In "Russell Crowe 'sorry' over circumcision Twitter comment", the BBC News reporter briefly relates the story of Crowe tweeting the producer of his next film, who happens to be Jewish, with some bantering comments that could be, and were, construed as mocking Jewish cultural traditions, such as the wearing of the yarmulke by Jewish men. Another custom he explicitly commented on, describing it as "barbaric and stupid" (2011, ¶ 2) was brit milah, in which male Jewish babies are ritually circumcised 8 days after birth. Although Roth was not offended by Crowe's comments, the media apparently highlighted them as being offensive to Jewish custom, leading Crowe to apologise for his comment. The article also notes that San Francisco is going to vote in November on whether to ban the practice of circumcision on those under the age of 18, which move is opposed by some as it "would violate the rights of groups including Jews and Muslims who consider the practice a sacred religious rite" (¶ 13).
_____________________________
Should Crowe have apologised for his comments? Since they neither offended the person to whom they were directly addressed, and are a truth that needs to be clearly stated, Crowe should not have apologised.
First, as Roth clearly went to some trouble to make clear, he was not offended or upset by Crowe's comments about circumcision, or anything else, and taken in context, they appear neither to have been made with any deliberate intent to offend or insult, nor did they cause any such offence to Roth, to whom they were directed, albeit on a public forum. Of course, merely having no evil intent, or even a good intent, does not make something right or acceptable; for example, nice old men who still patronisingly refer to women as "pretty girls" deserve to be reprimanded for their sexist attitudes, however noble their misguided intentions might be, that it happens to be a cultural relic of the traditions that existed as normal when they grew up is no excuse for continuing to perpetrate what has long been seen as a form of unjust prejudice.
But of course, Crowe was not indulging any unfounded prejudice. He voiced his joking anti-Jewish remark on solid grounds: sexually mutilating babies and children, male or female, is barbaric and is stupid. That it happens to have been some people's religious tradition for a few thousand years does not, and never could, make it right. Slavery also existed for several thousand years, and is still alarmingly widespread today, even in the highly developed United States of America (Dodson, 2005). It does not follow that there is anything so wonderful about slavery that the modern practise of it should not be roundly condemned as barbaric and evil wherever and whenever it occurs, whether the US, Burma, sub-Saharan Africa, where is continues to be culturally accepted, or anywhere else. Nor it is made right by the fact that slavery has solid religious support from Judaism, Christianity and Islam, and apparently also from Buddhism and Hinduism, which did not oppose it when practised in Thailand and elsewhere for centuries. Religious approval, or disapproval, is generally irrelevant to moral right and wrong, as the example of slavery clearly attests. The fact is that circumcision is arguably a barbaric and stupid custom, and its religious and cultural allies cannot alter that fact, so Crowe was right both to honestly state his opinion to that effect, and in what he stated.
That the media made a typically misleading exaggeration of his remarks is at best a dubious reason for Crowe to have apologised for peacefully making a true statement that needs to be made. He should not have apologised for telling a truth that may, and apparently did, offend some people. However, he should now apologise for having apologised for having spoken an important truth about an ugly cultural tradition of child abuse.
__________
References
Russell Crowe 'sorry' over circumcision Twitter comment. (2011, June 14). BBC News. Retrieved June 16, 2011 from http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-13761834
This is an example of a blog post based on an article from the BBC News. Like any other post responding to an article, there is a short paragraph to introduce the source, followed by a summary, which for a BBC News article is likely to be pretty short.
ReplyDeleteBut what comes next is not a the usual very free response writing; it is, rather, a full essay, albeit short, with a clear introduction that ends with a thesis statement that has to be supported, a body that supports the thesis, and a conclusion. And of course, it is likely that some support from sources will be necessary, requiring both citations in the essay and entries for those cited sources in the list of references at the end of the essay.
I'm not familiar with circumcision but from an episode of Sex and the City, not a very good source to refer to here though .. anyhow, it made me thought circumcision is to be encouraged. So, I did a quick research. Apparently, I was wrong, it was such a cruel thing to do to a very young kid. I don't understand why that exists.
ReplyDeleteOn freedom of speech, when it comes to people in the lime light, it is even more difficult for them to speak freely. The society always puts such a high pressure on them since celebrities are assumed to be highly influential. I understand why people went outrageous on this incident, yet, it is not sensible for a man to watch his every word just because he is touching on sensitive topics, for example, religions, races, and politic.
I am confused now about how far we could go, with speaking freely. I still am not convinced by the idea that we must tolerate any offensive comments because the principle of freedom of speech is far more important. I hope we get a chance to read more on this topic so that I can agree or disagree with Dworkin whole-heartily.