Beware the anti-anti-Muslim backlash
“Here’s a thought,” Jonah Goldberg announces at the beginning of his latest opinion column for the Los Angeles Times:
The 70% of Americans who oppose what amounts to an Islamic Niketown two blocks from ground zero are the real victims of a climate of hate, and anti-Muslim backlash is mostly a myth.
“Thought” may be an overstatement there, as Alex Pareene has already pointed out over at Salon’s War Room blog (beginning with the obvious question: what in heaven’s name is an “Islamic Niketown”? And is it bad?). But because I’m pretty certain I’ve seen some recent expressions of irrational fear directed at Muslims in terms that would ordinarily be outside the realm of acceptable discourse, I’d like to look more closely at how Goldberg makes his case that Islamophobia is “a myth.”
For the most part Goldberg relies on hate-crime statistics. But there’s more to a “climate of hate” than officially tallied hate crimes (although, as Goldberg notes, “even one hate crime” — and there have been far more than one — “is too many”). Anti-Muslim prejudice manifests itself in lots of ways that aren’t strictly criminal, and the impact of that “climate of hate” is difficult to measure but no less worthy of concern. What sort of rhetoric is acceptable when it comes to Muslims and Islam? What is the impact of that rhetoric here and abroad? Does it radicalize Muslims? Does it alienate allies? Does it endanger our terror-fighting prospects?
But Goldberg insists that “there isn’t an anti-Muslim climate”:
Yes, there’s a lot of heated rhetoric on the Internet. Absolutely, some Americans don’t like Muslims. But if you watch TV or movies or read, say, the op-ed page of the New York Times — never mind left-wing blogs — you’ll hear much more open bigotry toward evangelical Christians (in blogspeak, the “Taliban wing of the Republican Party”) than you will toward Muslims.
“Heated rhetoric on the Internet” is a nice way of setting aside everything said by, for example, Newt Gingrich, who is hardly an anonymous blogger (but some of his remarks do end up online)! But OK, let’s talk about open bigotry. Opponents of the Park51 project keep noting that those who join their opposition (the 70% Goldberg appeals to) are not necessarily motivated by bigotry. Agreed — although the polling numbers alone don’t constitute proof of the absence of bigotry; it’s not defined that way. Still, there’s a difference between accusing a large group of bigotry and pointing out particular examples of bigoted speech and reasoning worthy of condemnation. It’s not impugning the motives of Americans in general to observe that an awful lot of bigotry has been unleashed and indulged by the anti-mosque campaign.
You may have heard about the jocular proposal by blogger Greg Gutfield to open a gay bar across the street from Park51 — the idea being, since Islam frowns on homosexuality, we’ll show those intolerant Muslims a thing or two about insensitivity! I’m not sure how it is that Muslim intolerance toward gays should be worthy of disdain while evangelical Christian opposition to homosexuality should be regarded with respect. But do you know who thinks Gutfield’s proposal is “brilliant”? Jonah Goldberg! He endorsed, and elaborated on, the idea at the National Review blog (“A strip club/gay bar with many pork dishes on the menu (and elsewhere) might work just fine”), and then in the magazine’s August 30 issue (“First, it’s funny…. Second, it turns things back on the supposed Islamic champions of tolerance who are building the mosque”).
If it’s meant to expose some sort of hypocrisy, the thought experiment fails completely — is there any reason to believe these particular Muslims would be moved to outrage by such an establishment? They live in Manhattan, after all. And is there any reason to believe those who support the rights of the Park51 planners to build what they want would oppose Gutfield’s enterprise? It’s motivated only by a juvenile impulse to jeer at Muslims, but if it were sincere, would anybody care? (Besides those who would protest any and all gay bars, that is?) It’s a setup that leaves its targets nonplussed, not embarrassed. But hey, at least we all had a few laughs at the expense of Muslims and their hateful ways.
While we’re looking at the National Review, let’s turn to page 40 of the same issue. There you’ll find Rob Long’s satirical column, devoted this time around to a parody “Congregation Newsletter from the Ground Zero Mosque.” If you actually wanted to know what sort of activities are foreseen for Park51, you might look at their Web site. But that would spoil the fun. What does Long envision? A “Newlyweds Social Group” in which “we talk in an open and supportive environment about learning your wife’s name, understanding her limitations, and beating her with a bag full of oranges.” Muslim men, am I right? How about a “Youth Group Picnic & Stoning”? Hilarious. Or a blood drive — “Please collect as much Jewish blood as you can!!!!” Honor killings, suicide bombings — Long’s piece collects all your favorite reasons to hate and fear Muslims without distinction in one convenient place. (He has to repeat a few, but who could ever get enough of jokes about stonings?)
That’s why my favorite line in Goldberg’s piece is this bit of handwaving: “It’s fine to avoid negative stereotypes of Muslims, but why the rush to embrace them when it comes to Americans?” I think what he means with that second part is, “why the rush to embrace the ‘stereotype’ that Americans are intolerant of Muslims?” Yes, where ever did that get started? But the first half is what I like best: It’s fine to avoid negative stereotypes of Muslims…but let’s not go overboard. It certainly isn’t mandatory. In fact, at the National Review, it’s fine to go out of your way to indulge negative stereotypes of Muslims, for laughs. And if the intolerant Park51 supporters have their way, pretty soon we’ll have to feel bad about that too. Call it an anti-anti-Muslim backlash.
Jonah Goldberg may want to consider this as well:
http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/08/25/cabbie-attacked/?hp
David, you might want to consider this:
Alleged anti-Muslim attacker works at pro-Park51 group
Looks like a staged attack. Anti-anti Muslim, indeed.
Grant-
I hear you. By sense with Dolan is that by nature he doesn’t like confrontation. Notice that on the whole he had stayed away from loud remarks on hot-button issues (gay marriage, abortion). Not to say that his position isn’t clear on those positions (clearly he is not pro-choice), but that he doesn’t seem to relish a street fight. As far as the situation on Staten Island, I don’t think all the facts are out. Very strong words were spoken out there and there was a threat of violence (against the pastor). I think Dolan was walking a tight-rope there.
Looks like a staged attack. Anti-anti Muslim, indeed.
P Flanagan,
I don’t know exactly what to make of it yet, but the cab driver was quite seriously wounded and the attacker (who some reports say was very drunk) has been charged with felony attempted murder as a hate crime. It certainly doesn’t appear to be a “staged attack.” I sense that’s what you hope it is, but the evidence so far doesn’t seem to be in your favor.
Is it possible that stupid mis-steps could lead to a wide wide war with 1.5 billion Muslims? Of course..would the West win.. sort of….the West having a bigger Army, Navy, Air-Force and many more nuclear weapons… if you like that kind of ‘winning’ . Would letting the Park51 center being built ammeliorate the attitudes of the 1.5 billion Muslims? Yes……will the ‘right wing’ anti mosque nuts take us closer to war? in order to get a couple of cheap congressional seats ?… we’ll see.
And then there’s this:
http://www.fresnobee.com/2010/08/25/2053382/vandalism-at-madera-islamic-center.html
Not that violence and threats are the ultimate proof of what already exists, namely the backlash.
Over at Foreign Policy, Marc Lynch looks at “How Arabs view the anti-mosque movement.” He has actually looked at what “jihadists” are saying, and — no surprise here — it’s the opposition to the mosque, not the prospect of its being built, that they’re focused on, when they’re talking about it at all.
When you consider what they’re seeing — protesters with signs that say “Everything I need to know about Islam I learned on 9/11,” and jokes in national opinion magazines about how Muslims are all Jew-hating wife-beating neanderthals — you can understand why they might not be persuaded of America’s tolerance by a citation of hate-crime statistics (with or without the demographic details that might put them in context).
“I sense that’s what you hope it is, but the evidence so far doesn’t seem to be in your favor.”
And I sense that YOU hoped it was validation that all anti-mosque opponents are brainwashed bigots capable of murder after inspiration by “hate speech”. Which, of course, is the same prejudice as those who think all Muslims are responsible for 9/11.
P. Flanagan, no one here has expressed that prejudice. David Nickol didn’t even bring up the attack; he just pointed out that your inference was unsupported by the facts. Your “sense” of other people’s thoughts and hopes needs some fine-tuning.
And I sense that YOU hoped it was validation that all anti-mosque opponents are brainwashed bigots capable of murder after inspiration by “hate speech”.
P Flanagan,
When I said, “I don’t know exactly what to make of it yet,” that is exactly what I meant. We just don’t know enough of the story to know what motivated the attack. But I think we do know enough to make a reasonable preliminary conclusion that the attack was not “staged.” I note that instead of producing additional evidence to support your view that it looked like a staged attack, you simply lash out at me. I would be interested to know if you still think it was a “staged attack.”
Actually, if I have any hope, it is that the attacker was a lone, mentally unbalanced drunk whose actions tell us nothing that we already don’t know. I am certainly not concluding that every who opposes 51Park is a potential knife-wielding lunatic.
“When you consider what they’re seeing — protesters with signs…you can understand why they might not be persuaded of America’s tolerance…”
Well, that’s one caste of mind. Minds different, so to speak. I would expect *they* would see our peaceful protests and realize there’s a better way than blowing up people who disagree with you. I would expect *they* would see there’s 100 mosques in New York City and ask themselves if *they* have allowed 100 churches in Mecca. Do I expect too much? Is it too much to ask Americans not to rush to blame fellow Americans first?
___________________________________________________________
For what’s worth, I can only infer that it’s wrong for some people to infer motivations, but it’s perfectly fine for others to do so. I wonder if I’m one of the favored few.
Minds different, so to speak. I would expect *they* would see our peaceful protests and realize there’s a better way than blowing up people who disagree with you.
Mark Proska:
The problems are many, but one of the main ones is that some of the peaceful protesters are saying (and many more are strongly implying) that we are at war with Islam. If you expect Muslims in other countries to say to themselves, “Well, they may be at war with us, but we sure do admire the way they protest peacefully,” I think you are expecting a rather unlikely response from them.
Is it too much to ask Americans not to rush to blame fellow Americans first?
Do you really think statements like this one by Newt Gingrich are defensible?
Isn’t the message there that Muslims are to the victims of the World Trade Center attacks what Nazis are to Holocaust victims or their memory? Do you agree with that?
@David,
I think another way to read Gingrich’s statement is that our rights are governed by prudence, that there are some standards of decorum observed when we determine what building projects we support, and that it is possible to imagine opposing certain exercises of rights by other groups.
If that is what he was trying to say, he chose a very poor parallel, and invites your conclusion.
–
I’m also not sure that your last sentence is as absurd as it sounds. “Nazis” has become shorthand in our culture for “really bad guy,” but I’m not sure it’s certain that everyone who was a member of the Nazi party took part in or approved of the extermination of Jews.
Obviously, the Holocaust is more directly tied to Nazism than terrorism is to Islam, but there was more to Nazism than the extermination of Jews.
WHAT YOU SOW, SO SHALL YOU REAP.
Looking at Islamic Center Debate, World Sees U.S. -
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/26/world/26islamic.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=cambanis&st=cse
And then there is this disgusting piece of junk (substitute your word of choice for “junk”) -
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/26/us/26gainesville.html?scp=1&sq=damien%20cave%20far%20from%20ground%20zero&st=cse
Jimmy Mac: You may like this adjunct to the Gainesville story:
http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/08/25/right-wing-militia-decides-church-is-wrong-to-burn-koran-on-9-11/
When you are too out there for a Christian militia called Right Wing Extreme, you know you’re out there!
David N.
I think, or at least I hope, you underestimate Muslims in other countries. My own view is that they are smart enough to understand the profound difference between words that express the need to defend ourselves against those perceived to be “at war” with us, and the intentional killing of innocent civilians.
In bringing up Newt Gingrich, I think you’ve missed the point. My question about blaming fellow Americans first is, I think you would agree, much different than disagreeing with their views or the way they express those views. I have little tolerance for the former, but much tolerance for the latter (or at least try to). My question was not prompted by a criticism of Newt Gingrich, it was prompted by the suggestion that Muslims have every right to feel that Americans are not tolerant. The unfathomable frisson the far left seems to get out of such suggestions has me baffled.