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

[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.