I think I'm better able to articulate what's bothering me about criticism of Montadhar Al-Zaydi. Yes, throwing a shoe is imperfect behaviour, but we all lose our temper every once in a while.
The problem is that some people are acting like this imperfect behaviour is some egregious sin because it happened in the presence of a dignitary (like it or not, George W. Bush is a dignitary), as if to say "How dare you expose our dignitary to your lowly proletarian emotions!" They are demanding that Mr. Al-Zaydi be the bigger person because there's a dignitary in the room. This is contrary to basic chivalyr, it's contrary to noblesse oblige, and it's contrary to the basic American principle of equality.
We need our dignitaries to be the bigger person. We need the then-Queen of England visiting bombed-out sections of London, symbolically keeping her family in London instead of fleeing to safety in the countryside. We need Pope John Paul II meeting with and forgiving the guy who tried to assassinate him. We need Adrienne Clarkson inviting the kid who wrongfully got kicked out of Rideau Hall to tea.
But demanding the commoner to be a bigger person is like Marie Antoinette, playing at being a peasant, milking cows that the servants have bathed ahead of time so that Her Majesty will not be offended by the smell.
The noble thing for George W. Bush to do would be to insist that this incident be treated just the same as throwing a shoe at an ordinary person.
5 comments:
"How dare you expose our dignitary to your lowly proletarian emotions!"
I heard little or no response of this nature in the USA. It seemed to me many Americans thought the shoe-throwing was hilarious and even Bush himself regarded it in a non-serious manner, joking that 'I didn't understand what he said, but I saw his sole.'
The criticism of Al-Zaydi seemed mostly from the Iraq side, because apparently it's Iraq/Arab/Muslim custom to treat visiting dignitaries as akin to royalty, regardless what you think of them and he violated that code. Also, it was conduct unbecoming a journalist because they are supposed to maintain some semblance of impartiality and, at least, refrain from expressing their personal views while on the job. Again, even that criticism seemed to come mostly from his fellow Iraqi journalists and not from the USA or anywhere outside.
I heard a lot more criticism of Bush's secret service detail for being slow to react (if Zaydi had a gun instead of a shoe, we'd probably be having a state funeral this week) than anything aimed at the shoe-thrower.
"I heard little or no response of this nature in the USA."
Then you weren't listening closely enough. It's out there - big time.
Most people do think it's funny. But the few people who think it's bad seem to think it's really seriously disproportionately bad.
Like their criticism is way out of wack for the fact that two shoes were thrown and no one was hurt. (Off the top of my head there's the Globe & Mail's editorial and the criticism is even worse in the comments sections of various newspapers.)
That's basically what I was reacting to here. Most people did think it's funny, but that's nothing to blog about. The negative reaction seemed really out of wack, so I blogged about that.
That's what I was thinking of too.
I don't think the criticism in the editorial is out of wack. Zaydi committed a very selfish act that was inconsiderate of other journalists and an embarrassment to the Iraqi government. I think he is being rightly criticized because of that. I think most people who did something like he did while 'on the clock' would put their continued employment in jeopardy and it shouldn't be any different for him. He should be fired or, at very least, strongly reprimanded by his employer.
I think most of the criticism he got was in the above vein and not because he exposed a dignitary to a relatively harmless expression of emotion.
Post a Comment