So, it’s time to follow up on Curmie’s piece on the controversy surrounding Roger Waters and his performances of “In the Flesh” in a series of concerts in Germany, where Nazi symbolism is forbidden except for educational or artistic purposes. There’s also an apparently still-ongoing investigation in Berlin regarding the charge of “incitement of the people,” a perhaps intentionally ill-defined regulation intended to protect against bullying and discrimination based on demographics, but often, inevitably, employed to quash any criticism of any group that seeks victimhood.
A comment on Curmie’s post (thanks, jvb!) linked to an article about the US State Department taking a ridiculous and potentially disastrous action, not only weighing in on an issue outside its purview, but serving as yet another example of using the authority of government to restrict free expression if it has the slightest chance of giving offense, even to the hypersensitive.
This latest episode in the ongoing saga was initiated by one Katharina von Schnurbein, who bears the impressive title of European Commission Coordinator on Combating Antisemitism and Fostering Jewish Life. Blithely ignoring a German court’s decision that Waters’s act may be “tasteless,” but not only must it be “viewed as a work of art,” it “did not glorify or relativise the crimes of the Nazis or identify with Nazi racist ideology,” von Schnurbein took to Twitter to accuse Waters of belittling and trivializing the Shoah.
Taken out of context, the performance seen in the link above is indeed disturbing, even ominous. And von Schnurbein would have been a pre-teen when the film version (let alone the album) of “The Wall” was released, so she has something of an excuse for not recognizing the context. Nonetheless, it would have been a good idea to at least consider the fact that Waters is quoted as saying “the elements of my performance that have been questioned are quite clearly a statement in opposition to fascism, injustice, and bigotry in all its forms.”
It is also true that Waters has said some fairly outrageous things about Jews over the years: the usual crap about cabals, Sheldon Adelson and George Soros as “puppet-masters,” and so on. But he later retracted much of that rhetoric, and the overwhelming majority of what has been labeled as antisemitic was in fact criticism of the Israeli state, specifically with respect to the treatment of Palestinians, not of Judaism or Jews.
Waters’s projecting the name of Palestinian-American journalist Shireen Abu Akleh, believed to have been killed by an Israeli army sniper, alongside that of Anne Frank, has been interpreted as “comparing Israel to the Nazis.” Well, sort of. It might be worthy of mention that George Floyd’s appeared, too. What do these three people have in common? They were members of a disempowered demographic, killed by representatives of the government. Anything more than that is a reach, but I can find nothing to suggest Waters offered any further commentary. Is it is reasonable surmise that he was being deliberately provocative? Absolutely. Anti-Israel? Probably. Antisemitic? That’s a big stretch.
Finally, of course, there’s von Schnurbein’s job title. There’s an adage that if your only tool is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. That saying’s first cousin is that if your job is to hammer things, you damned well better find some nails (stage whisper) even if there aren’t any real ones to find.
Some of these explanations apply also to Deborah Lipstadt (although she’s old enough to remember the movie from its first run). Her title is the U.S. Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat Antisemitism, so that parallel to von Schnurbein tracks. But her re-tweet of her EU counterpart, complete with accusing Waters of “despicable Holocaust distortion” is more problematic for at least two reasons.
First off, is she accusing Waters of distorting the Holocaust or of re-creating it too accurately? People who include the word “Ambassador” in their Twitter name really should show a little more facility with the language. Secondly, by using what appears to be a government account, she placed her bosses at the State Department in a no-win situation. They were inevitably going to be asked whether they supported her outburst. The least bad of their alternatives would have been to offer literally no comment, or to say something like “Ms. Lipstadt expressed her own views. The US government takes no official position on this matter.”
But, of course, they opted to butt in, declaring in a statement not attributable to any specific individual (!) that Waters’s Berlin concert “contained imagery that is deeply offensive to Jewish people and minimized the Holocaust” and that “The artist in question has a long track record of using antisemitic tropes to denigrate Jewish people.”
The Reuters article notes that “The department did not respond to follow up questions, including whether officials had viewed the concert and in what form, and did not give examples of Waters’ alleged use of antisemitic tropes.” Meow.
An unidentified reporter at a subsequent press briefing pressed Principle Deputy Spokesperson Vedant Patel “to provide evidence of his past things and so on, the anti-Semitic tropes and so on? This seems to be an issue that every time there is a high-profile personality who comes out critical of Israel and in support of the Palestinians, he’s labeled as anti-Semitic.”
Patel not only fails to do so, he proclaims that “When any officials have said hurtful, problematic, dangerous things as it relates to any community, when we’ve been asked about it we have spoken out clearly.” And here, Gentle Reader, Curmie reverts to a long-held belief: If you have to tell me, it ain’t so. This is a perfect opportunity to in fact speak out clearly, and Mr. Patel obfuscates instead. He’s either an idiot or a liar. (To be fair, any governmental spokesperson who tells the truth all the time will soon be a former governmental spokesperson.)
Lastly, though not inconsequentially, what the hell business is it of the US State Department what a private English citizen does, especially if any response will likely enflame the situation?
The key consideration here is that Waters’s performance is at worst ambiguous, at best anti-authoritarian and specifically antifascist. But those in power are perfectly willing to turn on even allies who disagree on the means to an end—just ask Danton or Trotsky.
The State Department looks petulant in all this, especially in hurling what will be seen by many as scurrilous accusations against a celebrity figure openly critical of US foreign policy. The overriding concern ought to be that if you’re going to get out of your lane to smear someone, you bloody well better be certain of your facts.
Von Schnurbein, Lipstadt, et al. could conceivably be right about Waters and his performance. But the mere fact that people like Curmie see things differently ought to give the State Department pause. It didn’t. Heads should roll for this. They won’t.
No comments:
Post a Comment