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]

So yes, I can understand that some parents of kids killed by the insane clowns will feel discomfort at the thought that a clown college is being built just a few blocks from the site of the tragedy.

Great! So do you withdraw your observation that you "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"?

But I hope that the rational voice in the back of their mind would remind them, often, that their understandable knee-jerk dislike of clowns was irrational and unfair

I would hope so too. Although I think you are being unfair. The 9/11 terrorists were Muslims, and they were motivated by their religion and they were inspired by Bin Laden who is a Muslim religious leader and motivated by his religion. There is a REAL ASSOCIATION between "Muslim" and "terrorist". It is not a strong enough association that we should label all mosques as terrorist, but it is real. Almost all Muslims are not terrorists, but most US-attacking terrorists are Muslims. The data is very noisy (9/11 dominates deaths, and it isn't really fair to count attacks on US troops abroad because those troops are only in Muslim countries), but if you go deeper, beyond deaths, to look at where the terrorist threats are coming from, you see that it is (a small subset of) Muslims who dominate. There are exceptions (McVeigh), but it's a truth.

Because the only alternative is for their innocent clown neighbors, also grieving, to be cast out of society for no reason at all.

Who is casting them out of society? We are just saying they should build their school someplace that isn't rubbing salt into the wound of our recent tragedy. They can build it in town - just not next to the disaster site. Why is that unreasonable or unacceptable? I agree it would be nobler for the community to say "Ok, we are being irrational, we care more about standing for the value of fairness than about minimizing our sadness and anger, so we will let them build next door". I would find that inspiring and wonderful. But I would also find it completely reasonable for them to say "Guys, build somewhere else, we can't handle more sadness and anger, even if it is irrational, we need time to heal."

The sadness and increased pain from the reminder, however irrational, is real too. Your zeal to sacrifice individual pain in the pursuit of nobility worries me. Seems like you associate "belief in statistical realities of race" with "Holocausts and slavery". Well, I associate "only noble society action matters, not individual pain" with "communism, totalitarianism, and the deaths of 100M people at the hands of their own government in the 20th century".

[steuard.livejournal.com]

So do you withdraw your observation that you "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..."?

Good question. I can see that rational or not, building a mosque there would feel painful to some people. I think we'd both agree that the pain in question is a result of pretty much exactly those "twin claims" of mine, but you may be right that it's very unsympathetic of me not to recognize the reality of their feelings regardless of their cause.

So it's tricky. The feelings are real, but their basis is irrational and hateful and harmful to others. Based on that, I guess I do now see the justification for peoples' objections to the mosque. But I also think that there would be less harm to society as a whole if we found a way of coping with that irrational pain that didn't involve heaping further pain and injustice on the many innocent Muslims among us. And in particular, I still think that mature people have a responsibility to be alert to their own irrationality when they express themselves.

[Hey, this is an important bit:]

You know what? I think I'd be more sympathetic to the folks objecting to this mosque if their emphasis were on their own feelings and their own limitations rather than on the "offensive" actions of the Muslims involved. I'd feel much more comfortable if everyone who objected simply said, "I'm sorry, I hate to admit this, but in this place I still have strong negative associations with the Muslim terrorists who caused me such pain. I know it's unfair, but I'm not ready to cope with a Muslim community center so close just yet." But that's not the majority of what I've heard.

What I've heard (as previously quoted) is that building a mosque there would be "offensive", as if the Muslims planning it were the ones responsible for the pain. They're not! It might be more sensitive of them to refrain from building there (particularly if the objections had mostly been made in the way I described above), but the underlying problem isn't of their making. Holding rallies to tell the Muslims they're not wanted (and even threatening and driving away fellow Christian protesters if they happen to look like Arabs) isn't a way of saying, "This is about my feelings." And it certainly isn't a way of saying, "...and I know those feelings aren't fair and I'm working to get over them."

THAT is why all these protests and objections bother me so much (and, I think, why I can't accept the word "offensive" in this context). If there is a valid reason for the mosque not to be built near Ground Zero, it MUST be made clear by everyone that even making the request is an imposition on the innocent Muslims who are entirely within their legal and moral rights planning the project.

I think you are being unfair. ... There is a REAL ASSOCIATION between "Muslim" and "terrorist".

I agree, of course, that there is a real association there. But I don't agree that I'm being unfair. The probability that any given Muslim that I meet on the street here in the US is a terrorist is minuscule, almost vanishingly small. So I think that reacting to Sept. 11 by disliking or distrusting all Muslims is absolutely unfair and unfounded. I would not be surprised if even the smallest increment of additional suspicion toward that group that a human being could have would be an overreaction to the probabilities involved (especially if the Muslims in question are long-time US residents). Remember, too, that additional suspicion or dislike has negative consequences for real people. I suspect that the human suffering that it causes may well outweigh any benefit from a greater chance of preventing future terrorist attacks.

Your zeal to sacrifice individual pain in the pursuit of nobility worries me.

You've made some fair points here, and I'm taking them seriously. Still, my limited exposure to the details of this issue don't feel like the objections being raised most loudly are of the respectable sort that you (and now I) have mentioned. If they were, I wouldn't have been triggered by this the way I have been.

[pearmeson.livejournal.com]

"What I've heard (as previously quoted) is that building a mosque there would be "offensive", as if the Muslims planning it were the ones responsible for the pain. They're not!"

I think that right there is the key. It's one thing to say, "_I_ feel pain because of this thing you want to do (build a mosque)", and quite another to say, "_You_ shouldn't be allowed to do this thing, which you only want to do because you want to hurt me."

One of them regards the Other as human, with understandable human motivations, who can be dealt with through negotiation. The other regards the Other as sub-human, with motivations that can only be ascribed to some evil purpose, who can only be dealt with through force.

There's also a difference between an average citizen saying, "I'd rather they didn't put a mosque there," and a public official or politician saying, "They shouldn't be allowed to put a mosque there." The politicians in this case are deliberately (and cynically) appealing to a mob sentiment to further their own goals. By virtue of their ability to get into the media, they add legitimacy to calls for action against a minority group that would otherwise only be manifest as private prejudices.

[steuard.livejournal.com]

The sadness and increased pain from the reminder, however irrational, is real too.

One more comment (a small one this time!). Don't forget that the unfair mistreatment of Muslims in our society causes pain and humiliation and harm, too (even if it's based on undeniably real feelings). I don't think I'm solely demanding sacrifice in the name of nobility here: I'm asking that we balance two types of undeniably real pain.

I'll admit that I'm probably being a bit biased in how I treat the two, though. It may or may not be right, but I tend to have a bit more sympathy with those who are being unjustly vilified than with those whose (real!) feelings are based on a flawed generalization.

[pmb.livejournal.com]

I'm calling bullshit. There is also a real association between Irish and terrorist and between Basque and terrorists and between conservative christian and terrorist (ask any abortion clinic) and between southern whites and terrorist (c.f. the KKK etc). Your stated categories have no explanatory power and are therefore racist and shitty (shitty in an objective mathematical sense and racist because you chose the racial category). We seem to only categorize things as terrorism when brown people do them - consider the recent case of a crazy libertarian conservative wacko who flew his plane into a government building to make people who work for the government afraid and to kill some of them too. That was not reported as an act of terrorism. Would it have been reported differently had he been a conservative muslim who was kookily violent and anti-tax?

All of the 9/11 hijackers were muslims, and arabs, and people, and male, and (almost all) Saudi, and all members of the Wahabi sect of islam. Which of these categories has the greatest explanatory power? The way you use the word "muslim" here is the same way people use the word "jewish" when they think all jews are Hasidic jews with funny hats who can't use electrical appliances on Saturdays. "Saudi Arabian" has basically just as much explanatory power as "muslim", while "Wahabi" is best of all and maybe even useful. Why go for the second explanation instead of the first or third? Is there a non-racist reason?

Even more frustratingly, the people who are getting "traumatized" here are mostly (not all - but mostly) people who have *never been* to NYC and *never want to go*. The muslim group in question is from a moderate sect and has been meeting and praying in a nearby building for more than a decade, and now they have gotten enough capital to buy instead of rent. So it's apparently okay if muslims rent property nearby, but not if they own it? This whole controversy is manufactured and stupid. The neighborhood board gave the project the thumbs up. The historical society gave them the thumbs up. The city council rubber-stamped it. The mayor has voiced his support. All their permits are in place, the building will be up to code, the money is ready to be spent, and they are even building an interfaith outreach center. But instead of letting them do this, we should be mean to local people because of a fear that people thousands of miles away might take offense? STUPID. RACIST AND STUPID.