Muslims as Model Minority?
Racism Review has an excellent post up right now about the western worldview presented in the recent Gallup press book, Who Speaks for Islam? What a Billion Muslims Really Think
(by John Esposito and Dalia Mogahed, who must be Gallup’s token Muslim). The book is interesting, as it, at first glance, seems to be an innocuous presentation of an alternative view–alternative to the typical Islamphobia–of Muslims, in comparison to the western media.
A closer look, as provided by Racism Review, shows the true nature of the book, a typical liberal “us vs. them” mentality–in stark contrast to Islamophobia but far from xenophilia as well. Case in point:
When asked to describe their dreams for the future, Muslims don’t mention fighting in a jihad, but rather getting a better job. . . . Muslims and Americans are equally likely to reject attacks on civilians as morally unjustified. . . . Those who condone acts of terrorism are a minority and are no more likely to be religious than the rest of the population. . . .
“Muslims and Americans”…”than the rest of the population”…This is reminiscent of the “they’re just like us” rhetoric spewed from the mouths of wannabe anti-racists in reference to other “minorities” over the past couple of decades.
Joe of Racism Review writes:
The strong and ethnocentric dichotomy throughout the summary is very revealing. There is the odd phrasing the Gallup folks use a couple of times: “Muslims and Americans.” And they carry out this dichotomy in describing (unmodified) “Muslims” and “Americans” as having similar values and views, but again without making it clear that millions of Muslims are indeed Americans. Apparently it does not occur to them that one can be both Muslim and American, all across the U.S.
So, does the book move somewhat in the right direction? Sure…there is encouragement to bridging gaps, learning about others, etc. But even if books like these lead white people (because that’s what this is mostly about, right?) to view Muslims in a more positive light, it still pushes them to view Muslims as “The Other,” implying that the best they’ll ever achieve in this country is model minority status.
Word.
The poll took place in Muslim-majority countries and countries with significant Muslim populations. Americans were polled, but less than 3% of Americans are Muslim, so it's safe to say that most American respondents in the poll are non-Muslim.
It's an interesting poll. Thank you for writing about it. I think it answers some important questions and I think all non-Muslims, especially conservative Christians who fear Islam, should understand its findings:
'Are we on the verge of an all-out war between the West and 1.3 billion Muslims? When the media searches for an answer to that question, they usually overlook the actual views of the world's Muslims.
Who Speaks for Islam? is about this silenced majority. This book is the product of the Gallup World Poll's massive, multiyear research study. As part of this groundbreaking project, Gallup conducted tens of thousands of interviews with residents of more than 35 nations that are predominantly Muslim or have significant Muslim populations.
Gallup posed questions that are on the minds of millions: Is Islam to blame for terrorism? Why is there so much anti-Americanism in the Muslim world? Who are the extremists? Where are the moderates? What do Muslim women really want?
Grounded in Gallup World Poll data, not in contentious rhetoric, Who Speaks for Islam? brings data-driven evidence — the voices of a billion Muslims, not those of individual "experts" or "extremists" — to one of the most heated and consequential debates of our time.
Who speaks for the West?
Muslims around the world do not see the West as monolithic. They criticize or celebrate countries based on their politics, not based on their culture or religion.
Dream jobs
When asked to describe their dreams for the future, Muslims don't mention fighting in a jihad, but rather getting a better job.
Radical rejection
Muslims and Americans are equally likely to reject attacks on civilians as morally unjustified.
Religious mainstream
Those who condone acts of terrorism are a minority and are no more likely to be religious than the rest of the population.
Admiration of the West
What Muslims around the world say they most admire about the West is its technology and its democracy — the same two top responses given by Americans when asked the same question.
Critique of the West
What Muslims around the world say they least admire about the West is its perceived moral decay and breakdown of traditional values — the same responses given by Americans when posed the same question.
Gender justice
Muslim women want equal rights and religion in their societies.
Respect
Muslims around the world say that the one thing the West can do to improve relations with their societies is to moderate their views toward Muslims and respect Islam.
Clerics and constitutions
The majority of those surveyed want religious leaders to have no direct role in crafting a constitution, yet favor religious law as a source of legislation.'
I think you are reading a lot into what is most likely just a poor choice of words. The title of the book makes it clear that he is talking about Muslims worldwide, since there aren't one billion Muslims in the US. I agree he perhaps should have said "Muslims worldwide and non-Muslim Americans." When you go looking for evidence of racism where none really exists, and discredit a book that may very well be a needed eye-opener for non-Muslims everywhere, it makes it seem you are less interested in finding solutions and more interested in self-righteous outrage. There is nothing more "liberal" than that.
You ignore your own advice when you say "even if books like these lead white people (because that’s what this is mostly about, right?)…" Why, are white people the only Americans? Aren't blacks and hispanics Americans too? Are white people the only Americans who need a (re)education about Muslims?
I think when she mentions white people she takes on a sarcastic tone…and even if she wasn't being sarcastic, white people dominate our government and media. Therefore, when they are convinced that Muslims are not out to destroy their lives, they might actually be able to do something about the misrepresentation of Muslims or Islam, or at least make well informed policy decisions.
I highly doubt the people who run our government and media take 10 percent of the bullshit they spew out about Muslims seriously. This is just the usual lies and propaganda used to justify wars and oppression. Nothing personal, it's just business. They are perfectly willing to lionize Muslims when it suits their purposes, such as the Afghan mujahedeen who were described by Ronald Reagan as the "moral equivalent of the Founding Fathers" when they were killing Russians and are now terrorist scum when they are shooting at us. When the goal was to break up the last non-aligned country in Europe, they suddenly became fast friends with Bosnian Muslim and Croatian Catholic separatist leaders. Again, just business.
The problem is a lot of people in America believe the bullshit to a dangerous degree and support the very leaders responsible for it, but then there are also a lot of Americans who recognize what's going on and reject primitive and racist views of the Muslim world. The goal is to educate Americans who are open-minded and willing to change their views, and to do that, you need to stop seeing Americans in monolithic terms or seeing the depravity and corruption of our leaders and mass media as synonymous with our culture. It isn't.
"When the goal was to break up the last non-aligned country in Europe, they suddenly became fast friends with Bosnian Muslim and Croatian Catholic separatist leaders."
Your interpretation of this piece of history neglects to mention the genocide of hundreds of thousands of Muslims. Its interesting how you sympathize with the "last non-aligned country in Europe" instead of the Muslims who were being murdered. Are Muslims only a convenient tool for American leftists when they chant "death to America"? I'm afraid to ask what you think of the Iranians who are revolting against Khamenei's regime or the Iraqis who work for Maliki's government.
A couple years back, former President Bush visited Albanian, a country with a huge Muslim population, and received a hero's welcome. The same thing happened in Tanzania and other sub-saharan Africa countries, where Islam is a major religion. America has stood up to defend Islam time and time again, yet you don't want to acknowledge it.
Its not Albanian…
Its Albania.
Its people are called Albanian.
I'm afraid to ask what you think of the Iranians who are revolting against Khamenei's regime or the Iraqis who work for Maliki's government.
I think Sean was one of the crew here who were claiming Iran had a better domocracy than the US does, a year or so back. That was in a discussion about how HAMAS was democratically elected so the US was morally bound to treat HAMAS as if it were a legitimate government, as I recall. Sean is always ready to give bad guys the benefit of the doubt, and insist that everyone else should as well.
But that doesn't stop him from criticizing somebody like Ronald Reagan for doing the exact same thing. Actually, its not the exact same thing, though. The Muj in Afghanistan were not slaughtering civilians as far as I know. They were a legitimate resistance, until the Russians left and the Taliban took over.
You're lying again, Craig.
Bullshit I'm lying. I clearly recall Arayus and you have a little back-patting session about how great Iran's democracy was. Of course, that was before the election fiasco but that doesn't mean you get to pretend you never shared those opinions with us, Sean :p
The opinion you attribute to me is absurd. You're lying as usual, Craig. If not, prove it.
Sean, are you seriously claiming that anyone who points out any of your many absurd positions must be lying? lol
I'm not going to waste my time "proving" that you said something you said, Sean. You said something a week or two back that I immediately challenged and demanded you either prove the claim or retract it. You ignored me. In 6 months if I bring it up you'll pretend you ever said it, right? Tiresome. If you don't want to own your ridiculous comments then that's your business.
Your lame excuses fool no one, Craig. You are well-known as a liar here. The reason you won't respond is because you know you are lying and there is no proof. I have no reason to disown my opinions or deny saying something I said. If I were ashamed of my opinions of Iran or anything else, I wouldn't voice them in the first place.
If I fail to respond to your usual ignorant bullshit, it's because I've already made my point and feel no further clarification of that point is necessary. Since you seem to think getting the last word in automatically makes you right, any debate with you goes on and on into the realms of absurdity and loony-tune fiction until you finally have the last word, no matter how low you have to sink or how assinine you have to get to have the final say. So in the interest of efficiency, I prefer to cut the process short by refuting your bullshit and moving on.
I have no reason to disown my opinions or deny saying something I said. If I were ashamed of my opinions of Iran or anything else, I wouldn't voice them in the first place.
Of course you had reason to be ashamed of your opinions about Iranian democracy after the events of this past summer, Sean. Unless of course you enjoy endorsing one of the world's worst tyrannical regimes as a "democracy"
You are well-known as a liar here.
Really? And who knows me as a liar, here? KABOBfest propagandists? Isn't that accusing the opposition of lying the first line of defense for a propagandist? In fact, isn't that the *only* defense available to a propagandist? Why do you think propagandists never go "off message", Sean?
Enough with your excuses. Put up or shut up, chump.
To quote you: blah blah blah
Like I said, put up or shut up, chump. You called me a liar, and refuse to provide the evidence because you know your accusations are bogus, like most of what your write here.
I agree with the general , the US has helped Muslims from time to time, but not because they were Muslim, rather because it was the right thing to do. It's misguided to think that the US government hates Muslims and Islam. Sure, there is a (growing) wing in the US that does, but most Americans simply don't realise the consequences of their government's actions, such as Iraq.
If the goal is to educate he more open-minded Americans, then why are we watering it down with such rhetoric and why aren't they seeking it out independently? Is it really a Muslim's job to re-educate racists? That's a highly questionable viewpoint.
People are seeking information out independently, Jillian. I see literally hundreds of websites out there, written by "white people," challenging the assumptions of Islamophobia. Not everyone is a critical thinker, and it is extremely difficult for anyone, even a critical thinker, to challenge their beliefs and accept that they may be wrong. It is not the norm, in my view, that this process occurs unassisted.
If you believe that people won't seek a view contrary to their own opinions independently, and it is not the duty of Muslims to educate people about Islam, then whose duty is is to educate people? How else do racists become ex-racists?
Sean, I'm not saying that no one is seeking a view contrary to their own opinions. What I'm saying is, "why dumb it down?" Why not present this same data without having to cater to the lowest common denominator?
The topic of education is a complex one, I'll give you that – and of course, when it comes to children, it's a different story…we SHOULD be educating them from the get-go to be anti-racist. But why make excuses for adults who are capable of thinking critically? Why should we accept the status quo?
I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "dumbing it down" or "appealing to the lowest common denominator." It is easy when you are intelligent, educated, and have access to the Internet and alternative viewpoints, to assume everyone has the same agency that you have, but they don't. People are limited in their choice-making ability by their educational level, life circumstances and access to views contrary to their own. To the extent that many people get their opinions from the media, they simply are not being given the tools to see events in a different light then the one they are essentially being brainwashed to have.
I don't feel it is "making excuses" for people so much as recognizing reality and dealing with it accordingly. You can condemn people for their ignorance, or you can try to educate them and make them see things in a way they never considered before. While I am certainly guilty of the former, at least in principle I prefer the latter.
As for educating the kiddies I am all for that, but I have seen what kind of "education" on race my nieces and nephews have gotten in school: white people are evil, white culture is inherently racist, we all should feel guilty for what the white man has done to others, etc. While the crimes perpetrated against minorities are things every American needs to learn about, I see no reason why my nieces and nephews should be made to feel guilty for these things, as it was not their family, their generation or their people (Irish) that were responsible for these things. The belief in collective responsibility is itself a form of racism. I also don't think that we should selectively address "white" racism while ignoring racism from other ethnicities and cultures, whether here or abroad. The emphasis on "white" to the exclusion of all else strikes me as suspect, especially since many of the people pushing this selective view are, in fact, extremely hostile and racist in their attitudes towards whites. This is particularly true with regard to Islamophobia, which I am reasonably certain afflicts black and hispanic Americans to near the degree it does whites.
Are you claiming to be an open-minded person, Jillian? It sure looks that way
I'm wondering, have you ever looked up the term?
Yes, Craig, I'm quite open-minded. If I weren't, then I would believe all the bullshit the American media spews, would I not?
That's a non-sequitur. Since when is being deeply cynical and openly biased considered evidence of being "open-minded"? I suppose you'd argue the KKK which believes Jews run the US Government are also "open-minded"?
I don't think it's fair to dismiss this as a "poor choice of words." The claim is not that the authors of the book are malicious racists. The claim is that the conception of racism the book combats is limited to the idea that Muslims are "different." But racism, as an idea and as a political force, is actually much more potent and expansive than simple malice. The poll questions are basically framed in a way that is supposed to assimilate non-American Muslims into a distinctly (white, middle class) American political and economic worldview, rather than address or understand those Muslims on their own terms. The concept of a "silenced majority" still dismisses all major Muslim political and spiritual leaders as aberrations or exceptional. The article's focus on "Muslim" and "American" not being mutually exclusive is not the proof of that racism but one minor point that illustrates the larger problems generally associated with this approach. Muslims around the world are not white middle class Americans who love iPods, capitalism, and the US Congress, but polls like this re-draw Muslims in the image of the pollsters. It is quite possible that the "silenced majority" that responded to this poll in a way that benefits the authors' agenda are the same "silenced majority" that also support Hizballah, Hamas, and the resistance to US imperialism in Iraq and Afghanistan, and for that matter, US and European meddling in the rest of the Muslim world. And by "support" I mean "support militant resistance." Exploring why that cross-over exists seems to me to be the more important task in challenging anti-Muslim racism than in pretending that they're secretly "on our side" — which is the same logic propping up the conventional wisdom that US troops would be greeted as liberators in Iraq. A poll is not going to refute the widespread expression of Muslim concerns in newspapers, television, art, literature, and religion.
The poll questions are basically framed in a way that is supposed to assimilate non-American Muslims into a distinctly (white, middle class) American political and economic worldview, rather than address or understand those Muslims on their own terms.
You're right, Yaman. However, you can't have it both ways. If you really want "white people" to address or understand Muslims on their own terms, then you can't call "white people" racists, when they attempt to do so. It's implied when dealing with somebody as an equal that they are capable of handling criticism, is it not? That's how "white people" have been conditioned to respond to the race-card so effectively, you know… call them bigots every time they say something the least bit critical and you end up with patronizing silence. Which is very far from equality.
I don't agree that the poll is aimed at comparing the values of middle class Americans to those of Muslims so much as trying to refute inaccurate and racist views that many Americans, not just white, hold towards Muslims based on the propaganda they have been fed by the media and government. Forget for the moment what white people or anyone else think of themselves or their own culture, but strictly how they have been taught to view the Muslim world, and what aspects of that view are racist. To improve understanding of Muslims, a first task is necessarily going to have to be to refute those racist views. I remember reading somewhere some Israeli minister saying Israeli boys aspire to run their own tech firms when they grow up, while Palestinian kids aspire to be suicide bombers. This is the kind of racist nonsense that must be addressed. The poll proves that not only are Muslims not pathologically averse to democracy, do not support terrorist attacks against civilians and do favor equal rights, but their attitudes towards these things are similar to most Americans (and here, I see no reason to assume "white" in any of this). Is this a comprehensive view of what Muslims in general are all about? Probably not, but I think it serves the purpose of refuting a lot of the outright lies and distortions we are fed about Muslims, and that is of extreme importance.
I agree with you that a deeper and more nuanced understanding of the "Muslim world" (which is hardly monolithic) is in order, but I don't agree the failure to achieve that is somehow racist. I don't believe in racism by default. It is impossible for any human being to truly understand another human being, let alone an entire culture. I don't even fully understand myself, let alone the culture I live in. Does this make the failure to grasp what Muslims might or might not perceive to be the essential characteristics of their culture an example of racism? I think not. Do you think you could get a consensus definition of what Islamic culture is from three different Muslims?
This is what I mean by looking for racism where none exists. Someone takes a step in the right direction trying to understand Islam and get others to understand it, and most importantly refute racist stereotypes, and you slam them for it. This doesn't promote understanding and acceptance. You are particularly not going to win any friends or influence people when it comes to changing attitudes towards Muslims if you perceive making comparisons to white culture to be inherently wrong—whatever the hell "white culture" is. White people are no different than others in that we also get pissed when we see our perceived culture portrayed in monolithic, and usually racist, terms.
…based on the propaganda they have been fed by the media and government.
You've got a lot of nerve, complaining about propaganda, Sean. Considering you spend most of your time on this website endorsing and promoting your own version of propaganda. For instance, look at how you continue to cite the Lancet Report even though it was discredited years ago, and even though it's off by more than an order of magnitude when compared to the actual verified numbers? And you persist with it even after having been corrected. That's gotta be a deliberate and malicious misinformation on your part.
blah blah blah blah
If you are making the assertion that the Lancet reports i false, then provide your proof that the Lancet report has been debunked, Craig. Not criticized, not questioned, but proven to be false. Then I want to see your proof that the Iraqi government's estimates have been verified and proven to be accurate. Since you are so convinced, this shouldn't be hard to do.
In order for the Lancet to be true, the "resistance" would have to blow up over 250 people every day during the almost 2,500 days the United States has been in Iraq. While the heroic "Mujahideen" have slaughtered many innocent people in Baghdad aka "The Den of Spies", killing 260 people per day seems more like something Zarqawi lovers, Baathists, and others who hate the Iraqi people can only fantasize about.
Is there a point to your numerology, other than squawking about Zarqawi lovers and other nonsense?
Does it hurt getting hit with facts, Sean? Do the math yourself.
Why don't you try hitting me with one so I can see? During the Rwandan Genocide 900,000 people were killed in 100 days. That's 9,000 a day, mostly with primitive weapons like machetes and clubs. When it comes to killing people, I am pretty sure you can get the same job done more efficiently with car bombs, assault rifles, artillery and 500 lb bombs.
Countless US soldiers have died using the most advanced technology to protect Iraqi civilians from insurgents and other terrorists. Every major media organization on earth has at one time or another been in Iraq scouring the country for bad news…and nothing has suggested the scale of the Rwandan genocide.
No one stood up for the people of Rwanda…the UN ran away and the western world was too focused on the OJ Simpson trial to do anything.
Countless US soldiers have died using the most advanced technology to protect Iraqi civilians from insurgents and other terrorists.
Yeah, those 500lb bombs they drop out of highly advanced aircraft do a fine job of protecting Iraqi citizens from terrorists…by killing them before the terrorists can get to them. Destroy the village to save it, and all that.
http://abcnews.go.com/PollingUnit/story?id=679975...
In a highly unusual rebuke, the American Association for Public Opinion Research today said the author of a widely debated survey on "excess deaths" in Iraq had violated its code of professional ethics by refusing to disclose details of his work. The author's institution later disclosed to ABC News that it, too, is investigating the study.
Debunked. Took me 22 seconds to load Google and find that, Sean. You really look into the whole "search engine" phenom, buddy.
Now to further explore this issue, have you been able to locate the official report released by the government of Iraq yet? Or do you need help with that too? As I recall I you misidentified that report as coming from the US government THREE TIMES
In a highly unusual rebuke, the American Association for Public Opinion Research today said the author of a widely debated survey on "excess deaths" in Iraq had violated its code of professional ethics by refusing to disclose details of his work. The author's institution later disclosed to ABC News that it, too, is investigating the study.
Debunked. Took me 22 seconds to load Google and find that, Sean. You really look into the whole "search engine" phenom, buddy.
As always, you need to follow your own advise, "buddy."
Firstly, the AAPOR has not "debunked" this study, but criticized it on the basis that the author has allegedly not released details of his methodology to other researchers. This is patently false. The author did not release the data to AAPOR, but he has released it to other researchers, one of whom published a critical review of it in one of AAPOR's own publications.
According to New Scientist's investigation, however, Burnham has sent his data and methods to other researchers, who found it sufficient. A spokesman for the Bloomberg School of Public Health at Johns Hopkins, where Burnham works, says the school advised him not to send his data to AAPOR, as the group has no authority to judge the research. The "correct forum", it says, is the scientific literature.
…In fact, in March 2008, AAPOR's own journal, Public Opinion Quarterly, published an analysis of Burnham's Iraq survey by David Marker of Westat, a consultancy in Maryland that designs surveys. "I received the dataset they distributed. I also saw presentations they made about their methodology and they responded to a number of inquiries I made," he says.
Marker says Burnham's methods were "preferable to most of the other counting methods out there", albeit not perfect. "I suggested small changes in their procedures that could have produced more easily defensible results, including procedures called for by AAPOR."
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16555-what-...
Secondly, AAPOR is an organization of opinion poll takers, not mortality researchers. Neither Gilbert Burnham or the Johns Hopkins University are members of this organization, and thus are not subject to its code of ethics. It is interesting that many have reported asking AAPOR to release details of its own investigation into the Lancet Report, only to be refused.
So at best, you have an accusation of an "ethics violation" against an individual not subject to the AAPOR's code of ethics, which accusation is itself based on the disproven claim that the author has failed to share his dataset and methodology with others. Even if all the allegations are true, which they are not, this still doesn't somehow disprove the study.
The lack of such procedures, he says, "doesn't invalidate their estimates, but opens them up to attack from those who don't like their results.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16555-what-...
Now to further explore this issue, have you been able to locate the official report released by the government of Iraq yet? Or do you need help with that too? As I recall I you misidentified that report as coming from the US government THREE TIMES
I didn't misidentify anything. I am not familiar with any study on Iraq war casualties conducted by the US government. In fact, the US Army has been quoted as saying "we don't do body counts." I said that the figures you quoted are those usually quoted by the US government and the media, and I would argue that this is because they are the lowest, not because they are the most reliable. The Lancet study, by contrast, has been peer-reviewed, and a study by Opinion Research Business using different methodology arrived at the same conclusions.
I am still waiting for you to produce that study by the Iraq government and prove it has been verified by independent researchers. If this is your standard of "proof," I suspect I'll be waiting in vain.
Sean, you've never bothered to retract your assumptions about my point-of-view or class, nor have you attempted to engage in a discussion about white racism. You derail the conversation because you don't like the fact that when I say "white" that includes you. It includes me, too, Sean, but the difference is that I'm aware that most white people are a product of their environment…their institutionally racist environment.
I never made any assumptions about your class, Jillian. I said it has been my experience that most people pushing the white privilege line come from a higher socioeconomic background than I do. I made no assumptions about your class, as I know nothing about you. But if I came across that way, then I apologize.
I don't see how expressing an opinion contrary to yours constitutes "derailing" the conversation, nor do I see how I have failed to engage in a conversation about white racism, unless you assume your opinion is gospel and mine is just "rhetoric" whose sole purpose is to obfuscate. I have invited you to explain the concept of white privilege to me and how it functions to benefit the white underclass. That is hardly a refusal to engage in debate. I am perfectly willing to discuss "white" racism and every other kind of racism as well, just don't expect it to be on your terms, or expect it to be politically correct. I am also willing to discuss anti-white racism, particularly of the kind pushed by academic liberals, and why I think many of these academic theories of race have an agenda behind them.
It includes me, too, Sean, but the difference is that I'm aware that most white people are a product of their environment…their institutionally racist environment.
Actually, it doesn't "include you too", Jillian. You've already disowned white people a long time ago. How many times do you have to point out that you feel closer to Arabs than you do to American whites before people believe it? Isn't the fact that you have such obvious distaste for your own people pretty good evidence that you are the most close-minded of all? Or to your twisted way of thinking is that self-loathing evidence that you are open to other cultures? lol. How can you be open to other cultures when you have rejected your own? Isn't that like the old saying that people who don't love themselves aren't capable of loving others?
Programmer Craig, I rejected Christian values and the people who hold them, not white people. Get your shit straight.
Jillian, we had a pretty lengthy discussion about this quite some time ago. When you say "christian values", you mean "western values". And "western values" = European whites. You've been quite clear about it, both in the discussion where you claimed to relate to Arabs better than you do American whites, and on the many cases where you've unfairly savaged whites in the US. If you want to pretend its just Christianity you have a problem with that's your business, but that doesn't mean people have to take what you say at face value
Well, I agree with your last comments about there being no monolithic "white culture," but I don't think the only possible reactions to such a poll are to support or to slam. If the pollsters intervention is meant to criticize and displace some harmful notions, so too is Jillians, or mine. I don't think we undermine each other. I agree that it has some "positive" role, or whatever — but I also think it plays a negative role.
Yo, link to the article by Racism Review!
Great post. Can you please provide the link to the article?
Oh no! Sure, my bad.
close
kill all Muslims in Iraq and Afghanistan and keep on fighting should be an allot war if im honest would be good : ) lol…
He must be a "resistance" operative
thanks for the post.
i think your analysis seems to be spot on… white audience, jingoist conceptions of "Muslims", etc.
yeah. these folks are just the liberal apologists for empire and occupation. they're still sticking to the "good Muslim, bad Muslim" framework. anti-imperial resistance, which is one conception of jihad, is never vindicated. it's just cast as terrorism or the murder of civilians.
although i'm a little uncomfortable where the quote from that Joe character leaves off. since it's only an excerpt i'm not sure if this is what he's getting at, but the "we're American, too!" argument is still apologetic. i never defend my "American-ness". those patriotic sentiments and thoughts belong to the terrain of imperialists. what about the Muslims who aren't American (although i think someone already made this point) ? my first foot forward would be to put US Empire on trial, and locate my people's resistance as the subjective and progressive force.
Malcolm was an expert at doing this.
my first foot forward would be to put US Empire on trial…
Not really much of a surprise you never defend your "American-ness", then, is it? lol.
You are Muslim first and American second… if you even consider yourself American at all, except in terms of what passport you get to carry. And what kind of benefits you get to accrue to yourself. You are the very counter-example to the Muslims described in this article. You are what we are fighting against. And you call that "jingoist"
By the way:
they're still sticking to the "good Muslim, bad Muslim" framework. anti-imperial resistance, which is one conception of jihad, is never vindicated. it's just cast as terrorism or the murder of civilians.
As a self-admitted "bad" Muslim, what do you call suicide bombing? Hijacking? Hostage taking? Etc? Is it really "anti-imperial resistance", in your view? Are you really going to own that ideology?
"what about the Muslims who aren't American"
What about the Americans who aren't Muslim?
i want to respond to both C.H. and programmer craig at the same time. both are raising points that are related and worth discussing, especially as broader strategic and political considerations for the Muslim, Arab, South Asian, etc community in the US.
programmer craig, i'm not sure exactly what you're inferring when you mention the "benefits" i get to accrue to myself, but i think i know what you're getting at. i'm sure you're not referring to the racial profiling i endure when i travel, or even when my democratic "rights" get stomped on by the police or other arms of official society when i organize for Palestine, or labor or education rights.
it's true i don't live under a military occupation, or live as some of the super-exploited layers of our society, such as immigrant workers or much of the black community in this country. but, i also don't take responsibility for the oppression of women, queer folks and people of color that's perpetrated by white supremacists (programmer craig, that's you), patriarchs and the rulers of this country especially when i spend a major part of my week organizing against those oppressions.
C.H. i think your question concerning those Americans who aren't Muslim raises an important point along these lines. just like Arab and Muslim societies, American society is made up of complex layers and groups. there are millions of everyday women, white, people of color, straight, men and queer folks who are just trying to get by day to day who in do not make any concerted effort to support any of the aforementioned oppressions. but there are many everyday folks who do, in addition to the rulers of this country.
my indictment of US Empire is an indictment of the latter. i certainly don't see America as one homogenous group. there are many layers stratifications and classes of people. in fact i would argue that non-Muslim Americans have a stake in fighting US Empire and occupation. why should those hundreds of millions if not billions of dollars be used to oppress people when it's clearly needed in places like the California education system? just look at how the Patriot Act attacked all Americans.
as brown folks we all know that there have certainly been political traditions who have tried to lump all Americans into the "oppressor" category, but i think multiracial and international solidarity is possible. there are Americans who can and must join the struggle.
while there are real divisions create by white supremacy, patriarchy and other oppressions between normal everyday people, they need to be torn down — not papered over or ignored — and replaced with real living links of solidarity because it's going to take an international democratic movement form below to free us all.
the debates about race theory prompted by national liberal movements, Black Power and within Marxist traditions have made rich contributions to the concrete strategic and organizational implications that serious organizers need to consider if we're to avoid repeating the same mistakes of past movements.
i think that's what you're comment was getting at. even if not, i still stand by those points.
i'll repeat though that those divisions and oppressions cannot be papered over. too many times women and people of color are told to put our particular demands on hold because it just divides the movement, but every time that happens we get left in the rain. i'm not going to stop fighting against US Empire, and if non-Muslims don't want to feel like they're being attacked then stop identifying with US Empire and join the struggle. for those of you who don't identify with and support US Emprire, you are not my enemy.
now i'm sure programmer craig is going to accuse me of justifying attacks on civilians. that's not the case. i stand opposed to the authoritarian tendencies within my community which hold those positions in the same manner i am opposed to all forms of authoritarian rule.
how many of our people have died form US bombs and US bullets? how many hundreds of thousands of us have you killed? what about the plunder of our lands? what about the rapists and dictatorships you prop up in our countries? what about the loved ones and lovers of the resistance fighters in Iraq who were taken hostage by the US military?
i'll be the last person to admit that the forms of resistance are imperfect, but that doesn't invalidate the right to resist, both armed and otherwise.
you mentioned suicide bombing. this is a very touchy subject, but i like the line out of "The Battle for Algiers" — give us a fully mechanized army and a commensurate defense budget and we won't have to resort to this.
but my opposition to suicide bombing is rooted in the fact that i want my people to live; it's rooted in the simple yet beautiful notion that i value the life of my people, a principle that racists and imperialists will never understand. i want my people to experience and enjoy life, in addition to the fact that they can accomplish so much more by a lifetime of organizing.
the racists are the ones who are mystified by this. you destroy our homes, our communities and our economies and then call us degenerate when we fight back.
i'll end by saying, programmer craig, you're right. i'm exactly what US Empire and white supremacists such as yourself are fighting against: an Arab man whose got a lot to teach you about democracy. i'm your worst fucking nightmare.
programmer craig, i'm not sure exactly what you're inferring when you mention the "benefits" i get to accrue to myself, but i think i know what you're getting at. i'm sure you're not referring to the racial profiling i endure…
Go play the intellectual-dishonesty game with somebody else.