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

[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.