Open bigotry

[steuard]

I'm clearly naive and idealistic, but I continue to be astounded when I see mainstream public figures spewing blatant bigotry and hate and fear. I'm not talking Mel Gibson here: his racist outbursts have generally been publicly condemned by just about everyone (including himself, in a series of increasingly threadbare attempts to apologize). I'm not even talking about the gay marriage debate for the most part: most mainstream opponents of gay rights at least make some attempt to hide their prejudice behind rational-sounding arguments. I'm talking about cases where someone makes overtly bigoted statements and substantial fractions of the public and the media nod and murmur "good point".

I probably see this sort of blatant bigotry most often in discussions of immigration, but the example that's currently making me shake my head in disbelief is the controversy about building a mosque in New York City near the World Trade Center site. Apparently (and yes, I'm sure this is old news), "National Republican leaders, like the former House speaker, Newt Gringrich, and Sarah Palin, the 2008 vice presidential nominee, assailed the proposal, calling it offensive." Their objection, as far as I can tell, is simply that because the Sept. 11 terrorists were crazy, fanatical Muslims, we shouldn't... er... let any Muslims congregate near the site? Or something?

I'll be honest: I don't even follow the supposed logic here. I have not come up with any way of understanding this position that doesn't boil down to the twin claims that "We think all Muslims are the same" and "Muslims do not deserve full citizenship in this country." The former is based on an egregious logical error. The latter is based on an astounding failure to understand our nation's bedrock principles. And both very openly reflect an unfounded hate for a specific group of people.

I do not comprehend how a mature person with any sense of public decorum would be willing to make this sort of statement repeatedly. I do not comprehend how a mature person can listen to these statements and not immediately think, "Whoa, that's over the line," the same way they do about Mel Gibson. But as noted, I'm naive and idealistic. So you jaded folks out there: how can this possibly be seen as acceptable in a civil society?

Comments

[patrissimo.livejournal.com]

When the insane clown posse blew up the school some of the kids who were killed were clown kids, and many others were friends and neighbors of clowns. Are you really willing to accept that those grieving clowns should be forbidden from attending the funeral with the rest of their community?

No one is saying that Muslims shouldn't be allowed to grieve. They are saying they shouldn't be allowed to mark the site of the school with a memorial to their religion. This is not forbidding grieving clowns from attending the funeral, it is forbidding them from building a clown school next door. Isn't it just obvious that building a clown school next door is offensive? It baffles me how you can see zero potential for offensiveness.

I won't for a moment deny that many people immediately associated "Muslim" with "terrorist" after Sept. 11, and I do understand that it may be a struggle for many people to look past that. But it is blindingly obvious that accepting and acting on that association is unethical and unfair.

Your original post was not about whether or not the mosque should be built, but whether it was in any way offensive or in any way reasonable to say it was offensive. Perhaps we should acknowledge the offensiveness, decide that the association is false, and do it anyway - I am not disagreeing with that. But that process starts with acknowledging the offensiveness, not pretending it doesn't exist.

Lots of people have a knee-jerk association between blacks and inner city crime, but our society nevertheless makes it clear that openly racist remarks and actions are unacceptable. (Even Mel Gibson is forced to apologize for them.) Why should we not demand the same level of respect for our Muslim neighbors that we do for our black ones?

Wow, what planet do you live on? Planet Politically Correct, apparently. That you, a scientist, can label an association between blacks and inner city crime, or blacks and crime in general, "knee-jerk", as if it has no statistical basis...makes me very sad at how much brainwashing in denial of reality our society has. There is nothing knee-jerk about blacks committing more crimes than whites. It is a fact. It is an uncomfortable and unpleasant fact. It is a fact that I do not believe we should build our legal policies around. But to pretend it doesn't exist just because you don't like the implications or how it could be used...that's anti-science.

Can't you see how labeling a simple statistical observation with the highly negative emotional loaded word "racist" poisons objective study? I have no problem using the word for *actions*, for *policies* - those have moral content. But to use it for observations? I can hear that you really love Fairness & Equality, but are you sure you love them more than Truth? Or that you can't have both?

[steuard.livejournal.com]

Isn't it just obvious that building a clown school next door is offensive? It baffles me how you can see zero potential for offensiveness.

Hmm. I suspect that part of our disagreement boils down to use of language (and it's very possible that I'm using it improperly). I have, I think, distinguished somehow in my mind between "causes discomfort" and "is offensive". I would never deny that having a mosque a few blocks from Ground Zero would make a substantial number of people uncomfortable. I can even see that some of them might feel anger at the idea (all due to precisely the false associations we've been talking about).

But I think that I've for some reason reserved the term "offensive" for cases where (for example) the person causing the offense has done something that requires an apology. (That's a very rough description; I'm still working through my precise usage.) If you've caused an offensive odor, you might want to apologize to others in the room. If you've made an offensive remark, you ought to apologize to the people you're hurt by doing so. But in this case, while I understand that some people may feel very uncomfortable about a mosque being built not far from Ground zero, I think they deserve sympathy and recognition of the reality of their feelings, but I don't think there's anything to apologize for. "Let's work through this together" sounds much more appropriate.

Maybe I need to fix my definitions.

Speaking of offensive, by the way, I find it deeply offensive to see how the large majority of innocent Muslims in this country and around the world have been vilified in our society by people who have fallen prey to this particular false association. I find it remarkably offensive that so many people, including public figures, have allowed themselves to hurt and hate their fellow Americans on the basis of such an easily identified logical error. I find it amazingly offensive that even after all these years, so many people in this country have refused to even consider whether this hate of all Muslims is inappropriate. And I think they owe their Muslim neighbors one hell of an apology.

That you, a scientist, can label an association between blacks and inner city crime, or blacks and crime in general, "knee-jerk", as if it has no statistical basis...makes me very sad at how much brainwashing in denial of reality our society has.

Look, I don't deny that blacks statistically commit more crimes than the population at large. Perhaps my phrasing was unclear: it might have been closer to my intent if I'd said, "Lots of people have a knee-jerk association between all blacks and inner city crime". I'm referring to people who react to that undeniable statistical fact with the unwarranted (and perhaps subconscious) conclusion that every black person they meet is dangerous. (Also, contrary to my reading of your comments, I never called the statistical fact itself "racist".)

My point had very little to do with that, however. In fact, my point is only strengthened as the link between blacks and crime (real and/or perceived) increases. Even though there's a correlation there, and even though many people overgeneralize from it and develop strongly racist attitudes internally, our society makes it clear that overt racism in word or policy is absolutely unacceptable.

I would guess that the average Muslim in the US is considerably less likely to be a terrorist than the average black person is to be a criminal. (The "pervasive threat of terrorism" is vastly overblown.) So why does society see it as acceptable to make overtly anti-Muslim statements and to adopt overtly anti-Muslim policies?

[pmb.livejournal.com]

Fun fact: When normalized for socio-economic level, blacks actually commit *fewer* crimes. Poor people commit crime. A random black person is much more likely to be poor than random white person, and therefore correspondingly more likely commit crime. But not as likely to commit crimes as an equivalently poor white person.