Violence against Muslims in the United States is on the rise. According to the Pew Research Center's analysis of FBI hate crime statistics, there were 127 reports of "aggravated or simple assault" in 2016, compared to 93 in 2001. There is no doubt that the anti-immigrant rhetoric of the Trump administration bears part of the blame. Still, some argue that the rise of Islamophobia overplayed.
Dave Neese's Trentonian article, Beware the thought police, is a confusing labyrinth of claims against the significance of 'Islamophobia.' Neese argues that the "political left" equates Islamophobia with anti-Semitism. Without any relevant examples, his 'thought police' are fictional boogeymen. Using a handful of quotes from the Koran, he makes sweeping generalizations about Islam's supposed violent nature. These myths are repeated endlessly to the point of exhaustion. In effect, they serve to diminish the very real suffering of Muslims in order to fabricate the victimization of Islamophobes.
Islamophobia is continually weaponized to justify imperial wars and colonialism, resulting in immeasurable death and misery. Its roots can be traced back to the patronizing attitudes of European colonizers in the 18th century. During the French invasion of Egypt in 1798, Napoleon brought European scholars to study the region. They found that the "Orient," as they termed it, was exotic, barbaric, and despotic, in contrast with the enlightened and civilized West. Edward Said, a founder of post-colonial studies, said in his book, Orientalism: "European culture gained in strength and identity by setting itself against the Orient as a sort of surrogate and even underground self." European art, literature, and scholarship reflected these attitudes and popularized the mind set of empire.
Going back to crimes against indigenous people, American attitudes towards non-whites continued the tradition of European "Orientalism." British author Rudyard Kipling wrote The White Man's Burden in 1899, depicting non-white people of the global South as "half devil and half child." Kipling cheered on the United States as it colonized of the Philippines. Theodore Roosevelt said during a speech in Akron, Ohio in 1899: "In every instance the expansion has taken place because the race was a great race... in each instance it was of incalculable benefit to mankind..." In this view, non-white people of the global South were a race in decline. Their domination by white Europeans and Americans was necessary. Truly, racial attitudes have a remarkable staying power.
Jumping ahead, The Arab Mind, writen in 1973 by Raphael Patai, influenced a new generation of "Orientalists," laying the groundwork for modern day Islamophobia. The book presupposes that Arabs have obsessive and shameful attitudes towards sex. Acclaimed journalist Seymour Hersh drew a direct connection between the torture and humiliation of Arab men at Abu Ghraib prison and neoconservatives' close reading of The Arab Mind. Over 7,000 Arab prisoners were housed at Abu Ghraib prison just outside of Baghdad. many without any real evidence. Military officials believed that naked photos could be used to blackmail prisoners. Islamophobia and evidence are often at odds with each other.
Neese's argues that "plenty of influential voices" on the "political Left" equate Islamophobia with anti-Semitism. His examples are far and few between. Mentioning The Other Side: The Secret Relation Between Nazism and Zionism, a book by Palestinian President Mahmoud, Neese saya "... his thesis stating that the Holocaust was greatly exaggerated and in any event was the result of a secret relationship between Zioist Jews and Nazis." Neese doesn't mention is that Jewish philosopher Hannah Arendt made similar arguments decades ago in her book Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil. Neither does he mention the fact that Abbas recently proclaimed the Holocaust to be the "most heinous crime in history." When evidence is in short supply it is usually questionable.
Looking closer at Neese's "evidence" provide a better understanding of the ideology that is at work. Dave Neese cites Internet journalist Brendan O'Neill, who offers little more than inflammatory opinions. Either Neese hasn't done his homework, or he chooses to ignore O'Neill's problematic record. Brendan O'BNeill devotes his writing energy to such topics as defending free speech for Nazis and arguing for the "freedom to hate." In response to the 2011 Norway attacks, O'Neill wrote the article "Brevik: A Monster Made by Multiculturalism." In this article, he tries to whitewash he right wing murder so heinous that the Telegraph decided to remove it from their website. Still, numerous references to the article can be found online if you Google it. The sources that you choose to cite reveal the values of your writing.
At the end of his article, Dave Neese uses a handful of quotes from the Koran to suggest that Islam is not a "religion of peace." He goes on to argue that "There is, however, nothing in all of Judaism and Christendom that's remotely the equivalent of Al Qaeda, ISIS and myriad other jihadist groups, in either scale of operations or depths of intolerant ferociousness." As is routine, no evidence is used to back up this claim. I don't claim to be an expert in Islam, but anyone can see that religious texts offer a wide range of interpretations. In fact, Christian slave traders and slave owners often used the bible to justify slavery.
The article's lack of historical context ignores the fact that groups such as ISIS and Al Qaeda are the products of uniquely historical circumstances. During the Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan, the CIA provided weapons and funding to the Mujahideen, fueling the rise of extremism in the region. Following the 2003 invasion of Iraq, ISIS emerged partly due the horrible treatment that Sunni Muslims experienced at the hands of the U.S. puppet government of Nouri Al-Maliki. Meanwhile, the Iraq War initiated by the United States resulted in well over 100,000 deaths. Neese sets his starting point as "questioning the militant triumphalism of Jihadist Islam" in the beginning of his essay, bur strays far from the point. Manipulatively, he equates ISIS with Islam.
Regardless of the intentions, "Beware the thought police" serves as a defense of Islamophobia. In a climate of rising hatred against immigrants, asylum seekers, and refugees, these sort of arguments are unacceptable and sickening. Conflating a violent organization with a particular group of people - such as ISIS and Islam - is one of the oldest racist tricks in the book. Currently, the Trump administration is using the same tactic with MS-13 and Hispanics. The war against immigrants continues, assuming different disguises.
Dave Neese would have you think that anyone critical of his opinions are part of a 'thought police.' If there was a real 'thought police,' wouldn't he be in jail? How would he get published in a city's newspaper? Perhaps Neese should go back and read Nineteen Eighty-Four, so he can understand what George Orwell was trying to say. Ultimately, Islamophobia is more than prejudice. It is a question of power. Malcolm X once said, “If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing.” Agents of Islamophobia are oppressors, not victims.
Comments
Post a Comment