An Awakening for America

In the wake of the shooting in Arizona just three days ago that critically wounded a Congresswoman and that slew a federal judge, I would have to agree with seasoned observers that something strange, alongside the frustrations of a sluggish economy, is happening in the United States.  A climate (or upsurge) of hate and deliberate provocation, mixed in with a genuine concern about the direction(s) the country is taking, is emerging and continuing to fester.  

However I will briefly add to the discussion on this development.  Last year, I wrote a bit about the anti-Obama mischaracterization, and a little bit more on growing peculiar anti-Muslim sentiments (1,2,3,4) in the U.S.  It is my understanding that these and other outbursts of frustration or opposition are travelling in different directions, targeting a diverse array of issues.  These venues have included acrimonious town-halls over healthcare reform, the debate over and the reaction to the repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell military policy, and the swelling of inflammatory and hyped nativist attitude and physical attacks directed towards American Muslim property and their persons.  But [especially with the surfacing and prominence of various right-wing pundits (such as on Fox News, blogging channels, and radio stations) and various fringes of right-wing groups like the Tea Party Movement---not to forget even some Republican candidates' election campaigns throughout last year---] these outbursts hardly indicate a random or chance congruence.  At the very least, they appear to be shared through broader networks weaving the anti-this and anti-that together.  

When violence and ugly rhetoric---from threats, incitements, and racist and inflammatory slurs to assaults and arsons---coincides with the surfacing of such frustration and opposition, it is a clue that something very serious is lurking around.  All the more when such rhetoric and activity are encouraged by, or when they find a receptive or uncritical ear in, segments of the political establishment and of the media/punditry.  I agree with those who call for sincere and calm soul-searching.  Many of us are facing difficulty and uncertainty regarding financial, job, and other stability.  Many of us are frustrated about the current state of affairs, where progress has seemed very sluggish.  These fears and concerns are understandable and worthy of empathy/sympathy.  But absolutely NONE of these constitute legitimate space for cheap, dangerous, and bigoted opportunistic rhetoric.  Absolutely NONE of these serve as justifications for condoning or acting upon it, either.  

On a similar note, imagery has always been a powerful tool for criticism, sarcasm, and for even having an innocent laugh.  But controversies throughout the last few years---from the bigoted and inflammatory ugliness displayed in the run up to the 2008 presidential election, to the ugliness manifested in the "Ground Zero Mosque" debate, to the continuing increase in physical and verbal anti-Muslim attacks and discrimination, to reported attacks or threats on people merely for attending rallies, to finally the recent episode in Arizona---potentially reveal the dark side to the potency in the imagery of pictures and words.  We must be more thoughtful in the construction and usage of the metaphors and images we call upon.  We need to exercise restraint in our words, attitudes, and demeanor.  We must work to constructively challenge action which fails to hold up to the standards of civility.  And we must demand of those in a position of influence to join the effort to do so (and, especially, to provide a positive example).  

Some Thoughts on the "Ground Zero Mosque" Issue

As the mosque issue is still simmering, I thought it well to lay down thoughts on some of its dimensions.  I will try to be as brief as I can. 

(1) Perhaps it wasn't the wisest decision to have the proposed center near Ground Zero.  The location has a lot of sensitivity to it.  Out of concern and respect for the feelings of all who fell that day (and their families), it is a valid point that Muslims should take note of and weigh it in heavily with other considerations before pushing through with the proposed center.  There is still legitimate concern that the proposed center's location can be offensive particularly to the survivors and families of victims of 9/11. There is a possibility that Americans who generally and normally have no ill-will towards Muslims/Arabs can be hurt by the location of the proposed center.  Yet, it remains to be seen whether a calm undertones can endure throughout the discussion, or whether they will give way to deceitful sensationalism and exploiting hype will prevail at the end.  And that is a question whose answer does not seeming comforting at the moment.   

(2) LAW AND CULTURAL IMPLICATIONS: this issue has the potential to be a test of sorts for the values that we deeply cherish.

In terms of the law, it has developed into a First Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment issue.  The main question here will involve the endurance of the Bill of Rights in the face of controversy, as pointed out above.  Our country has faced similar situations (dilemmas?) before, and I am confident that the endurance of the law and the principles of civil rights, at least from a technical legal and jurisprudential standpoint, will be once again reasserted. 

As for discussions over the cultural sphere, we often talk about how diverse our country is, how we pride of this diversity, and how much we find strength in it.  All of the pride and feelings we have about the blessings of our diversity, I believe and see, are genuine sentiments and realities that we truly embrace and act upon. 

Yet, here too exists the potential for a test being brought by the center issue.  The test (and implications) here could be a lot trickier and more difficult.  I am hesitant to think of this aspect, because some of the questions that comes to my mind is this: whether the proposed center--- in the proposed location, and with the existing climate in which it is being received and discussed---will be a test on how well Muslims have integrated and been accepted into the American fabric (socially, culturally, etc).  Because similar incidents (of anti-mosque opposition) have sprung up before and alongside the one in New York City, there is a possibility that the debate over the "Ground Zero mosque" is much more deeply than just being about the sensitivity of Ground Zero location.  Noting the virulence of these developments, a Washington Post article observed, "the intense feelings driving that [NYC center] debate have surfaced in communities from California to Florida in recent months, raising questions about whether public attitudes toward Muslims have shifted."  These developments have included anti-Muslim protests, by groups such as Operation Save America, across the country.        

There is still some lingering and growing mis-perception, mis-information/ predominantly selective media coverage, opportunistic smearing, and unfavorable views (prejudice)---in addition to rising discrimination practices and doubt---on part of some in the American public regarding Muslims/Islam (see here, here, and here).  Though not frighteningly rampant, these trends---including physical attacks against property---do not appear to be backing down in occurrences or strength.  In such a polarized (and polarizing) environment (for example: see this, this, this, this, and this), there would be concern (for example: see here, here) that the dynamics of exchange on the mosque/community center issue could mesh in (examples see here , here, here, here) with much broader behaviors and attitudes bearing hostility towards Muslims and Islam in America.    

On the other hand, it may turn out that however this issue is resolved (i.e. whether the center will be built in the proposed location) may strongly reinforce the diversity we have come to cherish about our country.  From a broader perspective, it is possible any lingering concerns about the full integration of American Muslims will be put to rest as unfounded.  In light of this and other similar road bumps the nation has faced, this broader perspective notion however is still very far from ascertainable.  

We can learn from controversies and difficult and sensitive issues (even those that involving diversity as an aspect/dimension).  And it is possible for us to gain deeper insights about ourselves as a society from probing such questions and dimensions, and to work on being more constructive.  But, of course, in dealing with this and similar areas we would need to be completely honest, civil and fair with ourselves and with others---whether we are Muslim or Non-Muslim.  Greater mutual measured communication and outreach, not re-entrenchment and receding, is needed.  

(3) THE POLITICAL FOOTBALL/ HOT POTATO: Finally, it is deeply alarming that the discussion over the issue has been hyped up into some political football or hot potato right before upcoming midterm elections.  Prominent politicians---including former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich comparing the center to a Nazi sign at a holocaust museum or a Japanese cultural center at Pearl Harbor---as well as Republican candidates in gubernatorial and Congressional races have weighed in on the center/mosque debate.  [Even some 'embattled' Democrats have sought to distance themselves from the hype, as for example how Senator Reid's public break with President Obama's stance on the issue is reported to have played out.]  


We have seen this kind of distorted and dirty politicking that scapegoated Muslims and Arabs and that used them as impersonified pawns before in recent memory.  Remember the past presidential election, when Obama was branded a Muslim, Arab, or whatnot, and from there he was linked to being sympathetic to extremists---suggesting by implication that he couldn't be a loyal American?  Remember how the fact that his middle name happened to be Hussein was exploited in a similar manner?  Remember how McCain fell into the trap when he responded with something along the lines of "no, he's a good family man," in reply to a question fielded from a rally about whether Obama was Muslim or Arab? (In a tight and heated election season, a few courageous Republican voices spoke up against that nonsense, most notably Colin Powell.)

It is also disturbing that some sectors of the media and of the lobbying world have taken it upon themselves to exploit, conflate, and distort the issue.  These segments have apparently been at the forefront of the  anti-NYC center opposition and opposition to smaller mosque/Islamic center projects; have been working to influence politicians, lawmakers, government agencies, and the general public towards their views of Islam in America and of Muslim extremists; and have contributing to political campaigns.  It is also astonishing to see the phrases being thrown around by these bloggers and pundits---echoes of which have long predated the major thrusting of the Ground Zero episode into the spotlight.  Phrases and suggestions include an accusation against the proposed NYC center of being a victory mosque to celebrate murder, and more general exhortations such as the need to "stop Islamization of America" or to fight "creeping Sharia" in the country, or to "keep America safe."  [Much nastier comments about Islam, Prophet Mohamed, Muslims, and the like have been made by these bloggers and pundits---some as vile as the claims that "Hitler was inspired by Islam," that there are no moderates among Muslims---by extension, implicating all Muslims and Islam itself as immortal enemies of the free world, and a denial that American Muslims can be loyal citizens.]  


Sometimes I can't help but wonder if they are trying to exploit feelings and legitimate concerns, and couple it with a selective framing of this issue (and of others), in a manner as if to turn the issue(s) and their opinions into a referendum on the presence of Muslims/ Islam in the U.S.  Whenever a controversy or difficult issue brews, we can count on these people (examples: here, here) to make it even more fuzzy and unresolvable ...

Concepts and Controversies in the Meaning of Terrorism

A trying and tragic day-and its troublesome aftermath......

The sixth anniversary of the September 11 attacks are just around the corner. On the US public/social and personal/private scenes, many Americans will be preoccupied with commemerating the lives lost of their beloved and their friends, colleagues, and of the rescue and aid workers who horrifically perished that day. Public officials and politicians will send out condolences and/or eulogies in some or another. The media will reciprocate with airing special news segments and programs, perhaps to analyze some aspect of, or simply bring memory to, the largest event of terrorism on US soil to occur in contemporary American history. The media is even likely to air reportages purported to analyzing new trends and developments in international terrorism and similar threats facing America's security. 

Though it will be understandably a week of intense emotional drama caused by the twin pains of mourning and insecurity, it will also be a very jittery week with the strong and formidable potential to attract and illicit an upsurge of ethnic hate crimes to add on to what rights monitors have warned as the already existant trend of yearly increase. Undoubtedly, questions over how to how with the aftermath of 9/11 are crucial not only for healing processes, but also for determining/establishing patterns and regimes for societal, political, legal, and even economic/trade, interactions. If anything, the up-and-down battles over the Patriot Act, the domestic phone wiretapping scandal, the moral and legal challenges regarding the operation of Guantanamo Bay camps, the processing, interrogation, and trial of suspects /detainees in secret or special holding centers abroad, the detention and interrogation of non-documented immigrants through constitutionally questionable methods(Latinos, Arabs, and South Asians), the failure of police/public safety units to effectively clamp down or reduce hate crimes increasing in frequency and intensity, the yearly increasing allegations and complaints of discrimination and profiling at the workplace, and the allegedly intense profiling practices against specific minorities by law enforcement, among others [a good introductory source for more information about such backlash is the annual civil rights reports issued by the Washington, D.C.-based Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) ], should serve as a deeply troubling wake-up call warning all Americans and others about the erosion of America's generally multipluralistic fabric.



All of these various sets of interaction and public policy decisions modeling, be they organized or sponttaneous, are in turn partly influenced by what Americans and others conceive of terrorism violence and other perceived or real threats they face. Likewise what they conceive of these threats are partly shaped by the debates and controversies raging over how to identify, conceptualize, and classify them as well as how to best respond to them.

Origins of the term "Terrorism" and Early Usages

Despite the fact that different academic and theoretical disciplines have more or less established methods to study acts of terrorism, in modern times, what is professionally refered to “terrorism” is essentially a type of “political violence,” or violence conducted to statisfy political motivations. In turn, then, “terrorism” refers to a category of human expression studied by a methodoligical approch with primary (though not exclusive) roots in the dicipline of Political Science.

Some scholars have noted that, historically, one of the earliest references to terrorism violence dealt with groups that operated in the Middle East during various intervals in the medival period. Specifically, the reference was to a very notorious political-religious sect that challenged not only the authority of public adminstrators but also purposefully created widespread uncertainty and panic. Then known as the Hashshahsheen, the secret society arose in the last decade of the Tenth Century AD, and for the following three centuries, they posioned or struck by dagger any person civilian and government official who was marked for death as a threat to the secret society. The Arabic name of the sect, hashshasheen ("druggies") was itself a reference to the sect's use of hasheesh (a type of narcotic) that was used as a tool both for initiating new members and for prepping up members selected for a murder mission. Europeans (mainly Crusaders) who came into contact with the Hashshasheen anglicized and romanized the latter's Arabic nickname into various form spellings--Heissessini, Assessini, and Assassini--all of which later evolved to the English variant, "assassin." (Mazhar-ul-Haqq, Outlines of Islamic History, Bookland, 4th ed. 1992, 332-5).

[Today, in the field of Political Science, assassinations are classified as one type of terrorism violence.]

Yet throughout history, neither the use of terrorism violence nor even the use of a specific term to describe that violence was restricted to events only in, or connected to, the Middle East. Europe also had tremendous share of chaos during the Middle Ages and throughout the Enlightenment subsequently after. For example, the French Revoltion of 1789 was a period of much bloodshed in which revolutionaries clashed with the Ancien Regime to depose the monarchy, the nobility and the clergy and to create a republican (not related to the Republican Party) system of governance. The Revolution's utopian ideals quickly transformed into nightmares as conflicts between the revolutionaries emerged. These conflicts heightened and turned deadly in large part as the result of a popular revolutionary leader, Maximilien de Robespierre, who soon engaged in firebrand politics. Robespierre purged the l'Assemblie Nationale, the legislative institution set up by the Revolution, of its moderate faction and cracked down on anyone he suspected as being a threat or a traitor to the Revolution. Countless people faced imprisonment or execution by the guillotine (invented in this time period) en masse. (J. Suzanne Ravise, Tableaux Culturels de la France, National Textbook Company, 3rd ed. 1994, 65-9). It is no coincidence, therefore, that the French use the term "la Terreur" ("The Terror")---perhaps a variant of the word "terrorism"---to refer Robespierre's regime and reign (Ibid).

Modern/Contempoary Applications of the Term and Conceptual Considerations

For social scientists, and especially political scientists, It is especially important to distinguish between political violence and other forms of violence (such as more ‘ordinary’ crimes like fraud, murder, etc).

In studying terrorism, Political Scientists have realized that signficant ambiguity exists as to what exactly constitutes “terrorism” at any given point of time or environment. This is not a deliberate result of political science, but reflects a response to the international environment. Since, terrorism (and actors) are politically motivated, there has been no strong international consensus on a specific statement defining this phenomenon, whether among governments/nation-states or non-governemental actors. [A glimpse through the UN Treaties webpage depicting the various treaties, conventions, and agreements on terrorism can help us to understand how diverse interpretations of terrorism are regionally, internationally, and on the level of the individual nation-state.] In the search for an objective study of terrorism, Political Scientists themselves have worked to create a set of descriptions for terrorism that takes into consideration the reality that nation-states will act on behalf of their own interests, while attempting to avoid making value judgments over the national interests of nation-states. How nation-states define terrorism is as a much a product of their adherence to their own national interests at a given time as other factors, and so Political Scientists try to avoid getting caught in the subjectivity net national interests create. This task is no less crucial for media as purveyors of news.

There are, however, some basic general characteristics that Political Scientists have identified for terrorism (For example, see Cindy Combs, Terrorism in the Twenty-First Century, Prentice Hall, 3rd ed. 2003). These basic guidelines help not only to distinguish between political violence and other forms of violence, but also to distinguish between terrorism and other forms of political violence (such as riots, coups, and to some extent guerrilla warfare). If my memory serves me well, the general characteristics of terrorism violence are:

(1). the act of violence must be politically motivated (examples include: destablize a government, eliminate a government’s monopoly over the use of violence, or to extract concessions from a government);

(2) the act of violence must be performed for an audience/media–--hence the increasing dramatism and intensity of terrorist acts over time;

(3) the act of violence must be at least intended to provoke widespread fear, confusion, disorientation among the population—-hence the increasing dramatism and intensity of terrorist acts over time;

(4)the act of violence must be a deliberate effort to target innocent civilians to result in #(3). (Combs, 10-7)

[Government structures do not necessarily have to be included in the mix of targets in a given attack or plan of attack, as recent trends involving greater frequencies of non-government (i.e. civilian & non-combatant) targets have emerged. The main point here is satisfying the intention to target civilian/non-combatants either directly or indirectly as mentioned above. But attacks against government structures that are intended to provoke concerns about security and public safety could also potentially be considered as a terrorism if a political motivation to it is attached/associated.]

Terrorist acts can be:

a) conducted by governments,

b) sponsored nation-states/governments,

c) can be conducted and/or sponsored by non-state private actors, whether they operate internationally, regionally, or within a country.

Conclusion

As you can see, defining “terrorism” can entail an enormously complex set of tasks and analyses. While treading this complexity carefully can lead to charges of “not being resolute,” moving away from a careful and thoughtful approach to analysis and reporting can lead to serious inaccuracies. It is important that one remains resolute in opposing terrorism. It is equally and sigificantly important that a high level of objectivity and accuracy be maintained during identification and analysis as well. In all, this balance is very tricky and much easier said than done.

Exploring the reality of terrorism and attempting to understand it more deeply doesn't lessen from the value or significance that events like those that occurred on Septermber 11 have or should have. Despite the possible barriers presented by an intensity of emotional, physical, social, and other scars that have yet unfortunately to be fully healed, a more thoughtul inquiry and discussion of terrorism, extremism anywhere should not threaten to remove the "face identity" of anyone who is involved September 11 and elsewhere. The participants, whether victim or perpetrator, should not be reduced to "just another statistic" in an inquiry that is balanced and analytically thoughful as possible. In order for such an inquiry to succeed, however, we can not afford to let emotion or personal interest drag us into continuing the long-held stereotypical views and ignorance towards the Middle East/Arabs/Muslims that have existed in mainstream attitudes, and that have been promoted or replayed by some form of popular culture (particularly many Hollywood/cinematic productions and tv dramas and sitcoms, for instance) or news media ,for at least a century now, or by some politicians and policymakers more recently.

A very illustrative recent example of the potential for continuing and expanding ignorance, stereotypes, blacklashes that come out of careless thinking can be found in Representative Peter King's (R-NY) statements that "too many mosques [exist] in America" as a threat of "radical Islam" to American society. The most worrisome aspect of King's arguments is that they fail to make a crucial distinction between institutions themselves that help many Muslims practice their faith on the one hand, and varying levels of extremism among Muslims worldwide, on the other. Whether there are some or any number of extremists in a mosque/Islamic center and the extent to which they may or may not influence the centers in the US or abroad is one question. Appearing to simplistically associate the mere concept of a mosque/Islamic center with radicalism/extremism/terrorism is a different consideration altogether. The former attitude may possibly help to enagage Muslims, depending on the circumstances (such as outreach from both sides). While the latter attitude places absolute suspicion on a Muslim minority's ability to not just to integrate into, but also to coexist with, the broader society (or of the ability of Muslims abroad to deal responsibly with the international community). The suspicion is placed simply by virtue of their background, faith, practices, personal devotions and so forth. 


Without bothering to ask any deeper questions, the absolute suspicion is, then, an assumption that any Muslim presence in itself represents a danger to society. I personally don't think that would be a wise, reasonable or fair suggestion to make. This is not to say that dangerous extremists don't exist, or that they don't have some type of influence in some Muslim institutions. But simplistic associative assumptions on the totality of both minorities and their 'sister' populations abroad (and on the activities of both) never help to solve problems relating to their integration (if they are minorities) or dealings with the international community (if they are 'sister' populations). Rather such assumptions can and do in fact exacerbate the problems they face. Equally important, such assumptions also greatly more complicate the tasks and problems the host society (if within a single country) or the international community (if we're talking about Muslims worldwide) undertakes/confronts in its relationships with them.


Yes, events like September 11 have triggered knee-jerk reactions the kinds of which that both reinforce, and are reinforced by, ignorance and stereotypes. The pain and anguish reflected in the knee-jerk reactions is understandable. But the reactions themselves are not. It is precisely because of grusome events like September 11 and their backlash---which have in turn begun to trigger much-needed discussions over the two so-called "twin problems" of Islamophobia and Anti-Americanism/Anti-Westernism---that a seriously more careful, calm, and fair look is urgently and desperately required not only at terrorism and extremism but also at Islam, Muslims, Arabs, the Middle East, South Asia, Southwest Asia, and the Arab world. Equally important is to place a similar emphasis on serious analysis of foreign policies carried out by major state actors including primarily, but not limited to, the United States. If not, we may then have to brace for an ever-continuing and more-intensifying cycle of misunderstanding, missteps, violence and repression.