people who didn’t know what to expect.
+1
It’s absolutely crystal clear – in any given situation, if you want to see which side has the political upper hand, which side has something to lose, just check who opposes freedom of speech.
Considering the ubiquitous rhetoric about Muslim underprivilege and punching down it strikes me that in certain extremely important areas of discourse Muslims and their religion are in a very strong position indeed.
Good to hear a bit about the movie.
This event does sound like the typical kneejerk reaction by people who haven’t seen the movie but more so it is a typical repetition of the perpetual ‘us poor Muslim’s’ disingenuous narrative.
It is also getting a bit tedious, maybe even offensive listening to accusations of all this alleged anti Muslim ‘racist’ attitude and behaviour.
Most people seem to be bending over backward to be tolerant and inclusive.
And. I am offended by attack’s on my culture, or at least the virtuous parts, of which one is free speech and limited censorship.
I remember way way back when ‘Life of Brian’ came out.
Many Christians were offended most all without seeing the movie.
I remember speaking with one who said he didn’t like it because “it portrays Jesus in a negative way”. (he wasn’t going to see it)
The movie did not do that, although it portrayed ‘followers’ in a funny way.
He’s NOT the Messiah, though his room’s a mess….
Follow the holy gourd, no, the holy shoe.
Sounds familiar.
This would seem to be an adaption of asymmetric warfare. Rather than provoking a conflict with a more powerful military by judicious attacks on symbolic targets, these are propaganda sorties where the minority gets assert its will over the majority and avoid (usually) valid criticism. That they are dishonest when they play the racism card to get their way only means that once again the ends justify the means.
Death to those that say Islam is violent!
If the film offends you then STAY IN YOUR DAMN DORM AND DON’T ATTEND THE SCREENING! Why do they have to insist that everything they don’t like be censored or cancelled? “Islamophobia” is indeed a term invented by fascists.
I propose the adoption and employment of the term “Islamofascistphobia.”
Sorry, you can watch the flick anyplace. During the Nam war, military recruiters were censored on campus. The University of Maryland is engaging in pure provocation. If the Young Republicans want to show this porno-trash, No Problem. [I assume here that it is indeed the University is showing the film and not an independent organization]. As Jefferson said “The spirit of reisistance to government must always be kept alive,” and most especially to stop autocrats from indoctrinating us under the flag of free speech.
You assume wrong. Its a student organization doing it, Student Entertainment Events (SEE), not the administration.
In my mind this makes the protests even more unreasonable. If some organization takes issue with SEE showing the movie, they could ‘oppose’ it by showing their own movie at the same time (there are plenty of movies that would probably draw a bigger audience).
Anyway, WashPo also says that SEE intends to show it in the fall. The group says that this is a delay so they can address administration concerns, not a removal of them movie from their planned showing list. I don’t know how true that is, but if they did get some letter or phone call from the school administration over it, it makes sense to me that they would try and address it.
If you object to indoctrination ‘under the flag of free speech’ then go out(or stay in) and make your argument against it. The fact that you can do so is down to free speech legislation itself. Your, or anybody else’s, personal feelings about this film(which admittedly sounds deeply unappealing) are utterly irrelevant.
What some people on the liberal left don’t seem to have fully understood is that free speech is not a tool for us to use when we need it and discard when we don’t.
“As Jefferson said “The spirit of reisistance to government must always be kept alive,” and most especially to stop autocrats from indoctrinating us under the flag of free speech.”
Well, I’m all for that, just as I wish Jefferson had walked the talk when it came to resistance to autocratic slaveholders.
I’m also for resistance to private corporate tyrannies, which also should be mentioned no later than a couple of breaths after any mention made of resistance to government. As John Dewey said, “Government is the shadow cast by Business.”
Bravo!
I agree with the free speech stuff, and I expect almost everyone here does, but I’m more interested in expanding on one comment about the film itself:
You described it as pro-Chris Kyle, which I think it is – but it’s not pro-Kyle without reservation. I think we’re meant to see there’s something wrong, or something limited, about him.
There’s the scene in Iraq where another soldier is tentatively expressing his doubts about the war, wondering what the point of them being there is, and he comes up against a blank wall when he expresses these doubts to Kyle – to whom such doubts have obviously never once occurred. The funeral scene suggests that Kyle is unusual even among his peers in being so sure of the rightness of his country’s mission. And there’s a similar pattern in civilian life, where he has a tendency to talk like a recruiting poster in response to any ambivalent expression about the war, and to mean it. I don’t think we’re meant to embrace his utter lack of doubt as a virtue. In each encounter where Kyle is as certain as a bulldozer, the other person is a little bit thrown, and I think we’re meant to be, too.
Yes, I agree, the film is quite nuanced. It is possible to watch it in a gung-ho way, cheering the American hero blasting the nation’s enemies but you’d have to be of fairly limited intelligence to do so.
The film does show a brave man doing the job he has been assigned to do but does not flinch from showing the negative aspects of the situation: the effects of the war on Kyle and his family, Kyle’s emotional limitations, and the terrible decisions that have to be made in war.
It does not matter, though whether the film is the anti muslim, gung-ho, war-mongering film the students claim it is or something more nuanced that liberal audiences can swallow comfortably: people should be allowed to watch it and make up their own minds. No-one is forced to watch it and if anyone doesn’t like it they can say so loudly and publicly.
I’m sure there’s nuance in the film – the guy’s a good director. He’s not Michael Bay.
My question is whether Chris Kyle during his life demonstrated any of the same emotional complexity and moral doubt that he does in the film, and from what I’ve read the guy was just a nasty, thuggish, nationalistic bully, who happened to excel in an enjoyably amoral profession.
This seems to be one of those rare occasions where Hollywood has actually made a film character more sophisticated and complex than their real-life counterpart.
Dr. Coyne, hate to break this to you…but Foxnews.com, yes that Foxnews.com, on issues such as gender, race, immigrants, and so on is about as equally reliable as the NYTimes. This, of course, will drive many people, especially those from the left apoplectic.
Fox errs in much the same way, rightwardly, that the Times errs as a leftist publication.
No where near!
dg, hate to break this to you….but Jerry cited WashPo too. The basic facts don’t seem to be in dispute, regardless of the lean of the news organization reporting it.
Did he worry that we might see the bit where citizens who helped the marines had holes drilled in their children ‘s heads and their heads! Thought not…