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 ...

The Internet and the (Relative) Opening of Communication channels in Arab World

I came across a BBC news article whose news was not surprising but nonetheless a snapshot of a very interesting development currently ongoing in the Arab World: relative liberalization (opening) of communication channels to share news and information, expand personal contacts, and for entertainment purposes.

I have chosen to regard the opening as relative for the obvious, and maybe not-so-obvious, reasons. Of course, the obvious reasons include whether the promise of opening can resist any challenges by the state and its authorities, such as the technical (e.g. the blocking of IP addresses of websites) and non-technical (e.g. arrests and harassments of bloggers). But, the second-to-last paragraph in the BBC article struck me as significant as its headline, perhaps implicitly raising a question into what seem as less obvious dynamics associated with the online expansion:

"But the survey does not provide a detailed breakdown of how it is used in Arab countries - for example how much of it is for chatting and making friends and how much is for political and social campaigning."

I took this question and extended it into further pondering: whether, and what to extent, non-political challenges exist from within non-state elements.

One should champion the extension and expansion of freedom in the press and other communication media, but would hope that such freedom would be accompanied by meaningful pursuits/usage---to balance out any time misspent frivolously and merely as a tool for entertainment where it could have been put to better use. So I view the liberalization of communication provided by internet applications to young Arabs with guarded optimism. It is too early to decisively and definitively tell whether, and to what extent, the opportunities found in the expansion of non-traditional communication technology will be meaningfully exploited. [Nonetheless, we should champion the expansion of such technology as a matter of principle---as a *potential* (if not yet fully realized) vehicle for fostering and preserving vibrant interaction.]

In the Arab World, there is evidence of efforts towards using technologies such as Facebook as vehicles for change, sharing of meaningful information, etc. But, for now, such efforts appear to have little appeal or reach beyond small core groups. I doubt that more broader segments of their societies--the people they most need to engage--have access to activities and interactions of the small groups. Maybe this disconnect is related to the state and political restrictions on communication, but maybe it is also related to socio-economic, sub-cultural and/or other differences and factors that could influence uncertainty in the willingness and ability of various societal segments to engage with one another and that could influence prioritizing over how cyberspace social networking and similar applications will be effectively used.

'Smearcasting'--A New Report by FAIR

A part and byproduct of the election year has been political rhetoric--from statements and vows to characterizations and assertions--thrown around by and among various persons and bodies. While political rhetoric is only natural exercise integral to the civil discourse process, it seems that unfortunately some dubious rhetoric has crept into the scene. This rhetoric is not controversial and disturbing merely as tactics aiming to fulfill the political/electoral passions and aspirations of some, but more frighteningly it may have amplifications and ripple-effects on a more long-term basis after the conclusion of the election year and inauguration of a new Administration regardless of whomever takes the helm and whichever form that Administration takes. It is reasonable to expect that attitudes, opinions, and mannerisms of public discourse themselves, to outlast public office terms and to have the ability to influence the selection of future leaders.

One of the most disturbing trends evidenced in reoccurring bits throughout this election year has been attention on Muslims and Islam (directed to by some) in inflated, exaggerated, and inflamed tones and manners. This attention has been constructed both in blunt and implied terms. And of the one most prominent and clear examples of such misleading to have surfaced has the been the attempt to link presidential candidate Barack Obama to his cultural heritage and past in a conspicuous effort to raise doubt--and even suspicion--to his legitimacy and trustworthiness as he vies for the highest elected office in the land. What many may not realize is that, when a major candidate is being accused of being of "closeted" member of a particular ethnic or religious group, ultimately the main victims of the fallout and aftermath of such rhetoric will not be the targeted candidate or his/her campaign. In the larger scheme of things, public office-seekers enter through, and exit out of, their office's doors, serving either limited terms, being eventually challenged and defeated by rivalling candidates, or leaving the post in retirement or resignation.

And yes, many discussions continue about the impacts that candidates and officials have had or continue to have long after they leave office. But what may often be more enduring is the discourse and tone within which all of this occurs, and so I come back to the main premise--the implicit and explicit characterizations of, and allusions to, Muslims and Islam that has found its way throughout the current election environment. With the effect of self-righteously conjuring up emotions of uncertainty, fear, and even those bordering or crossing into paranoia that are likely to be exercised without, or in spite of, calm measured and rational discussion and reflection, the culpable tone is aptly called "islamophobia." Below is a link to a newly released report on this trend. It is important to note that the prejudices (and stereotypes) that are behind or that are likely to cause "islamophobia" are not new, as such simplistically distorted views have existed for quite some time (for example, one can extend Professor Jack Shaheen's arguments in his pioneering study Reel Bad Arabs). Similarly, concerns from Arabs and Muslims regarding the growth of a prejudiced or uneasy atmosphere towards them have been aired from time to time over the past several years, as hate crimes have spiked. What is significant is that non-Muslims and non-Arabs are beginning to accept that such challenges exist, as evidenced by the release of this aforementioned report by FAIR (Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting). Though much remains to be done, the release of these report is a welcome and refreshing development, a milestone in the right direction.

FAIR has created a website specifically devoted for the report at:
http://www.smearcasting.com/

A British Study, European and American Social Attitudes, and the Media

I came across an article the other day regarding a British study that apparently measured the continuation of new trends affecting old public attitudes linking appearance and behavior. Let me first start off by saying that I’m not going to focus on gender differences, or on evaluations thereof. Nor will I touch upon any evaluations or value judgments on the sources of influence on evaluating gender differences. I’ll leave these kinds of considerations to you, the readers. So that there are no misunderstandings, let me clarify that I’m writing this piece simply to try to understand (by triggering discussion on) whether different trends have emerged between the United States and Europe regarding this specific topic (represented by Britain) as stated in the British study and its journalistic coverage, and if these differences are informed by diverging cultural, societal, and value foundations/makeup across the Atlantic.

It’s reasonable to assume that the results of any appearance-behavior correlation are informed/ affected by cultural and social ideals for what constitutes the “ideal” (i.e. the ‘mainstream’) male or female. Likewise, the “ideal” male or female has often been defined in the corridors of the communications area and of the specialized/ targeted media: fictional television and film drama, in magazines like Cosmopolitan, Men’s Health, Women’s Health, in photographic magazines/websites like FHM, Maxim, and Askmen.com, and finally in talk shows like Tyra and Oprah. These kinds of social (if we include gossip/rumors and everyday person-to-person interaction) and cultural influences—commercial and non-commercial—and the penetrative impacts they have had on appearance-behavior judgments are nothing new. So are the relationships and gaps between public and private perceptions linking appearance and behavior (as defined by the above-mentioned norms, ideals, influences) on the one hand, and the public and personal realities of appearance and behavior, on the other. So, what is new, and very frankly surprising to me, is what the recent study claims as new trends affecting male-female relationships.

For example, the article mentioned that “Women see masculine-looking men as more unsuitable long-term partners but men with more feminine features are seen as more committed and less likely to stray, researchers said Wednesday.” These feminine features—cited as “finer facial features, fuller lips, wide eyes and thinner, more curved eyebrows”—were more desirable to women than masculine features (cited as “square jaws, larger noses and smaller eyes“) because the former demonstrated a “better bet for long-term relationships.” The masculine features, however, were reported as demonstrating “significantly more dominant, less faithful, worse parents and as having less warm personalities” among men.

If we take these results as representative of Westerners, this is a significant jump or even reversal, in attitude from nearly seven years ago. Then, prominently in high school (secondary school) and somewhat later and lesser so in college, I distinctly remember how much emphasis for males/by males was placed on bodybuilding and rugged sports activity (especially American Football)—considered “masculine” characteristics---as indicators for success in both social and professional relationships. In such an environment, the high school male jock, the high school football quarterback, these were the people that mattered, that got the most attention from the general public, media, fictional drama, and from members of the opposite sex. Judging by the lesser attention from this environment, the public and personal attitudes were significantly different for a larger chunk on the other side of the high school environment aisle. Here, the studious and academically bright, the ‘serious’ individual, the family-oriented male, the non-athlete, the smart Chess player, or anyone else who didn’t qualify as having what was seen as a glitzy background, were considered not to have the personal and social skills needed for bright, glitzy success. To put mildly, they were “average.” And some segments among them were labeled what I would, with relative euphemism, substitute as “below-average” for the much more commonly labels of “loser,” “nerd,” or “geek.”

Which is why I am surprised when I now read that there is “ ‘high amount of agreement’ between women about what they see in terms of personality when seeing a man's face and they may well use their impression to decide whether or not to engage with him.” That women, according to the study and the article, find men with “older faces” more favorably than their counterparts with “younger ones.” Just as the promoted contrast between muscular/atheleticism and non-muscular/non-athelete is taken as a metaphor to contrast general “masculine” and “feminine” charactersitics, so too can the apparent level of seriousness and maturity be taken as a metaphor for the contrast between the same two groups of gender characteristics. If seriousness and maturity were/are not associated with masculinity then/now, then the reported preference of “older faces” over “younger ones” is a significant jump in female attitudes, assuming of course that older appearance = greater seriousness and younger appearance = less seriousness.

But wait a minute, the study was conducted in Great Britain on British females, not in the United States on American females. Now, among most educated Caucasian Americans and perhaps among a significant number of Brits as well, Great Britain has been historically and traditionally viewed as the closest of European countries to the United States in terms of culture, societal values, and political alliances and interests. Absent current rifts or differences on pivotal/ sensitive issues between leading American and British policymakers (such as on the Iraq War?), the claims of Anglo-American proximity and affinity are even stronger. Yet, despite the political, legal, and societal differences between Great Britain and the rest of the European Union, and despite these special and complicated Anglo-American commonalities, a strong claim could also be made that Great Britain is still very much a part of the EU with a still very strong European cultural, social, and political orientation. And as British policymakers see their position and status wane in the European Union, undoubtedly they will battle to restore them by demonstrating greater affinity for European values and political interests. These demonstrations not so much in the form of “anti-American” stance. But they could materialize in a stance that displays a tougher “pro-European” tone politically, culturally, and socially.

So while, for instance, public hug greetings and/or cheek kisses between males has been ‘traditionally’ seen as more of a sign of friendship or brotherhood in say, France, Italy, Greece, Eastern Europe, and even more so in the Middle East (at least in the Arab- and Muslim-majority countries here) and in the East (at least the Muslim-majority countries here, like Malaysia, Indonesia) in contrast to a different Anglo-American understanding over such an intimacy (which is more towards homosexuality), maybe the recent British study shows significant differences having been developed between Americans and British with the Atlantic Ocean continuing to serve as a dividing fault line between aggregations of American and European cultures overall. This fault line may continue to exist just as much for affecting Greater Europe’s influence on the British as claims between Anglo-American cultural commonness and solidarity continue to cement that solidarity.

Another crucial point to consider here relates to the age range and time range of the participants in the recent British survey. The main point is that both the time range and the age range of respondents in the British survey have to match the time range and age range of a similar study on American females’ attitudes. If studies concerning similar topics feature respondents having time and age ranges that are different in Great Britain and the United States, not much of a reasonably accurate comparison and contrast could be made. What I saw in high schools seven years ago in the States could be different now. What is prevalent among American female teenagers may not be prevalent among older American women both years ago and more recently (in other words, if they are any significant vertical or generational changes/gaps). Time and age ranges can also significantly impact what American females (both teenagers and older females) view as “long-term” or “short-term” prospects (in other words, like any significant longitudinal changes within generations or comparative extent/rate of changes among different generations then and now). The same kinds of considerations will have to be factored into any reasonably accurate appreciation of British and other European females. Otherwise, to use an old American saying, it would be like un-standardized “apples and oranges” comparison, which wouldn’t be “fruitful” at all.

Finally, we would have to fully look at the British study itself. While the article quotes the most significant findings, it gave only scant reference to its source (listing only the journal title, and excluding the report’s title and number pages). The article also left out important details such as those on when the study was conducted, when the results came out and was analyzed, and on whether the study was a follow-up to a preceding one. I checked the journal’s official website and found what strongly appears to be the article here. To be more thorough and accurate, we’d have to do the same for a similar American study.

So, what can an article headline and its coverage on a published study tell us about trans-Atlantic values and trends? Hmmm, I’ve probably left you and myself more confused by the time you have reached reading, and I have reached writing, this sentence. Just as important is another question: what about the Euro-American divide or similarity on this topic? We can come closer to understanding these questions through discussion. Any suggestions or thoughts?