The truly heinous thing, of course, is the horrendous loss of life taken by terrorists of any stripe, whether they’re backpack-bomb-carrying teenagers or bomber pilots in billion-dollar planes.
But there’s a subsidiary annoyance that gnaws at me increasingly: the demand when a bomb goes off – unless it’s one of ours – that all Muslims drop whatever they’re doing and condemn violence by Islamic extremists.
Are you white? Or male? Raise your hand if you’ve formally condemned the actions of Eric Rudolph. I know I haven’t gotten around to it, and Rudolph’s actions disgust me to the point that I’d find it hard to turn down an offer to compact his septum with a coal shovel. I have lived with my wife Becky for 16 years, and she’s Asian, and yet I haven’t once heard her formally denounce Aum Shinrikyo’s 1995 poison gas attack on the Tokyo subway.
We have been granted the courtesy, by society at large, of the assumption that we abhor acts of mass murder.
But mainstream liberals and racist reactionaries alike have no problem demanding ritualistic condemnations and apologies from Muslims when an extremist splinter of that massive, mindbogglingly diverse religion commits mass murder. And I have to say I expect it from the reactionaries. But I’m naive enough to be stunned when people who claim to be liberals trot out arguments that closely parallel demands for black obeisance issued by the likes of the White Citizens Councils.
And when such people – like the truly execrable “Jen,” whose rantings are displayed in the first of those links above – are presented with evidence that prominent Muslim clerics have in fact denounced the murders, and floridly, that somehow isn’t enough. The Jens of the world want Muslims to fine-tune their public statements painstakingly, carefully watching to see if they are being obsequious enough. “Dance, Muslim monkeys, dance! The purpose of your public life is to satisfy my desires!”
Somehow, the average Muslim is exempt from the presumption of innocence, not only in deed but in basic human sympathy. Somehow, the intense provocation of US foreign policy is considered off-topic. The Jens of the world ask why Muslims have not taken to the streets to protest suicide bombings. But mass protest sways only those people who are willing to be swayed. Bin Laden would see ten million demonstrators in the streets of Riyadh and wave a dismissive hand. But he’s not who the demonstration would really be aimed at, is he? The idea is to have all those demonstrators prostrate themselves, facing not Mecca but Jen.
I appreciate the round of rousing condemnation Muslim leaders have made of the bombing in London. I appreciate the fatwas issued against al Qaeda. And I know damn well they weren’t intended for my ears. Those admonitions are meant for the angry young men and women in their communities, one ten-thousandth of whom might be tempted to take up the gun. I presume that Muslims are human beings first. They owe me no apology, bowing, nor scraping, and they do not need to avert their eyes from mine when they pass me on the sidewalk. Anyone who says otherwise might as well don a white sheet.
[Also posted at Creek Running North.]
I completely agree. I love it when people come up to me and automatically speak spanish (I have a decent built-in tan). I understand the vast majority of it is unintended, but it still is irksome.
OT a bit but that reminded me… sometimes people come up to me and start speaking Spanish as well, switching to English when they see my pretty much blank look. Rarely in CA, but when I was visiting NYC, for some reason almost all Spanish speakers seemed to think I should be speaking Spanish too. No clue why.
The wife of one my former employers speaks seven languages. Presumably because she looks rather much like a Barbie doll, people never assume that she speaks anything other than English. One of my favorite stories with that particular bad assumption was when she and my boss went to buy a new car, and the salesmen began conversing in Spanish about just how much they were going to screw my boss and his wife, who let them talk and talk until they were finished. Finally, she spoke up and explained to them–in Spanish–exactly why they were losing the cash sale of a top-end luxury car. Hee.
That was my reaction as well – was there a call for Christians to denounce the actions of Timothy McVeigh after the Oklahoma City bombings? Absolutely not.
What people seem to fail to understand, even after years now of educated people making the point that those involved in terrorism in the name of Allah are extremist Muslims, is that those terrorists do not follow the practices of mainstream Islam – yet all Muslims are condemned for not speaking out against the acts of this radical sect.
We don’t even know who was responsible for the London bombings yet and still people are lashing out at Muslims. Hasn’t anyone learned anything?
What gets me is that many Muslims are speaking out, and condemning terrorist actions and all that, even though they shouldn’t need to… but some people just never seem to hear them. And for some, nothing will ever be enough.
On the other hand, I do regularly see calls for non-righty Christians to stand up and speak out against the political co-opting of their beliefs. Many of those folks do, in fact, stand up and speak out … and are generally ignored by MediaCorp (or treated as man-bites-dog curiosities).
Chris Clarke has an excellent point, and I unreservedly recommended this diary. But I also want give credit where credit is due. I’m very glad that some Muslims do, in fact, continue to denounce the actions of the militants, and otherwise continue their thankless struggle to fight the misperception of Islam as a religion of militant fanatics.
This sort of thing has always bothered me.
And I’m sure if I check I’ll find that she ranted against Christians for not doing anything when Muslims were being slaughtered in Serbia.
But, of course, we just don’t understand. It’s not the same because if any Muslim commits a terrorist act, then all Muslims must be held responsible but a terrorist act by a Christian is just an isolated action by a fringe element. (Actually, this is an illustration of the principle that bad actions by the less powerful always represent the entire group while the same type of actions by the more powerful are just isolated events and its corollary that good actions by the less powerful prove nothing about that group while good actions by the more powerful always demonstrate their essential worthiness.)
(Actually, this is an illustration of the principle that bad actions by the less powerful always represent the entire group while the same type of actions by the more powerful are just isolated events and its corollary that good actions by the less powerful prove nothing about that group while good actions by the more powerful always demonstrate their essential worthiness.)
That’s so perfect. I wish I’d said that.
In fact, I probably will!
Well, thank you. I’m not sure so sure about the perfection since I thought the phrasing was a tad awkward but I’m sure you can spiff it up.
Short Version:
A Christian psychopath is a psychopath.
A NonChristian psychopath is a NonChristian.
rearrange classifications to fit circumstance.
This is just a snapshot of how real identity politics works. There’s been WASP identity politics since the before the first Colonists set sail, much less landed here. But it’s only when minorities, women, gays, etc. start thinking about what it’s done to them that the term gets invented.
The dominant group is assumed be universal, not a group with its own characteristics. Thus any bad acts are construed as exceptions, in opposition to the universal. But subdominant groups are assumed to be deviant–they’re subdominant for a reason, they lack something. Thus any bad acts are presumed as evidence of why they are subdominant.
The essential logic of liberalism is universal inclusion. It’s an internal logic, that only gets fully applied because of external pressure from radicals and excluded groups. But as soon as liberals started talking about universal rights, it wasn’t that hard for all the excluded to say, “Hey, that’s me!”
And this is why conservatives demonize liberals along with outgroups like gays or Muslims or immigrants, or whoever. All that is to be expected. What’s really irksome is the liberal laggard syndrome, in which certain liberals have to be dragged kicking and screaming to the logical conclusion that universal inclusion includes everyone.
The solution to this problem is to replace the liberal-conservative dialogue with a liberal-radical dialogue. The liberal-conservative dialogue of the early 1800s gave us the fantasy of African colonization as a solution to “the slave problem.” The radical-liberal diaglogue that replaced it as Abolitionism gained strength gave us the abolition of slavery, and–eventually–a multiracial democracy.
It’s almost become ‘conventional wisdom’ that Muslims who had nothing to do with anything but living their own lives, somehow have the duty to accept responsibility for every nutter that does something in the name of their religion.
And that people who tend to blame all Muslims for the actions of a few have no need to explain their beliefs, or bigotry. It’s “just the way it is”.
Thankfully, there are people around to counter that stuff at every turn (which is one reason I was so relieved to see this post on your blog, that pretty much said it all).
Which reminds me, I have to plug Chris’s blog. It’s great, and I go there and just wander around from time to time. It’s one of those where it doesn’t really matter if there is not something updated for the day, because you can just click on any archive and get absorbed in some really great writing.
Thanks for posting this, Chris.
A question: Is it possible that the failure of the Left in America to mount a cohesive, sustained anti-war effort is because many “liberals” agree with the “all Moslems are suspect” theme?
Look at the outpouring of condolences for Londoners v. the lack of condolences extended to Baghdad. The mayor of London has received hundreds of thousands of emails expressing shock and grief at the murder of 52 Londoners and the injuries of hundreds more; the mayor of Baghdad’s letterbox is empty. Yet twice as many people have died in Iraq in the past week as died in the Tube bombings, and the death and deprivation of Iraqis is ongoing.
I had a student (when I was a university professor) whom I consider a liberal in all other respects who argued forcefully for bombing Afghanistan and Iraq. When I asked him why he thought so, he said, “Because THOSE PEOPLE would kill us if they could.”
THOSE PEOPLE. It seems we must always have an enemy to fight, and to hate.
Thanks for the read.
When I read this in the liberal link you posted …
… I about screamed. In what world does the Arab and/or Muslim world operate independently from Western influence? This stuff doesn’t happen in a vacuum. The world is one big complex system.
Hello… Iraq being pieced together by the Brits… the US meddling with Iran over 50 years ago… US support of the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan. Not to mention the age of colonialism as well as the modern age of corporate colonialism, where US and European companies extract the material wealth from the third world and give back only enough to prop up whatever compliant regime comes along (the rest is returned to the original countries through the World Bank and IMF). See the story of Ken Saro-Wiwa as just one heartbreaking example. Only when we stop these destructive relationships, will we be able to work to eradicate “terrorism” (whatever that is).
I should point out that the “reactionary” link is to a friend’s (very good) blog, and the reactionary is a rather odious racist commenter – not the blog owner.
I was editing an environmental journal when Ken Saro-Wiwa’s story was unfolding, and few tragedies have hit me as hard as his execution – not the Bush win in 2004, even.
Chris, the commentator to whom you refer is Jen–Steve Gilliard’s “better half” and one of the two co-editors listed for the blog (besides Steve).
The line on the banner of Steve Gilliard’s blog reads: “Steve and Jen bring you this daily review of the news”
As such, Jen is not an ordinary commentator on the blog, but rather one of the two people responsible for its content. And Steve Gilliard hiimself said that he agrees with Friedman: “Tom Friedman makes sense.”
I can’t imagine that Steve does NOT agree with Jen, and that their views are more or less in accord, even if expressed a bit differently.
There are more than two sides in politics, Chris–it is not a simple “us v. them” proposition. I refuse to accept that people like the Gilliards, who have consistently expressed attitudes that are not politicallly progressive and are blatantly racist and xenophobic, are on MY side. I’m not fighting for people like them, nor with them.
I’m sorry if I have offended you by speaking thus against your friend, but that is my honest view of the Gilliards and of their blog.
Here’s exactly what the co-owner of Steve Gilliard’s blog, Jen, said:
I wanted to add my 2c to this, because it’s something that I feel strongly about, especially after watching BBC’s all-night broadcast on WLIW last night.
They had the head of the Muslim Council of London or somesuch on. He spoke for almost half an hour.
All he did was simper on about how “this is a multiethnic country; we shouldn’t point fingers, etc.”
Did he ONCE say “Islam is against this kind of behavior, it’s wrong?”
NO.
For that matter, did anyone in the UK speak out against the fatwah against Salman Rushdie?
I’m sorry, but I am sick of the kneejerk reaction of most of the Left when these omissions are pointed out. It results in some kind of group Tourette’s: BLAH BLAH IRAQ BLAH FUCK RACIST BLAH TOLERANCE BLAH BLAH ISRAEL YADDA YADDA XTIAN FUNDIES SHIT…..
Just for once…let’s see ONE mainstream, high-exposure Muslim cleric come out and say that suicide bombing is wrong. For the time being, let’s give ’em a pass on the whole honor killing-forced marriages-women not being allowed-to drive/vote/wear shorts thing.
If members of Islamic communities want to be seen as integrated parts of the countries that they live in, doing something as basic as NOT supporting–openly or tacitly–a misogynistic blood cult is a start. When the leader of a large community in London can’t find anything to say other than “oooh, please, don’t blame us” (and you’re racist pigs if you do, vile infidels, seems to be the subtext here) then those leaders are not doing their jobs.
If a white guy and/or Jew sneezes and accidentally gives some kid in the Middle East a head cold, a mixed race crowd of 40,000 shows up to protest. Seeing just a leeeeeetle bit of that kind of self-criticism and introspection in the Muslim world is what Friedman is calling for, and rightly so.
http://stevegilliard.blogspot.com/
… but this kind of logic is the precursor to justifying genocide. You can easily take chunks of it and substitute Jews for Muslims and you would think it was something written by a Nazi propagandist.
This:
is the dictionary definition of losing it. And not in a good way.
The whole “rational” pretense behind this rant is totally ripped to shreds with this idiotic persecution-of-the-innocents fantasy. But it follows effortlessly from all that went before.
I know who Steve and Jen are.
The commentator to whom I refer is Harry Eagar, a racist jerk who frequents my friend PZ Myers’ blog Pharyngula.
Ah, I see.
But Jen’s statement reads like something one could find at FreeRepublic. It would fit in very well with there. I find her statement quite offencive, but at least she’s honest about her views and doesn’t try to sugarcoat it. You can’t say you don’t know her attitude about Moslems or where she stands on this issue, that’s for certain.
Agreed.
It’s the Borg mindset, by civilized they mean absorbed.
I noticed, too, that when our government listed potential terrorist organizations in this country, they conveniently left off the far right wing Christian Identity and other hate groups who fed hatred to the likes of Tim McVey and Eric Rudolph.
MANY liberals complained about that. Christian extremism is definitely something the left is aware of.
They use so-called Christianity as a device to justify spewing neo-Nazi hate. I’ve met a couple of skin-head types like this that make the Family Research Council set sound like Democrats by comparison.
The xenophobia is astounding. It is abundantly clear that even among self described liberals, progressives, etc, there is a belief that all Muslims are “other” and are some kind of monolithic entity. It’s far more potentially destructive but it reminds me of statements like, “as a black person, don’t you think that…” or “as a woman…” It’s as if any “minority” has some responsibility to think a certain way, to “represent” certain values, and identify with their “community.” When do we all just get to be people, you know, the way white men are people?
Now, isn’t that the question of the ages?
Everytime Israel does something wrong every Jew in America is called upon to denounce the very existance Israel or be considered a Likud apologist. WHat you are seeing is the domination of America by Christian ideology. If you are Christian then you are mainstream and so are not expected to take responsibility for your extremists. But if you are Jewish or Muslim, then you are seen as part of an outsider group and lumped together with all other members of that outside group, including extremists. It is kind of like how it used to be a common question for famous black Americans–what are you doing to help blacks, as if all blacks are expected to be responsibile for eachother.
(which stands for “For What It’s Worth” – than ks BS = Buffalo Springfield):
among those I have condemned
Eric Rudolph
Timothy McVeigh
The Nuremberg Files website
Kathy Boudin (whom I knew slightly)
James Kopp
Joseph Paul Franklin
William Pierce
Bernard Goetz
I could go on and on, but you should get the point
I regularly condemn violence, and while I may seek to understand and explain why some feel called to use it, that does not mean I accept their justifications.
Oh, and by the way
I condemn George Bush
I condemn Donald Rumsfeld
I condemn Dick Cheney
wouldn’t this be more equivalent to asking Muslims to condemn terrorists of their own?
Not in my view, no. Mind you, various public and private Muslims do condemn terrorism and violence, on a regular basis, whether they are asked to or not.
The point is the apparent “guilty until proven innocent” view of Muslims in general, that unless they are condemning terrorism – loudly and often, and preferably prostrating themselves before the public – that they are then “supporters of terrorism”, and thus automatically suspect. Or, even if they do condemn, may as well suspect them anyway.
I would assume that whether you do or do not publically condemn McVeigh or Rudolph or Bush, that people who see you don’t take upon themselves the instant authority to demand that you do, or to threaten you with violence or force just because you may be of the same hue as the above, or belong to one of their religious sects. It’s also probable that you can walk down the street, and be assumed totally unrelated to any terrorist at all, until you prove people wrong by committing some sort of violent act or something.
You are accorded the right to be an individual, and to be judged (in the public eye) on your individual actions, for the most part. There is no reason that every person who practices Islam, or any other religion should not be treated in the same way.
Phrases like “We categorically reject blah blah blah violence” out of politicians or “We condemn mass murder” out of your Muslim-on-the-spot only makes me think “Bullsh*t. Of course you do. That’s like saying ‘That water sure is wet’, or ‘I like pie.’ Not sh*t Sherlock. Get the hell off my airwaves with that crap. Why are you trying to convince?”
You wanna throw off the terrorists? Get Blair on the tele with a message like this:
“We categorically endorse the indiscriminate bombing of our own citizens. Here in the UK, we do not tolerate discrimination on any grounds. We thank you for your pains and careful planning to avoid targeting based on racial or social divides.
“As for the bombing, we’ll have you know we are killing YOUR civilians faster than you are killing ours here in the western world. We look forward to continuing the status quo.”
Yea. So why do our leaders need to come out and give condemnations, and why do our pundits require all muslims to repeat some form of bullshit creed?
“I affirm I am not some misanthropic loonie. I will avoid detonating my self and others in showy displays of terrorist action. I also affirm that I believe that those who do make themselves into human mortars have no damn business doing so.”